Restore the Earth Foundation Outlines What High-Integrity Buyers Now Expect from Nature-Based Carbon Removals

EASTON, MD, USA, September 11th, 2026, FinanceWire

Restore the Earth Foundation identifies key buyer expectations for nature-based removals, including baselines, land tenure, leakage, ecology, and readiness.

REF project on the Gulf Coast, native cypress reforestation from 2016-2017. Credit: Restore the Earth Foundation.

Restore the Earth Foundation, Inc. (“REF”) today outlined a practical framework for how nature-based carbon removal projects can respond to the increasing expectations of high-integrity buyers, funders, and technical evaluators.

As the voluntary carbon market becomes more selective, buyers are placing greater emphasis on project quality, delivery risk, and long-term credibility. For restoration based carbon removals, this means that projects are increasingly assessed not only on projected carbon volume, but also on the quality of their baseline, land tenure, leakage analysis, ecological design, monitoring approach, and commercial readiness.

REF believes this shift is necessary for the responsible scaling of nature based removals in the United States.

“Buyers are asking more informed questions, and we see that as a positive sign of a maturing market,” said Taylor Marshall, Executive Director of Restore the Earth Foundation. “A restoration project should not be evaluated only by the number of trees planted or the headline carbon estimate. It should be evaluated by the strength of the project design, the quality of the land reforestation , the monitoring plan, the ecological best practices, and the ability to deliver over time.”

One area receiving increased attention is the use of dynamic baselines. In carbon project design, a baseline describes what would likely happen in the absence of the project. A dynamic baseline can adjust over time to reflect changing conditions, land use patterns, ecological risks, and observed landscape trends. For buyers, this can help reduce the risk that credits are issued against an outdated or unrealistic baseline.

Dynamic baselines are especially relevant for restoration projects in landscapes that can be affected by flooding, degradation, land use pressure, invasive species, or changing climate conditions. In these settings, project developers must be able to explain not only what they intend to restore, but also what would have happened without intervention.

Land tenure and long term stewardship are also significant in amplifying buyer confidence. Restoration projects can take decades to mature. If the land structure is weak, unclear, or dependent only on short term commitments, the project may face higher permanence and delivery risk. Conservation easements, long term landowner agreements, public private conservation structures, and clear environmental attribute rights can help strengthen the legal and operational foundation of a project when properly designed.

“Permanence starts with the land,” Marshall said. “If the land structure does not support long term restoration, it becomes difficult to support long term carbon claims. Buyers increasingly understand that carbon integrity is linked to land governance, long term stewardship responsibilities, and a practical, trusted implementation capacity.”

Leakage is another area of growing scrutiny. Leakage occurs when project activity reduces emissions or increases removals in one location but causes emissions or degradation to increase elsewhere. For example, if restoration displaces an existing land use without addressing the underlying economic activity, some of the climate benefits may be undermined. High integrity projects therefore need a credible leakage assessment and a clear explanation of how risks are avoided, reduced, or accounted for. High level project integrity with true ecological outcomes and benefits are also becoming a more prominent buyer expectation. Nature based removals are strongest when carbon outcomes are aligned with native ecosystem recovery, biodiversity, water, soil, and resilience benefits. Projects based on inappropriate species selection or monocultures, weak site suitability analysis, or simplified planting models may face greater ecological and reputational risk. REF’s view is that restoration based removals should be grounded in mother nature’s best practices - native species, land suitability, and long term biodiversity and ecological function.

Commercial readiness is another important test. Buyers and funders increasingly want to understand whether a project can move from concept to implementation and delivery with efficiency. This requires clear project boundaries, credible carbon projections, implementation plans, financial models, monitoring systems, risk management, stakeholder engagement, and documentation that can withstand technical diligence.

For REF, these expectations point toward a more disciplined phase of market development. Nature based removals can provide climate, biodiversity, water, soil, and community benefits, but only when projects are structured with the same seriousness expected of long term environmental infrastructure.

“The market is moving toward quality execution,” Marshall added. “That means restoration organizations need to show how a project will be governed, monitored, financed, and maintained. The strongest projects will be those that combine ecological credibility with commercial and technical rigor.”

REF works with public, private, and technical partners to support landscape scale restoration projects that can connect landowners, conservation best practices, implementation capacity, monitoring, and environmental attribute development. REF focuses on native ecosystem restoration, resilience, biodiversity, and long term environmental outcomes, including carbon and other environmental attributes where appropriate.

The increasing expectations of buyers may create a higher bar for project developers, but REF believes this is ultimately beneficial for the sector and a sign of maturation. Stronger standards can help distinguish credible restoration platforms from projects that rely on broad claims without sufficient technical, legal, or operational support.

“High integrity buyers are not only purchasing a projected tonne,” Marshall said. “They are assessing whether the project is real, durable, well governed, and capable of delivering the benefits it claims. That is the discipline the market needs and we welcome it.”

REF expects buyer scrutiny around dynamic baselines, permanence, leakage, ecological integrity, and commercial readiness to remain central to the future of U.S. nature based carbon removals. As the market matures, restoration projects that can demonstrate these attributes may be better positioned to attract long term offtake, investment, and institutional support.

About Restore the Earth Foundation

Restore the Earth Foundation, Inc. is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization focused on large-scale ecosystem restoration, native reforestation, and environmental resilience. REF works with public, private, and technical partners to restore degraded landscapes, support biodiversity and ecosystem services, and develop long-term environmental outcomes, including carbon and other environmental attributes where appropriate.

Contact