Removals vs Avoidance Credits

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

Removal vs avoidance carbon credits explained: how they differ, which forest projects produce each, how buyers value them, and what it means for Indonesia.

Removal credits represent carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere and stored, for example in growing trees or restored mangrove soils. Avoidance credits represent emissions that were prevented, for example by stopping planned deforestation. Both are counted in tonnes of CO2 equivalent, but they answer different questions and buyers use them for different claims.

In forest carbon, the split maps closely onto project type: ARR and agroforestry generate removals, while REDD+ generates avoidance. Some activities, such as improved forest management and blue carbon restoration, can generate both.

Side-by-side

Why buyers distinguish them

Many corporate net-zero frameworks expect companies to cut their own emissions first, and to use durable removals to neutralise emissions they cannot eliminate. Avoidance credits are often positioned as contributions to global mitigation rather than offsets for residual emissions. This has increased demand for removals: research on Southeast Asia found removal credits retire at a rate about 12% higher than avoidance credits. Buyer coalitions have also run large procurements specifically for reforestation and agroforestry removals with long durability requirements.

Integrity issues differ

For removals: the key risks are overestimating growth, counting trees that would have grown anyway, and losing carbon to fire, harvest or land conversion. Good field measurement, conservative ex ante estimation and a buffer pool address these.

For avoidance: the key risk is an inflated baseline. Several high-profile critiques of REDD+ focused on projects claiming threats that were exaggerated. Newer methodologies such as VM0048 allocate baselines from jurisdictional data to reduce this risk. See the REDD+ baseline controversy.

Indonesia specifics

Indonesia contributed 59.3% of Southeast Asian nature-based issuance under VCS and Gold Standard to April 2025, mostly from REDD+. The three Indonesian REDD+ projects in BeZero’s rated portfolio are avoided planned deforestation with peatland conservation. The pipeline is now diversifying into ARR and improved forest management, which will add removal supply. Smallholder agroforestry in coffee, cocoa and rubber landscapes is a large potential source of removals; see coffee agroforestry carbon.

Step-by-step: deciding which to develop or buy

1. Clarify the claim you or your buyers want to make.
2. Check what the land supports. Degraded, non-forest land suits removals; threatened standing forest suits avoidance.
3. Look at timing. Removals need patient capital; avoidance can bring earlier revenue.
4. Assess integrity risks specific to each type.
5. Consider combining both in a landscape programme, with separate accounting.

Mixed projects and grey areas

Some forest activities do not fit neatly into one category:

• Improved forest management can avoid emissions by reducing logging intensity and also increase removals as forests regrow.
• Peat rewetting mainly avoids emissions from drained peat, but restored vegetation then removes CO2.
• Mangrove restoration removes CO2 into biomass and sediments, while protecting nearby mangroves avoids emissions.
• Assisted natural regeneration in degraded forest produces removals but may be assessed under REDD+ or ARR rules depending on the land’s status.

In these cases the methodology determines how each component is labelled. Registries and buyers increasingly expect the two to be reported separately, so design monitoring to distinguish them from the start. Rating agencies also assess the components differently, which can affect price.

Durability matters for removals

Forest removals are stored in living systems that can burn, be cut or decay. Buyer coalitions have set minimum storage periods, such as 40 years in one major nature-based removals procurement. Standards manage the risk with buffer pools and reversal rules. When comparing removals, ask how long the carbon is protected and what happens if it is lost.

Common mistakes

• Calling all forest credits “offsets” without stating the type.
• Assuming removals are always higher quality.
• Ignoring permanence risk for removals in fire-prone landscapes such as drained peat.
• Mixing removal and avoidance tonnes in a single claim without explanation.

Compare project types in ARR vs REDD+, see how nature-based credits are priced, or explore the forest carbon hub. Test a site with the project eligibility quiz.