Nature-based carbon removals gain importance as companies pursue net zero
Nature-based carbon removal is emerging as an important tool for companies seeking to meet net-zero targets, as businesses face growing pressure to cut emissions while addressing pollution that remains difficult to eliminate, Green Earth analysis shows.
Corporate net-zero strategies generally require companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible before using carbon removals to address residual emissions. The approach is particularly relevant to sectors such as aviation, steel, cement and agriculture, where some emissions remain difficult or costly to eliminate completely.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said carbon dioxide removal will be required to achieve net zero because residual emissions will remain after feasible emissions reductions have been implemented.
Carbon credits used in corporate climate strategies broadly fall into two categories: projects that avoid or reduce emissions and projects that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Removal projects can rely on nature, including forests, soils and wetlands, or on engineered technologies such as direct air capture.
Nature-based carbon removal is currently available at greater scale and generally at lower cost than many engineered removal technologies, although the durability of carbon storage varies depending on the ecosystem and project.
Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has estimated that natural climate solutions, including the protection and restoration of forests, wetlands and grasslands, could provide up to 37% of the cost-effective carbon mitigation needed by 2030 to keep the goals of the Paris Agreement within reach.
Forests account for more than two-thirds of that potential, according to the research.
Nature-based projects can also provide benefits beyond carbon removal, including habitat restoration, improved soil stability, water regulation and support for local communities. These additional impacts are increasingly being considered alongside the amount of carbon removed when companies assess potential carbon credits.
The quality of carbon credits remains a central issue for corporate buyers. Additionality and permanence are among the key criteria used to assess whether a project provides a genuine climate benefit. Additionality means the claimed emissions reduction or removal would not have occurred without the project’s financing, while permanence concerns how long the carbon remains stored.
Independent verification, transparent measurement and evidence of environmental and social benefits are also important factors when assessing the credibility of carbon credits.
Corporate climate frameworks increasingly distinguish between reducing emissions and compensating for residual emissions. The Science Based Targets initiative’s net-zero framework calls for companies to make deep cuts in Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions before using carbon removals to balance residual emissions that cannot be eliminated.
For companies using nature-based carbon credits, the underlying projects can include reforestation, agroforestry, ecosystem restoration and forest conservation.
Projects in different regions illustrate how carbon removal can be combined with wider environmental and social objectives. In Kazakhstan‘s Kyzylorda region, restoration efforts around the dried Aral Sea involve planting saxaul trees, a salt-tolerant species suited to the former seabed. The vegetation can help stabilise soil and reduce sand and salt storms while restoring degraded land.
In western Uganda, agroforestry and chimpanzee conservation projects aim to restore habitat in the forest corridor between the Budongo and Bugoma reserves while supporting farming communities.
Similar approaches are being developed through regenerative agroforestry projects in Cameroon and around Mount Kenya, where tree planting is intended to improve soil and water conditions while generating carbon removals and supporting local livelihoods.
The growing interest in nature-based carbon removal reflects the challenge of reaching net zero while industrial economies continue to produce residual emissions. Carbon removals cannot replace the need for deep emissions cuts, but they can provide a mechanism for addressing emissions that remain after reduction measures have been exhausted.
As corporate climate commitments become more focused on measurable outcomes, the credibility of carbon credits is likely to depend increasingly on robust measurement, independent verification, long-term carbon storage and demonstrable benefits for ecosystems and communities.
