Alex MacGillivray

Carbon credits may dominate the headlines, but Southeast Asia has an even bigger opportunity: biodiversity credits. As rePLANET recent recommendations show, these credits go beyond carbon—capturing ecosystem integrity, species richness, and resilience. More importantly, they can channel sustainable finance into conservation and community-based businesses, turning one-time grants into investable, scalable models. If designed well—with clear metrics, policy backing, and market transparency—biodiversity credits could become a powerful tool to align capital, conservation, and sustainable livelihoods across the region. The future of climate finance isn’t just carbon—it’s nature positive. https://lnkd.in/gERUwjcW

80

4 Comments

If you're working in the climate sector in Pakistan, please read 'Shifting from 'sustainability’ to regeneration' by Bill Reed (2007). Sustainability is not our North Star. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda is a set of guidelines for conditions that should exist anyway (basic education and healthcare?). If you are genuinely working toward delivering impact or building better futures, you need to start considering regeneration. Green growth is still growth, and it is not going to save us. Unchecked growth itself is reminiscent of cancer, and we can't keep justifying ideals of competing with global economic standards (for what?). Pakistan has been proper suffering ever since I developed ears as a fetus. How long are we going to let the oligarchy co-opt climate action on top of everything else that they already control? Climate action cannot be undemocratic. Climate action cannot exclude the very demographic it affects. Climate action cannot be based on 'green investments and growth'. Climate action must be regenerative, and I am tired of classical Pakistani narratives of victimization while we weaken communities further through oligarchic urban design and expansion. Read about regeneration. Image: Trajectory of Environmentally Responsible Design (Bill Reed, 2007).

90

8 Comments

Biochar can transform agricultural waste into value, not just for carbon sequestration, but also for its broader agronomic and socio-economic benefits. In a recent conversation with Axel Reinaud, Co-founder and CEO of NetZero, a start-up focused on scaling biochar as a nature-based solution for carbon removal, we explored how this can create a win-win:  Climate impact: Long-term carbon removal from the atmosphere  Economic value: Benefits for farmers and local industries through improved soil health, higher crop yields, and the creation of new jobs  Environmental benefits: Reduced fertilizer use and diverting biomass from open burning, resulting in decreased water and air pollution.    NetZero is deploying this model in Brazil and Cameroon and is evaluating expansion to other emerging markets in tropical regions, where agricultural conditions and feedstock availability are similar. The company’s approach emphasizes crop-specific pilots, such coffee, sugarcane, and rice, with a focus on demonstrating replicable benefits before scaling to new regions. In Asia Pacific, where agricultural systems face growing exposure to extreme weather events, solutions like biochar can enhance climate resilience and agricultural productivity. However, widespread adoption will likely require continued agronomic validation, greater awareness, and integration into existing value chains. Many thanks to Axel for the thoughtful discussion, and for sharing a grounded perspective on building scalable climate impact from the ground up. 

92

🌍 Why every board needs a Transition Plan Scorecard 1️⃣ A transition plan is more than compliance it’s a strategy to thrive in a low-carbon economy. 2️⃣ It helps boards assess how well they’re tackling climate risks and opportunities. 3️⃣ The TPT Scorecard is a practical tool with 20 questions across 4 stages: Assess, Set Ambition, Plan, Implement. 4️⃣ It guides directors in aligning business strategy with climate action. 5️⃣ Completing it helps capture diverse board perspectives and build stronger discussions. 6️⃣ It highlights gaps and challenges, ensuring boards stay future-ready. 7️⃣ It can be used repeatedly, supporting the iterative nature of transition planning. 8️⃣ The results help benchmark your readiness against best practices. 9️⃣ It’s designed to encourage constructive debate, not just tick-box answers. 🔟 Ideally, the whole board should complete it because climate action is a collective responsibility. 👉 A great tool to have in your boardroom conversations. Would you encourage your board to try this? 💬

46

1 Comment

🔍 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝. A new report by VCMI & Accenture reveals why business confidence in voluntary carbon markets is faltering, and what it will take to restore it. 📉 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 3𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. Even as 1.5°C slips away, businesses are pulling back — not because they don’t care, but because they don’t trust the system. 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬: • Confusion from fragmented rules and voluntary standards • Credit quality & integrity concerns, even with ICVCM progress • CFOs demanding hard ROI, not soft intentions • Fear of reputational risk outweighing climate ambition 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 — 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬: ✅ Advance climate, nature, and social goals ✅ De-risk operations (e.g. EU Deforestation Reg) ✅ Show sector leadership with credible climate action ✅ Hedge future liabilities with strategic credit procurement 💡 What businesses want is simple: 🔹 Clarity – What’s allowed? What counts? 🔹 Alignment – Between frameworks, regions, and rules 🔹 Stability – So they can plan 5, 10, 25 years ahead 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 — 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵. #CarbonMarkets #VCMI #VoluntaryCarbonMarket #ClimateFinance #SustainabilityStrategy #NatureBasedSolutions #ESGLeadership #NetZero #HighIntegrityOffsets #Article6 #CarbonCreditQuality #ClimateAction #CFOsForClimate

41

5 Comments

The Voluntary reporting standard for SMEs (VSME) will/can/might be the new default way of sustainability reporting for SMEs and mid-sized companies in Europe, given the drastically reduced scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). What climate-related metrics do companies need to report under the VSME? 👉 In the Basic Module (B3) - Total energy consumption (renewable vs. non-renewable) - GHG emissions: scope 1 and scope 2 location-based - GHG intensity - Optionally, scope 3 GHG emissions if appropriate 👉 In the Comprehensive Module (C3, C4) - GHG reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 (scope 3 is optional, see above) - Climate risks and their potential impact on financial performance Personally, I’m relieved to see that core climate metrics are embedded in the VSME (as-is emissions, targets and risk assessments). However, the optional nature and vagueness around scope 3 reporting remains a disappointment. Source: https://lnkd.in/eKAPJgfV

52

7 Comments