Chapter 01 · Climate & transitionCarbon Markets & Offsetting
Mitigation hierarchy
Definition
The mitigation hierarchy is the principle that organisations should first avoid and reduce negative impacts before relying on compensation, restoration or offsetting measures.
References
This reference provides supporting context for how “Mitigation hierarchy” is defined and used.
Overview
What it means in practice
Mitigation hierarchy should be used with care because carbon-market terms often carry both technical and reputational meaning. The practical question is not only what the term describes, but what claim it supports.
In practice, users should state the boundary, method, evidence and intended audience. That keeps mitigation hierarchy from becoming a loose label that hides important assumptions.
Why it matters
Mitigation hierarchy sits in carbon-market language, where small wording differences can change whether a claim is read as compensation, contribution, risk control or evidence of real-world mitigation.
Common misconception
A common error is to use Mitigation hierarchy without stating the accounting boundary, credit type, claim type and quality controls. Those details are what make the term usable rather than decorative.
Review questions
What framework or method is being used? What evidence supports the term? What would a reader reasonably assume if the boundary is not stated?
How it is used
The term appears in climate strategies, transition plans, emissions inventories, scenarios and investment decisions, where governments, companies, investors and technical teams use it to classify, assess or communicate the principle that organisations should first avoid and reduce negative impacts before relying on compensation, restoration or offsetting measures.
Its correct use depends on the relevant methodology, emissions boundary, baseline, timeframe and underlying data.