Crediting timeline and process

Crediting process overview

The process for issuing credits under this methodology is described below.

1

Pre-project sampling

Before or in parallel to validation with Riverse, the project shall take pilot samples and measurements for site characterization and feedstock characterization, and propose a sampling plan.

2

Project validation

The project submits required documentation to Riverse and undergoes an ex-ante validation audit. This is performed by a Riverse-accredited VVB, and if necessary the peer review process described below. The project documentation is made available on the Riverse registry and expected CDR volume is estimated.

3

Project operations and monitoring

Project Developers spread crushed rocks on eligible sites, take samples, and conduct MRV according to the monitoring plan.

Monitoring in some reporting periods may show no statistically significant CDR has occurred yet, and result in no credit issuance. In that case, this step is repeated without advancing to step 4.

4

CDR verification

By adhering to the monitoring plan, Project Developers prove that real ex-post CDR has occurred, and removal RCCs are issued on the Riverse registry. Statistical requirements for proving this are detailed in the CDR verification and credit issuance section below. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for each reporting period.

5

End of project

Monitoring and verification continues for the maximum crediting period duration allowed under the Riverse Standard Rules, until the end of the crediting period.

6

Renew the crediting period

If removals are still occurring near the end of the crediting period, the Project Developer may choose to renew the project's crediting period to extend the monitoring plan and continue repeating steps 3 and 4.

Peer review and validation

ERW projects are notoriously variable and case-specific. As a result, ERW methodologies tend to be less prescriptive, allowing project design elements to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Assessments are individualized, relying on complex geochemical justifications and requiring both technical expertise and a degree of professional judgment.

Therefore, if 1) a project don't fit precisely within the prescribed requirements outlined in this methodology, and 2) the Riverse-accredited VVB or the Riverse certification team deems additional expertise/knowledge of the topic necessary, a technical peer review by at least 2 experts is required as part of the validation audit.

Peer review process

Any of the following parties may request a technical peer review: the Project Developer, the VVB or the Riverse Certification team. The final decision on whether to initiate peer review rests with the Riverse Certification team.

The review may be either 1) anticipated and requested in parallel to/before the VVB's validation audit or 2) decided on as an outcome of the validation audit, in which case it occurs after. In either case, this step is considered part of the validation stage.

The Riverse Certification team arranges the peer review and acts as the main intermediary between the Project Developer and reviewers. This stage is charged directly to the Project Developer, and fees may vary by project depending on the scope of the review.

Before the review, the Project Developer and the Riverse Certification team shall agree upon a scope of review, outlining which eligibility criteria and points need to be reviewed, and which have already been validated as meeting the methodology requirements. They shall also determine which points, if any, should be reviewed by the VVB if project design changes (e.g. a contingency plan). The findings of the technical peer review shall be made available on the registry along with all other project documentation.

The possible findings of peer review include:

• full approval: the project is validated as-is

• partial approval: the project may operate as designed but certification-related aspects must be updated (e.g. increase in discount factor, changed responses to ESDNH criteria)

• changes requested: the project should change its planned operations, MRV and/or project design

• refusal: unresolvable issues mean that the project should not be certified. The Project Developer may start over with a new project application, with major changes.

The Riverse Certification team makes the final recommendation for the project, following the Riverse Project validation review. Changes made as a result of the review should be directly incorporated into a revised PDD as much as possible, or where relevant, may be reflected in separate, additional project documentation.

Eligible reviewers

The Riverse Certification team shall review and approve eligible reviewers upon their submission of a Riverse ERW Technical Reviewer Application form.

Through the application, reviewers shall demonstrate technical, scientific expertise in fields related to ERW, such as geochemistry, mineralogy, soil and crop science, and/or modeling and statistics. The specific reviewer chosen for a given project should have expertise in the topic/s that the project does not clearly meet from the methodology.

Reviewers may be affiliated with universities, research institutes, NGOs, consulting, freelance, or ERW companies that are not related to the project being reviewed. Two reviewers are needed per project review, and a maximum of one reviewer may come from an ERW company.

CDR verification and credit issuance

Issuing credits for ERW projects is complex because there may be a time lag of months to years from when rock is spread on the soil to when carbon is considered removed ex-post. This methodology considers that carbon removal is:

• initiated upon feedstock dissolution

• complete and permanent (e.g. ex-post) upon being 1) exported from the NFZ or 2) remaining in soil porewaters at the

Specifically, Project Developers must measure a statistically significant signal of complete and permanent CDR compared to the baseline scenario/control plots, during the reporting period. Specifically, the following requirements must be met to issue credits (see the respective sections in the GHG quantification section for more details):

• Method 1 Direct measurement of export: for aqueous-based measurements, prove a statistically significant increase in the export of weathering products or the concentration of weathering products in porewaters at the depth of the NFZ, between the treatment and control plots, between the beginning and end of the reporting period. See measurement details here.
• Method 2 Mass balance: for mainly solid-phase soil based measurements, prove a statistically significant decrease of base cation concentration in the NFZ. This may be solid-phase measurements showing either a decrease in

  • base cation concentration relative to an immobile tracer within the treatment plot, between the beginning and end of the reporting period, or

  • directly measured base cation concentration between the treatment and control plot between the beginning and end of the reporting period (or, for the first reporting period, between a sample taken just after spreading and at the end of the reporting period). See measurement details here.

See the Monitoring Plan section for a full list of data required for monitoring and verification.

Successive spreading events

Project Developers may perform additional rounds of feedstock spreading throughout the crediting period.

Before a second spreading round, the Project Developer shall apply for validation of the spreading round. They shall notify Riverse of their intention, the sites concerned, timing, the amount and source of feedstock. This may be done pre-emptively in the validation audit in year n-1 of the spreading event, outlining plans for repeat spreading events in later reporting periods.

Project Developers shall describe how they plan on managing samples, measurements and calculations to track the CDR from different spreading events and the overlapping weathering signals.

CDR from successive spreading events shall be cumulative, with the total CDR considered for the entire project. For credit issuance, it is not necessary to track which removals are attributed to specific spreading events.

Adding new sites and feedstocks

If the spreading event occurs in new sites or with new feedstocks that weren't included in the initial validation, the Project Developer shall submit a Site Characterization Report and a Feedstock characterization report, respectively. Project Developers shall follow the requirements outlined in the corresponding section of the minimum requirements for a monitoring plan.

The Riverse Certification team and the VVB shall decide whether a technical peer review is required to assess the eligibility and updated project design considering the new sites and feedstock.