Recently, The Guardian (along with Die Zeit) published an article that at first sight seems quite negative towards some forest-based carbon credits: [“****Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows”****](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe)

A lot of commentary that followed summarised the article (and underlying study) as “all carbon offsets are scams”, “modern day indulgences”, or “greenwashing”. 

So, should we give up on carbon credits as a whole as a result of this? 

No - and here’s why.

### First, the study referred specifically to REDD+ credits, not all carbon credits

![REDD%2B%20credits%20as%20proportion%20of%20all%20credits-2.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/REDD_2_B_20credits_20as_20proportion_20of_20all_20credits_2_8580b74a33.png)

### What is REDD+?

The acronym refers to “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. The “+” just means a step up from original REDD credits - REDD+ has more focus on “the role of conservation sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”. 

That’s a lot of words which may not mean much to you. To simplify, REDD+ credits are usually generated in the following way: 

- landowner who owns tropical forests that are not currently protected expresses a desire to earn carbon credits
- they make a solemn promise to not cut their forest
- profit

I’m simplifying, of course - but not excessively.

REDD+ credits have been criticised within the carbon industry for years - for lack of [permanence,](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-what-is-permanence-and-why-is-it-relevant-to-forest-carbon-projects) lack of additionality, and risk of leakage (i.e. deforestation simply moves to other nearby locations). 

Here’s a sample of just some headlines over the last 7 years:

![Untitled%20design-5.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Untitled_20design_5_c3b591e120.png)

In short: questions about REDD+ credits have been swirling for a while; and the industry has been making adjustments in response. So the criticism is not news to anyone working in the carbon/climate space; and many of us have been working on alternatives for a while.

### Why are REDD+ credits different from other types of credits?

For starters, let’s break down a key difference in carbon credits: ******************avoidance****************** vs **************removal************** credits.

In short: 
**Avoidance carbon credit** - we pay so that other market participants don’t emit CO2. Includes things like avoided deforestation, but also clean cookstove projects, renewable energy projects etc. 
************Removal carbon credit************ - we pay to actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Includes afforestation, direct air capture, kelp farming, etc. 

 *(You can read [more about carbon credits and their different types here.](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/what-are-carbon-credits-and-what-makes-a-carbon-credit-high-quality))*
 
 Naturally, removal credits are more valuable from the planetary CO2 balance view, because they actually take away some CO2 from the air. 
 
#### This is the main reason we should not lump all carbon credits in the same bucket and assume that (valid) criticisms of REDD+ credits apply to all credits - removal and avoidance credits are fundamentally different.

### Why are avoidance credits challenging / possibly have lower than estimated impact (or no impact at all)?

By definition, avoidance credits deal with “what-ifs”. The core assumption is that if the carbon project didn’t happen, a worse scenario (=more CO2 emitted) would have played out. 

In REDD+, this alternative scenario is formulated as an assumption around deforestation rates. For example, the assumption is made in a certain country that all else equal, deforestation might equal XXXXX hectares per year. These projects then protect some amount of land, reducing the theoretical risk of deforestation by the amount of land included in the project. 
One of the  studies quoted by The Guardian found that the studies had overestimated this deforestation risk - hence that reality was actually ************better************ than what the carbon project proponents had assumed. As a result, the impact of their projects was overstated.

Was this due to deliberate falsehoods? Or that simply, the projected “what-if” scenario played out differently than expected? We can never know for sure, because we can’t run a controlled study and analyse multiple timelines in parallel. (However, we do know that high levels of deforestation occur in areas with REDD+ projects, and at least some of these projects are likely to actually protect forests - for example, [see a case study by Sylvera here](https://www.sylvera.com/blog/guardian-offsets-response)).

This difficulty applies to almost all avoidance credits - we can never know for sure what would have happened in an alternate timeline.

### So… you’re saying REDD+ credits are bad, everything else is good?

No, I’m not. 

Unfortunately, there are few simple yes/no answers in carbon. It is difficult to lump carbon credits into “good/bad” categories at the methodology level, as there are so many varied aspects of how these methodologies are applied. 

*(A methodology is a specific rule set for a type of carbon project - e.g. REDD+ has a few methodologies, afforestation has a couple, soil carbon has several. These are available on Verra and other standards’ websites.)*

In order for a carbon credit to actually have positive impact, it must pass a few key quality thresholds (as also recently [articulated by the EU in their proposed framework for carbon removals](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/european-union-new-carbon-certification-proposal)):
- **************************Additionality**************************
- **Permanence/long duration** (you can [read more about this concept here](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-what-is-permanence-and-why-is-it-relevant-to-forest-carbon-projects))
- **Accurate quantification & measurement**
- **************************************************************No collateral damage to ecosystems or communities**************************************************************

#### Many types of carbon credits currently available on the market fail these quality tests. That is a sad fact. 

However, I would argue that the conclusion is not to get rid of the carbon market entirely. While flawed, it is the only framework we currently have to drive down the gap between feasible emissions reductions and the CO2 levels we want to maintain. Hence, rather than dismissing it, we should be working to improve it. 

In the short to medium term, the conversion of the global economy (currently emitting just under 50 gigatonnes of CO2 annually) to a ********************************Net-Zero economy******************************** will still require unavoidable emissions - generated, for example, even by “green” activities such as manufacturing solar panels or electric cars. This is where the voluntary carbon market has its place - and where it can be a part of the solution.

![Untitled.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Untitled_2df906f2d5.png)

### What can we do to avoid “fake” carbon credits and use the voluntary carbon market for good, not ill?

In conclusion, we must apply more stringent quality measures to voluntary carbon markets, and expect more from all market participants. 
This means that we should:

- question and avoid any low-cost “carbon offsets” often provided to consumers - $5 per tonne of CO2 is almost guaranteed to do absolutely nothing
- work to understand the differences between different types of credits, and engage with only high-quality ones
- refer to the work by independent carbon research/rating agencies such as [Sylvera](https://www.sylvera.com/) and [CarbonPlan](https://carbonplan.org) for up-to-date assessments of carbon methodologies and projects
- support the creation of new technologies and solutions for carbon storage - such as new types of direct air capture, or [trees that store more carbon](https://www.livingcarbon.com), or [ocean-based CO2 capture](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/30/1048434/why-using-the-oceans-to-suck-up-co2-might-not-be-as-easy-as-hoped/) etc

If you have any reactions, feedback, or counterarguments, please reach out - I’d love to hear your views.

PS While many critiques of REDD+ projects are very valid, deforestation is still a huge issue in tropical regions. While we should always be working on newer, better ways to protect forests, even an imperfect solution is better than nothing, and REDD+ may well have a role to play yet. 



------------------------
Arbonics is a tech-based carbon and ecosystem platform for forest-and landowners in Europe – bridging the analogue world of forestry with the world of tech to fight climate change. We partner with landowners to access new revenue streams by helping them quantify, monitor and sell the environmental benefits of sustainable land management.

Are you a landowner? Introduce yourself [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) and we will get in touch to discuss opportunities with your land. 

Subscribe to our newsletter [here](https://arbonics.substack.com/subscribe) and follow us on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/ArbonicsHQ/), [LinkedIn](http://linkedin.com/company/arbonics/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ArbonicsHQ) for latest news.

animated text "What are REDD+ carbon credits?"

REDD+.gif

What are REDD+ carbon credits, and why have they been receiving criticism? 

Carbon credits open a window to new revenue sources for forest-and landowners. So how can a landowner choose the right partner when it comes to generating these additional revenues?

The voluntary carbon market is still developing and is growing fast (read more about it [here](https://www.notion.so/ABC-what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market-Why-does-it-matter-for-landowners-and-foresters-04714d0095f44a5ab93dd2a949e10eeb)), which means rules and standards are still changing and choosing the right partner can be tricky. But this growth also means that there are more partners to choose from than ever before. These partners, who are opening that window of extra revenue for landowners, are called carbon project developers.

Carbon project developers play a central role in the voluntary carbon market by working with the [standards and verification bodies](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-verra-and-gold-standard) and selling credits, that they worked to create, to the buyers on the market. In order to generate credits, they usually pool together interested landowners to generate cost efficiencies for everybody involved.

![Project%20developers%20in%20VCM.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Project_20developers_20in_20_VCM_43a76e7cfb.png)
_Adapted from: Abatable Carbon Developer Ecosystem Report 2021_

But the project developers also set the rules for their carbon programmes, which can lead to varying levels of support for landowners and differing entry requirements. So how can you know you’re choosing the right one? A good starting point is to ask the following questions. 

### How accurate is the estimated benefit for the landowner?

The main promise from project developers to landowners is income from carbon credits. When it comes to forest carbon projects, forest growth models can be used to estimate and forecast the amount of carbon trees will sequester when growing, which can then be used to estimate the number of carbon credits generated over the years and income based on that. However, it’s important to note that the credits issued are calculated by measuring the real growth of trees and how much carbon is stored (1 tonne of carbon = 1 carbon credit). Once the measurement has happened, the verification body will issue the credits based on this real benefit that has occurred. 

That means two developers can offer a landowner different estimated income from afforestation on the same land plot. The estimated income can vary significantly based on various factors such as the tree species chosen and the forest growth model used. Landowners must also keep in mind that the result will likely be in a range - which means the landowner can be shown an estimated income from either the top, middle or bottom of the range. That in itself can already cause offer results to vary. However, whichever developer the landowner chooses to go with, the number of credits will ultimately be determined based on the real-life growth of the trees and will be issued when measurement and verification take place. In a nutshell, the actions of the landowner, such as how well they tend the young trees, will have an effect on the number of credits received. The initial estimations provided by project developers ultimately have little effect on the final amount of credits and income.

![Estimating%20income%20from%20afforestation.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Estimating_20income_20from_20afforestation_7c3fe25183.png)

Beware of unrealistic income promises, as sometimes developers may misrepresent the real earning potential, just like car manufacturers over-promise fuel consumption claims. You might read in the brochure that a car can return 4.5 L / 100 km in perfect conditions, but after you buy the car you learn that in real-world driving it only averages 8 L / 100 km. Carbon credit estimations are the same. For example, a project developer can claim that under best conditions a plot of land may generate 300 credits / ha worth of credits over the whole forest rotation cycle, but on average that land will generate 180-200 credits / ha.

That is why it’s important to ask questions to understand how the developer is assessing quality and supporting landowners in ensuring that the real benefit of the project is maximised.

### What are their goals?

The demand for carbon credits is growing and so are the prices, which makes generating carbon credits a great business opportunity. And it’s great if one of the goals of the project developer is generating extra income for landowners and themselves in the process. 

However, it’s important to remember the main goal of carbon credits and the promise they deliver to buyers. That is avoiding and removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. Therefore it is important that one of the goals of the developer is to have a real measurable impact with the credits they are generating. In order to have an impact, the project developer needs to focus on the quality of the credits generated. 

Higher quality credits also make more business sense as buyers are more likely to purchase these credits and do so at a higher price. This in turn will generate higher returns for both developers and participants.

### How are they ensuring the quality of the credits?

It’s crucial that the credits generated are high quality and deliver the impact promised. In order to ensure the quality of the credits, developers need to consider measures such as additionality, permanence, leakage and co-benefits of their projects. These are widely accepted standards of quality within the industry.

It’s important to check that the project developer is aware of this and that they are always considering the quality of their credits throughout the process. In addition to figuring out their goals, how can you check that the project is set up to generate high-quality credits? Let’s ask the next question.

### Who are they working with?

In order to prove that real benefits have been created, carbon credits need to be verified. This is where the independent verification bodies come in and you can ask - who is the project developer working with? 

The role of policing the standards set for carbon credits falls to verification bodies, such as Verra and Gold Standard. We covered their role in more detail here [@ABC: who are Verra and Gold Standard and why do they matter?](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-verra-and-gold-standard). Increasing interest and investment in the market has increased scrutiny not only on project developers but also on these standard and verification bodies. This means project developers and verifiers must work closely together to ensure projects realise the promised impact. Oversight on standards is also increasing with the number of rating agencies dedicated to assessing the quality and effectiveness of different carbon programmes. And there are even awards for class-leading project developers (see [Voluntary Carbon Market Rankings by Environmental Finance Awards](https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/awards/voluntary-carbon-market-rankings-2021/)).

> To see how different carbon projects are rated, you can also check independent rating agencies such as [Carbon Plan CDR Database](https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-database), [BeZero Carbon Ratings](https://bezerocarbon.com/ratings/) and [Sylvera](https://www.sylvera.com/product).

Additionally, since the carbon verifier ultimately decides, how many credits are issued, it is also important that your developer is up to date with the latest standards and working hard to obey all relevant rules. While a shortcut during the project development phase may make your life as a landowner easier, it is likely to reduce your chances of earning credits.

If you believe the project developer is genuine about their goals to make a difference and they are working with trusted standards and verification organisations, you have hopefully found a project developer that can be a good partner for you.

### What about fees and costs?

Setting up and managing carbon projects is costly. In order to make the entire project worthwhile, project developers will most likely take a cut from the benefits generated in order to cover these costs. This can take many forms and you should definitely find out how it will affect the income you will receive from joining the project.

Project developers should be upfront with you about the fees they are charging for their services. They can explain how the benefit (either credits or income from credits) is split between you and them. In addition to checking what that fee covers, also check how costs are distributed throughout the process - including planting, monitoring, verification and sales costs. In some cases, a project developer might cover all of these costs and charge a flat fee for all of their services. But in some cases, some costs (such as planting) need to be covered by landowners. Make sure there are no hidden fees and that you are clear about what (if any) costs need to be covered by you.

In addition to covering costs associated with verification and monitoring, the developer might offer other benefits to make you choose them over someone else. It’s good to check what this might include and you can ask…

### How will they support me?

The voluntary carbon market is still in its early days, growing and changing fast. In order to keep up to date with the latest developments, project developers need to hire the best talent and experts in the market to help them navigate the changes and keep their projects adhering to the high standard mentioned above. In order to attract you to work with them they might offer to share their expert knowledge with you. 

This can take many forms - sharing useful information and news on their channels, connecting you to experts in the field or helping you build relationships with other landowners on the programme. Make sure to check the resources and support they can offer you throughout the process.

Working with project developers often requires you to enter into decades-long agreements. It’s really important to do thorough homework and ask these questions, and more, before signing up for a programme. Ensuring it’s the right fit for you and the developer, so you can create value for yourself, the credit buyers and the planet.


------------------------
Arbonics is a tech-based carbon and ecosystem platform for forest-and landowners in Europe – bridging the analogue world of forestry with the world of tech to fight climate change. We partner with landowners to access new revenue streams by helping them quantify, monitor and sell the environmental benefits of sustainable land management.

Are you a landowner? Introduce yourself [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) and we will get in touch to discuss opportunities with your land. 

Subscribe to our newsletter [here](https://arbonics.substack.com/subscribe) and follow us on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/ArbonicsHQ/), [LinkedIn](http://linkedin.com/company/arbonics/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ArbonicsHQ) for latest news.

How to choose the right carbon project developer to work with

large_KH_1.jpg

medium_KH_1.jpg

small_KH_1.jpg

thumbnail_KH_1.jpg

KH_1.jpg

6 questions every landowner should ask a carbon project developer

### First, what is happening?

The European Commission (EC) has published their **Proposal for establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals.**([Here is the press release](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7156) and links to relevant documents). In simple language, the EC wants to create a single set of rules under which all EU carbon removal credits would operate.

### How does the EU define carbon removals?

They acknowledge 3 main types: 

- Carbon farming - including forest restoration, [afforestation](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/afforestation), and agricultural soil carbon
- Permanent storage - this includes things usually referred to as DACS (direct air capture and storage) and BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
- Carbon storage in long-lasting products and materials - this includes things sometimes referred to as “supply chain carbon”, such as building more houses out of wood.

Here is a handy graphic from the [factsheet](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_22_7161) published by the EC:

![Screenshot%202022-11-30%20at%2017.35.44.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Screenshot_202022_11_30_20at_2017_35_44_0a8ae872d6.png)

### What is the EC’s goal?

In their own words, the European Union wants “to **ensure the high quality of carbon removals** in the EU, and /…/ to establish an EU governance certification system to **avoid greenwashing** by correctly applying and enforcing the EU quality framework criteria in a reliable and harmonised way across the Union.” 

These are laudable goals, and ones that we believe all serious participants in the carbon markets heartily agree with (certainly we at Arbonics agree!).

### What will the new standard measure?

The EC has outlined four main criteria, referred to as QU.A.L.ITY:

![Screenshot%202022-11-30%20at%2017.35.58.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Screenshot_202022_11_30_20at_2017_35_58_5e3346798b.png)

In short, they want to ensure that any carbon removal is:

1. _clearly & accurately accounted for_
2. _additional_ - i.e. captures more carbon than the “business-as-usual” scenario
3. _backed with verifiable data on the duration of carbon storage_ - i.e. that any potential buyer can clearly understand for how long the carbon associated with particular certification is stored
4. _supporting additional goals around ecosystem protection and restoration_

> It is particularly important that the Commission’s guidelines acknowledge the variability of each of these four criteria for different types of carbon removal. 

For example, different types of carbon farming such as [afforestation](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/afforestation) and soil carbon-friendly agriculture have very varying expectations around duration (where forests may be expected to lock carbon up for 60+ years, but soil carbon only perhaps 5-10 years). (Providing clear guidance around this helps ensure that both types of projects are encouraged (which is necessary to fulfil the overall goal of removing 310 Mt of CO<sub>2</sub> in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector) while still providing clarity for counterparties around what exactly they are buying.

### Who will develop specific methodologies under the new standard?

In short, the EU will. 

Here’s how they outline the process:

![Untitled-2.png](https://arbonics-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/Untitled_2_0c6f35a72c.png)

So, the EU develops methodologies - or more specifically, an Expert Group of around 70 experts, including “individuals with special expertise in the field of carbon removals, as well as representatives from academia, industry, civil society, Member States' competent authorities, and other public entities” will do so.  They will meet twice a year, starting in early 2023. 

## So… what does this mean? Can we still run forest carbon projects?

In short - absolutely. 
This is a very positive sign that the EU is taking the voluntary carbon market (or at least the removal side of the market) very seriously and is looking to it to be a key player in developing the EU’s climate goals. 

That is great news for project developers and landowners interested in participating in carbon projects. 

Furthermore, even before the actual methodologies are published, the four **QU.A.L.ITY** criteria provide clear guardrails to create high-quality projects. 

## Are there any open questions to keep an eye out for?

While this initial publication by the EC does a great job of laying out the high-level goals and principles behind the planned unified standard, it does not yet lay out specific rules. 

In particular, we will be eagerly awaiting more info on the following: 

#### Establishing additionality
The proposal outlines a baseline-based approach, where “*the baseline shall correspond to the standard carbon removal performance of
comparable activities in similar social, economic, environmental and technological
circumstances and take into account the geographical context.”* How this will be implemented in practice remains to be seen.

#### How do legacy certifiers slot into this? 
The likes of [Verra and Gold Standard](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-verra-and-gold-standard) already run carbon standards and certification programs, as well as keep registries of credits. It is likely that they may join the EU scheme as operators; but whether that really happens remains to be seen.

#### How does the trading of these certificates work alongside the country-based emissions cap model?
The Proposal explicitly calls out that the certificates resulting from this new framework can be bought and sold on the [voluntary carbon markets](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/voluntary-carbon-market). However, it does not yet address questions around how that aligns with inter-country trading of carbon allowances (via ITMOs) as proposed by the Paris agreement. This is a highly complicated issue, and we expect reaching clear answers will take some time.

------------------------
Arbonics is a tech-based carbon and ecosystem platform for forest-and landowners in Europe – bridging the analogue world of forestry with the world of tech to fight climate change. We partner with landowners to access new revenue streams by helping them quantify, monitor and sell the environmental benefits of sustainable land management.

Are you a landowner? Introduce yourself [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) and we will get in touch to discuss opportunities with your land. 

Subscribe to our newsletter [here](https://arbonics.substack.com/subscribe) and follow us on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/ArbonicsHQ/), [LinkedIn](http://linkedin.com/company/arbonics/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ArbonicsHQ) for latest news.



What, why, and how does it impact forest carbon?

large_KH_2.jpg

medium_KH_2.jpg

small_KH_2.jpg

thumbnail_KH_2.jpg

KH_2.jpg

EU's new carbon certification proposal

##### Monitoring overview
- Initial monitoring involves developing biomass monitoring sites and collecting baseline data (e.g. measuring existing trees/shrubs)
- The number and location of biomass monitoring sites will be minimised using remote sensing technology, and developed by Arbonics
- The ongoing monitoring demands for Landowners will be very similar to national forestry inventory programs
- Landowners must monitor tree growth, timber production, fertiliser use and fire losses every five years

### Why is monitoring important?

Data and data quality is central to all carbon credit projects, as carbon credit projects trade data between carbon credit buyers and carbon credit sellers. Carbon credit sellers use data to prove they have generated carbon benefits, while carbon credit buyers use project data to prove they have mitigated greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credit projects must use robust monitoring systems, which can withstand the scrutiny of credit buyers and third-party auditors.

### Sources and sinks

Nature-based carbon credit projects are designed as carbon sinks, that is they collect, remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon credit projects can also be a source of greenhouse gas emissions if they burn biomass (e.g. prescribed burning to prepare sites for planting), use fertilisers or accidentally lose stored carbon (e.g. forest fire).

High-quality carbon credit projects monitor all major carbon sources and sinks, to ensure they aren’t selling carbon benefits while also generating carbon emissions. Forestry-based carbon credit projects normally monitor the following sources and sinks:
- Above-ground woody biomass (sink)
- Below-ground woody biomass (sink)
- Soil organic carbon (sink and source)
- Wood products (sink and source)
- Biomass burnt (source)
- Fertiliser use (source)

A carbon credit monitoring program involves an initial set-up stage, and then ongoing regular monitoring over the life of the carbon credit project.

### Initial project monitoring

For a forestry-based carbon credit project, the initial monitoring stage involves developing biomass monitoring sites and collecting baseline data (e.g. measuring existing trees/shrubs). The number and location of biomass monitoring sites will be developed by Arbonics and depend on expected biomass growth patterns across each cadastral unit. Arbonics will minimise the number of physical biomass monitoring sites through careful analysis and effective use of remote sensing technology. 

### Ongoing project monitoring

The ongoing monitoring demands of a forestry-based carbon credit project are very similar to national forestry inventory programs required by all European countries. Landowners will be asked to physically measure tree diameter at all designated physical monitoring sites within the project area, at least every five years. Landowners will also be asked to keep annual records of fertiliser use, timber production and fire losses for each afforestation area.

### Summary

Arbonics will work closely with all landowners to ensure all afforestation hectares can generate high-quality carbon credits. Arbonics will design the monitoring program, provide access to monitoring technology, complete all remote sensing, complete biomass calculations and model soil organic carbon over time. Landowners who are contributing afforestation hectares to the Arbonics initiative will measure tree growth, timber production, fertiliser use and fire losses every five years.

------------------------
Arbonics is a tech-based carbon and ecosystem platform for forest-and landowners in Europe – bridging the analogue world of forestry with the world of tech to fight climate change. We partner with landowners to access new revenue streams by helping them quantify, monitor and sell the environmental benefits of sustainable land management.

Are you a landowner? Introduce yourself [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) and we will get in touch to discuss opportunities with your land. 

Subscribe to our newsletter [here](https://arbonics.substack.com/subscribe) and follow us on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/ArbonicsHQ/), [LinkedIn](http://linkedin.com/company/arbonics/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ArbonicsHQ) for latest news.

What is monitoring and how is it used in afforestation projects?

large_monitoring afforestation.jpg

medium_monitoring afforestation.jpg

small_monitoring afforestation.jpg

thumbnail_monitoring afforestation.jpg

monitoring afforestation.jpg

Monitoring afforestation projects

##### Afforestation overview 

- Forestry activity type: planting, forest maintenance, eventual timber harvest
- Key criteria: non-forest land, not harvested <10 years prior
- Carbon project length: 30-60 years (depends on harvesting cycle)
- Expected credits per ha: 120-280 VCUs
- Expected credit sales price: €25-50 per VCU
- Planting is done by the landowner or their chosen partner 
- Planting costs are covered by the landowner

### What is afforestation?

**Afforestation** refers to planting new forests on areas that were not forested within the last several decades. This is distinct from *reforestation*, which involves planting on areas where forests have been cut or otherwise destroyed (e.g. after a fire). 

Why does this distinction matter? In the Voluntary Carbon Market (see also: [ABC: what is the voluntary carbon market?](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/voluntary-carbon-market)), reforestation after planned harvests is not usually considered additional, and hence you cannot earn certified carbon credits for it.

Afforestation projects can remove CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere, increase habitat areas, improve water quality and provide benefits to local communities.

### How and why are afforestation projects certified?

Certification and validation by third parties is necessary if you want your credits to be recognised as high quality and additional; which in turn increases their price (the price differential of certified vs non-certified carbon credits can be as much as 10x). 

Arbonics works with Verra, the largest carbon credit standard in the world. [More about Verra and other verification providers](https://www.arbonics.com/knowledge-hub/abc-verra-and-gold-standard).

### **How does an Arbonics afforestation project work?**

Any landowner can theoretically start an afforestation project on their own and get it certified. However, certification processes are cumbersome (taking as much as 18 months) and costly (dealing with Verra/other certifier and relevant consultants directly can cost upwards of €50 000 before you earn any credits at all). Arbonics makes the process easier and more affordable by grouping several landowners into a single project and by handling all the relevant paperwork. Additionally, to generate carbon credits Arbonics takes care of data-based monitoring plans, carbon calculations and verification. Arbonics provides this without any upfront fees, instead taking a 10-20% cut on credits generated.

### What do I have to do?

First, consider whether you have any lands you’d be open to plant on (remember it can’t have had forest on in the last 10 years). Additionally, think through whether you’re ready to invest your time and finances into afforestation. Then:
- Let us know that you are interested in working with us 
- If you have suitable lands, we will generate a **Carbon Opportunity Assessment** for you, where we review your land and let you know how many tonnes of carbon you can potentially generate from afforestation on your land.
- We will then agree a planting plan for your lands and move on to discuss contract terms. We’ll then sign the contract.
- You can decide whether you’ll plant on your own or work with a planting partner. If you choose the latter, you will work with the planting partner to agree planting details (e.g. planting time, type of trees planted).
- After signing the contract we will also discuss your planting and management plans. We will also agree on what monitoring data you need to pass on to us (usually the same data that you report to government databases).
- You plant the trees according to your planting plan, monitoring and verification of credits will start according to the agreed plan.
- Depending on whether you choose to receive carbon credits (VCUs) or cash payments, your first pay-out will likely occur in two to five years.

If you haven't already, fill out the introduction form [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) to get started.

------------------------
Arbonics is a tech-based carbon and ecosystem platform for forest-and landowners in Europe – bridging the analogue world of forestry with the world of tech to fight climate change. We partner with landowners to access new revenue streams by helping them quantify, monitor and sell the environmental benefits of sustainable land management.

Are you a landowner? Introduce yourself [here](https://arbonics.typeform.com/landowners?content) and we will get in touch to discuss opportunities with your land. 

Subscribe to our newsletter [here](https://arbonics.substack.com/subscribe) and follow us on [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/ArbonicsHQ/), [LinkedIn](http://linkedin.com/company/arbonics/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ArbonicsHQ) for latest news.

Knowledge Hub

What are REDD+ carbon credits, and why have they been receiving criticism?

6 questions every landowner should ask a carbon project developer

EU's new carbon certification proposal

Monitoring afforestation projects

How to earn carbon credits with afforestation