After a turbulent year for sustainability in 2025, many businesses are reassessing how to move forward on climate action. While the impacts of global warming are accelerating, political and regulatory support for climate initiatives has become increasingly uneven across regions. For companies navigating climate risk, sustainability disclosures, and reputational exposure, this uncertainty raises a critical question: how will climate action be credible and valued over the long term?
As we look to 2026, two clear themes are emerging. First, businesses need a steady, long-term approach to managing carbon emissions that is resilient to political shifts. Second, governments, global coalitions, and leading climate frameworks are reinforcing the role of high-integrity carbon credits—providing clearer rules for how credits can be used alongside decarbonization, establishing global quality standards, and offering guidance that protects companies from greenwashing accusations. Together, these developments signal an important evolution in how carbon credits fit into credible climate strategies.
Executive Takeaway
In 2026, credible climate action is no longer about choosing between decarbonization and carbon credits—it is about using both correctly. New guidance from global coalitions and frameworks such as The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is clarifying how high‑integrity carbon credits can complement sustained emissions reductions, mobilize global climate finance, and support transparent, defensible climate claims. For businesses, these developments reduce uncertainty and greenwashing risk while reinforcing the need for disciplined project selection, clear disclosures, and alignment between carbon credit attributes and their intended climate use.
Businesses Need a Steady, Long‑Term Strategy for Carbon Footprint Management
Global warming and climate change are happening, and they are not going away. Businesses and individuals are feeling the effects in very real ways. Higher temperatures are increasing our energy consumption and costs. (2) More frequent and severe storms are driving up insurance costs. (3) Tidal flooding events are more common. (4) While more talked about signs of global warming like shrinking glaciers and retreating sea ice feel like another world, global warming will increasingly affect all of us.
Businesses need to view carbon emissions are a long-term liability risk in addition to corporate environmental responsibility. Companies already face negative public and customer perception for greenhouse gas emissions, and regulatory penalties could increase over time. 2026 will have several new regulatory requirements in sustainability and climate. Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have enhanced their climate-related disclosure requirements. (7) EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) also enters its definitive phase. This trend will only continue. As the effects of global warming build, the historical impacts that a business has not addressed become an increasing liability concern. advances
Advances in understanding climate science, developments in zero emission technology, and progress in greenhouse gas regulation teach us that climate action will not be an abrupt shift. It will be a long-term sustained transition by businesses, governments, and society. Good business leaders recognize the difference between short-term political fluctuations and long-term drivers like global warming. It is inefficient for businesses to reactively stop and start programs based on the trends of the moment. Successful business leaders recognize long-term drivers and maintain programs to create future competitive advantages. The best way to mitigate the liability of greenhouse gas emissions is with consistent progress and action over time. Businesses who continue to implement and advance their climate programs will reduce their historic greenhouse gas liability and position their companies for long-term success. This is also an important way for a business to show customers that it cares about its impact on the planet.
Carbon Credits are an Important Part of Climate Action, Especially in Times Like This
Widespread and consistent government support for the transition to a net-zero economy has been difficult to achieve. Progress is challenging when government programs stop and start with political changes. A major benefit of voluntary carbon projects is that they don’t rely on government support. They rely on climate finance from businesses and individuals who purchase carbon credits to take responsibility for their footprint by contributing to global greenhouse gas reduction. Carbon credits are a way for businesses and individuals to drive carbon reduction and sustainability independent of the politics of the moment.
Carbon markets also help reduce the cost to society for climate action by directing funding to projects that achieve the biggest impact at the lowest cost. Even long-time climate activist Bill Gates acknowledged that social well-being must be maintained while we address global warming. (1) With limited funds to drive economic growth, social welfare, and carbon reduction, it is in everyone’s best interest to make climate action as efficient as possible.
Lastly, while the priority is eliminating our own carbon emissions wherever possible, we know that is not enough. Our global carbon reduction needs are bigger than our ability to eliminate our emissions. Supporting high-quality voluntary carbon projects alongside science-aligned carbon reduction is the new formula for leading climate action.
Governments and Climate Leaders want Aggressive Carbon Reduction and Global Climate Finance
Government and climate leaders focused on achieving the greatest climate progress to recognize the value of carbon credits in climate action. The governments of UK, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Kenya, Panama, Peru, and Zambia are leading The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets which launched at London Climate Action Week 2025. The goal of The Coalition is to, “drive climate-positive growth and accelerate the pace of emissions reductions worldwide by strengthening the incentives businesses need to invest in high-integrity carbon credits across carbon markets, including voluntary and Article 6 markets.” (5) It recognizes that carbon credit markets are an under-used tool to drive investment to the global low-carbon transformation and put a value on the greenhouse gas (GHG). (5)
“With a $1.3 trillion annual climate finance gap, we must unlock the full potential of private sector action to accelerate emissions reductions and drive investment at scale.” Philippe Varin, Chair, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (5)
Coalition partners include World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), World Bank, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which have worked closely with the Coalition to inform and shape the outputs.
The Coalition’s Shared Principles aim to align private sector action with national and global climate goals by providing direction, clarity, and confidence for companies to grow their voluntary carbon credit demand, alongside deep decarbonization, and to make credible claims regarding these actions. Companies who follow these rules ensure a high standard for carbon project integrity and also have important protection against greenwashing accusations. The Shared Principles include: (5)
- Use carbon credits in addition to decarbonization
Companies should prioritize measurable and sustained direct and indirect emissions reductions with carbon credits used in addition to decarbonization, in line with the mitigation hierarchy
- Use carbon credits with high environmental integrity
Companies should retire carbon credits of high environmental integrity
- Uphold fair price, social safeguards, and, where applicable, support co-benefits for people and nature
Companies should source carbon credits from activities that meet rigorous requirements for social, economic, and environmental safeguards
- Disclose carbon credit use publicly and transparently
Companies should publicly and transparently disclose how carbon credits are used as part of their climate strategies
- Make accurate, substantiated claims involving carbon credit use
Companies should ensure that claims involving carbon credits are clear, truthful, and substantiated, avoiding greenwashing and misleading representations
- Support growth of high-integrity carbon credit markets
In a rapidly evolving market for voluntary carbon credit use, companies should cooperate with other market participants to help improve market functionality.
SBTi and the Evolution of Business Climate Claims
Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), the leading global framework for business climate action, is also undertaking its first broad revision of the Net Zero Standard. Among other changes, SBTi will add rules for the use of permanent carbon removals in business net-zero plans and recognition for addressing ongoing emissions with high-integrity carbon credits. The new Net Zero Standard is expected to be published in spring 2026 and becomes mandatory beginning January 1, 2028. There are two Key Elements of the Net Zero Standard Revision Related to Carbon Credits: (6)
- Companies can start using durable Carbon Removals now to achieve near-term and long-term carbon removal goals for Scope 1 Residual Emission requirements in their net-zero plan.
- SBTi will also recognize companies who use high-integrity carbon credits to address “ongoing emissions” (those released during the decarbonization journey), if they also achieved their carbon reduction goals for the year. SBTi states that by taking responsibility for these ongoing emissions, companies can help limit temperature overshoot, reduce transition risks, and support climate solutions.
This also reflects the increasing importance of aligning the attributes of a carbon reduction project with the intended use. SBTi identifies that only durable removal credits can be used for science-aligned global net-zero progress because the carbon removal has the same lifetime as carbon emitted. Non-durable carbon removals and carbon reductions/avoidances can be used to address ongoing emissions because they are not tied to a science-aligned net zero goal. This element of SBTi focuses instead on driving climate finance that supports the transition to a net-zero economy and invests in natural climate resilience.
SBTi also provides support for businesses who make climate claims when they follow these rules. The latest update on the Corporate Net Zero Standard Revision says, “Companies that meet the recognition criteria and public reporting criteria in CNZS-C25 shall be eligible to make claims related to Ongoing Emissions Responsibility. (6) Similar to The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, companies who follow SBTi rules ensure a high standard for carbon project integrity and have important protection against greenwashing accusations. SBTi also provides sample statements on how to make a credible claim about addressing ongoing emissions: (6)
- “Between 2025 and 2030, we took responsibility for 50% of our ongoing emissions over the five-year target timeframe as a contribution to global net-zero, achieving SBTi Ongoing Emissions Responsibility Recognized status.” Mandatory elements:
- “We funded 100,000 t CO2e of third-party verified emissions reductions beyond our value chain to take responsibility for 50% of ongoing emissions as a contribution to global net-zero.”
- “We supported 800,000 tCO₂e of verified ex-post mitigation outcomes (40% of our total ongoing emissions) through emission reductions and carbon removals.”
It is worth mentioning that many, including SBTi, have moved away from the phrase “offsetting” because some interpreted it to suggest that carbon emissions have been cancelled. Instead, the climate science community is moving towards the view of carbon credits as a positive contribution to the global climate. At Terrapass we also increasingly refer to carbon credits as a climate contribution. However, “carbon offsetting” is historically and today one of the most widely recognized terms for climate action. Many people and companies who want to make a climate contribution still use this phrase. It is important to connect with everyone looking for help with climate action. For this reason, Terrapass still references carbon offsetting as we also transition towards climate contribution language.
Resolving Critical Needs for Business Climate Action
The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets and SBTi Net Zero Standard 2.0 solve problematic gaps in sustainability and climate action. Companies are not in the business of creating sustainability rules. They need independent organizations with scientific and administrative rigor to set rules that can be followed with confidence. Globally aligned standards for carbon project quality are essential. That was lacking historically and led to inconsistencies in project quality that drove much of the controversy about carbon markets. However, new global quality standards like ICVCM have addressed this gap, and we are seeing climate initiatives across the world align with this standard.
In addition to rules for project quality, we also need independent organizations that define how businesses should use carbon credits and promote their climate contributions. The new rules from The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets and SBTi drive climate progress by giving businesses confidence in how to use carbon credits and how to talk about it. This gives businesses much needed protection from greenwashing accusations by pointing to the rules created by independent global climate leaders.
Build a Credible Climate Strategy
If your organization is evaluating how carbon credits fit into your climate strategy — whether you’re
prioritizing decarbonization, addressing ongoing emissions, or navigating evolving disclosure and climate
claims guidance — Terrapass Advisors can help.
Our team works with businesses to assess project integrity, align carbon credit use with leading global
frameworks, and support transparent, defensible climate claims as part of a long-term sustainability strategy.
Get Started on Your Sustainability Journey
Sources:
(1) https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate
(2) https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/record-heat-rising
(3) https://www.usnews.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/climate-change-and-rates
(4) https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/us-high-tide-flooding-continues-to-break-records
(5) https://coalitiontogrowcarbonmarkets.org/shared-principles/
(6) https://sciencebasedtargets.org/developing-the-net-zero-standard
The post Climate Action in 2026: New Rules Add High-Integrity Carbon Credits to Aggressive Decarbonization 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.