If a business wants to make a positive impact on the world, addressing its environmental footprint operationally might not be enough. Even with the best intentions, running a business inevitably means consuming some resources that can’t simply be avoided.
For example, a coffee company might engage in regenerative farming to sequester more carbon than it emits and support healthy local ecosystems. But even with careful practices, it can’t avoid certain realities, like the shipping emissions from transporting beans to their customers.
Fortunately, there are several voluntary, market-based solutions that enable businesses to address residual environmental issues that can’t simply be cut. c
The most well-known mechanism is likely carbon credits. Also called carbon offsets, carbon credits direct financing toward environmental projects that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions, thereby helping a buyer balance its carbon footprint. And with high-quality credits, the funding typically supports projects that wouldn’t otherwise be possible without this extra revenue.
But carbon credits are just one of several types of environmental credits that direct financing toward projects that support the environment.
For one, carbon credits are often grouped under the umbrella term environmental attribute certificate (EAC), which includes other types of financing mechanisms, like energy-related certificates. By purchasing an EAC, the buyer generally gains the right to claim the environmental benefits associated with that certificate, like an emission reduction associated with funding renewable electricity.
Still, the same concept can apply to non-emissions areas. Buying plastic credits can fund the recovery or prevention of plastic waste, which a company might then claim helps balance the impact of the virgin plastic used in its products.
Depending on your operations and sustainability goals, different types of credits or certificates could be worth investing in.
Here, we’ll take a closer look at some of the most popular types of environmental credits.
Types of Environmental Credits
| Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) | Environmental attributes of 1 MWh of renewable electricity | Claim renewable electricity use and support clean energy generation |
| Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs) | 1,000 gallons of freshwater restored or improved | Address water footprint by contributing to water restoration |
| Plastic Credits | ~1 metric ton of plastic collected or recycled (varies) | Counter plastic pollution when elimination isn’t yet possible |
| Biodiversity Credits | Conservation of ecosystems (units vary by issuer) | Protect biodiversity/conserve natural ecosystems |
| Sustainable Aviation Fuel certificates (SAFc) | Environmental attributes of 1 metric ton of sustainable aviation fuel | Claim low-carbon fuel and support sustainable fuel production |
| Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs) | Environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm of renewable thermal energy | Reduce emissions from hard-to-electrify fuels, e.g., replacing fossil fuel natural gas with renewable natural gas |
Carbon Credits
What they represent: One metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions avoided, reduced, or removed from the atmosphere.
Why they matter: Even when companies set ambitious emission reduction goals, they generally can’t cut to zero overnight. Carbon credits can help serve as a bridge to global net-zero, and they can continue to be used to offset residual emissions that are essentially impossible to avoid.
Carbon credits also tend to have a variety of co-benefits beyond emissions, like protecting valuable ecosystems or supporting health and economic opportunities in the local communities where these projects operate.
How they’re generated: Carbon credits can come from many different types of projects that have independent third-party verified emissions impact, such as reforestation, methane capture from landfills, and soil carbon sequestration, to name just a few.
Calculate your carbon footprint to get a better sense of the emissions you want to balance.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)
What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable electricity.
Why they matter: Buying a REC is essentially the same as buying renewable electricity. Power gets mixed from different sources within a grid, so it’s not always possible to know exactly who’s consuming what. But since that renewable electricity is definitively added into the mix, that means someone is now using renewable energy.
The REC simply gives you permission to claim that benefit for yourself, while generally avoiding the risk of double-counting. Meanwhile, by buying RECs, you’re supporting the financial viability of more clean energy projects.
How they’re generated: RECs can be generated when a renewable source of electricity gets verifiably added to a power grid. RECs can either be sold bundled or unbundled. With bundled RECs, the energy and environmental attributes are sold together, like if a solar farm directly sells its energy to a company and agrees not to sell the claim to those environmental attributes elsewhere. Unbundled RECs separate the environmental claims and the energy, making it possible to claim the use of renewable electricity while continuing to purchase from your local utility.
You can easily and affordably purchase Green-e certified RECs through Terrapass online.
Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs)
What they represent: One WRC corresponds to 1,000 gallons of natural freshwater improved or restored.
Why they matter: Many parts of the world are under significant water stress, which often stems from issues like commercial overuse and climate change. Buying WRCs can help counter this trend by supporting the health and volume of freshwater systems.
A business operating in water-stressed regions in the Western U.S., for example, may need to inevitably use some freshwater to produce its products. In that case, it can ideally fund WRC projects in that same water resource region, like ones that secure water rights to keep more water within rivers, aquifers, etc.
How they’re generated: While similar water-related credits may exist elsewhere, BEF WRCs™ are specifically issued by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF). BEF WRC™ projects can involve restoring flows through securing legal rights, restoring natural systems through physical interventions like removing dams, or improving water use efficiency. All projects are third-party verified, typically by Watercourse Engineering or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and all are tracked on S&P Global’s Markit registry.
Support freshwater systems and their associated recreational and ecological benefits by buying WRCs through Terrapass today.
Plastic Credits
What they represent: Plastic credits aren’t quite as formalized as some of these other market-based instruments, so the details can vary by credit issuer. But one example is Verra’s Plastic Waste Reduction Program, where one plastic credit represents one metric ton of plastic that’s been collected or recycled.
Why they matter: Each year, approximately 19-23 million tons of plastic leak from land-based sources into water systems, according to the UN Environment Programme. Plastic pollution then poses many threats, such as to the health of marine animals, as well as overall human health.
Businesses can buy plastic credits to help counter plastic pollution, especially because plastic has become so ubiquitous that it’s not always possible to immediately remove plastic from your packaging or other parts of your supply chain.
How they’re generated: Generating these credits depends on the issuer. Some businesses, particularly consumer-facing ones, work with third-party organizations to make plastic-neutral claims. For one, ice pop company GoodPop launched a limited edition flavor that’s certified plastic neutral by 4Ocean. For this certification, 4Ocean removes plastic from water systems and coastlines equivalent to each pound of plastic used to produce that product or for the brand as a whole.
For Verra’s plastic credits, projects must meet the specific guidelines of its Plastic Waste Reduction Standard and accounting methodologies that help ensure each credit represents one metric ton of plastic collected or recycled. These projects are also third-party audited, as well as tracked on the Verra Registry, similar to carbon credits.
Biodiversity Credits
What they represent: Biodiversity credits are one of the least developed types of environmental credits, so there’s not a general consensus on what they represent. Different credit issuers have different standards.
For example, one of the pioneers in this space, Savimbo, sells biodiversity credits that represent one month of conservation for one hectare in a biodiversity hotspot. In contrast, another leader in this space, Terrasos, sells biodiversity credits that represent 10 m² (0.001 hectares) of protected ecosystems for 30 years.
Why they matter: Climate change and related issues like land use change are causing significant biodiversity loss. From 1970 to 2020, wildlife populations fell by 73%, according to WWF.
At a simple level, interfering with natural cycles of plant and animal life leads to species loss, which then creates more risks for humans, like faster temperature rise due to the loss of natural carbon sinks. There’s also many nuanced arguments for supporting biodiversity, such as the economic and health value of stable plant and animal life.
How they’re generated: Because these are less established, there’s not a standard way to generate biodiversity credits. But in general, these work like carbon credits, in the sense that an issuer works with project developers to ensure a given area of land is conserved in a way that protects biodiversity.
One voluntary group, the Biodiversity Credit Alliance (BCA), backed by organizations such as the UN Development Programme, is working on developing a framework for biodiversity credits that could help this market more closely resemble the voluntary carbon credit market.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Certificates (SAFc)
What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one metric ton of unblended sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Why they matter: Flying is a carbon-intensive activity, yet these can be some of the hardest emissions to avoid. A growing business, for example, may be able to address its direct energy use, but total emissions could still rise if employees fly to meet with customers and suppliers. Finding efficiencies like batching travel into longer trips or using online meetings when possible can help, but the reality is that many still value flying.
So, sustainable aviation fuel certificates (SAFc) provide buyers with a way to claim the use of this low-carbon fuel, rather than accounting for the normal emissions associated with traditional jet fuel. If you’re flying on a commercial airline, you don’t have direct control over their fuel usage, but by buying SAFc, you’re supporting the transition to lower-emission fuel sources.
How they’re generated: Unlike traditional jet fuel made from petroleum, SAF comes from alternative feedstocks like used cooking oils or agricultural waste. SAF then gets blended with traditional jet fuel, with commercial planes currently able to accommodate about 10-50% of the total volume from SAF, though testing of higher limits is underway.
Because of this blending, you can’t exactly say that your flight from New York to LA runs on SAF while a flight from New York to San Francisco runs on traditional jet fuel. But like with RECs, SAF certificates give you the ability to claim the environmental attributes of SAF. If you purchase enough certificates that correspond with your flight’s fuel usage, you could claim your portion of the flight fully used SAF from an emissions accounting perspective.
Buyers often use the book-and-claim approach for SAF certificates and other low-carbon fuel purchases. That means instead of taking physical possession of this fuel, you’re buying the certificates that represent a certain amount, and you then claim the corresponding environmental attributes.
Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs)
What they represent: The environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm (Dth) of renewable thermal energy, such as renewable natural gas or green hydrogen.
Why they matter: Not everything can be electrified to then run on renewable electricity, at least in the short term. Businesses often still have large scope 1 footprints from burning natural gas or using similar fuel sources.
So, using renewable thermal certificates (RTCs) provides buyers with a way to claim the environmental benefits of renewable thermal energy, like using renewable natural gas (RNG) to generate heat from a furnace, or using green hydrogen to power an industrial boiler. Like with RECs, RTCs enable buyers to make these claims without having to always physically procure the renewable energy, especially in cases where renewable and non-renewable fuels get mixed.
How they’re generated: RTCs are generated from projects that produce renewable thermal energy, like municipal waste facilities that capture methane from landfills and convert it into RNG. This works essentially the same as it does with RECs, where the RTCs can be either bundled with the underlying energy or sold unbundled on a book-and-claim basis.
Finding the Right Environmental Credits
Environmental issues are often deeply interconnected. Rising greenhouse gas emissions, for example, can increase global temperatures, which then can increase droughts and trigger biodiversity loss. So, while carbon credits are generally the most established option, purchasing a broader mix of environmental credits can help organizations reach sustainability goals faster and drive more meaningful impact.
Still, not all environmental credits are created equally. Quality can vary significantly, so make sure you’re buying credits from a reputable source. Consider factors such as third-party verification, registry tracking to avoid double-counting, and additionality, where the money from purchasing credits supports environmental action that wouldn’t otherwise take place.
Environmental product providers like Terrapass make it easy for buyers to fund a mix of high-quality carbon credit projects, as well as other types of credits like RECs and WRCs.
Businesses can also build a custom portfolio of environmental credits through Terrapass to align with your environmental footprint and corporate sustainability goals. Reach out today to see how you can make a more positive impact by funding different environmental projects.
frameworks, and support transparent, defensible climate claims as part of a long-term sustainability strategy.
The post Beyond Carbon Credits: A Guide to the Expanding World of Environmental Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.