Is soil carbon removal or avoidance?

Removal. Regenerative agriculture actively pulls atmospheric CO₂ by increasing soil organic carbon stocks. Typical ranges are 1 to 3 tCO₂e per hectare per year.

Removal and avoidance: do I have to pick one or the other?

No, they are two complementary logics. A balanced portfolio usually combines both: removal for verifiable sequestration and permanence, avoidance for leverage on conservation, energy access and community support. ICVCM and VCMI frameworks validate both families as long as the methodology is sound. What matters is overall integrity (methodology, audit, registry, CCP status) more than the typology itself.

How do I assess a cookstoves project?

Like any project: look at the standard (Gold Standard and Verra with revised methodology), baseline quality, possible CCP-approved status, documented co-benefits (respiratory health, time savings for women, household savings), and registry traceability. Cookstoves bring a strong social narrative complementing a sequestration-focused portfolio. Check in particular that the methodology used is recent (revised methodologies integrate more prudent baselines).

How to verify the removal vs avoidance share of a project?

The project's PDD (Project Design Document), public on the standard's registry, explicitly indicates the credit type. A removal methodology (Verra VM0042 for soils, Gold Standard SOC 402.x for agriculture) is documented as such. Also check the reference scenario: a removal measures a stock increase against a neutral baseline, an avoidance measures emissions avoided against a historical baseline.

What removal/avoidance mix for a €100,000 annual budget?

Several approaches depending on your strategy. Territorial narrative profile: ~70 % nature-based removal (soils, agroforestry, ~70 to 150 €/tCO₂e) + ~30 % high-integrity avoidance (CCP-approved REDD+, Gold Standard cookstoves with recent methodology, ~10 to 20 €/tCO₂e) for large aggregate volume and a rich social narrative. Net-zero profile: ~60 % nature-based removal + ~25 % technology removal (biochar ~150 to 250 €/tCO₂e) + ~15 % high-integrity avoidance. Balanced contribution profile: thirds/thirds/thirds between nature removal, tech removal and avoidance. In all cases, aim at CCP-approved or under-assessment credits. Typical aggregate volume: 700 to 2,000 tCO₂e depending on the mix.

Does the SBTi require a minimum percentage of removal?

Not in the current V1.3, but V2.0 expected in spring 2026 and applicable from 2028 introduces strengthened requirements on the removal share for net-zero claims. SBTi already recommends progressively increasing the removal share as the net-zero deadline (typically 2050) approaches.

📐4 min read

Removal vs avoidance

The two major credit typologies, how to choose and combine

For whom

Corporate buyers building a coherent carbon portfolio.

30-second takeaway

A removal credit actively sequesters CO₂ already emitted. An avoidance credit prevents a future emission. Two complementary logics, each useful in a balanced portfolio.

Carbon credits come in two broad families. The most structuring distinction: are we actively pulling CO₂ from the atmosphere, or preventing it from getting there? Understanding what each one brings helps build a portfolio aligned with your climate strategy.

🌳

Removal: sequesters CO₂ already emitted (soils, forests, biochar, DAC, BECCS).

🛡️

Avoidance: prevents a future emission (REDD+, cookstoves, renewables).

💶

Avoidance: 3 to 15 €/tCO₂e. Removal: 20 to 1000 €/tCO₂e depending on type.

Removal: actively pulling CO₂

A removal credit corresponds to one tonne of CO₂ pulled out of the atmosphere and stored. This category covers a wide diversity of projects. Nature-based: regenerative agricultural soils, agroforestry, new forestry plantings, mangrove restoration, peatland rehabilitation. Technology-based: industrial biochar, Direct Air Capture (DAC) that extracts CO₂ from the atmosphere and stores it underground, BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage) combining bioenergy and capture, accelerated concrete or basalt rock carbonation. The common point: a mass of CO₂ actually removed is measured, and it is stored in an identified sink.

Avoidance: preventing a future emission

An avoidance credit corresponds to a future emission prevented relative to a reference scenario. Main types: avoided deforestation (REDD+), clean cookstoves replacing wood fires in developing countries, renewables substituting fossil plants, industrial energy efficiency. Avoidance finances actions with strong leverage: protecting a threatened forest, giving clean cooking access to millions of households, accelerating low-carbon energy deployment in contexts where it would not be economically viable without the credit. The methodology relies on a reference scenario (baseline) describing what would have happened without the project. Baselines have grown more rigorous in recent years: the Verra VM0048 methodology (2023) for avoided deforestation integrates standardised regional baselines, and several other methodologies are being revised to meet ICVCM expectations.

Two complementary logics, not competing

The two families serve different and complementary objectives. Removal brings verifiable sequestration and long permanence, addressing structural net-zero alignment requirements (EU CRCF regulation, SBTi V2.0 expectations on removals as the net-zero horizon approaches). Avoidance brings leverage on conservation, clean energy access in developing countries, local community support, and a strong social narrative. The ICVCM and VCMI frameworks validate both families as long as the methodology is sound. The question for a buyer is therefore not 'removal or avoidance' but 'which mix fits my strategy, budget and narrative'.

What really matters, beyond removal vs avoidance

The removal/avoidance distinction is not the only quality criterion of a credit. What matters as much, if not more: the methodology + audit + registry triad. A removal credit certified under a weaker methodology is worth less than an avoidance credit certified ICVCM CCP-approved. Conversely, an avoidance credit on an older unrevised methodology weighs less than a recent CCP-approved removal. Reflex: do not filter on removal/avoidance alone, also look at standard, methodology, CCP status, buffer pool, vintage and traceability. These criteria apply equally to both families: a Gold Standard cookstove on a revised methodology and a Gold Standard soil sequestration project are both robust assets.

Prices observed in 2024-2026

Voluntary market prices reflect both typology and methodological quality. For avoidance: REDD+ forest credits between 5 and 15 €/tCO₂e, cookstoves and energy efficiency between 3 and 10 €/tCO₂e. For nature-based removal: afforestation between 20 and 60 €/tCO₂e, Gold Standard agricultural soils between 80 and 200 €/tCO₂e. For technology removal: biochar between 100 and 250 €/tCO₂e, DAC and BECCS between 300 and 1,000 €/tCO₂e. Factors that push prices: CCP-approved status, fine geographic traceability, recent vintage, verifiable co-benefits, top-tier VVB verification. The 2024-2026 trend is a widening gap between high-integrity credits and commodity credits, which are losing value.

Building a portfolio mix

The right reflex is to compose a mixed portfolio rather than betting on a single family. Several mix profiles coexist depending on the strategy. Territorial narrative profile: majority of nature-based removal in France and Europe (soils, agroforestry), with an avoidance share targeted at projects with strong social impact. Global contribution profile: balance between nature-based removal, technology removal for long permanence, and high-integrity avoidance (CCP-approved REDD+, Gold Standard cookstoves) for leverage on conservation and energy access. Strict net-zero profile: rising removal share as the net-zero horizon approaches, with biochar and DAC for long permanence. In all cases, high-integrity avoidance remains a legitimate portfolio component, recognised by ICVCM and VCMI frameworks. Exact split depends on budget, sector, narrative and reporting requirements.

CSRD's ESRS E1-7 explicitly asks to document the removal vs avoidance share of credits used. SBTi V2.0 will also embed a strengthened requirement. In practice, in your report, indicate for each project: tCO₂e volume, type (nature-based removal / technology removal / avoidance), geography, standard, vintage, CCP status. And at portfolio level: the aggregate removal vs avoidance share as a percentage of tonnes acquired. This information reassures the auditor and the investor, and signals a strategy aware of market evolution.

In practice

Always ask for the removal vs avoidance share of a portfolio before buying. This must appear in your ESRS E1-7 report.