Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
All Riverse Carbon Credits are issued ex post, after the verification process.
Two main types of RCCs are issued by Riverse: removal RCCs and avoidance RCCs. Both types are measured by calculating the difference in GHG emissions of the project scenario compared to the baseline scenario, following the approach outlined in ISO 14064-2:2019. See details in the GHG Reduction Quantification section.
Removal Riverse Carbon Credits come from projects that physically remove carbon (present in short-lifetime biomass or in the atmosphere) and convert it into a long-term chemical and biological stable compound (i.e. high resistance to degradation process when placed in the environment). Carbon sequestration must be ensured for a minimum of 100 years in order to qualify as a Removal credit in the Riverse registry.
Removal RCCs are calculated by evaluating the removal projects’ net GHG emissions (i.e. carbon removal and emissions) compared to the baseline scenario’s (i.e. what would have occurred in the absence of the project). See more details on choosing a baseline scenario in the Baseline Scenario section.
Removal RCCs are issued on Riverse’s registry under the mechanism label “removal”. They represent one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent captured and stored: 1 removal RCC = 1 .
Avoidance Riverse Carbon Credits represent avoided GHGs that would have been emitted without the project’s intervention. These RCCs are typically generated by projects that either replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources or replace products with lower-emitting alternatives.
Avoidance RCCs are calculated by comparing GHG emissions of the project to the ones of a reference or baseline scenario that would have occurred without the project.
Avoidance RCCs are classified on Riverse’s registry under the mechanism label “avoidance”. They represent one avoided tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent: 1 avoidance RCC = 1 .
Credit pools are defined as a group of Riverse Carbon Credits from the same project, mechanism and vintage year. Each transaction in the Riverse Registry may cover credits from one credit pool. For example, separate transactions are required to retire credits from two different credit pools.
A project is uniquely described on the registry by:
Project registry ID
Project name
Name of the Project Developer
Location
Host country
Type of mechanism (avoidance and/or removal)
Crediting period
Validation body
Other labels where relevant (e.g. CORSIA, Article 6, CCP…)
Each RCC is uniquely described on the registry by:
unique identifier
Project registry ID
Vintage year (year of verified activity in verification)
Type of mechanism (avoidance or removal)
Methodology ID
Riverse Standard Rules version number
Host country (inherited from Project)
Other labels where relevant (e.g. CORSIA, Article 6, CCP…)
Riverse Carbon Credits and provisional credits can have different statuses on the Riverse Registry:
Provisional
Provisional credits are estimated credits from projects that are validated but not yet verified. They give visibility on the volume of expected credits, which enables pre-purchase agreements. They may result from:
Validated projects that are still in the planning phase, and have completed a validation audit, and ex-ante estimates of avoided/removed emissions.
Verified
Canceled
Riverse Carbon Credits can be “canceled” if the verification audit demonstrates that the previous ex-post credits were not legitimate, or if a reversal event is reported (for removal RCCs).
Retired
Riverse Carbon Credits are “retired” when a buyer claims them, they can’t be transacted anymore and are considered permanently used. They still appear on the Riverse Registry for traceability, with the label “retired”.
Verified RCCs may have labels, which are supplementary information and do not change the inherent status of a verified avoidance or removal RCC. Labels may cover, for example:
Permanence horizons: e.g. 100 or 1000 year permanence for removal RCCs
Compliance with trading schemes: e.g. CORSIA eligible, Article 6 eligible
Accredited: e.g. ICROA accredited, ICVCM accredited
Provisional credits are estimated upon project validation for the projected volume of emission avoidance/removal over the project’s crediting period. They are conservatively calculated.
Pre-purchase agreements are signed agreements between the PD and a buyer with defined volumes and prices of Riverse Carbon Credits. These can be made once provisional credits have been estimated and the project has been validated.
Provisional credits are only used to track pre-purchase agreements for buyers. Their property rights can not be transferred to the buyer until the mitigation activity occurs and they are verified (hence become RCCs).
Riverse is a simplified joint-stock company ("société par actions simplifiée") with its headquarters situated at 28 Avenue des Pépinières, 94260 Fresnes, France, and is registered in the Créteil Companies and Trade Register with the number 908 082 332.
As a mission-driven entity ("Société à Mission"), Riverse has a defined purpose pursuant to Article 1835 of the French Civil Code.
The company's mission is to create significant and positive environmental or social impact through its commercial and operational activities, and to conduct its business with exemplary professionalism in the pursuit of the collective interest. In alignment with its mission, the company is dedicated to:
Advancing solutions that contribute a net environmental or social benefit to both the community and the planet;
Engaging with partners and customers who share the company's values and objectives;
Delivering significant value and impact through its partnerships and client interactions;
Ensuring the dignity of individuals and promoting a healthy work-life balance for its employees.
Building upon its core mission, the simplified joint-stock company Riverse operates two entities:
The Riverse Standard: A European crediting program within the voluntary carbon market, tailored for industrial projects that demonstrate the potential for significant reductions or sequestration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Riverse Standard prescribes exacting certification criteria, rooted in stringent scientific methodology and designed to align with the principal frameworks dedicated to fostering transparency and integrity in the voluntary carbon market.
The Riverse Tech Infrastructure: Serving as the operational backbone for the Riverse Standard, this infrastructure comprises two principal components:
The Riverse Registry: Ensuring traceability and transparency, it maintains detailed records of Riverse Carbon Credits from issuance to retirement, thereby preventing double counting and adhering to the protocols recommended by carbon market integrity organizations.
The Impact Certification Platform: This platform streamlines the RCCs certification (validation and verification) process for Project Developers by offering tools for environmental impact assessment, documentation assembly, and simplifying validation and verification procedures. With features designed for third-party Validation and Verification Bodies (VVB), it promotes a transparent and efficient pathway for project auditing and RCC management.
Both entities are managed by the Riverse Executive Team and supported by the internal teams within Riverse.
Overview of the Riverse Organization:
The Riverse Standard's governance architecture is designed to ensure scientific rigor, independence and efficiency.
It is spearheaded by two principal independent entities: the Standard Advisory Board and the Technical Advisory Committee.
Standard Advisory Board (SAB)
Ensures Riverse’s activity is continuously in line with its foundational mission. Provides strategic direction, endorses or vetoes amendments to the standard rules and methodologies, and recommends enhancements.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Composed of independent experts, provides technical expertise and reviews on specific methodological aspects or project certification.
In addition to these independent governance entities, four specialized Riverse teams are dedicated to the standard's operational execution:
Executive Team
Manages the organization's day-to-day operations
Secretariat
Compiles and synthesizes feedback and updates on standard documents, and conveys these to the Standard Advisory Board for deliberation and approval.
Certification team
Primary point of contact for Project Developers navigating the standard processes, provides technical assistance, process guidance, feedback, and performs the final validation review.
Climate team
Oversees the scientific approach and choices behind Riverse Standard Rules and methodologies. As GHG quantification and climate solution experts, they assist the Certification team in case of technical inquiries.
All Riverse ecosystem stakeholders are contractually linked with Riverse. The following stakeholders are publicly disclosed:
Moreover, any stakeholder of Riverse’s ecosystem is under Riverse Complaints and Appeals Policy.
Finally, Riverse implements a robust Conflict of Interest Policy that sets out how the Riverse organization identifies, manages, prevents, and discloses potential or real conflicts of interest to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and code of practices.
The following is the minimum list of stakeholders who must sign the policy:
Members of the Executive board
Members of the Secretariat, Standard Advisory Board
Members of the Climate, Certification, R&D and Partnerships teams
Members the Technical Advisory Board
VVBs
Contractors to the Riverse Standard involved in at least one of the procedures described in the Riverse Procedures Manual.
The Riverse Registry is openly accessible through Riverse’s website registry.riverse.io, and displays the following information to ensure maximum transparency and traceability of Riverse Carbon Credits:
Project information, including documentation, detailed calculations, audit/verification/monitoring statements, as well as reports and legal representations
Transparent issuance tracking, transfer and retirement/cancellation of units
Individually identified units through unique serial numbers containing sufficient information to avoid double counting (type, geography, vintage)
Unit status (issued, verified, retired, canceled), with full traceability of the chain of custody
The Riverse Registry IT security requirements are detailed in the Riverse Standard Rules Appendix 6.5.
V6.2
This document outlines the objectives of the Riverse Standard and sets the general requirement for Project Developers for registering and operating Riverse projects and issuing Riverse Carbon Credits (RCC).
It should be used together with the latest versions of the Riverse Procedures Manual, Methodologies, Requirements for Validation and Verification Bodies, and all other documentation found on this site.
Version history and changes to the Riverse Standard Rules
See Archived Riverse Standard Documents for full versions of previous documents
Below is a selection of co-benefits that are particularly aligned with Riverse’s program objectives. They are taken from the .
GHG emissions and reductions shall be calculated using the following IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP) values for a 100 year horizon according to . The GWPs for the main greenhouse gasses are summarized below, and the full list of GWPs can be found in the , Table 7.SM.7.
The following security measures are the minimum requirements for the Riverse Registry, and ensure confidentiality, integrity, and data availability:
Data transfers shall always use industry-standard encryption technology (SSL/TLS/HTTPS).
Application authentication shall be enabled and verified by a third-party provider that meets industry best practice, is internationally recognized, and is ISO27001 certified.
Backend service and database hosting shall be enabled by a third-party provider that enables encryption.
Administrative tools shall be provided 2FA for admin authentication and sign-in.
The Riverse Secretariat shall verify at least twice per calendar year that the IT security requirements are met, and summarize the findings in a report made publicly available on the Riverse website. The following elements shall be verified:
Verify compliance with the above requirements
Verify security vulnerability status and upgrade all JavaScript dependencies with npm.
Review Authentication provider access
Review Cloud provider IAM accounts and access
Rotate database passwords, API keys (internal and external)
Review Database connection allowlist
Review repository history for leaked secrets
Verify application authorization rules
Some projects have particularly high environmental impacts in their first year(s) of operation. This can be caused by inefficiency in early stages of operations while ramping up their processes. For example, at the beginning of a project, there may be very high consumption of inputs for a rather low production of outputs. This does not include emissions of construction and infrastructure, which are amortized over many years.
In some cases, this ramp-up effect may lead the project to emit more GHGs than the baseline scenario in the first year of the crediting period. In this case, the project’s validation and verification of the first two years will be bundled. This way, the project’s net induced emissions from the first year are subtracted from the avoided emissions of the second year.
If the project is still a net emitter and does not avoid any emissions at the end of the second year of the crediting period, the project will be dropped from the Riverse certification process.
When RCCs are bundled for the first two years of a crediting period, the vintage is the second year.
Note that this ramp-up effect only relates to high volume or frequent use of consumables in the first year, not to fixed inputs such as machinery and buildings. This is because according to the LCA approach, the emissions of these long-lived inputs are distributed annually over their usable lifespan. Fixed inputs refer to products where the lifespan is more than 1 year, and includes objects such as machinery, tanks, pipelines, building materials, and concrete slabs. Consumables refer to inputs that are taken up by the process and consumed in order to create the product. Their use is usually recurring and ongoing, and include inputs such as electricity, water, fuel for transportation, feedstock inputs (for biogas), and replacement screens (for electronics reconditioning).
There are two types of avoided emissions: those that lead to an absolute decrease in emissions, and those that lead to a smaller increase in emissions.
Absolute decrease: there is a real absolute decrease in emissions compared to the baseline scenario.
Smaller increase: there is a relative decrease in emissions compared to the baseline scenario, but still an absolute increase in emissions. This may happen when a project intervenes in a sector with growing demand, where overall production increases, so emissions increase over time.
projects that continuously upload data to the Impact Certification Platform to estimate credit volumes frequently (e.g. monthly, weekly), but only undergo verification audits e.g. annually.
Riverse Carbon Credits are issued ex-post as after the verification audit at the end of the monitoring period if the project meets the expected KII, with the production and emissions as estimated. See for more details. They appear as “verified” on the registry.
For example, if Project A launches in Year 1 and is found to emit 300 tCOeq more than the baseline scenario, no RCCs are issued for Year 1.
In Year 2, Project A avoids 4,000 tCOeq compared to the baseline scenario. After verification at the end of Year 2, Project A is issued 4,000 - 300 = 3,700 RCCs.
For example, if a machine is installed in Year 1, and its life cycle carbon footprint is 50 tCOeq, and it has a 25 year service life, its impacts included in the Year 1 calculations are 50/25= 2 tCOeq. For every year of operation, 2 tCOeq are counted from the machine. There is no ramp-up effect because the impacts of the machine are the same in Year 1 as all other years.
Both types of avoided emissions can be eligible for RCCs, as long as they meet the for their sector.
6.3 Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials
6.4 Increase water-use efficiency
6.5 Protect and restore water-related ecosystems
7.2 Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
7.3 Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
7.4 Facilitate access to clean energy research and technology
8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation
8.3 Support decent job creation and innovation, and encourage micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises
8.4 Improve global resource efficiency in consumption and production
8.5 Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities
9.4 Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes
11.6 Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including air quality and municipal and other waste management
11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas
12.2 Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.4 Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle
12.5 Reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning (note that only GHG reduction measures beyond what is considered for carbon credit issuance may be considered as a co-benefit)
14.1 Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification
15.1 Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services
15.5 Reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
CO
1
CH fossil
29.8
CH biogenic
27
NO
273
HFC-32
771
HFC-134a
1526
CFC-11
6226
PFC-14
7380
The general GHG reduction quantification approach and components are outlined below. Detailed instructions and requirements can be found in Riverse methodologies.
Riverse Carbon Credits shall be calculated by subtracting the GHG emissions and removals of the project scenario from the emissions and removals of a baseline scenario, or reference scenario, that would have occurred without the implementation of the project.
The difference in GHG emissions between the two scenarios (i.e. the emission reductions of the project) translates to the amount of GHG emissions avoided/removed by the project. One RCC is issued per one tonne of CO equivalent avoided or removed.
See the Measurability criteria for more general guidance on calculations.
The GHG emissions and removals of both the project and baseline scenario must be normalized to a common functional unit. A functional unit is the reference value to which all impacts are normalized.
The same functional unit must be chosen for the project and baseline scenarios, to ensure functional equivalence and an appropriate comparison between the two scenarios.
Defining a functional unit is especially useful for the industrial, circular greentechs that are covered under the Riverse Standard because projects often have multiple functions, co-products and/or co-services.
Functional units shall include characteristics such as:
Type of product/service
Amount
Functional units may include characteristics such as:
Performance specifications
Geographic location
Duration
The system boundary defines which GHG emissions and removals to include in a project scenario, and the equivalent processes in a baseline scenario.
The industrial, greentech projects covered under the Riverse standard are embedded in larger supply chains, with extensive upstream and downstream processes. Defining a system boundary also means delineating where the project scope ends, and which processes to exclude.
Generally, processes included in the project scope are those under direct control of the project, those affected by key decisions of the project, and those that differ between the project and baseline.
See the Project Scope section for more information.
The system boundary shall cover the project scope, and include:
all processes under direct control of the project and
the key upstream and downstream processes.
Processes may include raw material extraction, delivery of supplies, processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, retail, distribution, and waste treatment.
Indirect processes, such as market changes or physical displacement, shall be evaluated in the leakage criteria, and included in the GHG reduction quantification when relevant and feasible. Methodologies provide instructions on how to assess leakage and manage and, if necessary, deduct leakage emissions.
Processes with the lowest contributions to impacts, which each account for less than 1% of total impacts, may be excluded from the GHG quantification. These processes shall be transparently identified and justified.
Due to the comparative measurement approach, processes that are identical in the project and baseline scenario may be excluded, since they will not affect the comparative results.
The baseline scenario represents the GHG emissions and removals that would have occurred in the absence of the project.
The baseline scenario defines the GHG emissions and removals against which a project’s emission avoidance or removal is compared to determine emission reductions.
The baseline scenario should be comprehensive, and be functionally equivalent to all products and services delivered in the project scenario.
The by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) shall be followed to select the baseline scenario (see figure below).
According to the from the WBCSD, average market solutions shall be assumed by default for the baseline scenario. Only when a project solution is known to substitute one specific technology (e.g. the best available technology, or a product from one specific manufacturer), may the specific technology be used as a baseline.
Conservative assumptions, values, and processes shall be chosen when selecting a baseline scenario, to avoid overestimation of GHG emission reductions. Average market solutions shall be determined based on practices in the country/region of the project, and statistically relevant historical information.
If the project activity is multifunctional, the baseline scenario shall cover all functions of the project.
When the average market solution is represented by a market mix of solutions, the market mix shall include the portion of the project solution that is already used in the market.
The duration of validity of the baseline scenario selection shall be defined in methodologies.
Project GHG emissions and removals shall be quantified using primary data from project operations for operating projects, or estimated data for planned projects. The estimated data shall be used for project validation, and shall be replaced with actual data once the project begins operations for the verification of emission reductions.
All measurements from the project must be verifiable and based on recent conditions (no more than 1 year old). These measurements include quantities (volume, mass, number) and type of products and inputs.
All background data (for example, emission factors, rates of recycling, composition of national electricity grid) shall be derived from traceable, transparent, unbiased, and reputable sources.
All assumptions and estimates shall be conservative, transparently presented and justified.
For geographic accuracy and consistency across projects, national-level background data should be prioritized. Local (region, state, city-scale) or global sources may be used if justified.
Uncertainty is inherent in any measurement. The purpose of uncertainty assessment is to:
identify areas where more effort is needed to improve accuracy,
identify areas where the most conservative approach is needed, and
improve transparency
Qualitative estimates of uncertainty shall be justified ranging from none, low, medium, to high. A choice of “None” is only applicable for measurements of primary data that have strong, immutable sources of proof.
Project Developers shall assess uncertainty for the following areas at the project-level:
assumptions
selection of the specific baseline scenario
measurements
estimates or secondary data used for the project assessment
Methodologies shall include assessments of uncertainty for the following areas at the methodology-level:
assumptions
baseline scenario selection guidance
equations and models
estimates or secondary data used for all projects under the given methodology
All practical steps must be taken to achieve a low level of uncertainty for each area.
Areas that have high levels of uncertainty shall use the most conservative reasonable option, to avoid overestimation of GHG emission reductions.
Based on the uncertainty levels estimated for the above individual areas, Project Developers shall justify an overall uncertainty estimate of low, medium or high for the project’s GHG emission reductions.
The uncertainty estimate shall account for the sensitivity of the total GHG emission reductions to each assessed area. This way, for example, an area might have high uncertainty, but if that area has a small effect on the total GHG emission reduction calculations, then the level of uncertainty is acceptable and can be considered lower.
The overall uncertainty estimate shall be translated into the discount factor, representing the percent of credits that will not be issued, using the following:
Low uncertainty: 3%
Medium uncertainty: 6%
High uncertainty: 9% or higher
All projects must meet the 12 general eligibility criteria described below. Detailed instructions and examples are presented in .
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 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 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.
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.
Upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain are not counted as project sites.
purpose
relationship to the project
street address or, if not available, GPS coordinates
reference person
contact information
host country
Projects shall undergo an in-person or remote site audit within two years of the project’s crediting period start date and/or before the second verification audit. The purpose of this site audit is to confirm that:
The project exists and is functional
The scale of the project is in line with the description
Key processes operate as described in the project PDD
Projects that are in the planning phase and seeking carbon finance to fund investments shall prove that the project will actually occur, and will begin operations within 2 years of certification. Proof may include contracts with suppliers of key inputs or receipts from purchase of key machinery.
After beginning operations, the Project Developer shall comply with the requirement in 4.2.5.
Project developers must define the scope of the project, i.e. the mitigation activities that are under consideration for RCC issuance. The scope specifies the geographic, temporal (i.e. project start date), site, and operation limits of the project.
For example, a company operating in multiple countries, that has existed for many years, with several operating sites, and multiple activities must define the scope of their operations that is defined as the project. A company’s annual operations are not a sufficient definition of a project.
The project must have started operating within the last three years.
The crediting period shall start when the mitigation activities begin, provided the project is already registered with Riverse at that time. The crediting period shall be no longer than five years.
If the project is already underway, the crediting period may start up to 18 months prior to its registration date with Riverse.
📎 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.
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.
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.
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.
Investment analysis: Project Developers may use investment analysis to prove that revenue from carbon finance is necessary to make the project investment a financially viable and interesting option.
Projects shall prove that revenue from carbon finance is necessary for investments to launch or expand the project.
Note that for investments in expansion, only the additional carbon reductions enabled by the expansion shall be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits.
📎 Supporting documents:
Annual updates of predicted financial indicators.
Barrier analysis: Barriers may exist that prevent the mitigation activity from continuing or expanding. These may be financial, institutional, or technological barriers. Project Developers must demonstrate how revenue from carbon finance is necessary to allow projects to overcome these barriers.
Examples of barriers include but are not limited to:
Financial: high upfront costs, uncertain or low returns on investment, long payback periods
Institutional: complex or costly regulatory requirements, limited access to financing, lack of supportive infrastructure, limited market demand, resistance from incumbents
Technological: cost competitiveness and economic viability, scale and manufacturing challenges
Project Developers shall identify, describe and where possible, quantify the barrier, with verifiable proof.
Project Developers shall demonstrate that revenue from carbon finance is decisive in overcoming this barrier, including justification that:
the magnitude of revenue from carbon finance is similar to the amount of funding needed to overcome the barrier, and
the project could not have provided the funding itself.
Project Developers shall demonstrate that at least one alternative to the project activity does not face significant barriers, including the barriers faced by the project.
Note that for overcoming barriers to expansion, only the additional carbon reductions enabled by the expansion shall be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits.
📎 Supporting documents:
Description and, where possible, quantification of the barrier. Demonstration that revenue from carbon finance is decisive in overcoming this barrier.
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:
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
📎 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:
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.
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.
Certain methodologies may define strict rules and cutoffs that may disqualify projects based on their environmental and social risk assessment results.
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.
📎 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:
GHG emission reduction measurements that meet the requirements and follow a Riverse-approved sector-specific methodology (if available)
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 .
shall include the site’s:
Only activities that are shall be considered in the project scope.
The project scope should not be confused with the , which is used for GHG reduction quantification. The system boundary defines the project scope plus upstream and downstream activities that count towards the project’s GHG emissions and removals.
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 .
KIIs shall meet the minimum requirements for Monitoring Plans detailed in the Methodology, if applicable, and meet KII requirements described in the .
Project Developers shall fill in the 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
Investment analysis, business plan, or completed of the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism “Investment Analysis”, with accompanying spreadsheet and calculations, showing that funding from carbon finance is necessary for the project investment.
Permanent carbon removals mean that carbon removal is ensured for the committed-upon duration (at least 100 years for ). 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.
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 .
Risk assessment: projects eligible for removal RCCs must evaluate the risk of reversal during the validation step using the Reversal Risk Evaluation section of . Details on how to fill in the template, and how to use the results, are in the section below.
The consequences of a carbon removal reversal are outlined in the Cancelation section of the .
The Reversal Risk Evaluation section covers carbon reversal risks, and responds to the criteria. This is evaluated to ensure that carbon removal is long-term, and to provide transparency. Reversal risks may include social, economic, natural, and delivery risks.
The Environmental and Social Evaluation section covers risk of environmental and social damages, and responds to the criteria, described below. This is evaluated to transparently identify environmental and social damages, and if necessary, to put in place safeguards against high-risk damages.
For reversal risks, mitigation plans aim to manage the identified risks of carbon reversal, to ensure that carbon is removed from the atmosphere for at least the commitment period duration, which is at least 100 years. A reversal risk mitigation plan shall cover at least 40 years. In case reversal risks are realized, and more than 1 tonne of CO2eq is estimated to have been re-emitted, compensation measures shall follow the procedures outlined in the Cancelation section of the .
Double use of credits within the Riverse Registry: RCCs are traced with a unique identification number from issuance to retirement (see more in at Chapter 9 RCC Management). An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement.
Riverse’s provides full explanations and requirements regarding this eligibility criteria. Key points are summarized here.
Double issuance is prevented by the signing of the , where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.
Double claiming with other GHG-related environmental credit frameworks is not allowed. This is prevented by the signing of the , where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.
Signed agreeing to follow the requirements outlined in the present document, including those related to double counting.
Project Developers shall use the SDGs outlined in the as the basis for identifying co-benefits, which are deemed most relevant to Riverse’s program focus.
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 ).
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 .
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 section.
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 .
Project Developers shall fill in the methodology’s Template for their project type, evaluating the likelihood and severity of each environmental and social risk.
If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the shall apply.
If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the shall apply.
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 :
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.
Labor rights and working conditions
provide safe and healthy working conditions for employees
provide fair treatment of all employees, avoiding discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities
prohibit the use of forced labor, child labor, or trafficked persons, and protects contracted workers employed by third parties.
Resource efficiency and pollution prevention
minimize pollutant emissions to air
minimize pollutant discharges to water, noise and vibration
minimize generation of waste and release of hazardous materials, chemical pesticides and fertilizers
Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement
minimize forced physical and/or economic displacement
Biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources
avoid and/or minimizes negative impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity and ecosystems
protect the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, including areas needed for habitat connectivity
do not convert natural forests, grasslands, wetlands, or high conservation value habitats
minimize soil degradation and soil erosion
minimize water consumption and stress in the project
Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Local Communities (LCs), and cultural heritage
recognize, respect and promote the protection of the rights of IPs & LCs in line with applicable international human rights law, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
identify the rights-holders possibly affected by the mitigation activity (including customary rights of local rights holders);
when relevant, apply the FPIC process
do not force eviction or any physical or economic displacement of IPs & LCs, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, or resources, unless agreed upon with IPs & LCs during the FPIC process
preserve and protect cultural heritage consistent with IPs & LCs protocols/rules/plans on the management of cultural heritage or UNESCO Cultural Heritage conventions
Respect for human rights, stakeholder engagement
avoid discrimination and respect human rights
abide by the International Bill of Human Rights and universal instruments ratified by the host country
take into account and responds to local stakeholders’ views
Gender equality
provide for equal opportunities in the context of gender
protect against and appropriately responds to violence against women and girls
provide equal pay for equal work
1
Basic principles observed
2
Technology concept formulated
3
Experimental proof of concept
4
Technology validated in lab
5
Technology validated in relevant environment
6
Technology demonstrated in relevant environment
7
System model or prototype demonstration in operational environment
8
System complete and qualified
9
Actual system proven in operational environment
Transport & mobility
17%
Construction & housing
73%
Agriculture
58%
Industry & waste
47%
Energy
45%
1
Measurability
The GHG emission reductions are quantitatively, rigorously, and conservatively measured.
2
Real
The GHG emissions reductions have actually occurred, according to the monitoring plan. RCCs are ex-post.
3
Additionality
The mitigation activity would not have occurred without the revenues from carbon finance.
4
Permanence and risk of reversal
Carbon will be removed for at least 100 years (applicable for removal RCCs only).
5
No double counting
Mitigation activities are only counted once, and are not double used, issued or claimed.
6
Co-benefits
Projects must deliver additional positive impact towards environmental and social sustainability.
7
Substitution
The products/services generated as project outputs must appropriately, realistically, and efficiently substitute those of the baseline scenario, rather than create new demand.
8
Environmental & social do no harm
Projects must not contribute to environmental or social damage.
9
Leakage
The project’s avoided GHG emissions must not be indirectly transferred elsewhere via activity shifting.
10
TRL
The technology readiness level must be 6 or higher.
11
Targets alignment
Project’s emission reductions must be aligned with the European Union’s emission reduction targets for their sector.
12
Minimum impact
Projects must qualify for a minimum amount of RCCs.
Registered
The project has completed Project Eligibility Assessment and undergone Registration with Riverse.
Project Developers are given access to the certification platform and the project is added to the registry.
The project may be already operating or may still be in the planning phase.
No credits have been estimated or issued.
Validated
The project is registered, and has completed Pre-validation and Validation.
The PDD is completed on the Impact Certification Platform and validation audit is completed by the VVB.
The project may be already operating or may still be in the planning phase.
If the project is in the planning phase, provisional credits may be estimated and made available on the registry for pre-purchase agreements.
If the project is operating, it may undergo validation and verification at the same time, and pass directly to "Credited" status.
Credited
The project is registered and validated, and has completed at least one round of Monitoring and verification.
A Monitoring Plan has been submitted and audited by a VVB.
The project must be operating.
Verified RCCs are issued and made available on the registry.
The project may retain this status for a maximum of 5 years, corresponding to the maximum 5-year crediting period length. After 5 years, the status changes back to Registered, and the project must undergo Renewal.
Application
Project Developer (PD) submits a Project Application (PA); the Certification team reviews it within 15 days.
Clarifications may be requested, and a refusal report is issued if the application is rejected. Approved applications proceed to registration.
Registration
PD signs Terms & Conditions and completes administrative setup, including Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements.
Project sites and any Registration Partner are formally documented.
Pre-Validation
PD submits data and proof to the Impact Certification Platform
Project Design Document (PDD) is generated, outlining project operations, GHG quantification, additionality, and Monitoring Plan.
Certification team reviews the PDD, possibly involving domain experts, and approves it before third-party validation.
Validation
VVB conducts a validation audit to confirm project adherence to Riverse Standard Rules and chosen methodology, involving the PD and Certification team as needed.
In parallel, PD conducts or provides evidence of a stakeholder consultation, open for 30 days on the Riverse Registry.
Monitoring and Verification
Key Impact Indicators (KIIs) are monitored regularly to track project impact and eligibility.
PD submits KIIs per the Monitoring Plan; prepares a Monitoring Report which subject to the verification audit by the VVB annually (or as per schedule) to verify GHG quantification and RCC issuance.
Continuous Issuance (Optional)
Eligible projects may choose more frequent issuance of provisional credits if they meet the data frequency and accuracy requirements
Provisional credits are converted to RCCs upon verification.
Compliance and Updates
Projects must stay compliant with Riverse Standard and methodology revisions and report major operational changes in the Monitoring Report.
VVB audits any revisions or changes, ensuring alignment with updated methodologies and standards.
Crediting Period Renewal
After a 5-year crediting period, the project must undergo a full revalidation, including a new PDD, validation audit, and stakeholder consultation to continue issuing credits.
