General eligibility criteria

All projects must meet the 12 general eligibility criteria described below. Detailed instructions and examples are presented in Methodologies.

#	Criteria	Description
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.

Measurability

A project’s GHG emission reductions must be quantitatively, rigorously, and conservatively measured. They must be measured following a science-based, well-documented methodology. Measurements must be reproducible.

Project Developers shall follow the approach outlined in the GHG reduction quantification section, based on , to measure GHG emissions reduction, avoidance and/or removal.

GHG emission reduction measurements shall aim for completeness, accuracy, transparency, and conservativeness.

Project Developers shall specify the Riverse methodology they follow to measure GHG emission reductions.

If no Riverse methodology exists for a given project, documented scientific research can be proposed to establish a measurement method. This method shall be evaluated and validated by the Riverse Climate team and the VVB.

🖇️ Supporting documents:

• GHG emission reduction measurements that meet the GHG reduction quantification requirements and follow a Riverse-approved sector-specific methodology (if available)

---

Real

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.

Site registration

All sites where the project operates shall be registered during the certification process. This includes all factories, facilities, or operations under direct control of the Project Developer, whose activities are involved in RCCs verification and issuance. Sites registration procedures are detailed in Section 4.3 of the Riverse Procedures Manual.

Upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain are not counted as project sites.

Site registration shall include the site’s:

• purpose

• relationship to the project

• street address or, if not available, GPS coordinates

• reference person

• contact information

• host country

Site audits

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 scope

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.

• Only activities that are additional shall be considered in the project scope.

• 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.

• The project scope should not be confused with the system boundary, 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.

📎 Supporting documents:

• Site registration certificate

• Site audit certificate and report

• [conditional] If the project is under development, proof that it will actually occur

---

A Riverse Carbon Credit (RCC) is real if it represents an actual GHG emission reduction that has occurred. It shall be measured and verified using project data, and not be based on estimates or extrapolation.

RCCs are all ex-post, meaning the mitigation activity has already taken place and has been verified. In contrast, Riverse provisional credits are ex-ante, meaning they are expected GHG emission reductions, and are not yet real. Only verified RCCs can be transferred and retired.

RCCs are guaranteed to be real thanks to the rigorous, ongoing, project-specific monitoring of activities. Project Developers must report key information about their activities, with justifications, to prove that the estimated GHG emission reduction has occurred.

This key information is reported through Key Impact Indicators (KIIs), which are defined for each methodology and project in the Monitoring Plan. KIIs are regularly monitored by Project Developers, are reported on the Riverse certification platform (with proof), and are verified by third-party VVBs for every issuance of RCCs.

KIIs are parameters that are important in the GHG reduction quantification calculations, are important in determining project eligibility, are subject to change, and are measurable using project data. More details on KIIs are available in the Riverse Procedures Manual.

The Project Developer shall submit a Monitoring Plan during the validation step that defines the list of Key Impact Indicators (KII).

For each KII in the Monitoring Plan, the Project Developer shall specify the update frequency and auditable source.

KIIs shall meet the minimum requirements for Monitoring Plans detailed in the Methodology, if applicable, and meet KII requirements described in the Riverse Procedures Manual.

For each verification and issuance of RCCs, the Project Developer shall upload each KII with proof to the Impact Certification Platform.

📎 Supporting documents:

• During validation: Monitoring Plan defining the Key Impact Indicators (KIIs) with examples of proof, source of the proof and update frequency.

• During verification: values of KIIs with proof, uploaded to the Riverse certification platform.

---

Additionality

The Riverse Standard enables solutions that would not have occurred without revenue from carbon finance. This principle ensures that carbon financing spurs additional action to fight climate change, rather than subsidizing actions that would have happened anyway. Riverse Carbon Credits cannot be issued for projects that would have occurred regardless of carbon finance.

Several types of additionality tests are described below. To demonstrate additionality, all projects must apply the regulatory surplus analysis, plus either investment or barrier analysis.

Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Additionality Template to demonstrate their additionality. In the template, they must provide project-specific justifications and verifiable evidence.

Note that Riverse Carbon Credits are only issued for GHG reductions that are additional to business as usual. This is described more in the requirements for setting a baseline scenario.

Regulatory surplus

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.

• Riverse Additionality Template

Investment

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:

• Investment analysis, business plan, or completed CDM Methodological Tool 27 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.

• Annual updates of predicted financial indicators.

• Riverse Additionality Template

Barrier

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.

• Riverse Additionality Template

---

Permanence and risk of reversal

Permanent carbon removals mean that carbon removal is ensured for the committed-upon duration (at least 100 years for removal RCC). This duration is the commitment period, and represents the number of years for which the Project Developer can prove that carbon will likely remain sequestered. The minimum commitment period duration for RCCs is 100 years.

Carbon removals are not permanent if the carbon is re-emitted (i.e. the removal is reversed) before the commitment period ends, for example through natural disaster (fires, drought, pests) or project mismanagement.

Reversal risks are managed through:

• Contribution to the buffer pool: projects eligible for removal RCCs must contribute a default 3% of their verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool. This covers a minimum inherent reversal risk of all removal RCCs. More details on the buffer pool are available in the Riverse Procedures Manual.

• Risk assessment: projects eligible for removal RCCs must evaluate the risk of reversal during the validation step using the Reversal Risk Evaluation section of Risk Assessment Templates. Details on how to fill in the template, and how to use the results, are in the Risk assessment section below.

Projects eligible for removal RCCs are subject to the Permanence and risk of reversal criteria. Permanence and reversal risks are not evaluated for avoidance RCCs, because they are considered to have little to no material reversal risks.

By default, at least 3% of all verified removal RCCs shall be transferred to the buffer pool upon issuance.

Project Developers shall complete the Risk Assessment Template tailored to their specific project type, which is provided in the methodology documentation. This template guides Project Developers in evaluating the likelihood and severity of each risk type.

For each reversal risk type with a high or very high risk score, Project Developers shall develop a risk mitigation plan, or incur an additional 3% contribution of verified removal RCCs to the buffer pool.

The consequences of a carbon removal reversal are outlined in the Cancelation section of the Riverse Procedures Manual.

If no methodology exists, the Project Developer shall suggest risks to consider in the PDD, which must be approved by the Riverse Certification team and the VVB. Documentation and proof must be provided to justify that the identification of risks was performed with a similar level of rigor, scientific accuracy, and conservativeness that is required for methodology development.

Risk assessment

Risks are identified in Risk Assessment Templates, which are provided in each methodology and tailored to the given project type. Project Developers must assess the likelihood and severity scores of each risk for their specific project, which are combined to obtain a risk score. This is completed during the validation step, and presented in the PDD. The Risk Assessment Template is composed of two main parts:

• The Reversal Risk Evaluation section covers carbon reversal risks, and responds to the Permanence 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 Environmental and Social Do No Harm 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.

Each risk with a high or very risk score is subject to:

• risk mitigation plan, developed by the Project Developer, that details the long-term strategies and investments for preventing, monitoring, reporting and compensating carbon removal reversal and/or environmental and social damages, or

• for reversal risks, additional contributions to the buffer pool, at a rate of 3% of verified removal RCCs for each high or very high risk.

This is additive, so if a project has multiple risks with high or very high risk scores, they may have multiple risk mitigation plans, and/or multiple 3% buffer pool contributions.

Risk mitigation plan

Mitigation plans outline measures to manage risks by:

• prevention, to minimize the likelihood and/or the severity of the risk being realized,

• monitoring, to identify measurement methods and indicators so that if the risk is realized it will be quantified and known in a timely manner,

• reporting, to efficiently communicate the realization of a risk to Riverse,

• and compensation, to agree on outcomes and responsibilities of the Project Developer in case the risk is realized.

Prevention and monitoring may be ensured through technological solutions, long-term investments, strategizing, contingency planning, practicing/simulating risk, and increase in personnel.

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 Riverse Procedures Manual.

For environmental and social risks, mitigation plans aim to manage the risks of the identified environmental and social damages. Compensation may be determined during the validation phase for each project, and agreed upon by the Project Developer, Riverse Climate team and the VVB.

📎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.

---

No double counting

Riverse Carbon Credits shall be used, issued and claimed only once.

Double use of credits within the Riverse Registry: RCCs are traced with a unique identification number from issuance to retirement (see more in Riverse Procedures Manual at Chapter 9 RCC Management). An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement.

Double issuance of credits on multiple registries: It is not allowed to simultaneously issue carbon credits for the same mitigation activity, in the same crediting period, under the Riverse Standard and a different standard.

Double issuance of credits along the value chain: Multiple actors along the supply chain are not allowed to issue multiple carbon credits for the same mitigation activity. RCCs are issued to projects that are fundamental in the value chain, and are fully allocated to the project.

Double claiming: RCCs shall not be claimed by both the entity retiring the carbon credit for the purpose of making a GHG emission offsetting claim, and

• nationally determined contributions (NDCs),

• national climate policies and emissions trading schemes, or

• other GHG-related environmental credits.

For double claiming between entities retiring carbon credits, and the end-users of products that have been issued carbon credits, guidance from reporting schemes, GHG Protocol, and other accounting mechanisms shall be followed.

Riverse’s Double Counting Policy provides full explanations and requirements regarding this eligibility criteria. Key points are summarized here.

Double counting policy

Double use shall be prevented by the Riverse Registry, where each project is automatically assigned a unique identifier, with project ID, location, and Project Developer name and contact information. An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement.

Project Developers shall not use another program to issue carbon credits for the given mitigation activity, for the same year. Project Developers shall disclose any issuance of carbon credits for the same project prior to the crediting period, or with a different project scope.

Project Developers shall ensure that specified upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain have not and will not issue carbon credits for their role in the mitigation activity. Specific requirements on this topic may be made in methodologies.

Double issuance is prevented by the signing of the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.

Double claiming with NDCs shall be prevented by signed agreements with host countries and confirmation of corresponding adjustments. Such agreements will be made publicly available with the project documentation, and updated as needed.

Double claiming with national climate policies and emissions trading schemes shall be prevented by proof that the mitigation activity is outside the scope of such policies and schemes. If this is not the case, Project Developers must obtain proof of an accounting adjustment or cancellation in the emissions trading scheme.

Double claiming with other GHG-related environmental credit frameworks is not allowed. This is prevented by the signing of the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, where all Project Developers agree to follow the requirements outlined in the present document.

For purposes of voluntary climate pledges and reporting (e.g. GHG protocol), Project Developers must inform upstream and downstream supply chain entities of claimed project/intervention/insetting emission reductions, report them to Riverse, document any transfer of emission reduction units, and seek guidance in cases of conflicting claims from reporting bodies like the GHG Protocol.

📎 Supporting documents:

• Signed Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions agreeing to follow the requirements outlined in the present document, including those related to double counting.

• Proof that carbon credits will not be issued by specified actors within the same value chain for the same mitigation activity (specific proof requirements depending on the methodology).

• [conditional] Any other requirements specified in the methodology document.

• [conditional] Letters of authorization from host country and proof of corresponding adjustments.

---

Co-benefits

Projects must have a positive systemic impact by providing environmental and social benefits along with their climate benefits. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) are used as a framework to measure co-benefits.

Projects shall support between two and four quantifiable and verifiable environmental or social co-benefits. These must be in addition to their climate benefits that are already accounted for in the issuance of RCCs.

Co-benefits must be positive environmental or social impacts that are substantial, and would not have occurred without the intervention of the project.

Project Developers shall use the SDGs outlined in the Appendix as the basis for identifying co-benefits, which are deemed most relevant to Riverse’s program focus.

Other relevant UN SDG sub-objectives or sustainability indicators may be suggested by Project Developers, and accepted at the discretion of the Riverse Certification team and the VVB.

Co-benefits shall be quantified and proven using the project’s GHG quantification results, primary data collection from the project, an LCA of the project or similar technology, or other reputable scientific documents. The tool, method, approach, and/or equations used for assessing co-benefits shall be described in methodology documents and/or DPDs.

📎 Supporting documents:

• Identification of two to four UN SGDs that the project contributes to substantially as co-benefits, with:

  • quantified indicators for each co-benefit

  • source/proof for each co-benefit

---

Substitution

The products/services generated as project outputs must appropriately, realistically, and efficiently substitute those of the baseline scenario.

This ensures that projects truly substitute pre-existing products/services and minimize the risk of creating new demand.

This also improves the accuracy of GHG reduction quantification by ensuring that an appropriate baseline is considered.

Projects shall prove that their project outputs have similar performance metrics to the baseline scenario and deliver equivalent functions.

Project Developers shall identify and quantify performance metrics to compare between the baseline and the project scenario. Specific metrics to consider are detailed in methodologies.

The GHG quantification method shall use an appropriate functional unit that reflects the equivalent functions delivered by the project and baseline scenarios (see more details in the GHG reduction quantification).

📎 Supporting documents:

• Proof that the project output has sufficiently similar technical and performance specifications to substitute for the baseline scenario.

---

Environmental and Social Do No Harm Safeguards

Projects must not cause substantial environmental and social damage.

Environmental and social risks are managed through:

• Stakeholder consultation: Project Developers must conduct a comprehensive and documented stakeholder consultation to provide insights into unintended outcomes and foster collaboration. Stakeholder feedback is collected online through the Riverse Registry for one month during the validation phase. The methods to conduct this consultation is detailed in the Riverse Procedures Manual.

• Risk assessment: Project Developers must evaluate the risk of environmental and social damage during the validation step using the Environmental and Social Damage evaluation section of Risk Assessment Templates. Details on how to fill in the template, and how to use the results, are in the Risk assessment section.

Examples of environmental and social risks include, and are not limited to, deforestation, use of dedicated crops, land use change, rebound effect, or use of harmful chemicals. The actual risks to consider are presented in each methodology’s Risk Assessment Template, and include any harm that could reasonably occur in a worst case scenario outcome of a reasonably operated project.

Health & Safety of workers is particularly important for Riverse projects, given the standard’s focus on industrial projects. Industrial environments may pose unique challenges and risks to workers, who’s well-being and protection must be prioritized. Specific risks, such as exposure to harmful chemicals, are treated in methodologies where relevant. However, risks to workers are generally considered low for Riverse projects, since they are operated in Europe, which is recognized for having .

Projects must adhere to local, state, national, and international regulations. It is assumed that projects operating in Europe meet regulations due to the strict implementation and enforcement of regulations.

Project Developers shall conduct a stakeholder consultation gathering feedback on the environmental and social impacts of their project, among other feedback. The stakeholder consultation shall take place during the project's validation process, addressed to local stakeholders and communities. The feedback is reviewed by the Riverse Certification team during the final project validation review, and they may require the Project Developer to take corrective action to address the concerns. The feedback shall be made publicly available in an appendix of the PDD. More details are included in the Riverse Procedures Manual.

If the project already has a legal permit (for example, construction permit, operation approval from authorities) that required similar stakeholder consultation or environmental and social impact assessments, Project Developers shall provide any documents related to those processes, and may be deemed exempt from the Riverse stakeholder consultation by the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.

Project Developers shall fill in the methodology’s Risk Assessment Template for their project type, evaluating the likelihood and severity of each environmental and social risk.

Certain methodologies may define strict rules and cutoffs that may disqualify projects based on their environmental and social risk assessment results.

If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the Permanence and risk of reversal section shall apply.

The Riverse Certification team or VVB may require annual monitoring of an environmental or social risk if they determine that the risk could lead to the project causing net harm.

Minimum ESDNH risks to assess

Risk assessments shall assess at least the following risks, which should be avoided and minimized:

Risk	Details
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

📎 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

---

Leakage

Carbon leakage refers to the displacement of project activities from the project scope to areas outside the project scope, resulting in an indirect transfer of GHG emissions rather than the absolute avoidance/removal of emissions. Types of carbon leakage that must be considered for RCC issuance include:

• Activity shifting: carbon-emitting activities are geographically displaced or relocated to areas outside the project boundaries as a direct result of the project's implementation. Risks and assessment methods of activity-shifting leakage are identified for each methodology.

• Upstream and downstream emissions: emissions are displaced to other locations or activities upstream or downstream in the supply chain, or elsewhere within the project scope. The comprehensive life cycle assessment approach used for Riverse GHG reduction quantification considers upstream and downstream emissions as part of the project scope. Therefore, these emissions are included by default in the project’s GHG reduction quantification.

Project Developers shall follow the relevant methodology requirements for identifying, assessing and mitigating leakage. Potential risks and detailed instructions are identified at the methodology level.

Methodologies provide instructions on how to assess leakage and manage and, if necessary, deduct leakage emissions. Any project-specific leakage risk may incur additional leakage emission deduction, up to the discretion of the Project Developer, the VVB and the Riverse Certification team.

If no methodology exists for the given project type, the requirement outlined at the end of the Permanence and risk of reversal section shall apply.

📎 Supporting documents:

• Project Developer’s responses to the leakage risks identified in the methodology.

---

Technology Readiness Level

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.

TRL #	Description
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

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.

---

Targets alignment

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.

The reduction efficiency of the project $RE_{\text{project}}$ is calculated as following:

$RE_{\text{project}} = \frac{\text{emissions}_{\text{baseline}} - \text{emissions}_{\text{project}}}{\text{emissions}_{\text{baseline}}} \times 100$

Projects’ reduction efficiency $RE_{\text{project}}$ shall be higher than the targeted emission reduction targets for the project’s sector, presented in the :

Sector	Target emission reduction (2020 to 2030)
Transport & mobility	17%
Construction & housing	73%
Agriculture	58%
Industry & waste	47%
Energy	45%

📎 Supporting documents:

• GHG quantification results showing that the project’s GHG reduction efficiency is aligned with the sector target emission reductions.

---

Minimum impact

The project must justify a minimum emission reduction of 1000 tCO$_2$eq over the crediting period of the project.

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.

Projects shall justify a minimum emission reduction of 1000 tCO$_2$eq over the crediting period of the project.

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:

• GHG quantification results showing that the project’s GHG emission reductions over the crediting period are projected to be at least 1000 tCO$_2$eq.