Revising Riverse Standard Documentation

The Riverse Standard Rules undergoes regular revision to ensure it reflects up-to-date science and best practice in the voluntary carbon market. The complete diagram of these procedures can be found on the website here.

The revision of the Procedures Manual follows the same process.

Major revisions

Major revisions are tracked through the first number after the standard document name (e.g. Riverse Standard Rules V1). Major revisions include three phases: submission, review, and approval.

Submission Phase

Open feedback: All the latest versions of the Riverse Standard Rules and methodologies documentation are published on Riverse’s website. This allows any interested party to be able to comment on every document at any time—not only during dedicated public consultations.

To ensure the relevance and rigor of the Riverse Standard Documentation, the Climate team and the Secretariat actively monitor all references, and propose changes from referenced standards and tools (IPCC, ISO…).

Compilation of feedback: The Secretariat compiles feedback into a document called the 'Standard Revision Request'.

Review Phase

Formulation of Revision Proposal: After analyzing each feedback, the Secretariat drafts a 'Revision Proposal'. This proposal outlines the changes deemed necessary to the Riverse Standard Documentation based on the feedback received.

Submission to SAB and deliberation: the Revision Proposal is presented to the SAB for their critical evaluation. If the Revision Proposal is validated, the SAB decides whether the proposed revision is of a nature that demands public input.

Public Consultation: the Secretariat organizes a public consultation of the proposed revisions (see Public consultation section).

Approval phase

Integration of Public Feedback: the Secretariat integrates feedback from the public consultation into the existing 'Revision Proposal'. The outcome of this integration is a 'Final Standard Revision Proposition'.

SAB Review and Approval: The 'Final Standard Revision Proposition' is then presented to the SAB for their final approval. The SAB ensures that feedback from the public consultation phase has been genuinely and appropriately integrated.

Implementation: The Climate team implements the approved revisions into the Riverse Standard Documentation and any affiliated documents. All changes are documented in the Version History, and previous versions are archived.

After the revision procedure is completed, each contributor receives an update on how their remark has been treated.

Project compliance: Projects that are already validated must become compliant with revised rules upon their next verification. They do not need to undergo a new validation process. The VVB shall check for gaps and compliance during the verification audit. If projects are incompatible with revised rules, no new RCCs will be issued for that project, but their verified RCCs will remain valid on the Riverse registry.

Minor revisions

Minor revisions may be made by the Riverse Climate team when they are deemed necessary. All changes are documented in the Version History, and previous versions are archived. Minor revisions are tracked through the second number after the standard document name (e.g. Riverse Standard Rules V1.1). Revisions are considered minor if they:

• Correct typographical or formatting errors that do not affect the meaning or application of the standard.

• Update references to external documents, tools, or standards without changing the core methodology.

• Adjust procedural steps or timelines to improve clarity or efficiency without altering the overall process.

• Add or update examples or case studies to aid understanding, without introducing new requirements.

• Simplify or streamline documentation language to improve accessibility, without affecting the technical content.

• Formalize processes that are already implemented in practice.

Creating new Riverse Standard Documentation

The creation of new Riverse Standard Documentation follows the Review and Approval phases described in the standard revision procedure section, with the following differences:

Procedure and document development:

• Internal process setting: All Riverse Standard Documentation is initially drafted internally by the Climate team.

• Basis of standards: procedures are tailored to Riverse’s operations, but should draw inspiration and guidance from established standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 31000, ensuring global compliance and recognition.

Instead of a Revision Proposal as described in the previous section, a creation proposal is submitted to the Standard Advisory Board for validation.

A public consultation is conducted for the creation of any new Riverse Standard Documentation.

All public consultations are accessible on the website under the Standard Documentation section here.

Creating a new methodology

The complete diagram of these procedures can be found on the website here.

Submission

Anyone may submit a request for a new methodology at any time. The requests are summarized by the Secretariat into a Methodology Creation Proposal (template here).

The Methodology Creation Proposal is reviewed first by the Riverse Climate team, and if approved then it is reviewed by the SAB for final approval.

If the proposal is validated by the SAB, a Methodology Creation Mandate is granted to the Secretariat and the Riverse Climate team. This mandate assigns the designated teams to research, develop, and finalize the methodology. The current Methodology Creation Mandates are presented below.

If the proposal is rejected by the SAB, it then decides whether to earmark it for reworking or, based on the gravity of the concerns, abandon it altogether.

Development

The Secretariat gathers a technical working group composed of at least 3 members from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and/or external experts. The technical working group collaborates with the Riverse Climate team to develop the methodology.

To research and develop the methodology, the Climate team will gather the working group and consult the TAC members on a regular basis. The first step of methodology development shall always be a literature review. Following steps depend on the needs of each methodology.

The minimum requirements for a Riverse methodology include the following:

Review and acceptance

Once a first version of the methodology has been drafted, the Secretariat organizes a 30-day public consultation by publishing a Call for Consultation. The Secretariat and Climate team integrates feedback into a new Final Methodology Creation Proposition.

The Final Methodology Creation Proposal is then validated by the SAB, which ensures that the feedback from the TAC, experts, and the public consultation was integrated.

Revising a methodology

Methodologies are adaptable to ensure their relevance and robustness. To streamline updates and maintain transparency, the Climate team implements:

• Major updates: substantive alterations are subject to a thorough vetting process and follow the Riverse Standard Documentation Major revision procedure, plus the technical working group requirements described the Creating a new methodology section. Major updates are tracked through the first number after the methodology name (e.g. BiCRS methodology V1).

• Minor updates and clarifications: Minor modifications to the methodologies are regularly published and continuously open for public feedback on the Riverse website, ensuring constant engagement with stakeholders. Minor updates are tracked through the second number after the methodology name (e.g. BiCRS methodology V1.1).

• Feedback integration: continuous feedbacks are integrated into the Standard revision procedure, promoting a feedback-driven refinement approach.

Discontinuing a methodology

A methodology may be discontinued if:

• shifts in scientific consensus indicate it no longer aligns with best practices

• it fails to achieve measurable carbon reductions

• it is no longer additional

• it overestimates credits and cannot be revised to ensure conservativeness

• projects under that methodology consistently fail to meet the Eligibility criteria outlined in the Riverse Standard Rules

Methodologies are evaluated against these criteria at least once every three years during the mandatory major revision process, though they can also be reviewed and discontinued at any time if necessary.

Projects already validated under a discontinued methodology may continue using it until their next verification. After that, they must transition to a new methodology or become ineligible for new RCCs. Previously issued RCCs remain valid and tradable.

Public consultations

Decision by the SAB: Public consultations are mandatory for all major revisions of the Riverse Standard Documents and methodologies. For other revisions, the Standard Advisory Board (SAB) decides, based on their judgment and complexity of the topic at hand, whether to launch a public consultation.

Publishing the Call for Consultation: the Secretariat initiates the public consultation with the publication of a Call for Consultation. This call is widely broadcasted through relevant channels to ensure maximum outreach, inviting Project Developers, carbon credit resellers / brokers / marketplaces, Net Zero engaged corporates, Validation and Verification bodies, greentech experts, climate and environmental scientists and the general public to provide their insights and feedback on the topic. The minimum duration of the consultation is 30 days.

For all new methodologies, the Secretariat should organize a webinar to explain the rationale of the methodology and an overview of its requirements.

Compilation of feedback: After the conclusion of the public consultation period, the Secretariat compiles all feedback, suggestions, and perspectives collected. This collective feedback is then structured and summarized into a document known as the 'Consultation Report’. The report serves as a comprehensive repository of public opinion, ensuring that every suggestion is captured. The consultation reports are made available on the website under Standard Documentation here.

Integration into Final Proposition: the Secretariat then integrates this feedback into the existing proposal. This revised document, now termed the Final Standard Revision Proposition, harmonizes both the initial proposal and the feedback from the public consultation.

All requirements for VVB application and accredited VVBs can be found in the .

Remote auditing

Remote audits (those that do not include a physical site visit by an auditor) can optimize audit efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the audit process. The objective of a remote audit is to establish confidence in the VVB certification process by direct observations carried out through an electronic medium:

• Videographic evidence is required for remote audits. The video should allow the VVB to confirm that each component is true, and will typically consist of a tour of the site with commentary.

• Formats may include video calls with the auditors or pre-recorded videos.

The use of remote assessments by VVB of a given project may be requested in site validation assessment. Additional remote audits for verification are at the discretion of the VVB, who is entitled to reject any request from PDs.

Sequential verifications

To maintain impartiality and credibility, and reduce complacency and bias, a single VVB may conduct a maximum of three (3) sequential verifications for a specific project.

Upon reaching the sequential verification limit with a VVB, the PD shall be granted a transition period of six (6) months to engage a new VVB for the subsequent verification.

PDs must maintain comprehensive records of all verifications, including the VVBs involved, to demonstrate compliance with this rule.

Regular audits will be conducted to ensure PDs adhere to this rule. Non-compliance may result in penalties or suspension of the project's validation status.

Performance review

The following metrics will be employed to evaluate a VVB's performance:

• Timeliness: Adherence to stipulated timelines for project verification.

• Accuracy: Correctness of verification processes, calculations, and conclusions.

• Consistency: Uniform application of standards and methodologies across different projects.

• Communication: Effectiveness and clarity in communication with PDs and other stakeholders.

• Integrity: Adherence to ethical guidelines, including conflict of interest declarations

Each VVB is required to submit an annual Performance Report that details its activities, challenges, and areas of improvement relating to its work with the Riverse validation and verification process. This report should provide insights into the VVB's verification approach, methodologies employed, and training undertaken.

Project Developers are asked to provide feedback on the VVB's performance after each validation and verification process, as part of the Riverse satisfaction survey. This feedback is considered in the VVB performance review.

The Standard Secretariat annually reviews the annual Performance Reports and assess VVBs based on the established performance metrics. VVBs are encouraged to continually enhance their skills, methodologies, and processes. Training resources, workshops, and seminars specific to the Riverse Standard will be provided to support this endeavor.

Purpose of this document

This manual describes the rules and procedures for registering and operating Riverse projects and issuing Riverse Carbon Credits (RCCs). It should be used together with the latest versions of the , , , .

Discount factor

The Riverse Certification team may eliminate a fraction of a project’s estimated RCCs using the uncertainty discount factor to mitigate carbon credit overestimation. These verified avoided/removed emissions are never issued as RCCs.

Application of a discount factor may occur when material uncertainty is identified, for example, in the project’s measured data, assumptions, or the selection of the baseline scenario.

When faced with high uncertainty, steps should be taken to reduce uncertainty, and conservative choices should be made. If uncertainty remains, a discount factor shall be applied. Requirements are described in the Uncertainty Assessment section of the Riverse Standard Rules.

RCCs that are eliminated with the discount factor are not issued and will not appear on the registry. This discount factor may vary from 0% to more than 10% of estimated RCCs. The amount is evaluated individually for each project.

Buffer pool

All projects that issue removal RCCs must allocate a portion of their verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool. This pool acts as an insurance mechanism, shared across all removal projects, against the risk of reversal of sequestered carbon before the agreed upon commitment period (at least 100 years, for removal RCCs). This may occur due to, for example, natural disaster (fires, drought, pests) or project mismanagement. These RCCs cannot be retired by buyers.

The buffer pool is supplied with RCCs via two paths:

• Default: Each removal project allocates by default at least 3% of its verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool.

• Conditional: If the project has high or very high risks of reversal (according to the project evaluation’s Risk Assessment Template), the Project Developer may choose to develop a risk mitigation plan, or contribute an extra 3% of their verified RCCs to the buffer pool. More details are available in the section on Risk Assessment.

• RCCs are withdrawn from the buffer pool if there is a reversal event (see details in the section).

Under- / Overachievement

As a result of the verification phase, provisional credits either are issued as verified RCCs or are canceled.

Upon verification, three situations are possible: exact estimation, overestimation and under-estimation. Below is an example for 100 estimated provisional removal credits. Note that the actual portion of RCCs going to the buffer pool may vary by project.

Issuance

The name of the Riverse Registry operator, from the Certification team, who operates the issuance is registered in the process.

When removal RCCs are issued, a contribution will automatically be transferred from Project accounts to the Riverse Buffer Pool account. The amount of removal credits to be added to the buffer pool is defined for each project, and displayed on the project page on the registry. The contribution shall equal the percentage confirmed during project validation, and shall be rounded up to the nearest whole RCC (3% by default).

Cancelation

Canceling provisional credits

Provisional credits may be canceled on the registry for several reasons:

• lack of measurement source for a KII

• change in KII or overall process, so that the project no longer avoids/removes carbon as expected

• change in external factors causing the project to lose its additional status (i.e. change in regulation that makes the project activities required)

If pre-purchase agreements were made between buyers and PDs, the buffer pool will not be used to replace canceled provisional credits.

Canceling removal credits due to reversals

Riverse Certification team shall cancel RCCs from the buffer pool of a similar type as the removal RCCs that were reversed.

Canceling credits due to erroneous issuance

Verified RCCs may be deemed erroneously issued due to, for example, calculation errors, use of wrong input data, or inaccurate proof. While the comprehensive audit process renders this highly unlikely, a procedure is prepared out of an abundance of caution.

Erroneous issuance may be signaled by the PD, the VBB, the Riverse Certification team, or any stakeholder. The Riverse Certification team shall investigate the incident, determine the number of excess credits issued, and take the following remediating action:

• Credits already transferred or retired: the above procedure shall be applied, and an equivalent amount of excess credits will be transferred to the credit user at no cost from the project's next verification and issuance. If no additional credits are available, Riverse will work with the credit user on a case-by-case basis to agree upon compensation, with Riverse taking financial responsibility to ensure the credit user incurs no loss.

An Cancelation Report will be generated and attached to the cancelation event in the Registry that states the amount of excess credits erroneously issued and the remediating action.

Retirement

To retire RCCs, the user must log in with their username and password to the Riverse Registry and click on the option “retirement”. There they must enter the following information:

• Project name and registry ID from which RCCs are to be removed

• Vintage year

• Number of RCCs to be retired

• Reason for retirement: voluntary offset, carbon tax, or another specific offset scheme

• End-user information: country of location, name, document type, and document number

• Taxpayer information, if applicable: country of location, name, document type, and document number

Once retired, RCCs can not be transacted, retired or canceled.

Standard Advisory Board

The Standard Advisory Board (SAB) is independent from Riverse SAS. It is responsible for reviewing suggested changes to the Riverse Standard Rules, Procedures Manual, and the Riverse Registry procedures.

The SAB shall:

• Ensure Riverse’s activity is in line with its foundational mission, delineated in its statutes

• Accept or reject changes to the Riverse Standard Rules, Procedure Manual, and Riverse Registry Procedures, specifying written reasons for the decisions

• Provide strategic guidance for the Standard and make recommendations to align Riverse processes and rules with relevant regulations and integrity frameworks.

The SAB shall be appointed following the process bellow:

• The inaugural SAB was selected by the Riverse Executive Team, following interviews with candidates who were distinguished by their expertise in areas relevant to the board's focus.

• New SAB members are nominated by the Riverse Executive Team and confirmed through a decision made by the current SAB members.

• The Chair of the SAB is elected by its members from among themselves by a simple majority vote for a one-year term

• The mandate for SAB members is tacitly renewed every year

Only SAB members and the Chair have the right to vote on decision items during SAB meetings. When the Chair calls for a vote on any issue, decisions will be made by a simple majority. In the event of a tie, the Chair will cast the deciding vote to determine the outcome.

Technical Advisory Committee

The Riverse Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is an external entity from the Riverse organization. Its mission is to bring in-depth expertise on each sector covered by Riverse.

The Riverse Executive and Climate teams will establish the TAC’s missions as necessary. Typical missions may include the following:

• Review a specific project application and deliver a Technical Analysis report

• Review a new methodology, or its revision

• Review a specific methodological aspect on their domain of expertise

• Conduct solutions-based scientific research on their domain of expertise

Members of the TAC should be knowledgeable in at least one specialized area relating to the Riverse Standard focus (such as, but not limited to, refurbishment and recycling processes, bioenergy, biobased construction materials, biomass carbon removal and storage, or carbon markets).

TAC members should prove the following skills:

• Expertise in an area covered by the Riverse Standard Rules, existing methodologies, or a sector considered for future methodology development

• Deep understanding of environmental topics

The TAC serves as an expert consultative committee for the Riverse Standard, without decision-making authority. Should a technical issue arise necessitating a decision, the SAB may seek a recommendation from a TAC member. However, the final decision will be made by the SAB.

Executive Team

The Riverse Executive Team is tasked with operational and strategic functions within the organization. Their key responsibilities include:

• Overseeing daily operations to ensure efficiency and alignment with organizational goals

• Determining the long-term strategy and direction

• Making essential decisions for Riverse.

• Reporting to and integrating advice from the SAB into the company's operations and strategy

The Executive Team of Riverse is appointed by a collective decision of the Riverse SAS partners, in accordance with the constitutive statutes of Riverse.

Decisions for which the executive team is responsible are made by a simple majority vote within the executive team.

Secretariat

The Secretariat of Riverse holds a fundamental administrative and coordinating role within the organization's structure.

The Secretariat’s main responsibilities are outlined as follows:

• Collecting and synthesizing feedback on the Riverse Standard Rules and methodologies, preparing them for review and validation by the governing bodies.

• Serving as a communicative bridge, it conveys information between the Executive Team, the Certification and Climate Teams, and the SAB

• Organizing and documenting public consultations.

Climate team

The Climate team is responsible for the climate science and integrity of the Riverse Standard Rules.

The Climate team’s main tasks are the following:

• Regularly revise and improve the Riverse Standard Rules

• Monitor relevant references and scientific progress to integrate into the Riverse methods

• Develop new methodologies, and regularly revise and improve existing ones

• Coordinate with the TAC for methodologies creation and revision

• Certification team and VVB trainings

Certification team

The Certification team’s main tasks are the following:

• Improve the validation process to make it as rigorous, transparent and practical as possible

• Review Project Applications

• Accompany Project Developers in the certification process of their project

• Coordinate with VVBs for outputs of validation/verification audits

• Run VVB performance oversight

• Manage the Riverse Registry: register projects, deregister projects, process the issuance/verification/cancellation of credits.

The Conflict of Interest Policy (available ) is a separate document that must be signed by all individuals or parties identified as being at potential risk of a conflict of interest. For a detailed outline of the parties involved, please refer to the diagram found in the section.

All parties involved must sign the policy. The following is the minimum list of stakeholders who must be included:

• 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

See for full versions of previous documents

Summary

Application

The Project Developer (PD) submits a Project Application (PA) to start the certification process. This step is free of charge for PDs.

Once received, the PA is reviewed by the Certification team, with an average response time of 15 days. If clarification or additional details are needed, questions are sent to the PD.

For rejected applications, a refusal report explaining the decision will be provided to the PD. PDs may revise and resubmit at any time without restriction, allowing for the flexibility to revise and resubmit applications.

Approved PAs proceed to project registration.

Registration

To activate a Riverse registry account, the PD must complete the following steps:

• Use the connection link received via email

• Complete all administrative information required in the Admin page

• Follow the Know Your Customer (KYC) policy to ensure the PD is registered properly

All sites where the PD operates the project’s mitigation activity shall be registered during the validation phase using the provided Site Registration template. This includes all factories, facilities, or operations under direct control of the PD, whose activities are issued Riverse Carbon Credits.

Pre-validation

PDD submission

After the project is added to the registry, the PD is given access to the Impact Certification Platform to submit all elements required for the Project Design Document (PDD). The elements and their proof are checked by the Riverse Certification team, and upon approval the PDD is generated.

The PDD serves as the final validation document used for audit. PDDs shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

• Non-technical description of the project operations, scope, PD, location, and other relevant actors

• Technical description of the technology and project operations

• Justification that the project meets all 12 criteria described in the Riverse Standard Rules, and, if relevant, the chosen methodology

• Assessment of environmental and social risks

• Justification of the chosen baseline scenario

• Project-specific assumptions, data sources, and emission sources/sinks in the GHG quantification, that are not already specified at the methodology level

• Demonstration of additionality

• Project-specific uncertainty assessment

• Monitoring Plan with Key Impact Indicators (KIIs) to be monitored

• Site registration

• Future production projections

PDD review

The Certification team evaluates the PDD and any supporting documents to ensure they respect Riverse’s general and methodology GHG quantification steps and eligibility requirements.

The Certification team may require clarifications and additional information about the project via the Impact Certification Platform.

For projects unlike any previously validated by Riverse, or in cases of uncertainty, the Certification team may recommend a full or partial proofreading of the PDD by a domain expert from the Technical Advisory Committee. This optional proofreading incurs fees based on the expert’s rates, charged to the PD.

Once the PDD completes an expert review (if needed) and is validated by the Certification team, the project proceeds to third-party validation with the VVB.

Validation

Project validation audit

The PDD and proof documents are made available to the third-party Validation and Verification Body (VVB) on the Impact Certification Platform. The VVB audits the adherence to the Riverse Standard Rules and the specified methodology. In this stage, the VVB may request additional information or ask questions to the PD or the Riverse Certification team.

Validation audits shall comply with the latest version of Requirements for Validation and Verification Bodies, available on the website under Standard Documentation. A minimum of two auditors from an accredited VVB must be involved for each project audit, ensuring a peer review mechanism to maintain accuracy and integrity.

The validation audit takes place between the PD, the VVB and where necessary, the Riverse Certification team, and clarification is managed on the Impact Certification Platform.

The audit results are documented in a report, shared with the PD and the Riverse Certification team and are available upon request.

Handling concerns and critiques

If the VVB identifies any reservations or discrepancies during assessment, the PD must respond promptly within 30 days. The PD can either correct the issues directly or submit a mitigation plan, which, if accepted by the VVB, can be added to the project's Monitoring Plan.

Site validation audit

A site audit is mandatory within two years of the project’s crediting period start date and/or before the second verification audit. This punctual site audit is complementary to the annual operations audits, which are checked during verification via documents and photos.

Projects that issue more than 10,000 RCCs per year must undergo an in-person site audit.

Projects that issue less than 10,000 RCCs per year may choose between an in-person or remote audit. A remote audit is allowed because 1) it eases the time and cost burdens of PDs and VVBs and 2) it is satisfactory for the industrial projects, which usually consist of small, unchanging, easily documentable sites. For details on the remote auditing process, refer to the Remote auditing section

VVBs reserve the right to request an in-person site audit if the remote audit is deemed insufficient. This may be at any time in the process, before or after a remote audit has been conducted.

The VVB must determine the specific components to be checked during the site audit. These components should allow the VVB to complete the goal mentioned above. A list of components should be sent to the PD one week before the scheduled audit.

The output of the site audit includes the VVBs comments on each component, noting whether it was confirmed, if there are remaining reservations, if it was deemed false, or (if it was done remotely) if an in-person follow-up audit is necessary.

Stakeholder consultation

Projects must undergo a stakeholder consultation in parallel with or before the validation audit through the Stakeholder consultation letter.

If a stakeholder consultation has already been conducted (to obtain a permit for instance), PDs are exempt from this requirement, and shall share the results on the Impact Certification Platform.

Additionally, the Riverse Registry provides an open-access space where stakeholders can check the project details and provide feedback. The consultation is open for a 30 day period on the Riverse Registry.

This feedback is gathered by the Certification team and analyzed in the Project validation review. The feedback received is added to the PDD in an Appendix and made available on the Riverse Registry.

Project validation review

Once validated by the VVB, the PDD is sent back to the Riverse Certification team to review the VVB’s remarks, and evaluate feedback from the stakeholder consultation (see details above).

If no concerns remain unaddressed, the project is validated. The PDD is made available on the Riverse Registry.

• For ex-post assessments, the project undergoes the verification audit simultaneously, which results in RCC issuance.

• For ex-ante assessments, the project’s provisional credits are estimated for the whole crediting period, and are eligible for pre-purchase agreements. The project proceeds to verification after it has started operating.

If concerns and critiques emerge from the stakeholder consultation or VVB report review, the Certification team may decide to subject them to the same process described above in the Handling concerns and critiques section.

Monitoring and verification

Key Impact Indicators

Key impact indicators (KIIs) are identified during the GHG quantification (or LCA) and the eligibility criteria assessment, and reported in the PDD. These are parameters with high variability and importance that need to be audited continuously to measure the impact of the project and the number of RCC to be issued, and ensure the project’s eligibility. KIIs should represent processes that can be measured automatically. A project should have 5-10 KIIs.

KIIs that are directly linked to the project’s main function/output (such as mass of waste recycled/reconditioned, kWh in biogas production…) must be accounted for. KIIs should cover values that are important in calculating avoided GHG emissions in the LCA, plus values that demonstrate continued adherence to eligibility criteria.

Sources for each KII must be identified in the Monitoring Plan in the PDD, and must be:

• auditable and documented: a process can be put in place that leads to these results. It is not subject to interpretation.

• digitalized: sources will ultimately be associated with carbon credits, they must be at least digitized if not already digital.

Monitoring plan

A Monitoring Plan is provided in the PDD that defines the source, frequency, and responsible party of measurement for each KII. This facilitates the ongoing, regular verification processes to ensure data quality in project monitoring. On a regular basis (every 3, 6, or 12 months), Project Developers upload KIIs to the Impact Certification Platform for monitoring and verification of their impact.

Quality assurance and quality control is ensured by requiring verifiable evidence for each KII.

Minimum requirements for a Monitoring Plan are defined at the methodology level, but individual projects may require monitoring of extra elements. The Monitoring Plan is created by the Riverse Certification team for each project, and PDs can accept it or request modifications. The Monitoring Plan is reviewed by the VVB during the validation audit.

Failure to adhere to the Monitoring Plan, for example omitting a KII measurement due to unexpected interruption or errors in monitoring equipment or procedures, shall result in conservative estimation of the concerned KII that results in a deduction of carbon credits.

The sources and KIIs proposed in the Monitoring Plan are documented and submitted annually in the Monitoring Report.

Verification

Verification includes an audit of sources and KIIs listed in the Monitoring Plan. This verification is conducted by a Riverse accredited VVB that assesses the project’s operation according to the Requirement for VVBs.

A project shall undergo regular monitoring and verification. The default period for a verification period is one year. The length of the verification period may vary but shall not exceed two years of operations. If a project does not conduct a verification within 2 years it shall be de-registered and must renew its crediting period.

The PD submits KIIs on the Impact Certification Platform to update the GHG quantification and calculate the actual carbon avoidance/removal that occurred during the crediting period. The updated KIIs and any compliance updates (see section below) are summarized in the Monitoring Report.

The VVB delivers a verification opinion certificate for each verification, which is made publicly available on the Riverse Registry.

Additionally, spot checks are conducted by the Certification team to ensure that the project’s mitigation activity occurs as described in the PDD.

Once the Monitoring Report and KII’s source are audited:

• For projects that completed ex-ante validation, provisional credits are converted and issued as RCCs (see the Under- / Overachievement section)

• For projects completing ex-post validation and verification simultaneously, or for subsequent verifications (e.g., in years 2, 3, etc.), the verified amount of RCCs are issued directly.

Upon credit issuance, the PD must have an activated account with the Riverse registry, where All RCCs are issued, transacted, and retired.

Continuous issuance

Projects may choose to issue credits more frequently than their verification audit interval by opting for continuous issuance. Continuous issuance eligibility requires that a project:

• Operate for at least one month with at least one verification audit showing minimal discrepancies.

• Demonstrate the ability to provide data at the desired continuous frequency.

• Develop a continuous issuance Monitoring Plan.

• Request and receive approval from a VVB and the Riverse Certification team.

The steps for continuous issuance include:

• Project Developers submit data continuously to the Riverse Impact Certification Platform, which automatically calculates GHG emission avoidance/removal

• Calculations and proof are checked by the Riverse Certification Team

• Provisional credits are made available on the registry

• A verification audit is performed at the desired frequency (every 3, 6 or 12 months), assessing the compilation of data and proof provided continuously over the previous reporting period

• Provisional credits are converted to verified RCCs, and follow the issuance adjustments per the Under-/Overachievement section

Compliance and project updates

A project's validated status may be affected by:

1. Revisions to Riverse Standard Documentation or Methodology:

   • If the Riverse Standard Documentation or methodology used in the project validation has been updated, PDs must use the latest version for the subsequent verification of RCCs.

   • Ineligibility: If revisions render the project ineligible, it cannot issue credits at the next verification, though existing credits remain on the registry.

   • Compliance Requirements: For revisions requiring proof of compliance, the PD must demonstrate adherence in the next Monitoring Report.

2. Major Changes in Project Scope or Operations:

   • Required Updates: Significant changes in operations, processes, baseline scenario, technologies, or scale require the PD to update GHG quantification and eligibility in the next Monitoring Report.

For both revisions and major changes, the following apply:

• Verification by VVB: The VVB audits all changes summarized in the Monitoring Report to ensure they comply with Riverse Standard Rules and the selected methodology uphold project integrity.

• Updated LCA: All changes must be reflected in an updated LCA to ensure ongoing accuracy and conservatism.

Crediting Period Renewal

The maximum duration of the crediting period is 5 years. This means that for 5 years after the start of the crediting period, the validation and Monitoring Plan is valid, and verification may be performed by following the Monitoring Plan requirements. At the end of the crediting period, the project must be renewed. For renewed projects, the crediting period shall be the total length of the combined crediting periods.

Upon renewal, projects must undergo a new validation assessment by performing the following steps, including all elements described in the Project validation section.

• Preparation of a new PDD, with updated responses to all eligibility criteria, updated GHG reduction quantification, and an updated selection of a baseline scenario

• Validation audit

• Site audit

• Stakeholder consultation

• Project validation review

Project status on the registry

Project status is related to the different steps in the certification process.

See the RCC Status on the registry section for corresponding information on credit status.