Google and McKinsey’s latest carbon-removal agreement brings a practical land-use question into focus: can carbon finance help restore degraded pasture while cattle production continues?
Reuters reported on 19 October that the companies have agreed to purchase a combined 320,000 metric tonnes of carbon-removal credits over ten years from a Working Trees project in Brazil, through commitments associated with the Symbiosis Coalition. The agreements will help finance restoration across 8,700 hectares of degraded and semi-degraded pasture within a broader 50,000-hectare project.
Google separately disclosed a commitment to remove 270,000 tonnes of CO₂ through the project. That is Google’s announced volume, not the combined Google–McKinsey total reported by Reuters. Neither figure should be presented as carbon already removed.
A production landscape, not a conventional forest plantation
The approach is silvopasture: integrating trees with livestock grazing on the same land.
Working Trees plants commercial timber and native tree species in rows within existing pasture, leaving space for cattle. According to Google, the model can diversify rancher income through timber and carbon revenues while providing shade and supporting soil health and drought resilience. These are the project’s proposed benefits; their delivery will need to be demonstrated over time.
The financing logic is important. Establishing trees creates costs before substantial carbon or timber revenue becomes available. A long-term purchase agreement can provide greater visibility over future demand. Working Trees’ chief executive told Reuters that these commitments were critical to unlocking investment.
However, revenue visibility and verified climate performance are different propositions.
The first test: what would happen without the project?
For buyers, the starting point should be a defensible baseline.
The relevant question is not simply whether planted trees absorb CO₂. It is how much additional carbon the project stores compared with a credible scenario without carbon finance.
Due diligence should therefore examine previous land use, existing vegetation, expected pasture management and whether tree planting would otherwise occur.
Describing land as degraded is useful context, but it does not, by itself, quantify additional removals.
Buyers should also distinguish project-level evidence from broader claims about reducing deforestation pressure. Maintaining production on existing pasture may offer a plausible pathway to avoiding displacement, but any claim that the project reduces deforestation needs its own evidence and accounting treatment.
The second test: trees do not erase the livestock account
Carbon stored in vegetation is not the same metric as the net greenhouse-gas performance of the entire farming system.
A buyer’s review should ask how the applicable methodology treats changes in livestock numbers, methane emissions, fertiliser use, soil carbon and project operations. Where those factors sit outside the credited accounting boundary, that limitation should remain visible.
This does not mean silvopasture cannot deliver credible removals. It means a verified removal claim should not be expanded into a claim that the cattle operation, its beef production or its full value chain has become carbon-neutral.
The third test: what happens when trees are harvested?
Commercial timber is part of the proposed income model. That makes harvesting assumptions central to carbon due diligence.
Buyers should establish how the project accounts for harvest cycles, replanting, the destination of harvested wood and possible carbon losses. They should also understand the monitoring period, reversal provisions and responsibility for replacing credits if the promised climate outcome is not maintained.
Google says Working Trees uses a digital platform to track individual planted trees. That can support traceability, but a tree record alone does not establish additionality, quantify net removals or resolve long-term storage risk.
What procurement teams should request
Before treating a similar agreement as a procurement model, buyers should request:
The crediting methodology, baseline and project boundary.
Expected issuance dates and independent verification arrangements.
Treatment of livestock emissions, soil carbon and harvesting.
Land-tenure evidence and participating landowners’ obligations.
Delivery, reversal, replacement and termination provisions.
Clear rules governing when and how purchased credits may support public claims.
These are recommended due-diligence questions—not findings that the Working Trees project has failed them.
The agreement’s significance lies in connecting long-term corporate demand with productive land restoration. Its ultimate climate value will depend on what is measured, verified and maintained—not simply the number of tonnes contracted.
Sources
https://blog.google/company-news/outreach-and-initiatives/sustainability/brazil-silvopasture/