We have made it part of our mission to deliver transparency through technology. This means that we do our best to develop the tools our members need to evaluate the impact of our rewilding and reforestation efforts for themselves. Being open and transparent in this way helps us develop trust and to get members engaged with our projects at a deeper level. Here we explain the different measures we take for this to work. 

For each and every one of our planting areas, we map the area and record the number of trees planted and the species mix. We also provide drone flyover footage, aerial 360 images, images of each species planted and a biologist walkthrough video of the planting areas soon after planting, which is available for members and customers to view through their accounts. 

Our aim is for users to be able to see where trees have been planted and how that fits in with the wider landscape restoration efforts. There is also the possibility for any member or customer to visit the planting area themselves and verify in person that the trees have been planted. Some of them are quite a way out there in the wilderness but it makes for a fun hike!

For logistical and financial reasons, we plant our trees in batches and always finish assigning each batch of trees before moving on to the next batch to ensure additionality. For practical reasons, we are only able to provide the video footage and imagery of one planting area - the area where the majority of trees are being assigned - in a single month.

All of our planting areas are mapped and, for each tree planted, the location of the planting area where it is located is made available in the membership accounts, alongside tree numbers and species lists. They are also uploaded to the online project maps, which can be found on each of our project pages, so that anyone can see the entire suite of planting areas for each project. 

To compliment the detailed imagery we gather at each planting area immediately after planting, we aim to return after an appropriate period of time, depending on the growth rates at the project, to repeat the process and gather "before" and "after" photos. In doing so, members will be able to see how the forest has grown and changed over time.

Every reforestation and rewilding project is an ongoing story and an important part of being transparent is keeping our members up to date with what is happening in the field. Updates can include recent camera trap footage of the local wildlife, a new podcast with someone that’s involved with the project or a simple description of progress. We strive to give you a clear picture of what is happening and the team is always available to answer any questions as they come up.

There is still plenty of work to be done to get to the level of transparency we hope to have. For now, if you have any questions or would like to book a call with us simply reach out to us on livechat or by email and we will get all your questions answered. 

We take trust and transparency very seriously. In addition to our current measures, we have quite a few ambitious features we are working on. 

Trust and Transparency

Reforestation projects come in many forms, from the creation of urban green spaces to large-scale monoculture plantations. At the heart of every Mossy Earth reforestation project is a simple but powerful goal - to restore native, wild forests. That means we only support projects that plant native trees where they would grow naturally. We typically plant on land owned by our partners under various states of protection.  Before deciding whether to support a project, we carry out a systematic selection process and check that the project meets the following criteria.

Does the project help restore ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation and combat climate change?

We support projects that aim to restore ecosystem services, conserve biodiversity and combat and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Our reforestation projects are not just about increasing tree cover. We look for projects that take into account species diversity and functionality, how trees can provide ecosystem services like soil stabilization and water purification, and their role in providing habitat for local flora and fauna. We also look for projects that consider how the project can help combat and mitigate climate change. Not all reforestation projects are equal and improper design can actually contribute to increased carbon emissions. Our reforestation projects are an important part of our wider rewilding efforts, which is why we select reforestation projects that will, above all, help to rewild degraded landscapes. 

Is the ecological problem and proposed solution supported by sound scientific evidence and ecological theory?

Each project must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the ecological problem and outline how the project activities will address these issues. The cost of inaction should be clear and in line with our objective to restore wild forests. In order to ensure that our members’ support has the greatest possible impact, we only support projects that are grounded in science. That means that project objectives and activities are supported by strong scientific evidence and monitoring. 

Does the project fit with the wider context of landscape restoration for the region/area? 

Rewilding degraded landscapes is at the heart of our reforestation projects. Our reforestation projects therefore take a landscape-scale approach to restoration. Our trees and planting areas are not treated in isolation, but rather as a whole. This means that when making decisions on what species to plant, where and how to plant them, we take into consideration how these activities will shape the wider landscape. 

Does the approach display an understanding of the drivers of forest loss and have they been addressed? 

In order to effectively restore forest landscapes, it is essential that the drivers of deforestation and degradation have been addressed. Whether it was land clearing for agriculture, harvesting for timber or high densities of herbivores, projects should address the threats that drove the original forest to decline. The project should also identify and  address any new threats that could prevent future declines in forest cover and habitat quality of the newly restored forests. 

Once a project has been selected, a reforestation management plan is drawn up to outline the particular objectives and activities of the project. We identify what tree species will be planted, where, when and the appropriate planting methodology for the site. The species are selected for diversity, functionality and site specific requirements. Across our projects the specific details of the project vary in line with the ecological context. Things like tree diversity and density vary between the different forest types, from the relatively diverse woodlands at our Irish and Scottish projects to the more homogenous conifer forests of the high-altitude Southern Carpathians. We plant our trees in large batches during the best planting season, which may vary depending on the site conditions, to maximise efficiency and survival rates. While some of our projects source their trees from independent nurseries, others grow the trees in their own nurseries. 

Regardless of these differences, one thing our projects all have in common is that decisions are made to maximise the probability that our newly restored forests will survive in the long-term. That’s why across our projects we identify a time period after planting in which to replant any saplings that don’t survive. This period varies between 3-10 years and is intended to balance maximising sapling survival and the natural dynamics of the ecosystem. After this initial replanting period, tree mortality is accepted as a natural part of a healthy functioning forest ecosystem or, in extreme cases, the result of an unforeseen natural disaster (e.g. fire or disease outbreak). Another common thread across our projects is a reliance on local employment rather than volunteers for the land preparation and planting activities. It's important to us that local communities benefit from a rewilded landscape, which is why we make sure our projects provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the local community. 

All our planting areas are mapped and stored in a GIS system. This enables us to monitor survival rates and other ecological indicators of forest health in the long term. Survival rates are determined from a sample of the population and used to inform replanting numbers. Tree numbers and species lists are also recorded for each planting area alongside a sample of aerial and tree imagery and made available to members and uploaded to public project maps. These photos will serve as “before” photos to compare against future photos, enabling us to visually monitor tree growth. Since rewilding is a core objective of our reforestation projects we also monitor the wildlife that occurs in the project area. Given the limited capacity for young forests to support wildlife, camera traps are installed in locations within the project area that offer better quality habitat and are close to where we are planting. This allows us to record the species that will benefit from increased forest cover, habitat quality and connectivity. 

How can I be sure you are planting my trees?

Transparency is paramount to us and we go to great lengths to ensure that you are able to evaluate our work, including the polygon of the planting area, aerial imagery and videos of the newly planted areas and monthly updates. As a member, you can also contact us to chat with the team to answer any questions you might have. In addition to this we are working on some additional measures we hope to launch in due time such as live-streaming planting, detailed mapping, 360 degree photos and aerial imagery.

Once the trees have left the safety and comfort of the nursery and are planted out in the field, they are very susceptible to harsh weather conditions, disease, competition and more and unfortunately some of them will die. During this challenging time, which can be up to 3-10 years after planting depending on the project, we commit to replanting any dead trees. After that, we accept further tree mortality as a natural part of a healthy forest ecosystem, with dead wood playing an important role in providing habitat for a variety of species.

Will I be able to know which tree I had planted?

We know that every single tree makes a real difference to environmental preservation but that it is the forest, not the individual tree, that ultimately matters.  As such, we photograph and map out planting area, keep track of them internally, and provide detailed information to our members and customers. We do not mark or label our trees in any way.

How accurate are the maps and can I really find my tree?

Mapping will always have some degree of error, but it our polygons will enable us to accurately represent our restoration efforts and re-visit sites in future for monitoring purposes. 

We take a systematic approach to restore forests from selecting our partners all the way through to implementation and monitoring.  All our projects restore native, wild forests and are grounded in science. 

Reforestation Methodology

Calculate Your Footprint

Carbon footprint calculator

A personal carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an individual over a period of time.

Below you will find an in depth breakdown of the scientific research used to build our carbon footprint calculator as well as a full list of the references used. You can also listen to our podcast episode below where we talk about how the calculator works, how Tiago went about building it and share some interesting principles to help you lower your footprint effectively. 

Our Carbon Calculator - The Mossy Earth Podcast

Carbon footprints are measured in the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2e, the standard unit used to quantify greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this unit actually represent?

There are 7 major greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Some of these gases lead to more warming than others for the same amount released into the atmosphere. This is reflected in a unit called the global warming potential which allows the emissions of these greenhouse gases to be converted into the amount of CO2 that would lead to the same amount of warming over a 100 year period. Using a standard unit makes it much easier to compare the impact of activities that emit different greenhouse gases.

Emission factors are essential for estimating a carbon footprint, they measure the CO2e emissions per unit of activity. For example, driving a car for 1 km leads to the emission of 0.04 kg of CO2e.

Life cycle analysis is an approach to assess the environmental impact of a product or activity throughout its entire life cycle. For example, to estimate the carbon footprint of a smartphone you would need to assess the extraction and processing of raw materials, the manufacturing, transport, use and end of life of this product. Such in-depth studies are what allow us to estimate the carbon footprint of different products or activities and add them to your footprint in the calculator.

Estimating the carbon footprint of all you eat is not a simple task. However, enough research has been done that we can arrive at a good estimate. The carbon footprint associated with a range of food products has been estimated through life cycle analysis.

By combining the emission factors of different foods (i.e. the CO2e emitted per amount consumed) by the average consumption rate among people following different diets we can estimate dietary carbon footprints. Several independent studies have followed this approach and although they arrive at different values, there is broad consensus on one finding: the lower the consumption of animal products the smaller the dietary carbon footprint. However, until recently, most studies ignored how food consumption is driving the replacement of native vegetation and soils (which are an important carbon sink) for agricultural land and how this increases the carbon footprint of food. In a recent study (1) this effect has been incorporated into a mathematical model leading to new estimates of dietary footprints which are the values we use in our simple carbon footprint calculator.

Buying local food and reducing food miles has received much attention as a measure to reduce carbon emissions. However simply buying local food may not reduce emissions as one might expect. In some cases, less carbon is emitted by producing food elsewhere and transporting it to where you live than to grow it locally where conditions may be unfavourable. E.g. green house grown tomatoes in the UK winter vs Spanish tomatoes. Being mindful of where food comes from is still an important part of reducing our dietary footprint. In particular, avoiding food that is flown in and buying food that is both local and seasonal avoids many of these issues.

Transport has been estimated to account for about 11% of the food emissions associated with an average American diet (2) and 6% of an average global diet (3). From this we assume that, at most, by eating exclusively local and seasonal food could amount to a reduction of about 700 kg of CO2e per year.

Food waste increases an individual’s carbon footprint in two ways.

First, by buying more food than necessary all the emissions associated with producing, transporting, packaging and preparing this additional food can be substantial. This accounts for the majority of emissions associated with domestic food waste.

Second, after you dispose of food it needs to be transported, processed and managed and this leads to additional end of life emissions. The study we used to obtain the estimates for dietary carbon footprints (1) assumes that the rate at which food that would normally be eaten is thrown away is 13% and that this accounts for about 10% of the diet’s footprint. Since emissions will be directly proportional to the amount of food wasted we can use this to adjust the dietary footprints above to specific amounts of food waste. For example, for someone that eats meat a few meals per week, their dietary carbon footprint will range from 5.9 tonnes of (CO2e if they waste 0 -10% of the food they buy) to 7.6 (if they waste 20 -30%).

When materials are recycled rather than being sent to landfill, their use prevents the emissions needed to extract and process the raw materials needed to make new products and packaging. However, the additional transport and processing associated with recycling does also lead to further emissions.

We estimated the net carbon footprint savings associated with recycling comprehensively based on the latest official UK statistics on waste (4) lead to a value of 100 kg of CO2e per year, which is comparable to the values reported in another study (5).

To calculate emissions from flying we need to know the distance you fly over a year and multiply it by the appropriate emission factor (i.e. the estimate of greenhouse gas emissions per amount of distance travelled). We use the emission factors provided by the latest official report (6) by the UK Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Several emission factors are provided, so here we explain which ones we use in the calculator and why.

We choose to use emission factors that take into account the stronger warming effect of emissions by air travel compared to other sources. There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that air travel emissions occur at higher altitudes. There is currently no consensus on the magnitude of these effects, but it is expected to be large. All our calculations use a radiative forcing index of 1.9 as recommended by the BEIS (6) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. See this article  for a discussion of radiative forcing in aviation, and for a justification of the 1.9 multiplier see the BEIS report (6).

We have chosen emission factors provided for International flights as this is a summary measure that will provide the best estimate of the emission factor for a user without specifying the exact route or location.  

 We use cabin-class specific emission factors. Passengers using more spacious seating are accountable for a greater share of the aircraft’s emissions. If the space taken up by first class seats was used by economy class seats the number of passengers on the airplane could increase such that each one would be accountable for a smaller share of the total emissions. Since emission factors differ widely among different classes, it is very important to include this component in our simple carbon footprint calculator.

To estimate emissions associated with car transport we use the latest emission factors provided by BEIS (6). These are different depending on car type (Diesel, Petrol, Hybrid ,PHEV or Electric) and car size (small, medium or large). For electric cars we further adjust these emission factors based on the country and/or state of residence. Emissions associated with electricity consumption vary widely between countries and states because of the way electricity is produced, so this is a very important part of estimating the carbon footprint of driving an electric car. To illustrate, driving a medium sized electric car for 20,000 km in a year would be associated with the emission of a tonne of CO2e if electricity was bought in the UK, half a tonne if bought in Vermont, USA and about 18 tonnes if bought in Wyoming USA. We further adjust for the % of energy derived from renewable energy (see electricity emission factors below). For some countries we do not have specific emission factors in which case we use the global average.

To estimate the share of emissions you are accountable for due to car transportation we divide the total amount emitted by the car by the number of passengers.

As with cars, we use the latest emission factors for motorbike driving provided in the government BEIS report (6).

For transport by train we use the emission factor provided for national rail (6) and assume an average speed of 100 km/h

Since the difference between the emission factors provided by for light rail and London Underground are very small (6), we combine the two into a single category and use an average emission factor. We assume an average speed of 20 km/h based on data from The European Research Advisory Council. (7)

To estimate home energy emissions, we have built a database with country specific emission factors and average energy consumption levels from multiple sources (1-13).

If you chose to introduce the exact kwh of electricity you consumed (based on your electricity bill), we multiply this by the country-specific emission factor (if available, otherwise a global average) to estimate the emissions. If you choose to estimate your consumption based on averages, we assign you the average electricity consumption in your country and adjust this value depending on whether you think your consumption is above or below average. To determine above or below average consumption values we take into account studies that have analysed how much variation in electricity consumption there is between households (14).  

If all the energy you use at home comes from renewable sources, we use the average emission factors for wind, solar and hydroelectric energy production provided by the IPCC (15). Although emission factors for these sources are very low, they still require infrastructure development and introduce changes in the landscape and so are not emission free. If a percentage of your electricity comes from renewable sources, the final emission factor used will be a weighted average of your country's emission factor and the one of renewable energy.

To arrive at the personal footprint from home energy we estimate the total emissions for the household and divide it by the number of household members. . 

If you provide the exact consumption levels of natural gas, LPG, burning oil or wood, we estimate the emissions using the latest emission factors for each fuel (6). If you choose to estimate your consumption based on averages, we use the typical consumption values reported for European countries (16). As for electricity we split the emissions equally among household members. 

The unsustainability of fast fashion has deservedly received much attention in recent years. Each clothing item has a carbon footprint and frequent buying can have a substantial impact. The Carbon Trust provides a detailed analysis of the carbon footprint of clothing items (17). From this we estimate the average carbon footprint of an item of clothing at 3 kg of CO2e and get the yearly total by multiplying it by the number of items bought. Note that this excludes the use phase emissions associated with washing and drying because these are covered in the home energy part of your footprint.

The estimates of the carbon footprint of electronic products used in our carbon footprint calculator are taken from a recent study where the average lifecycle emissions of common items has been analysed (18).

If you bought a car over the last year, we add the carbon footprint of manufacturing it (19) to your personal carbon footprint. Although you may continue to use the car in the future, this gives you a better idea of where your car’s emissions come from (production versus driving).

Your results email should give an idea of what actions will provide the greatest bang for your buck in terms of lowering your carbon footprint. However, knowing your footprint can raise more questions than it answers. You may be wondering how low your carbon footprint would have to be to prevent the worst climate change scenarios. Below are some guidelines to help you understand the broader context of your results.

To arrive at a carbon footprint target it makes sense to start by thinking about the consequences of climate change. It is only based on this information that you can judge how much this crisis matters to you and what you are willing to do to address it.

The infographic below summarises the predicted impact of different climate change scenarios. It's based on the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C which assessed the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature to provide a coherent picture of what may lie ahead.

One aspect that stands out from comparing the scenarios is that the difference between 1.5 °C and 2 °C is huge. Taking one example, the research suggests that in this half of a degree lies the difference between essentially all coral reefs disappearing or not. This is why the Paris agreement aims to keep global warming well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to try to limit it to 1.5 °C.

Inforgraphic describing the predicted impact of different climate change scenarios. 

Based on the above, it is fair to say that half a degree matters, but what kind of changes do we need to make to reach these carbon footprint targets?

One way to think about this problem is to estimate a global carbon budget. This represents the maximum amount of greenhouse gases that the world population can emit while preventing global warming beyond 1.5 to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Although it is a simple concept, the carbon budget is difficult to estimate.

To address this, scientists from all around the world have been running complex simulation models that allow them to predict how the climate will respond to different emission scenarios.

While there is no question that rapid action is required, it is hard to know how much of the budget we have left. Some studies suggest we have already exhausted it while others predict that this will only occur in a couple of decades.

Still, by considering all the possible scenarios, we can get an idea of the emission reductions we need.

How does my footprint fit into the picture?

To understand how our personal footprint fits into this global picture requires a few extra considerations.

First, we have to divide the budget by the predicted world population size at each moment in time.

Second, we have to take into account the fact that individual lifestyle choices and consumption only account for part of all emissions. This is expected to be around 72% of global emissions based on a research article that looked at these proportions at the global level.

A recent report combined all this information to arrive at some very useful targets. This plot shows you the personal carbon footprint limits, in tonnes of CO2e per year, that are consistent with the Paris Agreement targets.

There are a few things to keep in mind when comparing your carbon footprint to these targets. First, unlike our carbon footprint calculator, they assume that individuals are not accountable for the land use change associated with food consumption. If these components were included, the targets would be slightly less strict.

Second, this is just one of the many ways in which the carbon budget can be spread out over time. As shown by the graph on the left, the later we start reducing our emissions the steeper the reductions have to be to stay on target. Conversely, the slower we are to change, the greater the burden we are leaving for the future.

Despite the caveats, these carbon footprint targets should give you a good idea of the kind of change that needs to take place and how your personal carbon footprint fits into the bigger picture.

Most people in wealthy nations will be well above these targets but that should not be demotivating, here are 5 reasons why.

1. The higher your footprint the more opportunities to have a big impact

If you have a large carbon footprint there are probably many different lifestyle changes that you can make that will have a big impact. Therefore, it is more likely that you will be able to slice your footprint substantially without much effort at all by choosing the measures that you can implement right now.

The relationship between emissions and climate change is continuous by its very nature so don’t get too bogged down by the targets. While we aim for 1.5 °C things get progressively worse at 2, 3 and 4 °C. It is never a lost battle, it is an ongoing one where every bit counts!

3. There are many ways to fight the climate crisis

For some people it can be very hard to implement the necessary lifestyle changes. However they can still take action on the climate by means of their influence on society. This can be achieved through voting, activism, investment in climate solutions, divestment from polluting industries and talking about the issue with family and friends to list just a few. Although we can’t accurately measure the impact of many of these measures it doesn’t mean they are less important. On top of this, by becoming a mossy earth member you can plant 40 native trees per year which will be absorbing carbon dioxide for years to come.  

Some people are happy to make big sudden lifestyle changes to lower their footprint. However, for most, a steady incremental approach probably works best. What matters is what you achieve on average and in the long-term so it is important to aim for sustainable habit changes.

5. You don’t have to be a climate saint to have an impact

Which lifestyle changes have the biggest impact and which are the hardest to implement will vary a lot from person to person (to learn some of the reasons why check out our podcast). Navigating this map of opportunities is a personal process and you shouldn’t feel like a hypocrite if you are making big changes in one part of your lifestyle but not another.

Accurately measure your carbon footprint using our simple carbon footprint calculator. It strikes the right balance between scientific accuracy and ease of use.

Carbon Footprint Calculator

The methodology behind our Carbon Footprint Calculator 

The aims of rewilding resonate with a lot of people, however not everyone has the time or knowledge required to assess the value and feasibility of different interventions. That’s why we have developed a rewilding project selection process that ensures that our member’s support has the greatest possible impact. Here we let you in on this process so that you can understand how we work and feel confident that these projects are worthwhile. Before deciding whether to support a rewilding project, we carry out a systematic selection process and check if the project meets the following criteria.

To be suitable, the project must aim to achieve one or more of these objectives that are central to rewilding. 

Improve habitat integrity and connectivity        	

Restore biodiversity and/or abundance of native species

We also favour rewilding projects that can demonstrate broader socio-economic and environmental benefits, such as:

Provide greater economic value to local communities

Prevent spread of invasive species, floods and soil degradation  

Interventions on an ecosystem can have cascading consequences on many species and processes. And this is exactly the reason small rewilding projects are a powerful tool for restoration. However, this complexity often makes it difficult to predict the impact of an intervention. Therefore, a good rewilding project will back up predictions with scientific evidence and acknowledge remaining uncertainties. 

If the rewilding project aims to implement a novel intervention for which there is limited empirical evidence, the rationale should be based on ecological theory and properly referenced. In this situation, it is crucial to evaluate unwanted impacts and how to deal with them should they occur (see adaptive approach below). Although it may be tempting to focus only on scaling up well studied interventions, we think innovation is necessary if we are to reap the full potential of rewilding. Therefore, we also value well thought out research projects that will provide the evidence we need to make rewilding efforts more effective.  

In all cases we also consider what would happen if we did not support the project to understand if there really is a clear cost of inaction. By assessing additionality in this way, we can determine the extent to which the positive impacts actually result from the support of our members.

Does the project fit with the wider context of ecological restoration for the area?

Even small-scale rewilding projects should be carried out with the big picture in mind. If a species is being released or translocated, is there enough habitat to support it? What consequences will this have beyond the site level? Failure to consider the broader picture could lead to ineffective projects or conflict with stakeholders. To prevent this, we only support projects that make sense within the context of ecological restoration and conservation of the area where they are implemented.  

Are the actual drivers of ecological degradation addressed?

For projects to be successful in the long term it is important that the problems that led to the original issue are addressed. For example, efforts to re-introduce a top predator in an area where its demise was the result of a declining prey population are bound to fail if prey numbers don’t increase. Similarly, if human-wildlife conflict was the issue that originally drove a species away, measures must be in place to mitigate this problem.

Is there a sound strategy to monitor the impact of the project and effectively change practices based on incoming data?

Nature can be messy and unpredictable and so we must be flexible as we give it a helping hand. Possible outcomes should be considered before implementation so that practices can be changed quickly when challenges come up. However, if the primary goal of the project is to test an intervention for research purposes, being consistent with the methodology is often more important and changes should only be made to avoid negative consequences. Essentially, projects should be designed in a way that ensures that they either implement a successful intervention or, if this fails for some unexpected reason, they still provide an important lesson that will be useful to advance rewilding research.

Once the projects have gone through our selection process, we allow our members to vote on which of them will be implemented. By getting our members involved in this process we ensure that we are supporting the initiatives that are most interesting and meaningful for them. However, since we have chosen every project option carefully with our selection process we know that whichever project wins is worth implementing. 

As soon as the rewilding project is chosen, we create a management plan with our partners where we agree on a specific timeline for the intervention and monitoring. From this point on, we do our best to take our members on the journey that is the implementation of an exciting rewilding project. We keep them up to date with the progress and share any data, photos and videos as they come in. At this point, we also provide opportunities for members to gain first-hand knowledge of what rewilding and ecological restoration entails and to get a more personal interaction with the amazing people that are doing this work. Through our Q&A sessions and podcasts we hope to make every member feel that they are part of the team.

A significant amount of our rewilding work relies on the use of technology. The two types of technology we work with the most are camera traps and wildlife tracking technology. Both of these allow us to monitor wildlife populations in very different ways. Camera traps are a non-invasive tool, placed systematically or randomly in the field to capture images or videos of the local wildlife or target species. These cameras can be used to gather species lists for an area, species richness estimates, behavioural data and even estimates of population size. Electronic trackers, in contrast, require individual animals to be trapped and fitted with an appropriate tracker (collars, harnesses, tags etc.) to monitor their movements and behaviour over time. Certain types of data can only be collected using this kind of technology, in which case a more invasive approach may be necessary to provide vital data for the conservation of the target species.     

Rewilding is an approach to conservation that aims to restore ecosystem processes and return degraded landscapes to ecologically dynamic healthy ecosystems. It is based on the premise that nature can take care of itself. We can, however, give it a helping hand and create the right conditions by restoring vital ecosystem processes like predation, grazing, regeneration and decomposition. Rewilding is therefore about reducing human control over the land. It does not mean removing people from the land entirely. In fact, in these wilder landscapes, people and planet can flourish together.

How can rewilding help fight climate change?

Rewilding offers an opportunity to combat and mitigate the current ecological and climate crisis. Functioning ecosystems can provide vital ecosystem services such as oxygen production, water purification and flood prevention as well as providing food, medicine and valuable resources. They can also regulate the climate. For example, planting trees can help sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. Restoring predator-prey dynamics can ease browsing pressure on forests, helping support natural regeneration and carbon sequestration. These are just some of the ways rewilding can help fight climate change.  

Can rewilding help prevent the 6th mass extinction?

By restoring ecosystems, rewilding can contribute to the conservation of vulnerable species at risk of falling victim to the world’s 6th mass extinction. By restoring habitats, reintroducing keystone species, reconnecting isolated populations, reconstructing food chains, and all the other benefits of rewilding, we can help prevent more species from going extinct. 

I want to learn more about rewilding? What should I do?

You can delve into the wonderful world of rewilding through our rewilding page where we’ve published a variety of different articles on the topic of rewilding. There you can learn more about the theory behind rewilding, the methods involved, and the impacts and benefits rewilding can bring. 

Are your rewilding areas open to the public? 

Yes they are, but please contact us first so that we can help you arrange your visit. 

We chose our rewilding projects through a systematic selection process. Mossy earth members get to choose which interventions to support and  receive interesting project updates. 

Rewilding Methodology

The Process Behind our Rewilding Projects 

Tree planting is the cheapest and most reliable way to directly sequester carbon from the atmosphere that is currently available. However, predicting and monitoring how much carbon is captured by reforestation is no easy task. In this methodology we explain how we arrive at our figures and the reasoning behind our approach. By estimating how much carbon we are sequestering at our projects we aim to provide our members with an idea of how much our efforts are contributing to tackle climate change. 

Carbon sequestration is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in a stable long-term carbon reservoir. Trees can act as carbon sinks by taking up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis than they release through respiration. 

The carbon that is sequestered through photosynthesis in a forest then forms part all sorts of organic compounds in plant material and in all living matter. When living organisms die, they are decomposed by microorganisms – a process that releases some carbon back into the atmosphere and stabilizes the rest into soil organic matter.

When done correctly, reforestation projects lead to carbon sequestration by increasing the amount of living matter, and therefore the amount of carbon, that is contained in a given area. The rate of carbon sequestration speeds up as the trees grow and gradually slows down as the forest matures. Although there obviously is an upper limit to how much carbon can be stored in a given area, there is evidence that old growth forests continue to sequester carbon for centuries. 

After carbon sequestration in a forest ecosystem, carbon can still be released into the atmosphere by disturbances such as forest fires or tree felling. This is why tackling the drivers of forest degradation is crucial to ensure reforestation projects are successful.  

When thinking about carbon sequestration it is important to distinguish predictions from actual sequestration estimates. Predictions can be made before planting takes place and can take into account factors such as the tree species being planted, the type of soil and the local climate. Sequestration estimates, on the other hand, are values that reflect how much carbon is stored in the forest at a given moment in time after being captured from the atmosphere. 

To inform the carbon capture predictions for our projects, we carry out secondary-research of peer-reviewed literature. We use figures from research carried out in the types of forest ecosystems, or similar, that we are working with. We use these figures as a baseline and use more site-specific figures if available. Because our projects change, the carbon sequestered by our membership will vary. However, we work with the assumption that on average 1 tree sequesters 0.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide over a period of time (50-100 years). We believe this is a reasonable, conservative estimate for the types of temperate forests that are working with.

The purpose of monitoring carbon sequestration rates is to confirm predictions are met and to adjust the estimates accordingly. We are not yet monitoring carbon sequestration rates at our reforestation projects, but we are exploring ways to do so in the future. Using standard methods, the first estimate of carbon capture rates would take place 10 - 15 years after planting but none of our trees have reached this stage yet. In the meantime, we are monitoring survival rates in the first few years after planting to inform replanting and make sure our trees have the best chance of growing into mature forests. Since we keep track of the location of all of our trees we will be able to apply different monitoring techniques to evaluate carbon sequestration at our projects once this becomes feasible.

It is a very exciting time in the field of carbon sequestration research due to rapid technological progress. One of the most promising areas is the use of satellite data to estimate above ground biomass (i.e. the mass of vegetation) at a fine spatial resolution across the globe. We are now seeing the deployment of satellite-born high resolution laser ranging observations to characterise the 3D structure of the earth’s forests. For example, the NASA-led GEDI project launched a new instrument to the international space station on SpaceX’s dragon rocket and will be providing open access to such data over the next few years.

We hope that by combining data from this and other missions it will become possible to obtain reliable estimates of carbon sequestration rates at our projects. Delivering transparency through technology is a big part of what we want to achieve at Mossy Earth, and this would be one more step in that direction. 

The carbon offsetting market keeps growing with many large companies pledging to become carbon neutral, oftentimes recurring to tree planting as a way to achieve negative emission targets. At the same time, the whole concept of carbon offsetting has been increasingly under fire. In the midst of this we think it is important to make our position clear. 

We do not see ourselves as a typical carbon offsetting organisation and do not issue carbon credits. This allows us to do things differently and address many of the concerns that people have about supporting reforestation projects to tackle climate change. 

Prioritising ecosystem restoration and rewilding

Unfortunately, many large carbon offsetting schemes plant non-native, monoculture forests that overtime degrade the land, are devoid of wildlife, contribute to the acidification of soils and rivers, while creating potential flooding and fire hazards. This is not what we are about.

In all our decisions, from project selection to monitoring and implementation, we focus on improving the state of the ecosystem rather than optimising carbon sequestration rates. Coincidentally, however, by working to establish wild and resilient forest ecosystems we believe we are increasing our chances of creating a stable carbon sink that will continue to sequester carbon for years to come. If you want to learn more about our approach make sure to read our reforestation methodology.  

One of the issues that have plagued carbon offsetting schemes has been the difficulty of demonstrating additionality, i.e that the carbon sequestration being claimed would not have taken place were it not for one’s contribution. This has been particularly problematic for carbon credits issued for protecting existing forests as it is difficult to demonstrate that there is no leakage, i.e that the deforestation that was prevented in one area isn’t simply occurring at another area instead.

Since we focus exclusively on reforestation the task is simpler. To ensure additionality, we only plant in areas where natural forest regeneration is unlikely or would take a very long time to occur. Every tree is assigned to a single member or customer and we always finish assigning trees for one batch before moving on to the next. Moreover, we have developed a set of measures to allow our members to hold us accountable and to assess the impact of our work for themselves. You can read more about how we achieve this on our trust and transparency methodology. 

Carbon offsetting is often criticised as a form of “green-washing” that allows one to pay and continue polluting guilt-free. This may be the case for companies that support tree planting simply out of a need to comply with environmental regulations. However, we essentially avoid such situations by working only with businesses and individuals that want to support our work voluntarily and therefore have taken it into their hands to have a positive impact on the environment. In fact, many of our partners and members are consciously looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint and see reforestation as just one piece of that puzzle.

In line with this ethos, we have also developed a wide range of guides and a carbon footprint calculator to help our members reduce their negative impact on the environment while simultaneously embarking on our mission to restore nature.  

Does Mossy Earth work with carbon credits?

No, we do not issue carbon credits or use a carbon accreditation standard. Our goal is to use technology to make it possible for our members to judge for themselves whether we are doing things correctly. This is why we have developed our transparency measures and why we are always looking for ways to improve. More importantly, perhaps, carbon sequestration rates do not tell us anything about the overall environmental impact of a reforestation project. Therefore we report carbon sequestration estimates as one of the co-benefits of our work. Being interested in the ecology and biodiversity of the landscapes we are restoring, we put our effort into giving our members a more complete picture of what is happening in the field. 

How many trees need to be planted to offset my carbon footprint?

The first step in answering this question would be to estimate your carbon footprint, which you can do easily using our carbon footprint calculator. With our membership, you plant 48 trees per year which will sequester approximately 12 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere according to our conservative predictions. For most of our members, this covers their individual carbon footprint and some more. However, it is important to keep in mind that it will take several decades for this amount of carbon to be captured by the newly planted trees. This is why we believe it is important to take measures to reduce your carbon footprint rather than simply relying on tree planting to offset it. 

How accurate are Mossy Earth's carbon sequestration predictions?

We strive to use the best available evidence to arrive at the carbon sequestration predictions for our reforestation projects. However, forests are complex dynamic ecosystems and the amount of carbon that actually is captured cannot be predicted with certainty. This is why we err on the side of caution in our calculations such that we will either meet or exceed the predictions we make. 

Flying has a heavy carbon footprint and not every flight can be avoided so a lot of environmentally conscious individuals look for ways to compensate for the associated emissions. Taking the average sequestration potential at our projects, we predict that 1 tree will sequester approximately 0.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide as the area develops into a wild forest. As an example, a return flight between London and New York would require approximately 7 trees to be planted. However, it is important to note that flight emissions take place immediately but it will take several decades before the trees capture the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

What other ways can I reduce my carbon footprint?

There is an endless list of easy, simple yet hugely effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint through changes to the way you travel, commute, eat, deal with waste, shop and heat/cool your home. When you use our carbon footprint calculator we will let you know if you are above below or close to the average of other calculator users for each category. We also have a wide range of guides with practical tips to reduce your carbon footprint and your overall impact on the environment. 

In our carbon sequestration methodology we explain how we arrive at our carbon figures and the reasoning behind our approach carbon offsetting & tree planting.

Carbon Sequestration Methodology

Mossy Earth has as its main objective to create independent and sustainable long-term funding mechanisms for impactful rewilding, reforestation and conservation projects. Our core focus is to help restore, protect and enhance a wide range of important and threatened wild ecosystems through a process that is transparent and enjoyable for our members.

The choices we made when setting up Mossy Earth were premeditated and follow a reasoning which I want to explain further in this business methodology. This in an in-depth breakdown of how we think, so be ready for a long read!

We are incorporated as a private limited company in the United Kingdom with a regular for-profit structure. We are not a charity and the Mossy Earth membership is not a donation. 

There are many reasons why we chose to incorporate as a company instead of an NGO or charity. However, before I get into the nitty gritty, I would like note that this is simply our choice. It’s how we feel we can have the greatest impact not about how others should manage their projects. There are many fantastic NGOs out there including many of our suppliers and rewilding partners as well as other great initiatives so please keep that in mind when reading the rest of this methodology, this is about us.

NGOs are different from normal companies and the government in two crucial ways. Firstly, an NGO does not pay taxes and its revenues or investments are tax deductible. Secondly, NGOs are privately managed, and their spending is not subject to management by democratically elected individuals. This mechanism is something that Matt, who co-founded Mossy Earth, and myself find flawed and decided to avoid for our project.

It is my understanding that the concept of an NGO became widespread as a solution to appease the anger at the significant inequality between the factory workers and the first industrial capitalists of the 19th century who accumulated extreme levels of wealth. By creating an entity seen as a benevolent redistributor of welfare, the wealthy individuals that first came up with this concept were perceived as great benefactors to society, whilst still controlling exactly how their money was spent. This is something that persists to this day. “Winner’s take all” by Anand Giridharadas covers this issue as well as other problems with NGOs and social enterprises. 

It goes without saying that, when used correctly, the NGO model can achieve amazing results, it just did not feel like the right structure for us.

Someone who accumulates wealth is usually taxed significantly more than the average citizen. Their tax payments are then added to government budgets and spent by the elected individuals in government at that time. This process ensures, or at least tries to ensure, that the money accumulated through everyone’s contribution is spent democratically. By this we mean that the elected individuals should follow the programs on which they were elected and thus the resulting policies should be the closest to what most of the population wants. In practice, this management is far from perfect and not always democratic, but its something we can work on together, democratically.

An NGO creates a mechanism for wealthy individuals to avoid taxation and retain control over their money in some form. By receiving tax deductions for their donations these individuals can pay less taxes into the pool of money that is managed democratically and instead put their wealth into organisations and causes where they have a higher degree of control. This point is crucial, I think individuals should be able to accumulate fortunes and spend them how they want but this should never be to the detriment of the democratic wealth redistribution mechanisms (taxes).

This context encouraged us to think of how we would like to be different. We decided early on we did not want to be a mechanism for wealthy corporations or individuals to avoid taxes. Instead, we decided to focus on the general population for our funding and that we wanted to pay taxes on our income and our surplus. 

In a nutshell these are the reasons why we decided to become a business:

We like to pay our taxes as a functional organisation that is a part of our society and a contributor to our shared democratic progress.

We do not want to rely on large corporate donors and their profits because they bring with them unwelcome influence and pressure over decision making.

We focus on creating a service that can stand as a long term sustainable revenue structure depending only on individuals to carry out our work. 

The ability to compete and improve through the market forces us to create a better service.

We believe it is important to showcase that nature and conservation can be considered an economically viable industry through the services sector.

Instead of relying on accounting as a performance evaluation tool we have the pressure to ensure outcomes are transparent and can be assessed by all our members.

We want to be open to potential capital investment as a means to grow Mossy Earth's impact.

We decided early on that impact transparency was paramount to the success of our mission. The public is quite used to reports showcasing how much money was raised and how it was spent. This can provide some insight but does not actually guarantee or prove the on the ground impact. It only tells you how the money was spent and not what the resulting impact was.

Our goal is to build the necessary infrastructure so that every individual that contributes to our projects can verify their impact themselves. This includes using photos, GPS coordinates, polygons, open databases, and satellite monitoring to try and achieve this. We are not there yet but we have managed to setup quite a few of these and you can learn more about them in our transparency methodology page.

Mossy Earth's business ethos is to create independent and sustainable long-term funding mechanisms for impactful rewilding, reforestation & conservation projects.

Methodologies

Trust and Transparency

Reforestation Methodology

Carbon Footprint Calculator

Rewilding Methodology

Carbon Sequestration

Business Ethos