Our response to the BBC Panorama Investigative Documentary on the Carbon Markets

Blog

bbc_panorama_response_blog_header

BBC_Panorama_Response_Blog_Header

Our response to the upcoming BBC Panorama Investigative Documentary

UPDATE: The Panorama programme and its portrayal of the meeting with our team was exceptionally misleading. Our team was asked specific questions about how carbon neutrality certification is achieved. Our response described this certification and its significant flaws. This description was then misrepresented as our advice. Indeed, we advocated for the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard instead, which requires a minimum of 90% emissions reduction before a net-zero claim can be made. This part was edited out. We did not and do not advocate carbon neutrality. We have never offered carbon neutrality ‘badges’ or certification.
______________

A little over two weeks ago Ecologi was contacted by a production company working on a BBC Panorama investigation, airing later this week around “the economics of the carbon credit market; the work of carbon credit developers and whether brands which buy certain types of carbon credits can credibly say they will reach net zero.”
Though we have not yet seen the documentary, we anticipate that Ecologi will feature in it, amongst other companies. We have decided to take the initiative and publish the correspondence received from the production company and our responses in full (<a href="#correspondence">see the end of this article</a>), in addition to providing a summary of our perspective on the subject matter here on our blog.
At Ecologi, trust and transparency is core to who we are. Today we would like to ensure that our community is aware of the key facts before the programme airs as well as providing an update to this page after the programme airs.

<h2>Are the projects Ecologi supports really high-quality?</h2>
In their correspondence with us, the production company questioned the quality of the projects we have funded over time. We rebutted each of their assertions, and reiterated our confidence in the quality of the projects that are eligible to be funded through Ecologi.
The criticisms from the production company relied on the West et al study <a href="https://www.sylvera.com/blog/guardian-offsets-response" target="_blank" rel="noopener">which was roundly debunked</a> by industry experts last year. Even if all of the study’s assertions about the relevant projects were correct (which we refute), this would represent only 4% of all the funding Ecologi has provided to impact projects since our inception in 2019. This translates to a 96% “success rate” which is still top-tier. 
We also noted that when it comes to funding projects, certain projects that were historically funded by Ecologi would not be eligible for funding today, given that our quality standards have improved over time. It is important to note that even if a project no longer meets our quality standards, this does not imply that the project has achieved zero carbon avoidance or other benefits, rather, according to our latest analysis, it simply no longer falls at the top-end of the quality spectrum we seek moving forward.
We did acknowledge that the full list of projects displayed on the Ecologi website included both those eligible for funding today, and those which were funded historically but may no longer meet our eligibility criteria. To improve our website’s clarity, we have since made the relevant updates.

<h2>What about carbon neutrality and net-zero?</h2>
In their correspondence with us, the production company made various incorrect statements about how the use of carbon avoidance credits is insufficient for carbon neutrality certification. Carbon avoidance credits are indeed a component of carbon neutrality certification under the industry <a href="https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/capabilities/environment/pas-2060-carbon-neutrality/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PAS 2060 Standard</a>. 
Nevertheless, as we explained to the production company in person and in our written correspondence, Ecologi has never provided a carbon neutrality certification. Furthermore, <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/carbon-neutral-vs-net-zero-whats-the-difference" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in 2021 we made the decision to support</a> corporate endeavours towards the SBTi Net-Zero Standard instead of the carbon neutrality standard, because the former requires &gt;90% emissions reductions across all scopes, before the organisation is eligible to make its net-zero claims.

<h2>What’s going on with the SBTi and the net-zero standard?</h2>
In recent weeks, there has been much analysis and speculation about the Science-based Targets initiative (SBTi) corporate sustainability standards and carbon markets. This has included <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/news/statement-from-the-sbti-board-of-trustees-on-use-of-environmental-attribute-certificates-including-but-not-limited-to-voluntary-carbon-markets-for-abatement-purposes-limited-to-scope-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the recent announcement</a> from the Board of Directors of the SBTi about the upcoming routine revision to their Corporate Net-Zero Standard. In that statement, the Board of Directors referred to the possibility for the updated Standard to allow businesses to use carbon credits to work towards their Scope 3 emissions reduction targets. Controversy ensued after this announcement, which we expect may be raised in the BBC Panorama documentary.
We understand the impetus behind exploring the option to allow certain businesses (under strict criteria, which are yet to be defined) to use credits for limited scope 3 abatement in particular circumstances; for some businesses scope 3 emissions are very hard to measure and harder still to meaningfully reduce. We also understand that some will be concerned that allowing the use of carbon credits for scope 3 abatement will lead to organisations attempting to ‘offset’ their way out of emissions culpability. Yet, multiple studies have shown that the opposite is true, and that organisations buying carbon credits tend to be those taking the most accountability for their own emissions (see <a href="https://www.sylvera.com/resources/carbon-credits-and-decarbonization" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>, <a href="https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/new-research-carbon-credits-are-associated-with-businesses-decarbonizing-faster/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="https://trove-research.com/report/corporate-emission-performance-and-the-use-of-carbon-credits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>). 
Another concern could be that if poor-quality credits are used for Scope 3 abatement, then the net effect of allowing these credits to be used may mean that emissions are not prevented at all. Albeit possible, we assume that this would be at least partially accounted for in the “specific guardrails and thresholds as well as the rules to be applied” when the SBTi updates the Standard. Organisations such as Ecologi are dedicated to using the latest data to support businesses to easily identify and fund the higher-quality projects on the market.
We welcome the fact that standards-setters are constantly iterating and developing their Standards to ensure they are clear, up-to-date, and reflect the latest science and best practice. We believe that standard-setters need to be transparent, and follow appropriate governance principles, all while being led by science. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard update, businesses need clarity on best practice so they can be confident that they are taking the right steps, and communicate externally about the action they are taking in the right way.
For our part, we want to reassure businesses that there are (and will remain) two core imperatives for businesses in taking climate action:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">To reduce emissions as much as possible, as fast as possible, within the value chain; and:</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">To contribute funding to projects globally (‘beyond’ the value chain) that mitigate climate change and contribute to sustainable social and economic development.</li>
</ol>
As of now, instruction from the SBTi under the Net-Zero Standard has not changed, and the organisation has also recently released <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/Above-and-Beyond-Report-on-BVCM.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a helpful guide to beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM)</a>. We also have our own articles for businesses about:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/carbon-offsetting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to think about funding projects as contributory rather than compensatory</a>,</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/go-above-and-beyond-during-your-net-zero-journey-explaining-beyond-value-chain-mitigation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to approach designing a BVCM strategy</a>,</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/carbon-removals-vs-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What the differences are between different types of projects</a>,</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/funding-carbon-credits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to spot a great carbon project</a>, and:</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/how-can-businesses-avoid-greenwashing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to avoid greenwashing</a>.</li>
</ul>
Ecologi will continue to support businesses to measure and manage their emissions, as well as help them to make informed decisions about how to approach funding climate action. We are very excited about the new product launches we will be rolling out later this year to even better support businesses in high-integrity climate action.

<h2>Closing thoughts</h2>
We agree that there is always room for improvement for ourselves and for others in the industry. We acknowledge that the past few weeks have presented a difficult and turbulent time in corporate sustainability, as Standards-setters grapple with harmonising their approaches. We always have and always will welcome industry scrutiny, because it provides an incentive for the market as a whole to improve its standards. 
In our recent <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/climate-comittments-report-2024" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate Commitments survey</a>, 76% of businesses surveyed are putting sustainability at the heart of their strategy. We deem this positive direction at risk with media narratives making business leaders question whether sustainability and climate action should be a priority worth the risk. Nearly one third (29%) of businesses are either worried about greenwashing or only communicate their claims internally, and one fifth of businesses don’t make any sustainability claims at all for fear of greenwashing. We can not let reductive criticism of the industry from poorly-informed commentators result in greenhushing &#8211; where businesses become afraid and either downplay their sustainability initiatives, or refrain from taking any action at all.
The carbon market is a vital tool in the fight against climate change. It is an effective mechanism to provide financing to impactful projects around the world that would otherwise not exist today. We believe it is crucial to prioritise high-integrity progress over perfection as we collectively aim to limit warming to as close to 1.5ºC as possible. 
Our business has been built on trust and transparency over many years because of our high standards, due diligence and openness with our current and future customers. We will continue to share our perspective as the conversation develops. I thank you for supporting Ecologi as your climate action partner of choice.
Warmest regards,
Dimitri Theocharis 
CEO, Ecologi

<h3>Read the correspondence between DM Productions and Ecologi </h3>
<div class="ecologi-video-full-width"><iframe src="https://cms-assets.offset.earth/app/uploads/20240429154301/BBC_Panorama_Response_DocumentAd_29April-1.pdf" width="595" height="1100" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
<div></div>

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_header

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Header

Carbon Compensation vs. Contribution - What’s the difference?

Climate change is a topic that many of us are discussing at work each day. You may have heard terms such as ‘carbon compensation’ or ‘contribution’ being used in conversations about how to take meaningful action against climate change, but what do they actually mean, and how do they differ from one another? 
We regularly speak to businesses who have similar questions and in this guide, we’ll break it all down. Here’s a quick run-through of what we will cover:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What are the definitions of carbon compensation and contribution?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What is the purpose of each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What mechanisms do both approaches utilise? </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What types of projects do they involve?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What types of certification are associated with each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What kind of costs are associated with each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What role do they play in achieving net zero?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What are examples of each?</li>
</ul>

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_definition

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Definition

<h2>Definitions of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Carbon compensation refers to the idea of balancing out a certain amount of carbon emissions by investing in projects that prevent or remove an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide elsewhere. This tonne-for-tonne ‘balancing’ or ‘offsetting’ is compensatory.
 
Contribution
This approach focuses on separating financial contributions from any compensatory claims. Instead, it involves directing funding to projects that will support global net-zero and nature restoration – but crucially without making compensatory claims. <a href="https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/join?utm_feeditemid=&amp;utm_device=c&amp;utm_term=one%20percent%20for%20the%20planet&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_medium=ppc&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;hsa_cam=20766754741&amp;hsa_grp=155667469859&amp;hsa_mt=b&amp;hsa_src=g&amp;hsa_ad=680329727495&amp;hsa_acc=%7B8900384824%7D&amp;hsa_net=adwords&amp;hsa_kw=one%20percent%20for%20the%20planet&amp;hsa_tgt=kwd-299092657918&amp;hsa_ver=3&amp;gad_source=1&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwooq3BhB3EiwAYqYoEs0haU6oWnJZze5_b4QrYSQvdqPvXRSRdMCOrjloCv_URVN-RaIXIBoChu8QAvD_BwE" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1% Percent For the Planet </a>is an example of this kind of scheme.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_purpose-1

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Purpose (1)

<h2>What is the purpose of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is aimed at achieving a ‘carbon-neutral’ status by offsetting specific emissions through equivalent carbon reduction elsewhere.
 
Contribution
Contribution focuses on supporting and financing sustainability projects and initiatives to encourage environmental stewardship, without associating this with compensation for emissions.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_mechanism

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Mechanism

<h2>What mechanisms do carbon compensation and contribution utilise?</h2>
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is carbon-centric and relies on detailed measurement and verification processes to ensure that the projects avoid or remove the claimed amount of CO2. Whilst projects may have ‘co-benefits’, project quality and credit utility is predicated on whether the carbon dioxide benefit is being delivered.
 
Contribution
Contribution is not predicated on carbon dioxide. It involves making donations to strategic funds which are designed to produce a range of benefits for net-zero and nature restoration – but may not require rigorous CO2 measurement or verification, but other kinds of monitoring and reporting are essential to ensure benefits are being realised.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_projecttypes

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_ProjectTypes

<h2>What types of projects do carbon compensation and contribution involve?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is limited to projects which generate carbon credits,  typically those that are issued to an ICROA-endorsed carbon standard like Verra, Gold Standard or Puro. It includes projects such as afforestation, blue carbon removal, landfill gas, cleaner water systems and enhanced rock weathering.
 
Contribution
Contribution can include carbon credit-issuing projects but is not limited to them. Other projects that can be financed include funding for environmental research, habitat restoration, conservation programs, reforestation projects, educational initiatives, and donations to NGOs working on climate action.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_certification

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Certification

<h2>What type of certification is associated with carbon compensation and contribution?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation: 
Carbon compensation requires third-party verification and certification by bodies such as the Gold Standard, Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Puro to ensure the credibility of carbon credits. 
 
Contribution:
Contribution typically does not require certification as it is focused on voluntary financial support for environmental causes. However, reputable organisations receiving contributions may provide transparency reports or impact statements.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_cost

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Cost

<h2>What kind of costs are associated with carbon compensation and contribution?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation: 
Costs for carbon compensation vary depending on the project type and verification costs. The price per tonne of CO2 offset can differ significantly with some being much more expensive than others.
 
Contribution: 
Contribution is usually more flexible when it comes to costs. This is because the focus is on voluntary contributions towards environmental outcomes,  rather than compensating for a specific amount of emissions.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_role

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Role

<h2>What role do carbon compensation and contribution play in achieving net zero?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation:
The <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard</a> specifies that businesses must achieve a minimum 90% reduction in emissions on their path to net-zero &#8211; at which point a compensatory approach can be applied for the remaining &lt;10% of emissions which cannot be reduced directly. In this case, compensation is limited to carbon removals only, not carbon avoidance credits. To understand the difference between carbon avoidance and removal credits, <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/carbon-removals-vs-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">read our blog post here.</a>
 
Contribution:
The SBTi also promotes ‘beyond value chain mitigation’ known as BVCM. This involves a company funding climate action to support global net-zero efforts. BVCM does not count towards the organisation’s own corporate net-zero goals, however, the SBTi considers it “urgent and essential” that businesses contribute to global climate action outside of their value chain.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_examples

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Examples

<h2>Examples of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation:
A company offsets its annual carbon emissions by investing in carbon credits from a landfill methane capture project that prevents an equivalent volume of emissions.
Contribution: 
A company contributes to an environmental project that works on biodiversity conservation, without claiming an offset of its own emissions. Instead, the company reports on how much it contributed, and the outcomes intended, and monitors the project’s progress over time.

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
In summary, Carbon Compensation focuses on the idea of ‘balancing’ or ‘offsetting’ emissions through purchasing carbon credits. The credits purchased are often used to offset emissions generated by businesses.  Contribution focuses on funding projects that support global net-zero goals without compensatory claims. Through supporting a contribution model, you can support a wide range of projects all offering crucial co-benefits, and in some cases, credit-issuing projects too. 
Both approaches play a critical role in supporting climate action. The Oxford Principles for Aligned Net Zero recommend a combination of carbon compensation (durable removals only)  and contribution to help maximise impact. At Ecologi, we believe that while both have their merits, prioritising high-quality, holistic climate action through a contribution-based approach is the best way to support global net-zero efforts and future-proof your sustainability strategy. This is why we created <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/business/ecologi-impact-funds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Impact Funds</a> &#8211; to allow our customers to support a wide range of projects that contribute to a particular climate goal.

<h2>Why did you create Impact Funds?</h2>
Our industry is moving and evolving all the time in an effort to reach global Net Zero goals and at Ecologi we witnessed the challenges firsthand through our Impact Partners, below is a quote from our Impact Partnerships Manager, Katie; 
<blockquote>At Ecologi, our partners were extracting tree-planting costs from a wider landscape restoration project because that’s what the market wanted. We need to change this &#8211; and educate the market on the solutions our planet needs.</blockquote>
Contribution models are increasingly focused on outcomes rather than inputs and go beyond metrics such as carbon credits purchased, or the number of trees planted. These projects produce a host of diverse impacts that aren’t being captured by single metrics. Supporting projects such as landscape restoration focused on the wider strategy &#8211; in addition to tree planting, landscape restoration captures co-benefits such as increased biodiversity, improved soil health, and reduced pollution.
Interested to learn more? <a href="https://info.ecologi.com/ecologi-impact-funds/get-started" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get in touch to find out more about our Impact Funds</a>.

Speak to our team. We're here to help you find your perfect climate solution.

Case studies

blog_case_study_biopak_header

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Header

Case Study: BioPak UK

<h2>About BioPak UK</h2>
A world without waste. That’s the mission of BioPak, and they’re working hard to achieve it. By disrupting the current take, make, waste model, BioPak’s sustainable food packaging solutions are leading the way to a truly circular economy.
Founded in 2006, BioPak has become a globally recognised brand, loved by businesses and consumers across Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the US, Hong Kong and Singapore.
BioPak’s packaging solutions are designed to be better for our planet. They use renewable plant-based materials that are sourced responsibly. To promote responsible disposal of their packaging, BioPak encourages composting through their Compost Connect scheme—a not-for-profit initiative that connects customers to compost pick-up services.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_initiatives

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Initiatives

BioPak is better for people too. The company is B Corp certified and donates 5% of all profits to positive change via their Give Back Fund. BioPak is a business that’s truly committed to the principles of the Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet, and Profit.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_stats

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Stats

<h2>Issue</h2>
BioPak’s commitment to combating climate change is unwavering. Having been carbon neutral certified for over a decade, in 2022 the team took the strategic decision to shift away from carbon-neutrality, and instead focus on emissions reduction.
This decision wasn’t taken lightly, but they recognised the need to move beyond mere carbon offsetting. They view it as a leap forward rather than a step back, and a move to create a more substantial positive influence on the planet. 
The team believes that understanding their total carbon footprint is vital. They are dedicated to clarifying the sources of their emissions, which span the entire product lifecycle, encompassing offices, product transportation, packaging production, raw material extraction, and end-of-life emissions.
BioPak uses an independent third party to measure their carbon footprint, cost to the environment (including impact on biodiversity, human health, climate change and material scarcity) and lifecycle phases of their products. This is done to enhance transparency, accountability and demonstrate their commitment to combating greenwashing.
BioPak is serious about combating climate change, with reducing carbon emissions being crucial in achieving this goal. A key part of this goal is supporting industrial composting through the Compost Connect scheme. The team is committed to diverting food waste and compostable packaging from landfill and incineration by making compost facilities more accessible across Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
Working together with customers, BioPak truly believes it can pave the way for a more sustainable world for future generations.

<h2>Challenges</h2>
As a B Corp and leader in sustainable food packaging, the team at BioPak feels a keen obligation for environmental stewardship. They describe BioPak as a “profit for purpose business”, and as such are driven to preserve and protect the environment while giving back to the communities in which they operate. 
To honour this obligation, BioPak set up its Give Back Fund in 2012, and since then have dedicated their time and energy to partnering with leading environmental and social charities to bring about positive change. So far they have donated a total of £2,495,352.
In the last decade, BioPak’s commitment to Australian environmental conservation has flourished through a partnership with Rainforest Rescue, which has planted and safeguarded 95,720 trees and reclaimed eight hectares of endangered Daintree Rainforest.

<h2>Solution </h2>
BioPak donates 1% of all profits to community and environmental projects, and here in the UK we’re proud that Ecologi has been chosen to support that commitment through tree planting. The team firmly believes that tree planting is a powerful solution that produces oxygen, stores carbon, and helps tackle climate change.
BioPak’s reforestation work with Ecologi underpins a global commitment to ecological restoration. This ambitious initiative is a cornerstone of BioPak’s corporate responsibility ethos, aiming to not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also foster local biodiversity, enhance soil health, and support local communities in achieving sustainable development goals.
Working with Ecologi proves BioPak’s cast iron commitment to the environment, and in turn boosts its credibility, enhances its brand reputation and helps its customers make a positive impact. The team regularly communicates their sustainability milestones with customers and colleagues alike, through impact certificate, emails and internal communications.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_profile

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Profile

<h2>Outcome</h2>
Since 2021 BioPak has planted 102,479 trees with Ecologi, and the team plans to continue to regularly donate to increase this figure as much as they can. 
As a profit-for-purpose business, BioPak’s commitment to protecting the environment is vital in retaining current customers and attracting new customers, who are looking to make a positive impact through their supply chain. The Give Back Fund, and the work with partners like Ecologi, remains a fundamental part of BioPak’s brand messaging and ethos.
Sam Walker, Technical Director at BioPak UK, said:
<blockquote>It&#8217;s great to partner with Ecologi and support both the large scale reforestation projects they do and the more grass roots initiatives which really make a difference locally&#8230; Reforestation and habitat restoration are the foundations of reversing biodiversity loss and critical in the fight against climate change. We&#8217;re proud to work with Ecologi and share the impact data with our customers.</blockquote>

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_quote

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Quote

<h2>Is your business ready to take climate action?</h2>
If this article has inspired your business to start its climate journey, talk to our team today.

blog_impactshop_transactional_header

Blog_ImpactShop_Transactional_Header

At Ecologi we believe in transparency, which is why, when we make changes, we want to let you know.
As of Tuesday 1st October 2024, we will be making a few changes to the Ecologi Impact Shop, including discontinuing some projects, as well as adding new ones and changing our prices slightly. 
Keep reading to find out more, or jump to the section on <a href="#customers">What these changes mean for our customers</a>, or our <a href="#faqs">FAQs</a>.

<h2>Update to our ‘Carbon avoidance’ project</h2>
We will be removing our generic ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carbon avoidance</a>’ product from the Impact Shop, and replacing it with a new type of carbon avoidance project, which specifically supports landfill methane capture. This project is among the first in the world to receive the CCP-Approved quality label from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
In June of this year, the ICVCM, an independent governance body dedicated to establishing a global benchmark for high-quality carbon credits, <a href="https://icvcm.org/integrity-council-announces-first-high-integrity-ccp-labelled-carbon-credits-as-assessments-continue/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced the first carbon-crediting methodologies</a> that meet its high-integrity Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
As part of this, the ICVCM have applied its ‘CCP-Approved’ label to a variety of projects that tackle potent greenhouse gases by capturing methane from landfill sites (like our supported <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/avoiding-methane-emissions-from-landfill-in-brazil" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Macaubas LFG project</a>), and by destroying ozone-depleting foams and refrigerant gases from discarded equipment such as refrigerators and air conditioners.
We have been supporting landfill gas projects through our platform since our early days, including some of these first projects which have received this ICVCM stamp of approval. Effective on 1st October 2024, we are replacing the general ‘support carbon avoidance projects’ product on our Impact Shop, to specifically support these newly CCP-Approved landfill methane capture projects.

<h2>Discontinuation of our ‘Renewable energy carbon avoidance’ project</h2>
In addition, we will be removing the ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-renewable-energy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Renewable energy carbon avoidance</a>’ product from our Impact Shop. The ICVCM recently decided it would not award the existing renewable energy credit methodologies its CCP-Approved label, so we’ve opted to preemptively stop offering these on our platform. For additional insight into this decision, we encourage you to read our <a href="#faqs">FAQs</a> further down on this page.
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
One of the next decisions made by the ICVCM as part of its assessment of carbon credit methodologies was to acknowledge that existing renewable energy generation credit methodologies do not meet the standard to achieve CCP-Approval. 
One key reason these methodologies don’t meet the CCP-Approved criteria is that the methodologies themselves fail to meet the stringent requirements for additionality, a key factor in ensuring that carbon credits represent genuine emissions reductions that wouldn&#8217;t have occurred without the carbon finance. See this quote from Sylvera on what additionality refers to: 
<blockquote>Additionality refers to the causal relationship between the project&#8217;s activities and the climate benefits it claims including the risk of the project over-crediting. A project is considered additional if the project activities would not have occurred without the revenue from a voluntary carbon credit. The additionality score is a function of how likely it is that the project is additional, and how likely it is that the project is over-crediting on the carbon avoidance or removal it is delivering.</blockquote>
Ecologi has always had a regionalised approach to our impact, consistently applying additional scrutiny to the projects we elect to support through our platform. Only six renewable energy projects are currently eligible for receipt of funding from our platform – out of an estimated &gt;2,200 renewable energy projects on the voluntary carbon market. Our careful selection process has ensured that we consider not only the type of project but also its specific implementation location.
For example, we have deliberately chosen not to fund large hydroelectric dams due to their associated social and environmental risks and we have generally steered clear of offshore wind projects, favouring onshore wind solutions that are more appropriate for the regions we support. We have always prioritised those situated in areas where the energy grid is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, such as Morocco and Mexico, to maximise impact as much as possible.
This all said, following the ICVCM’s ruling on renewables, we have made the decision to stop offering renewable energy carbon credits via our Impact Shop.
We believe it is a good thing that the ICVCM is rejecting certain methodologies from receiving its high-quality label. This rigorous approach is necessary to maintain and improve the integrity of the carbon market – to raise the quality of projects across the board – and to ensure that all participants can trust that their investments are driving real, additional climate benefits.

<h2>Updates to pricing on the Impact Shop</h2>
Finally, on October 1st we will be updating pricing across our Impact Shop to reflect recent changes in market prices, and as a result some of our products will be cheaper to support.
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
As part of our commitment to staying aligned with the evolving voluntary carbon market and providing the best prices we can to customers, we are also adjusting our pricing structure. To better reflect current market prices, we have reviewed and updated all the prices for carbon projects, some of which have reduced in price slightly. We are pleased to report that none of our existing projects have increased in price.
Pricing in the carbon market is dynamic, influenced by a variety of factors including regulatory updates, market demand, geographies, ratings, and broader project qualities. We aim to stay responsive to these changes and ensure that our offerings continue to provide value to all stakeholders involved, from project developers to buyers and the communities benefiting from these projects.
As an impact-driven organisation who put planet first, we want to ensure that we are responsive to the market and our customers are getting the best deal for the impact they want to support.

<h2>What do these changes mean for our customers?</h2>
There are no direct actions that our customers will need to take in light of these changes.
As of October 1st you will notice that our generic ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carbon avoidance</a>’ project and our ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-renewable-energy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Renewable energy carbon avoidance</a>’ project will no longer be available on the Impact Shop. You will also notice that our new CCP-Approved landfill gas capture project will be available to support, and that the price of some of our existing projects have decreased slightly.

Our response to the upcoming BBC Panorama Investigative Documentary on Carbon Markets

More posts

Carbon Compensation vs. Contribution: what’s the difference?

Case study: How BioPak UK is engaging customers and leading the way to a world without waste

Upcoming changes to the Ecologi Impact Shop

Stay in touch with Ecologi