General eligibility criteria
Last updated
Last updated
Riverse SAS
All projects must meet the 12 general eligibility criteria described below. Detailed instructions and examples are presented in Methodologies.
# | Criteria | Description |
---|---|---|
A project’s GHG emission reductions must be quantitatively, rigorously, and conservatively measured. They must be measured following a science-based, well-documented methodology. Measurements must be reproducible.
Project Developers shall follow the approach outlined in the GHG reduction quantification section, based on , to measure GHG emissions reduction, avoidance and/or removal.
GHG emission reduction measurements shall aim for completeness, accuracy, transparency, and conservativeness.
Project Developers shall specify the Riverse methodology they follow to measure GHG emission reductions.
If no Riverse methodology exists for a given project, documented scientific research can be proposed to establish a measurement method. This method shall be evaluated and validated by the Riverse Climate team and the VVB.
GHG emission reduction measurements that meet the GHG reduction quantification requirements and follow a Riverse-approved sector-specific methodology (if available)
The project must be real. It must physically exist, or be in planning stages for ex-ante projects. The project must operate with the scale and procedures described by the Project Developer.
This is ensured by site registration, site audits, and clearly defined project scopes.
All sites where the project operates shall be registered during the certification process. This includes all factories, facilities, or operations under direct control of the Project Developer, whose activities are involved in RCCs verification and issuance. Sites registration procedures are detailed in Section 4.3 of the Riverse Procedures Manual.
Upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain are not counted as project sites.
Site registration shall include the site’s:
purpose
relationship to the project
street address or, if not available, GPS coordinates
reference person
contact information
host country
📎 Supporting documents:
Site registration certificate
Site audit certificate and report
[conditional] If the project is under development, proof that it will actually occur
A Riverse Carbon Credit (RCC) is real if it represents an actual GHG emission reduction that has occurred. It shall be measured and verified using project data, and not be based on estimates or extrapolation.
RCCs are all ex-post, meaning the mitigation activity has already taken place and has been verified. In contrast, Riverse provisional credits are ex-ante, meaning they are expected GHG emission reductions, and are not yet real. Only verified RCCs can be transferred and retired.
RCCs are guaranteed to be real thanks to the rigorous, ongoing, project-specific monitoring of activities. Project Developers must report key information about their activities, with justifications, to prove that the estimated GHG emission reduction has occurred.
This key information is reported through Key Impact Indicators (KIIs), which are defined for each methodology and project in the Monitoring Plan. KIIs are regularly monitored by Project Developers, are reported on the Riverse certification platform (with proof), and are verified by third-party VVBs for every issuance of RCCs.
KIIs are parameters that are important in the GHG reduction quantification calculations, are important in determining project eligibility, are subject to change, and are measurable using project data. More details on KIIs are available in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
The Project Developer shall submit a Monitoring Plan during the validation step that defines the list of Key Impact Indicators (KII).
For each KII in the Monitoring Plan, the Project Developer shall specify the update frequency and auditable source.
KIIs shall meet the minimum requirements for Monitoring Plans detailed in the Methodology, if applicable, and meet KII requirements described in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
For each verification and issuance of RCCs, the Project Developer shall upload each KII with proof to the Impact Certification Platform.
📎 Supporting documents:
During validation: Monitoring Plan defining the Key Impact Indicators (KIIs) with examples of proof, source of the proof and update frequency.
During verification: values of KIIs with proof, uploaded to the Riverse certification platform.
The Riverse Standard enables solutions that would not have occurred without revenue from carbon finance. This principle ensures that carbon financing spurs additional action to fight climate change, rather than subsidizing actions that would have happened anyway. Riverse Carbon Credits cannot be issued for projects that would have occurred regardless of carbon finance.
Several types of additionality tests are described below. To demonstrate additionality, all projects must apply the regulatory surplus analysis, plus either investment or barrier analysis.
Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Additionality Template to demonstrate their additionality. In the template, they must provide project-specific justifications and verifiable evidence.
Note that Riverse Carbon Credits are only issued for GHG reductions that are additional to business as usual. This is described more in the requirements for setting a baseline scenario.
Regulatory surplus analysis: Mitigation activities must go beyond what is required by regulations.
Projects shall prove that:
there is no law, regulation, statute, legal ruling or other regulatory framework that makes the implementation of the project compulsory, and
if there is a regulation, their mitigation activities allow for more GHG emission reductions than what is required by regulations. In this case, only the project activities that surpass the mandated amount are eligible for RCCs.
📎 Supporting documents:
Description of the regulatory environment concerning the project’s mitigation activity.
Description of current and confirmed upcoming regulations or incentives that promote the project’s solution.
Permanent carbon removals mean that carbon removal is ensured for the committed-upon duration (at least 100 years for removal RCC). This duration is the commitment period, and represents the number of years for which the Project Developer can prove that carbon will likely remain sequestered. The minimum commitment period duration for RCCs is 100 years.
Carbon removals are not permanent if the carbon is re-emitted (i.e. the removal is reversed) before the commitment period ends, for example through natural disaster (fires, drought, pests) or project mismanagement.
Reversal risks are managed through:
Contribution to the buffer pool: projects eligible for removal RCCs must contribute a default 3% of their verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool. This covers a minimum inherent reversal risk of all removal RCCs. More details on the buffer pool are available in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
Risk assessment: projects eligible for removal RCCs must evaluate the risk of reversal during the validation step using the Reversal Risk Evaluation section of Risk Assessment Templates. Details on how to fill in the template, and how to use the results, are in the Risk assessment section below.
Projects eligible for removal RCCs are subject to the Permanence and risk of reversal criteria. Permanence and reversal risks are not evaluated for avoidance RCCs, because they are considered to have little to no material reversal risks.
By default, at least 3% of all verified removal RCCs shall be transferred to the buffer pool upon issuance.
Project Developers shall complete the Risk Assessment Template tailored to their specific project type, which is provided in the methodology documentation. This template guides Project Developers in evaluating the likelihood and severity of each risk type.
For each reversal risk type with a high or very high risk score, Project Developers shall develop a risk mitigation plan, or incur an additional 3% contribution of verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool.
The consequences of a carbon removal reversal are outlined in the Cancelation section of the Riverse Procedures Manual.
If no methodology exists, the Project Developer shall suggest risks to consider in the PDD, which must be approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. Documentation and proof must be provided to justify that the identification of risks was performed with a similar level of rigor, scientific accuracy, and conservativeness that is required for methodology development.
📎Supporting documents:
Project Developer’s responses to the Risk Assessment Template evaluating reversal risks.
[conditional] If a risk has a high or very high risk of reversal, a risk mitigation plan, or signed agreement to contribute an extra 3% of verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool.
Riverse Carbon Credits shall be used, issued and claimed only once.
Double use of credits within the Riverse Registry: RCCs are traced with a unique identification number from issuance to retirement (see more in Riverse Procedures Manual at Chapter 9 RCC Management). An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement.
Double issuance of credits on multiple registries: It is not allowed to simultaneously issue carbon credits for the same mitigation activity, in the same crediting period, under the Riverse Standard and a different standard.
Double issuance of credits along the value chain: Multiple actors along the supply chain are not allowed to issue multiple carbon credits for the same mitigation activity. RCCs are issued to projects that are fundamental in the value chain, and are fully allocated to the project.
Double claiming: RCCs shall not be claimed by both the entity retiring the carbon credit for the purpose of making a GHG emission offsetting claim, and
nationally determined contributions (NDCs),
national climate policies and emissions trading schemes, or
other GHG-related environmental credits.
For double claiming between entities retiring carbon credits, and the end-users of products that have been issued carbon credits, guidance from reporting schemes, GHG Protocol, and other accounting mechanisms shall be followed.
Riverse’s Double Counting Policy provides full explanations and requirements regarding this eligibility criteria. Key points are summarized here.
Double use shall be prevented by the Riverse Registry, where each project is automatically assigned a unique identifier, with project ID, location, and Project Developer name and contact information. An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement.
Project Developers shall not use another program to issue carbon credits for the given mitigation activity, for the same year. Project Developers shall disclose any issuance of carbon credits for the same project prior to the crediting period, or with a different project scope.
Project Developers shall ensure that specified upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain have not and will not issue carbon credits for their role in the mitigation activity. Specific requirements on this topic may be made in methodologies.
Double issuance is prevented by the signing of the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.
Double claiming with NDCs shall be prevented by signed agreements with host countries and confirmation of corresponding adjustments. Such agreements will be made publicly available with the project documentation, and updated as needed.
Double claiming with national climate policies and emissions trading schemes shall be prevented by proof that the mitigation activity is outside the scope of such policies and schemes. If this is not the case, Project Developers must obtain proof of an accounting adjustment or cancellation in the emissions trading scheme.
Double claiming with other GHG-related environmental credit frameworks is not allowed. This is prevented by the signing of the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.
For purposes of voluntary climate pledges and reporting (e.g. GHG protocol), Project Developers must inform upstream and downstream supply chain entities of claimed project/intervention/insetting emission reductions, report them to Riverse, document any transfer of emission reduction units, and seek guidance in cases of conflicting claims from reporting bodies like the GHG Protocol.
📎 Supporting documents:
Signed Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions agreeing to follow the requirements outlined in the present document, including those related to double counting.
Proof that carbon credits will not be issued by specified actors within the same value chain for the same mitigation activity (specific proof requirements depending on the methodology).
[conditional] Any other requirements specified in the methodology document.
[conditional] Letters of authorization from host country and proof of corresponding adjustments.
Projects must have a positive systemic impact by providing environmental and social benefits along with their climate benefits. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) are used as a framework to measure co-benefits.
Projects shall support between two and four quantifiable and verifiable environmental or social co-benefits. These must be in addition to their climate benefits that are already accounted for in the issuance of RCCs.
Co-benefits must be positive environmental or social impacts that are substantial, and would not have occurred without the intervention of the project.
Project Developers shall use the SDGs outlined in the Appendix as the basis for identifying co-benefits, which are deemed most relevant to Riverse’s program focus.
Other relevant UN SDG sub-objectives or sustainability indicators may be suggested by Project Developers, and accepted at the discretion of the Riverse Certification team and the VVB.
Co-benefits shall be quantified and proven using the project’s GHG quantification results, primary data collection from the project, an LCA of the project or similar technology, or other reputable scientific documents. The tool, method, approach, and/or equations used for assessing co-benefits shall be described in methodology documents and/or DPDs.
📎 Supporting documents:
Identification of two to four UN SGDs that the project contributes to substantially as co-benefits, with:
quantified indicators for each co-benefit
source/proof for each co-benefit
The products/services generated as project outputs must appropriately, realistically, and efficiently substitute those of the baseline scenario.
This ensures that projects truly substitute pre-existing products/services and minimize the risk of creating new demand.
This also improves the accuracy of GHG reduction quantification by ensuring that an appropriate baseline is considered.
Projects shall prove that their project outputs have similar performance metrics to the baseline scenario and deliver equivalent functions.
Project Developers shall identify and quantify performance metrics to compare between the baseline and the project scenario. Specific metrics to consider are detailed in methodologies.
The GHG quantification method shall use an appropriate functional unit that reflects the equivalent functions delivered by the project and baseline scenarios (see more details in the GHG reduction quantification).
📎 Supporting documents:
Proof that the project output has sufficiently similar technical and performance specifications to substitute for the baseline scenario.
Projects must not cause substantial environmental and social damage.
Environmental and social risks are managed through:
Stakeholder consultation: Project Developers must conduct a comprehensive and documented stakeholder consultation to provide insights into unintended outcomes and foster collaboration. Stakeholder feedback is collected online through the Riverse Registry for one month during the validation phase. The methods to conduct this consultation is detailed in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
Risk assessment: Project Developers must evaluate the risk of environmental and social damage during the validation step using the Environmental and Social Damage evaluation section of Risk Assessment Templates. Details on how to fill in the template, and how to use the results, are in the Risk assessment section.
Examples of environmental and social risks include, and are not limited to, deforestation, use of dedicated crops, land use change, rebound effect, or use of harmful chemicals. The actual risks to consider are presented in each methodology’s Risk Assessment Template, and include any harm that could reasonably occur in a worst case scenario outcome of a reasonably operated project.
Health & Safety of workers is particularly important for Riverse projects, given the standard’s focus on industrial projects. Industrial environments may pose unique challenges and risks to workers, who’s well-being and protection must be prioritized. Specific risks, such as exposure to harmful chemicals, are treated in methodologies where relevant. However, risks to workers are generally considered low for Riverse projects, since they are operated in Europe, which is recognized for having .
Projects must adhere to local, state, national, and international regulations. It is assumed that projects operating in Europe meet regulations due to the strict implementation and enforcement of regulations.
Project Developers shall conduct a stakeholder consultation gathering feedback on the environmental and social impacts of their project, among other feedback. The stakeholder consultation shall take place during the project's validation process, addressed to local stakeholders and communities. The feedback is reviewed by the Riverse Certification team during the final project validation review, and they may require the Project Developer to take corrective action to address the concerns. The feedback shall be made publicly available in an appendix of the PDD. More details are included in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
If the project already has a legal permit (for example, construction permit, operation approval from authorities) that required similar stakeholder consultation or environmental and social impact assessments, Project Developers shall provide any documents related to those processes, and may be deemed exempt from the Riverse stakeholder consultation by the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.
Project Developers shall fill in the methodology’s Risk Assessment Template for their project type, evaluating the likelihood and severity of each environmental and social risk.
Certain methodologies may define strict rules and cutoffs that may disqualify projects based on their environmental and social risk assessment results.
If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the Permanence and risk of reversal section shall apply.
The Riverse Certification team or VVB may require annual monitoring of an environmental or social risk if they determine that the risk could lead to the project causing net harm.
Risk assessments shall assess at least the following risks, which should be avoided and minimized:
📎 Supporting documents:
Results of the stakeholder consultation
[conditional] Legal permits, or results of previous stakeholder consultations or environmental and social impact studies
Project Developer’s responses to the Risk Assessment Template evaluating environmental and social risks
Carbon leakage refers to the displacement of project activities from the project scope to areas outside the project scope, resulting in an indirect transfer of GHG emissions rather than the absolute avoidance/removal of emissions. Types of carbon leakage that must be considered for RCC issuance include:
Activity shifting: carbon-emitting activities are geographically displaced or relocated to areas outside the project boundaries as a direct result of the project's implementation. Risks and assessment methods of activity-shifting leakage are identified for each methodology.
Upstream and downstream emissions: emissions are displaced to other locations or activities upstream or downstream in the supply chain, or elsewhere within the project scope. The comprehensive life cycle assessment approach used for Riverse GHG reduction quantification considers upstream and downstream emissions as part of the project scope. Therefore, these emissions are included by default in the project’s GHG reduction quantification.
Project Developers shall follow the relevant methodology requirements for identifying, assessing and mitigating leakage. Potential risks and detailed instructions are identified at the methodology level.
Methodologies provide instructions on how to assess leakage and manage and, if necessary, deduct leakage emissions. Any project-specific leakage risk may incur additional leakage emission deduction, up to the discretion of the Project Developer, the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.
If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the Permanence and risk of reversal section shall apply.
📎 Supporting documents:
Project Developer’s responses to the leakage risks identified in the methodology.
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a method for understanding the maturity of a technology. TRLs allow engineers to have a consistent reference for understanding technology evolution, regardless of their technical background.
Projects shall at minimum reach TRL 6, which is described in the table above.
📎 Supporting documents:
Proof of technological progress and/or production capacities either in an operational environment or lab.
This criterion ensures that Riverse Carbon Credits fund technologies that will remain viable and low-impact in the near future. Riverse does not issue RCCs for projects with only meager improvements over the baseline scenario. Avoided emissions must be aligned with the for the project’s sector from 2020 to 2030.
📎 Supporting documents:
GHG quantification results showing that the project’s GHG reduction efficiency is aligned with the sector target emission reductions.
The total crediting period of a project is limited to a maximum of 5 years. This is to oblige Project Developers to regularly reassess their technology against evolving background contexts.
To renew certification at the end of the crediting period, projects may re-conduct a complete validation process using the current Riverse Standard Rules and methodology requirements.
For renewed projects, the crediting period shall be the total length of the combined crediting periods.
📎 Supporting documents:
Supporting documents:
Risk | Details |
---|---|
TRL # | Description |
---|---|
The reduction efficiency of the project is calculated as following:
Projects’ reduction efficiency shall be higher than the targeted emission reduction targets for the project’s sector, presented in the :
Sector | Target emission reduction (2020 to 2030) |
---|---|
The project must justify a minimum emission reduction of 1000 tCOeq over the crediting period of the project.
Projects shall justify a minimum emission reduction of 1000 tCOeq over the crediting period of the project.
GHG quantification results showing that the project’s GHG emission reductions over the crediting period are projected to be at least 1000 tCOeq.