In response to growing scrutiny, carbon credit methodologies have been slowly growing in complexity in an attempt to demonstrate rigor and objectivity.

‍

While detailed information and stringent standards are commendable, complex methodologies can also act as a gatekeeper, deterring investigations and raising barriers to entry.

Native observes that the complexity of leading carbon certification processes, which often involve exhaustive documentation, imposes significant costs and diverts value from impactful climate action. The technical demands of these processes tend to exclude smaller projects and communities that lack the resources to meet extensive data requirements or are forced to engage intermediaries to assist them, who further erode project value.

Native's approach aims to strike a balance between methodological robustness and accessibility, particularly for indigenous communities with limited means. While precision is important, the pursuit of exactness can drain resources better allocated to conservation efforts. Hence, our methodology errs on the side of imprecise but conservative estimates, ensuring that we do not overstate carbon stocks, biodiversity richness, or community impact.