Frequently Asked Questions

aDryada ensures the long-term permanence of its projects by adhering to rigorous international standards, partnering with governments, and prioritizing biodiversity and community involvement.
1. aDryada’s sequestration projects are certified by international standards (Verra VCS, Gold Standard, etc.), which have developed rigorous methodologies to assess and ensure permanence, based on
Risk assessments – natural (fire, disease), political (war, expropriation), internal (illegal logging, plant species), and external (land disputes, farming) risks to carbon sequestration projects.
Creation of a buffer pool of carbon credits. Meaning, a percentage of carbon credits are not sold but set aside as insurance in case of reversals.

Beyond international standards, aDryada ensures permanence by:

2. Developing projects in partnership with national government authorities and local communities, so that:
Project contracts are long-term and backed by national bodies.
Project revenue sharing is transparent, ensuring governments and local communities are committed to the success and longevity of the project.

3. Next to carbon, all projects apply the highest standards on two key components of permanence:
Biodiversity: ensuring resilience to climate change and disease.
Social: ensuring that local populations are involved and benefit from the project.

Globally the most well-known international registries are Verra, Gold Standard, and ACR. These carbon registries have developed methodologies that outline how to measure the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere or reduced from emissions. Because these methodologies differ, the number of carbon credits generated can differ depending on the registry used. Using these methodologies, they certify and then register carbon credits tracking their issuance, transfer, and retirement.

Among the most reputable carbon verifying bodies, aDryada chooses to certify credits on a project-by-project basis – selecting based on whichever standard is best adapted to the project type and the speed of verification. In order to generate high-quality carbon credits however, aDryada goes beyond these baseline standards to secure real and permanent carbon removal: see carbon approach. It also goes beyond these standards to positively impact Nature and socio-economic development: see our biodiversity and social approach.

aDryada follows international standards and norms like IFC PS, UN Human Rights, and ILO in all projects. We choose these standards because they are adapted to projects in developing countries, where aDryada primarily operates. The IFC PS (International Finance Corporation Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability) are guidelines for project developers to help them identify social and environmental risks and impacts, as well as strategies for the mitigation, avoiding, and managing of such risks and impacts. These guidelines are designed to help ensure business is done in a sustainable way. UN Human Rights are a list of 30 rights the UN has set which all human beings are entitled to. The ILO (International Labor Organization) has created global International Labor Standards which are guidelines set to promote standards and funadamental principles and rights at work (for example, freedom from forced labor).

See how aDryada applies these standards and beyond in the social approach.

In certain scenarios, a company purchasing raw materials from aDryada’s buffer zone or investing directly in an aDryada project, can include these actions in disclosure reports to TNFD (Strategy disclosure B) and EU CSRD (disclosure S3-4, E4-1, E4-2, E4-3):

Scenario 1: Company A has changed its upstream sourcing in order to mitigate climate-related risks, instead purchasing raw material from an aDryada project buffer zone. Most of aDryada’s projects consist of a core restoration zone and a buffer zone. Within the buffer zone, sustainable agroforestry and/or timber production can occur. Purchasing these goods strengthens the company’s value chain by mitigating climate risks and dependencies.

Scenario 2: Company B has mitigated climate-related risks in its agricultural value-chain by investing in a nearby aDryada reforestation project. The restoration of a degraded landscape has various positive impacts for the surrounding areas. As a forest is restored, the environment stabilizes which can in turn lead to improvements in water security, as well as increased resilience to climate change, soil erosion, and severe weather. A company’s investment would thus bolster the resilience of the surrounding environment and the company’s own agricultural value chain.

Technological and nature-based carbon removal are complementary tools to reach the Paris Agreement objectives. While technological carbon removal solutions such as Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) do offer greater permanent storage than Nature-based solutions – lasting millennia instead of centuries – nature restoration remains a crucial key to fighting global climate change:  

  1. Nature-based carbon removal such as reforestation is available at large-scale now.  
    • Of the 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide currently being removed from the atmosphere annually through human intervention, 99.9% is accomplished through reforestation or afforestation projects.  
    • At the same time, there is little availability of technological removal.  
      • To take two cases, BECCS currently offers only 510,000 metric tons of capture per year, and DACCS 4,000 metric tons, as calculated by Oxford University’s 2024 State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report.¹
      • Both these technologies require significant scaling up, at a significant cost. For example, Boston Consulting Group estimates that scaling DACCS to a removal capacity of 1 billion metric tons (half of the current removal achieved through reforestation/afforestation) would require a minimum investment of USD 200 billion.²
  2. Nature-based carbon removal projects remain the most affordable type of removal for companies committed to net zero. 
    • Carbon removal credits through afforestation/reforestation cost USD 10-40 per carbon ton removed, compared to USD 500-1000 through DACCS and USD 60-270 through BECCS, as estimated by McKinsey.
    • Even as prices are expected to rise for NbS removal and lower for BECCS and DACCS by 2050, prices for NbS removal will remain competitive. At the higher end, NbS removal credits are forecasted at USD 90, and with enough investments to scale deployment, BECCS prices may drop between USD 36-162 and DACCS USD 300-600.³
  1. Nature-based carbon removal, when prioritizing biodiversity, offers vast co-benefits.
    • Restoring ecosystems and putting biodiversity at the center of that restoration is crucial for soil health, climate resilience, providing a stable environment for organisms, preventing floods, filtering water, and so forth. These broader benefits make Nature restoration, such as reforestation, an indispensable component of fighting climate change.  

Sources: 

  1. Smith, S. M., Geden, O., Gidden, M. J., Lamb, W. F., Nemet, G. F., Minx, J. C., Buck, H., Burke, J., Cox, E., Edwards, M. R., Fuss, S., Johnstone, I., Müller-Hansen, F., Pongratz, J., Probst, B. S., Roe, S., Schenuit, F., Schulte, I., Vaughan, N. E. (eds.) The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024 – 2nd Edition. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ (2024). 
  2. Azarabadi, Habib, et al. “Shifting the Direct Air Capture Paradigm.” BCG Global, Boston Consulting Group, 20 July 2023.  
  3. Mannion, Peter, et al. McKinsey Sustainability, 2023, Carbon Removals: How to Scale a New Gigaton Industry. 
  4. Axelsson, K., Wagner, A., Johnstone, I., Allen, M., Caldecott, B., Eyre, N., Fankhauser, S., Hale, T., Hepburn, C., Hickey, C., Khosla, R., Lezak, S., Mitchell-Larson, E., Malhi, Y., Seddon, N., Smith, A. and Smith, S.M. 2024. Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting (revised 2024). Oxford: Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford.