We all wait for be additional in NBS projects

“additionality” makes sense in the long run and whether it really creates the best incentives? Because what it really does is compensate environmental culprits twice. First when they cut down the forest for example and then when they reforest it years later. Meanwhile organisations or individuals who’ve been protecting forests and wildlife for decades are often told “your project is non-additional so you cant finance your conservation efforts with credits”.. Any thoughts on that?

Mark Twain

There are area emerging though is the reporting of carbon stocks in corporate Scope 3 inventories. Here I see an opportunity for creating mechanisms for retaining stocks just as much as increasing them. Its emerging via the GHGP land-management work so a little hazy yet, but I’m hopeful

“link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6820054053016358912/

It seems to me that additionality has a two-fold function to perform in the life of any project in a cobenefit: the one is cost/oportunity and the other is neccesity. Additionality of course must enable a project to achieve resources, but also become more efficient, with increasing facility the ligitimate goals of his plans.