Nature-based climate solutions are solutions that, with the help of nature, have a positive impact on the climate. These can include, for example, planting trees that sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or conserving forests threatened by deforestation. Another common feature of nature-based climate solutions is that, in addition to their important climate benefits, they also contribute to many other benefits, such as enhanced biodiversity or the restoration of ecosystems. At the same time, they often promote human well-being and health.

There are several reasons why the forestry projects that dominate the voluntary carbon credit market are located outside Sweden. Most are in the Global South, primarily because trees grow significantly faster in the warm climate of the tropics than they do here at home. A reforestation project therefore sequesters carbon more effectively in the tropics.

Projects in the voluntary market should also contribute to social development and create better conditions for the participating local communities—both through an improved land environment and through an additional source of income. This, too, is easier to achieve in the regions that currently dominate tree planting.

A third important requirement is additionality: that the project would not have taken place without funding from carbon credits. This is more challenging for Sweden, since our reforestation law already requires those who harvest forests to ensure that new forests are planted. This makes it more difficult to demonstrate that a Swedish project is additional.

Well-designed tree-planting projects can simultaneously alleviate poverty in low-income regions, preserve biodiversity, and support the UN’s global goals.

ZeroMission on projects both in Sweden and in the Global South.

Planting trees and combating deforestation are among the most effective ways to sequester carbon: they both reduce emissions and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Deforestation accounts for a significant portion of global emissions each year, and forests that are preserved—or newly planted—play an invaluable role as carbon sinks.

Trees also provide a range of benefits for the surrounding land and for biodiversity. And while carbon dioxide and climate change can be abstract and hard to grasp, trees are tangible and visible.

Some of the criticism concerns the sustainability of the climate benefits of forestry projects. This is best addressed by the experience we now have—in Plan Vivo’s case, since 1994—which shows that the projects work.

As the market for voluntary carbon offsetting , projects are evolving and becoming increasingly reliable and precise—for example, through technical solutions that make it easier to monitor and measure climate benefits, thereby reducing risks.

In addition to the certification of the projects themselves, there are currently several independent organizations and frameworks that provide further quality assurance for the market. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has developed the Core Carbon Principles (CCP)—a global set of guidelines for high-quality carbon credits, against which both standards and methodologies can be reviewed and approved. CORSIA is the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) system for international aviation, which determines which credit programs’ credits may be used to offset aviation emissions; being CORSIA-approved thus serves as an additional indicator of quality.

In addition, there are independent credit rating agencies, such as Sylvera and BeZero, that assess and rate individual projects. Together, these external reviews provide buyers with additional assurance that the climate benefits are genuine and of high quality.

Forests absorb and sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When trees are cut down or burned, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Today, vast areas of forest are being cleared at a rapid pace—according to the WWF, about 100,000 square kilometers of tropical forest are lost each year. Deforestation, particularly of tropical forests, accounts for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions; current estimates from the IPCC are around 11%, with some variation among different studies.

In its special report on the 1.5-degree target (Global Warming of 1.5 °C, 2018), the IPCC emphasizes the importance of sequestering carbon, including through reforestation. To have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, global emissions must be reduced by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero around 2050. All scenarios require a combination of substantial emissions reductions and negative emissions—that is, removing greenhouse gases already emitted from the atmosphere, for example through reforestation. The IPCC’s report *Climate Change and Land* (2019), in turn, highlights the role of land use and forests in particular.

Deforestation is also the greatest threat to biodiversity, driven largely by the demand for firewood and timber. The study *The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity* (TEEB) estimates the annual costs of lost forest ecosystems at several thousand billion dollars, which illustrates just how significant the economic benefits of combating deforestation can be. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), improved agriculture and forestry are key to achieving the global Sustainable Development Goals—and in this context, our Plan Vivo are often highlighted as an effective tool.

It depends, and it varies from project to project because each tree species and each local condition is unique. Before planting, a land-use plan is drawn up to determine which tree species will be included. Carbon sequestration is then calculated and monitored annually.

It is difficult to link a specific amount of emissions—for example, one metric ton of carbon dioxide—to a specific number of trees. For one thing, some trees are thinned out to make room for others that can grow larger; for another, a mature tree sequesters varying amounts of carbon—approximately 100–500 kg of carbon, equivalent to 400–2,000 kg of carbon dioxide—because different trees grow at different rates and reach different sizes.

In certified projects—such as Plan Vivo—carbon sequestration is monitored annually, long-term agreements are signed with the local communities, and the plantations are regularly reviewed. This approach makes tree planting a natural part of the local communities’ livelihoods. The trees may be harvested once they have reached maturity, but new ones are planted at that time, and thinning is carried out to promote the growth of the entire plantation. The sale of lumber and building materials provides them with additional income, and fruit trees are often included in the model, which offers an extra incentive to preserve the trees. In this way, respect for the forest increases.

You can never be completely certain that the trees will remain standing—fires and insect pests can prevent proper management. In such cases, there is a buffer to fall back on—both within the individual project and within Plan Vivo as a whole—equivalent to 20% of the planted area, which compensates for any losses. The risk that the climate benefit you, as a buyer, have paid for will be lost is therefore very small.

The long-term goal is for local communities to view the forest as most valuable when it is left standing and provides benefits in the form of firewood, timber, fruit, and other ecosystem services—at which point replanting becomes a natural part of every logging operation. This is achieved relatively quickly in our projects and is the strongest guarantee that the forest will remain standing and deliver the promised climate benefits. The effectiveness of this method is demonstrated not least by the oldest Plan Vivo, Scolel’te in Mexico, which has been in operation since 1994 and continues to thrive today.

The issue hinges on the word “offset.” The word can give the impression of equivalence—that one thing is interchangeable with another and has exactly the same properties—and easily leads to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter whether emissions are reduced or “offset,” since the result would be the same. With that interpretation, the answer is no: tree planting cannot fully replace fossil carbon emissions, since the carbon sinks are of different types. Fossil carbon remains in the ground unless humans actively extract it, whereas carbon sequestered in forests and soil risks being released again during unforeseen events such as wildfires. Once in the atmosphere, however, carbon dioxide from fossil sources has the same effect as carbon dioxide from biogenic sources.

That is precisely why we prefer to talk about carbon offset supporting climate projects rather than “offsetting.” Nature-based climate solutions, such as tree planting, are a powerful and necessary complement to significant emissions reductions—not a substitute for them. However, nature-based solutions are not the answer to everything, but rather one tool among many others that will be equally necessary for us to achieve our climate goals.

One metric ton of CO2e sequestered through nature-based solutions today reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, regardless of what happens a hundred years from now. From that perspective, every metric ton of sequestered carbon provides real benefits in the present. Insisting on permanence may be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

carbon offsetting a method for companies, organizations, and individuals who want to address their climate impact; carbon offsetting is achieved through climate projects that prevent, reduce, or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In our carbon offsetting along with measuring and reducing carbon dioxide emissions—should be a natural part of every company’s climate strategy.

The voluntary carbon offsetting market carbon offsetting in the mid-1990s, with Plan Vivo one of the first standards, and gained momentum in the late 2000s. The climate benefits of these projects are certified by various standards that share certain common requirements: the emission reductions must be calculated, measured, traceable, third-party verified, and additional. “Additional” means that the project would not have been implemented without the funding from the credits.

What is now called carbon offsetting previously carbon offsetting as “climate compensation.” ZeroMission deliberately moved away from that term. “Compensation” implies that emissions can be offset and neutralized so that the company has no emissions—but that is not the case. Funding climate projects is an important complement to—but never a substitute for—reducing one’s own emissions.

The two terms derive from the Latin words *ante* and *post*, which mean “before” and “after,” respectively. An ex-ante credit is thus issued before the climate benefit has been realized—the purchase serves as pre-financing—while an ex-post credit is issued after the climate benefit has been realized. The majority of projects in the voluntary market are of the ex-post type.

It is difficult to say which type of credit is best, as there are pros and cons to each method. For example, it may feel reassuring to purchase ex-post credits because you know that the climate benefit has already been realized; however, since many climate projects are carried out in low-income countries, early financing is often a barrier.

For Plan Vivo’s tree-planting projects, the ex-ante principle has long been the guiding approach—climate benefits accrue gradually as the trees grow and are fully realized after approximately 20–30 years, depending on tree species, vegetation, and climate. Agreements are entered into with small-scale landowners who lack the funds to finance the planting themselves. Ex-ante credits provide project owners with financing in advance, since payment after the fact would not have made the planting possible.

One criticism of the ex-ante approach is that the climate benefits may be overestimated, or that the project may not proceed as planned. This is addressed through conservative calculation methods: for example, below-ground biomass (such as root systems) is not included even though carbon sequestration occurs there as well, and a risk buffer of 10–20% of the climate benefits is set aside to compensate for unforeseen events.

Plan Vivo now updated its standard (PV Climate), and projects are gradually transitioning to the new version in conjunction with their regular verifications. The new standard distinguishes more clearly between different types of credits: an fPVC (future Plan Vivo ) corresponds to an expected, not-yet-delivered climate benefit and is therefore ex-ante, while a vPVC (verified Plan Vivo ) corresponds to an independently verified, already-delivered climate benefit and is therefore ex-post.

According to the IPCC, nature-based solutions are among the most effective and robust methods for combating climate change, while also strengthening the ecosystem services that benefit both communities and biodiversity. They have the potential to cost-effectively deliver more than one-third of the emissions reductions needed to keep global warming well below 2 degrees. Despite this, only about 2% of climate finance is directed toward nature-based solutions. Therefore, action is needed.

Science Based Targets (SBTi) has also defined companies’ responsibilities more clearly. In the new Corporate Net-Zero Standard version 2.0—which was finalized in June 2026 and takes effect in February 2027—the previous concept of Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) is replaced by Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER), that is, responsibility for ongoing emissions. The idea is that, even as they work toward net-zero, companies should take responsibility for the emissions they continue to generate—in addition to reducing them—by financing climate actions outside their own value chain, such as high-quality climate projects.

OER is a voluntary framework with three levels of recognition (Engaged, Advanced, and Leadership) based on the percentage of ongoing emissions for which the company takes responsibility—ranging from at least 1% at the entry level up to 100% at the highest level. These contributions complement, but do not replace, the company’s own emissions reductions. For large companies, a certain level of responsibility for ongoing emissions will become mandatory starting in 2035. Projects that, in addition to climate benefits, also provide co-benefits for people and nature are considered particularly attractive.

Plan Vivo a standard-setting body for carbon credits and climate projects. The principle is similar to that of an ISO standard, but Plan Vivo exclusively on establishing standardized frameworks for how climate projects are designed. The standard was created as early as 1994, originally to help smallholder farmers in Chiapas, Mexico, convert the trees they had planted into credits.

When a project is certified under Plan Vivo that it meets a set of regulated requirements that ensure high quality, and that it is continuously monitored to ensure it delivers the climate benefits for which it was designed. It is during these audits that the credits are verified and issued. Climate projects are tracked in annual reports that we at ZeroMission and summarize for our clients, clearly outlining the project’s successes and challenges, as well as the measures taken. Every five years, the projects are also audited by an independent third party.

All of these documents and audits are published on Plan Vivo’s website, and validation and certification are carried out in collaboration with independent certification bodies, such as the Rainforest Alliance. Overall, Plan Vivo ensures a high level of transparency, which builds trust in the projects.

For a smallholder farmer participating in a project, this means that at least 60% of the project’s revenue goes to the local community—an additional source of income that supplements their primary livelihood. Participation is contingent on the farmer having land that is not needed for their own subsistence.

The Plan Vivo has three fundamental objectives:

• Helping people who live and work in the areas hardest hit by climate change
• To alleviate poverty by providing sustainable agricultural practices to local communities affected by soil degradation
• Building local capacity through knowledge transfer, training, and resources

Farmers often apply on their own, especially when a project is more established—usually through farmers already participating in the project recommending it to others in their community. Before a farmer is accepted, Plan Vivo conducts Plan Vivo individual assessment that includes, among other things, living conditions, motivations for participating, how the income is planned to be used, and the prospects for achieving the project’s goals.

To be eligible to participate, a farmer must own a certain amount of land, and only a specified portion of that land may be used for the project. This is to ensure that the farmer’s primary source of income is not jeopardized. Another requirement is that the land must not have been recently deforested, so that no one cuts down forests in order to join the project.

Yes. All ZeroMissions projects—regardless of type—make a positive contribution to sustainable development in their local communities, with both environmental and social benefits. These may include reduced air pollution and cleaner water, improved health and living standards, new jobs, or the transfer of knowledge and technology. Projects certified under Gold Standard and, where applicableClimate Standard Fairtrade Climate Standard meet these environmental and social requirements and are explicitly linked to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Gold Standard a high bar when it comes to local engagement, additionality, and contributions to sustainable development, and requires that each project measure and report its benefits in relation to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Climate Standard Fairtrade Climate Standard an add-on to Gold Standard, developed in collaboration with Fairtrade , with a particular focus on ensuring that local communities themselves own their projects. Among other things, this includes a guaranteed minimum price for the credits and a Fairtrade that is returned to the producers, enabling them to strengthen their resilience to climate change.

Anyone who purchases carbon credits through ZeroMission ensure that a project gets off the ground and succeeds. The key is additionality—a requirement for all projects that means the project would not have been carried out without the funding from the credits. Additionality is assessed using standardized tools during project development, including by comparing the project’s profitability with and without carbon offsetting.

Consideration is also given to whether there are other obstacles—financial, technical, or structural—that make it unlikely the project would have been carried out on its own. If the project is deemed to require financing from the credits in order to proceed, it is considered additional. If, on the other hand, it is viable without the credits, or lacks clear obstacles, it is not considered additional and is not approved.

In the voluntary market, these credits are commonly referred to as VERs (Verified Emission Reductions). Previously, there were also CERs (Certified Emission Reductions) from the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM is now being phased out—at COP30 in Belém in 2025, it was decided that the mechanism would be completely phased out by the end of 2026—and is being replaced by the Paris Agreement’s new mechanism under Article 6.4, the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM).

Yes. Projects are regularly inspected by independent, accredited verification bodies (known as Validation and Verification Bodies) throughout the project’s lifetime. During each verification, the project is checked to ensure that it is delivering the emission reductions for which it was designed before new credits are issued.

In addition to the certification itself, there are currently several independent organizations and frameworks that provide further quality assurance for the market. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has developed the Core Carbon Principles (CCP)—a global set of guidelines for high-quality carbon credits, against which both standards and methodologies can be reviewed and approved. CORSIA is the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) system for international aviation, which determines which credit programs’ credits may be used to offset aviation emissions; being CORSIA-approved thus serves as an additional quality indicator. In addition, there are independent credit rating agencies, such as Sylvera and BeZero, that assess and rate individual projects. Together, these external reviews provide the buyer with further assurance that the climate benefits are genuine and of high quality.