Much has been said about Yggdrasil Carbon (YGG) in recent weeks and the company's project in Saltvík near Húsavík.

One of the things YGG places great emphasis on in its work is interdisciplinary conversation and consultation. It contributes to the harmony of projects and their greater sustainability. After the issue in Saltvik came up, an issue that we felt had gone through a good consultation process, we had to sit down and review the processes and look critically at approaches. The first step was to have meetings and conversations to form with soil scientists, biologists, foresters and ministries.

We have seen very clearly in our work that climate solutions must be based on a good and multidisciplinary conversation and networking that criticizes and guides. A good conversation and relationship goes hand in hand with the biodiversity, soil quality, conservation value and carbon reserves of existing ecosystems to name a few. YGG goes through its projects through a thorough and meticulous set of requirements and certification that ensures certain quality and transparency. YGG has also gone far beyond what the requirements assume to further enhance the quality. The above steps have been taken precisely because of the dialogue and consultation we have with the various institutions and experts as well as reviewing international requirements and European regulations. There we look, among other things, at biodiversity, conservation value and national ecosystems within forested areas. Despite the quality measures, it can be said that YGG was commissioned this autumn in Saltvík near Húsavík. Namely, not everyone agrees at all about approaches to forestry, the value of forestry and, in fact, the selective carbon market in general. In this sector, a new lesson falls in every week and it is always possible to do even better and more, but probably never in perfect harmony.

The conversation and criticism of the last few weeks we have already incorporated into our work. Not least, it means that more parties with multidisciplinary vision and interests, will come to the table purposefully. We will learn from the debate, improve for the better, and we already feel that this debate and criticism is going to increase the quality of climate action in general and that is where we want to be.