There are several reasons why the forestry projects that make up the majority of the voluntary carbon credit market are located in geographical locations other than Sweden. The vast majority of projects are located in the global south and a major reason for this is that the tropics are a much more suitable location as trees grow many times faster in the warmer latitudes than here at home in Sweden. A reforestation project that generates carbon credits will therefore be much more effective in the tropics.

Another major reason is that projects operating in the voluntary carbon credit market should also contribute to social development and improved conditions for the local communities involved, on the one hand by providing better environmental conditions for their soils and, at the same time, providing an additional source of income for project participants. This, too, is easier to achieve in the geographical locations that currently dominate tree planting projects. Finally, the additionality of the projects is also an important criterion.

Additionality means that the projects would not have been realized without the financing from carbon credit buyers. Achieving all this with a project in Sweden, for example, is difficult. This is partly because Sweden has a reforestation law, which means that anyone who harvests forest is obliged by law to ensure that new forest grows up, which makes additionality in a Swedish project difficult. Well-designed tree projects can also help alleviate poverty in low-income regions, conserve biodiversity and support the UN Sustainable Development Goals - particularly Goal 1 (no poverty), Goal 6 (clean water), Goal 11 (sustainable communities), Goal 13 (climate action) and Goal 15 (life on land).

Climate finance is based on rigorous systems of multi-level control and scrutiny. The voluntary climate finance market started in the mid-1990s with Plan Vivo as the first standard and took off in the late 2000s. Climate benefits are certified by different standards whose common criteria are that the emission reduction/climate benefit should be calculated, measured, traceable, third-party verified and additional. The last criterion means that the project would not have happened without financing from the climate credits. In Sweden today there is no certified project, but perhaps this may change in the future.

Plan Vivo is a standardization body for carbon credits and climate finance projects. To understand the principle behind it, one could compare the standard to ISO, however, Plan Vivo works exclusively to set standardized frameworks for the design of climate finance projects. The Plan Vivo standard was created back in 1994 and was originally initiated to help small farmers in Chiapas, Mexico turn their planted trees into credits.

Certification of a climate finance project according to Plan Vivo means that the project meets a number of regulated requirements that ensure that the project is of high quality. Furthermore, it also means that the project is checked to ensure that it delivers the climate benefit that it is designed to do, which Plan Vivo follows up continuously, it is in connection with this that the credits from each project are verified and issued. Finally, it also requires follow-ups that are reported annually and compiled in annual reports, reports that we at ZeroMission review and summarize to our customers annually. These annual reports clearly show the successes and setbacks the project has faced during the year, as well as the actions that have been taken. Every five years, the projects are also reviewed by an independent third party, all these documents and reviews are published publicly on the Plan Vivo website. Validation and certification are carried out in collaboration with independent verification bodies such as the Rainforest Alliance and projects are regularly audited. Plan Vivo is used in many parts of the world and is supported by many environmental and advocacy organizations. Overall, certification according to Plan Vivo means that there is a high level of transparency, which gives confidence in the projects.

Joining Plan Vivo as a small farmer also means that 60% of the income from the project goes to the farmers, providing them with an additional source of income and a financial incentive. Participating in the project means an additional income, which can be utilized from land that the farmer does not need for his livelihood.

The three basic purposes of the Plan Vivo standard are to:

1. Helping people living and working near where climate change hits hardest
2. Alleviating poverty by providing an alternative and sustainable farming method for degraded communities
3. Building local capacity through knowledge transfer, training and resources to .

The short answer is that the two terms are based on the Latin post and ante, which mean before and after, respectively, from a temporal perspective. In practice, this means that ex-ante credits are issued before the climate benefit has been realized, the purchase of these credits is thus similar to pre-financing, while an ex-post credit is issued after the climate benefit has been realized. The majority of climate projects on the voluntary market are of the ex-post type. There is a varied discussion about what is best, but in general it can be said that the challenge with ex-post credits is that many of the climate projects are carried out in low-income countries, where it can be a challenge to raise financing to realize the projects. This is where additionality comes in and becomes an important concept in this context.

Additionality means that the project would not have been realized without the additional financing from the carbon credits. In the case of ex-ante credits, this has been the principle for Plan Vivo's tree planting projects, that the climate benefits occur gradually over time as the tree grows and are fully achieved after about 20-30 years depending on the type of tree, vegetation and climate. In the projects, agreements are concluded with small-scale landowners without the possibility of financing the tree planting with their own resources. With the ex-ante credit, the landowner is provided with upfront financing to carry out the tree planting, as the alternative of paying the landowner afterwards would not have made the activity possible.

Criticism that ex-ante projects have received over the years is that there is a risk that climate benefits are overestimated in advance, or that the project does not go as planned. Plan Vivo addresses this by applying conservative calculation methods so that climate benefits are not overestimated. For example, below-ground biomass (such as root systems) is not counted and Plan Vivo applies a risk buffer where 10-20% of the climate benefits from all projects are allocated to compensate for unpredictable events, such as forest fires.

ZeroMission's projects aim to improve the environment as a whole, not just the climate. Our forest projects aim to contribute to a positive environmental impact. Not only through carbon sequestration but also by, for example, counteracting soil erosion, contributing to an improved water cycle, increased ecological resilience and biodiversity. Since the local population gains access to timber and firewood through tree planting, the pressure on the natural forests is reduced where they previously took out what they needed. There are examples of tree planting with negative environmental impacts, including monoculture of eucalyptus on protected land. We and Plan Vivo distance ourselves from this. According to Plan Vivo's standard, native tree varieties should always be used.

We believe that planting trees and combating deforestation is one of the most effective ways to sequester carbon, both by reducing emissions and by removing carbon from the atmosphere. Deforestation accounts for about one fifth of global emissions annually. If trees are left standing, or new ones are planted, they play an invaluable role as carbon sinks.

At the same time, there is great value in trees as they contribute to many co-benefits, for the earth around them, as well as for biodiversity and diversity. Climate change and carbon dioxide itself can be abstract and hard to touch, while trees are visible.

Actually, there are no rules or recommendations for this, however, we see that many of our customers choose to buy credits in projects that can be linked to their business. For example, for companies whose main sources of emissions are fossil fuels, it may be appropriate to consider climate financing fully or partially through a renewable energy project.

There are criticisms about the permanence of climate benefits in forestry projects. Such arguments are best addressed by the experience now available, in Plan Vivo's case since 1994, which proves that the projects work. Some argue that energy projects are a better form of offset than forestry projects because of a higher degree of permanence, but ZeroMission argues that this is not the case.

As the carbon offset market grows and matures, so do projects, which means that they are constantly being improved to become even more reliable and accurate. Examples include technical solutions that make it easier to monitor and measure the benefits of projects, to minimize the risk of overestimating climate benefits.

Forests absorb and sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But when trees are cut down or burned, this carbon dioxide is released again. Today, huge tracts of forest are being cut down around the world, at a very high rate. According to the WWF, around 100,000 square kilometers of tropical forests disappear every year. As a result, almost a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions come from the felling of tropical forests in particular.

In its report Climate Change and Land, the IPCC underlines the importance of planting forests to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. They present different scenarios for how the world can keep global warming below 1.5 degrees. Success requires a 45% reduction in emissions from 2010 levels to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century (2050). All scenarios require a combination of emission reductions and negative emissions, i.e. sequestering already emitted greenhouse gases from the atmosphere through, for example, reforestation.

Deforestation is also the biggest threat to biodiversity. Many natural forests are disappearing due to the demand for wood and timber. ZeroMission tree planting reduces the pressure on natural forests. A study called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) estimates the cost of deforestation at up to $3 trillion. There are therefore great economic benefits to be gained from combating deforestation. Better agriculture and forestry is also a key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to the UN's agricultural agency, and in such contexts our Plan Vivo are often highlighted as a good tool.

The simple answer is that it depends and varies from project to project, as each tree species is unique and so are the local conditions where the trees will be planted. Therefore, each project will also be unique. Before the planting is carried out, a land use plan is drawn up to decide which tree species are included. Carbon sequestration is then calculated and monitored annually.

It is difficult to relate a certain amount of emissions, e.g. one ton of carbon dioxide, to a certain number of trees planted, as some of the trees planted will be thinned out to make room for others to grow. Another difficulty is that an average mature tree contains different amounts of carbon, ranging from around 100-500 kg of carbon, which corresponds to 400-2000 kg of carbon dioxide. But the variations are very large because different trees grow at different rates and are different sizes.

The issue lies in the concept of 'compensate'. The word 'offset' can give the impression of equivalence, that one provides the same or has exactly the same properties as the other. It further leads to the conclusion that it does not matter whether emissions are reduced or whether they are offset as the result is the same. According to this interpretation of the concept of climate compensation, the answer is no, tree planting cannot compensate for emissions of fossilized carbon as the carbon sinks are of different types and have different properties. Fossilized carbon will remain in the ground unless humans actively pump it up, while carbon sequestered in forests and soils risks returning to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in the event of unpredictable events such as forest fires. Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide atoms emitted from fossil sources have the same effect as emissions from biogenic sources.

According to the IPCC, nature-based solutions are one of the most effective and robust ways to mitigate climate change while creating and enhancing ecosystem services, which in turn benefits both communities and biodiversity (IPCC, Special report on climate change and land, 2019). Natural climate solutions have the potential to deliver over a third of the emission reductions needed to stabilize warming well below 2 degrees in a cost-effective manner. Despite this potential, only around 2% of climate finance is directed towards natural climate solutions. Recently, SBTi has also come out with clear recommendations for companies to invest in Beyond Value Chain Mitigations (BVCM), which means that companies should take immediate action to take responsibility for emissions outside their own value chain, by financing projects that mitigate climate change. Projects that deliver climate benefits while also delivering co-benefits for people and nature are considered particularly attractive.

Planting trees and combating deforestation is one of the most effective ways to offset climate change, both by reducing emissions from deforestation and by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as trees are planted and grow. As trees grow, they sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, based on photosynthesis in the trees.

But to have the intended effect, a number of conditions should be met, e.g. that the tree planting would not have taken place if there had not been money from the carbon offset market, this is called additionality. This means that tree planting in Sweden is not as attractive, as there is a law here on replanting after felling. Another condition is that the forest stand remains and forms an area that binds carbon dioxide in the long term. Each tree has a limited lifespan. When a tree is felled, it must be replanted.

The projects that ZeroMission supports are done in collaboration with local farmers who, by being involved in these carbon offset programs, receive funds, training and technical assistance. The forest restoration projects that we currently mediate are certified through Plan Vivo, which means that there are clear frameworks and rules for how much land a small farmer must have at least to be allowed to participate in the project, as well as how much of the land can be used for planting. This is to ensure and regulate that smallholders' livelihoods and food security are not jeopardized. It is important to emphasize that the tree planting is only an opportunity for extra income for the project participants, and does not replace other sources of income.

In many cases, farmers apply for the project themselves, once the project has become more established. Then it is often through the farmers who are already in the project recommending other farmers with whom they have contact, that they also join the project. In order to be accepted into the project, Plan Vivo makes an individual assessment of the farmer, which includes an assessment of the living conditions, the incentives for participating in the project, how the income is planned to be used, and the conditions for achieving the various goals that participation entails.

To join initially, the farmer is also required to have a certain amount of land. Only a given percentage of this land can be used for the project, to ensure that the farmer's ability to continue to earn his main income is not jeopardized. Being involved in the project means that the tree planting is an additional source of income, and is not intended to replace other sources of income. Another criterion is that the land has not been subject to recent deforestation, to ensure that farmers do not deforest in order to join the project.

The definition of a small farmer is a person who makes a living from his or her land, but who has enough land area, usually over 5 hectares, to be able to set aside a portion for tree planting. In this way, the farmer's ability to continue to make a living in other ways, by continuing to farm the rest of the land as before, is not jeopardized. The part set aside for the project should provide an additional income to the small farmer and at the same time provide the opportunity to cultivate the trees that will be thinned out in the future.

If the tree plantations are certified, as is the case with the Plan Vivo that ZeroMission works with, carbon sequestration is checked annually, long-term contracts are signed with smallholders and the plantations are regularly audited. This certified approach means that the planting will become part of the local people's household. The trees can be cut down when they have finished growing, but it is important that a new one is replanted. The sale of timber and building materials provides farmers with additional income. Fruit trees are often included in the planting models, providing incentives to preserve them, and firewood is taken from fast-growing species. This increases respect for the trees. When trees die or are felled, replanting takes place. Thinning is done to promote the growth of the entire planting area. Farmers are compensated for this work. However, there is no guarantee that the trees will remain standing. Fires can occur, as can war situations that prevent care and maintenance. In such situations, a buffer is available, both within the individual projects and within the overall Plan Vivo, to compensate for the potential loss. This buffer consists of about 20% of the total area planted within the whole Plan Vivo. Overall, there is a very small risk that the climate benefits you paid for as a buyer of credits will disappear.

The ultimate goal of Plan Vivo and the projects is for local people to reach a point where it is taken for granted that forest stands are most valuable when they remain standing and generate returns in the form of firewood, timber, fruit and other ecosystem services. Replanting then becomes a matter of course every time felling takes place. This goal is met relatively quickly in our carbon offset projects and is the greatest long-term guarantee that the forest will remain standing and that the projects will deliver the climate benefits promised. The fact that the method works is illustrated, for example, by the oldest Plan Vivo in Mexico, Scolel'te, which has existed since 1994 and is still flourishing today.

Nature-based solutions are defined by IUCN as "actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits".

All ZeroMission's energy projects make a positive contribution to sustainable development within its geographical area. Both ecological and social qualities must be included. This can include the reduction of air pollution, health aspects and water pollution, improved living standards, job creation or the transfer of knowledge and technology. Projects certified by the Gold Standard and Fairtrade meet these environmental and social requirements.

Gold Standard and Fairtrade Climate Standard set requirements that, in addition to the usual CDM requirements, set the bar high in terms of the degree of local ownership, additionality and contribution to sustainable development. Projects have been limited to the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency but now also include forestry projects. Projects certified under both the CDM and the Gold Standard or Fairtrade are often more expensive than those certified under only one standard. Costs include assurance of the contribution to sustainable development, which is ensured through extensive information and consultation with the local population.

Anyone who buys reduction units (VERs or CERs) through ZeroMission contributes to the realization and success of a project. This is called additionality and is a requirement for all projects. Additionality is tested in various ways during project development using standardized tools. These include looking at the project's profitability with and without climate finance.

Another way to test additionality is to see if there are other societal or structural barriers that make it likely that the project would not have been realized without climate finance. Projects that, for the above reasons, are not expected to be implemented without climate finance are deemed to be additional. If, on the other hand, the assessment is made that the project is viable without credits and/or that there are no obstacles, the project is not additional and is thus not approved.

There is a regular inspection of the projects by independent organizations. This is done by UNO-accredited organizations such as SGS, TÜV or DNV and continues throughout the life of the project.

Environmental statements is an umbrella term for all environmental communication related to a product, service or activity. Much of what we write about below is changing due to new EU directives on communication. The 'Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition' and 'Green Claims' directives will regulate different types of statements from Q3, 2026. At the moment, we do not know exactly how the directives will affect climate work, but the starting point of the directives is to protect consumers from unclear, misleading or unsubstantiated environmental statements. We think this is a good development and will hopefully reduce greenwashing.

Carrying out your climate work based on different standards and methods, such as ISO, will not in itself be prohibited, but it is about the communication of the same. We update the information here on an ongoing basis, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact any of us at ZeroMission. 

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), environmental statements can be divided into three different groups, depending on the extent to which they are guided by criteria and controls.

Type I, ISO 14024 - Third party verified ecolabels such as Bra Miljöval, Krav and Svanen. Consumer-oriented labels that require a manufacturer to apply to the ecolabelling organization and follow established criteria.

Type II, 14021 - Self-declared environmental claims and ecolabels are statements about a product, service or activity that an organization develops and communicates itself. ISO 14021 regulates requirements for the use of the terms, but does not necessarily require any control or independent verification. This places the responsibility on the actor making the statement to ensure that the communication is not misleading and that it is accurate. It is also common for environmental statements of this type to follow an industry standard that has defined its own criteria and verification requirements.

Type III, ISO 14025 - Environmental Product Declarations or EPDs (Environmental Declarations) is a verified and independent document that accounts for the life cycle emissions of a product or service.

Thus, different environmental statements have different conditions for use, such as compliance with a standard. Below we list the most common climate strategies and environmental statements that we and our customers use. For all types of own environmental statements, it is important that they are followed up with transparent documentation and description of what is meant.

Carbon footprint refers to the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a product, service or activity. Statements about the carbon footprint of a product, service or activity should always be accompanied by a description of which parts of the system have been included in the calculation in order not to be misleading.

Example of misuse of the term:

"Our climate financing means that Product X has a negative carbon footprint"

Carbon footprint refers to all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the system under study, not including climate finance.

Mechanism to climate finance the carbon footprint of a product, service or activity through the prevention, reduction, or removal of an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases in a process outside the system boundaries of the system under study.

Example of misuse of the term:

"We finance the climate by serving only vegetarian food"

Serving vegetarian food can be an effective way to reduce the climate impact of a business, but it is not considered climate finance as it requires a process outside the business.

The term is not regulated by a standard but is used synonymously with climate neutral. Net Zero is a globally accepted climate strategy used by countries and companies. For example, Sweden aims to reach net zero emissions by 2045, according to the Climate Policy Framework.

Product, service or activity that has a carbon footprint with zero greenhouse gas emissions or a carbon footprint that is climate-financed. Claims of climate neutrality require, among other things, that the calculation is of high quality in terms of data and data sources, and that emission factors and uncertainties are documented.

The 'Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition' and 'Green Claims' directives will heavily regulate this type of statement from Q3, 2026.

To become climate positive, a standard or specification regulating the concept of climate neutrality is needed, such as ISO 14021 or PAS 2060. All emissions throughout the value chain should be calculated from a life cycle perspective. The concept involves setting reduction targets taking into account the entire value chain, in line with the 1.5 degree target. Climate finance projects must be certified and third-party audited.

The 'Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition' and 'Green Claims' directives will heavily regulate this type of statement from Q3, 2026.

Product, service or activity whose carbon footprint is climate-financed. The concept can, for example, refer to a sub-process of an activity, such as transportation or total life cycle emissions. It is important to communicate clearly what is carbon offset and that carbon offsetting is certified and third-party verified.

The 'Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition' and 'Green Claims' directives will heavily regulate this type of statement from Q3, 2026.

Negative emissions refer to technologies or natural climate solutions that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it, thus creating a carbon sink. Negative emissions are thus different from other types of emission reductions that avoid emissions from happening or reduce emissions from a reference scenario. Examples of negative emissions are tree planting, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).

Environmental statements that are not covered by a definition and thus cannot be measured or confirm compliance should not be used to describe an activity, product or service. Examples of unspecified statements include 'green', 'sustainable' and 'climate smart'. The 'Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition' and 'Green Claims' Directives will heavily regulate these types of statements as of Q3, 2026.

Methods and terminology around taking responsibility for one's emissions are constantly changing. The traditional concept of carbon offsetting, i.e. balancing one's own greenhouse gas emissions with reductions outside the value chain, is being challenged by concepts such as climate finance and Beyond Value Chain Mitigation launched by the Science Based Target Initiative.

At ZeroMission , we have always had the climate in focus while concepts and environmental statements have had a subordinate role. Limiting global warming requires all the tools in the box, including both our own emission reductions and those that can be made outside the value chain. Whatever environmental statements a company may or may not use in its communication, these actions will be crucial for the development of the climate in the coming decades.

SBTi presents three models for how companies can take responsibility for their environmental or climate impact outside their own value chain. These three models provide a partially renewed way of looking at how the climate strategy can be implemented. All three are based on first measuring and reducing their own emissions in line with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree target. Examples of measures are environmental or climate projects such as those we offer at ZeroMission .

Match the share of measures with the amount of unabated tons of CO2e emissions, ton by ton.

Channel funding to actions outside the value chain by putting an internal price on their emissions.

Set aside a part (percentage) of turnover or profit to finance climate action projects.