Certification steps

A summary of the project certification procedure is provided here. A detailed description of the certification procedure is in the Procedures Manual.

Project status on the registry

A summary of project status along the different certification steps is provided below:

Purpose of this document

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).

Welcome to the Riverse Documentation Hub—your go-to resource for everything related to our carbon registry: standard rules, procedures, and methodologies. Whether you are a project developer, partner, or carbon credit buyer, this platform is designed to provide you with all relevant information you might look in a efficient navigation system.

Why this documentation?

At Riverse, we believe that consistency, transparency, and adherence to well-defined standards are the cornerstones of trustful and success Voluntary Carbon Markets.

Our documentation is providing detailed guidance, rules and structured approaches to all processes of our carbon standard and registry.

Riverse Standard Documents

Our Riverse Standards Document section covers the essential rules and guidelines that govern our standard and registry across all methodologies and project types.

Riverse Methodologies

Each methodology gives specific requirements and quantification methods per project types.

Presentation of Riverse

Riverse: A mission-driven company

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.

Riverse Standard and Riverse Tech Infrastructure

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:

Riverse Standard: Governance, roles, and responsibilities

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.

In addition to these independent governance entities, four specialized Riverse teams are dedicated to the standard's operational execution:

Conflict of interest, safeguards and grievance mechanisms

All Riverse ecosystem stakeholders are contractually linked with Riverse. The following stakeholders are publicly disclosed:

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

Riverse Registry

• 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

Co-benefits

Global Warming Potentials

GHG emissions and reductions shall be calculated using the following IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP) values for a 100 year horizon according to IPCC 2021 AR6, Chapter 7. The GWPs for the main greenhouse gasses are summarized below, and the full list of GWPs can be found in the IPCC AR6 Chapter 7 Supplementary Material, Table 7.SM.7.

Riverse Registry IT security standards

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

Ramp up impacts

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).

Avoided emissions: absolute decrease vs. smaller increase

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.

All Riverse Carbon Credits are issued ex post, after the verification process.

Removal RCC

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 t CO2eq.

Avoidance RCC

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 t CO2eq.

Credit pools

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…)

RCC status on the registry

Riverse Carbon Credits and provisional credits can have different statuses on the Riverse Registry:

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 & Pre-purchase agreements

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).

Purpose of this document

Change log for Riverse Standard Rules V6

Change log for Riverse Standard Rules V5.2

Revising Riverse Standard Documentation

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.

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.

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

• 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

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.

Creating a new methodology

Submission

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 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

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:

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

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.

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.

The general GHG reduction quantification approach and components are outlined below. Detailed instructions and requirements can be found in Riverse methodologies.

General guidance

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.

Functional unit

Functional units shall include characteristics such as:

• Type of product/service

• Amount

Functional units may include characteristics such as:

• Performance specifications

• Geographic location

• Duration

System Boundary

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.

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.

Baseline scenario selection

The Guidance on Avoided Emissions by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) shall be followed to select the baseline scenario (see figure below).

According to the Guidance on Avoided Emissions 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.

Input data

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 assessment

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

Measurability

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

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.

Real

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.

Additionality

Permanence and risk of reversal

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.

No double counting

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.

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.

Substitution

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.

Environmental and Social Do No Harm Safeguards

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.

Minimum ESDNH risks to assess

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

Leakage

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.

Technology Readiness Level

Projects shall at minimum reach TRL 6, which is described in the table above.

Targets alignment

Minimum impact

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.

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

Purpose of this document

The aim of this document is to present guidelines for Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) for conducting comprehensive evaluations of greenhouse gas emission avoidance and/or removals of Project Developers under the Riverse Standard.

• Validation Audits

• Verification Audits

Introduction

This guidance is part of the larger framework of the Riverse Standard system, which encompasses the Riverse Standard Rules and the methodologies. Moreover, it complements the Riverse Procedures Manual that delineates project registration and supervision This document offers targeted guidance for auditors performing validation and verification audits within the specialized scope of Project Developers.

The guidelines detailed in this document become binding upon its formal release. Post this date, any VVB that meets the requirements can contribute to the validation and verification of Riverse Standard Projects.

Existing VVBs must reapply and provide the necessary documentation outlined in this text before continuing validation or verification tasks.

For VVBs who have an existing formalized agreement with Project Developers before the activation date of this guidance, a grace period of twelve months is given to apply again and comply with the new requirements.

Henceforth, Project Developers can only collaborate with VVBs officially recognized by Riverse, based on the requirements and processes defined herein. Projects already registered that haven't transitioned to the Riverse Standard Rules might be subjected to different review templates than those mentioned here.

VVB acknowledgement

I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand the above requirements.

Company name:____________________

Name:_________________

Signature: ____________________________________ Date:_____________

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.

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

The purpose of this document is to:

• Inform Project Developers and carbon credit buyers to avoid making misleading claims about the greenhouse gas emission reductions their activities enable

Double use

Background

Double use occurs when a single carbon credit is used and/or retired twice (by two entities, or two times by the same entity). This is prevented on the Riverse registry, where Riverse carbon credits are traced with a unique identification number from issuance to retirement.

An immutable certificate is generated upon retirement, available to the public on the Riverse Registry, with the following information:

• Entity that retired the carbon credit

• Vintage year

• Mechanism (avoidance or removal)

• Date of retirement

• Credit IDs

• Credit source (project name and information)

• Any applicable credit labels (e.g. CORSIA)

Refer to the Riverse Procedures Manual Section 9.7 RCC management- Retirement for more detailed information.

There are no project-specific requirements related to double use.

Double issuance

Double issuance occurs when multiple carbon credits are issued for one greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction or removal activity. This can occur in two ways:

• Two carbon credits are issued for the same amount of emission reductions or removals that actually occurs

• Two different entities (e.g., the manufacturer of the material/equipment and the user), both claim the same GHG avoidance or removal and request carbon credit issuance for it, to the same or two different crediting standards.

Requirements

Where there exists a risk of overlapping claims of GHG avoidance and removal between actors in the same supply chain, projects shall clearly delineate the GHG accounting boundary of the GHG avoidance and removal activity. The Riverse Standard shall only issue one carbon credit for the GHG avoidance or removals that occur within the project’s GHG accounting boundary, and not to any overlapping activities.

Methodologies may specify requirements for projects to reduce risk of double issuance between actors in the same supply chain by, for example:

• Obtaining signed agreements from upstream suppliers or downstream users

• Adding relevant clauses in sales contracts

• Providing information to users via marketing, packaging, or other outreach

Projects shall not be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits if the Certification team identifies overlaps of GHG accounting boundaries with another project’s GHG accounting boundaries, within the same or any other crediting program.

If the project is already registered under another crediting program, and intends to register and/or issue credits under the Riverse Standard, the project must prove that the same emission avoidance and removals will not be issued under both crediting programs. The project shall provide the following information related to the project status under the other crediting program to Riverse:

• Project unique identifier

• Vintage period(s) and corresponding volumes

• Signed letter from the Project Developer that it has informed the other crediting program representative about its intention to register to the Riverse Standard and requesting the deactivation or putting on hold the project with this other crediting program.

If the project has already issued credits under another crediting program, the project may be permitted to be certified under the Riverse Standard after deactivating registration with the other crediting program. Only GHG avoidance and removal units of a different vintage and/or scope, that have not already been issued under the other crediting program, shall be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits.

Double claiming

Double claiming occurs when the same GHG emission avoidance or removal is claimed by two different entities towards their mitigation targets, inventories, or pledges. The following sections outline requirements to prevent double claiming across several scenarios.

Double claiming with an NDC

If one of the following conditions are met, Project Developers shall follow requirements in 3.2.2 through 3.2.5.

• the project issues carbon credits for use towards a nationally determined contribution (NDC), or

• the project issues carbon credits for a domestic climate mitigation target of a jurisdiction or nation other than the host country, or

• the project issues RCC to be used under CORSIA.

Obtain an authorisation by the project’s host country, to use the project carbon credits for the intended purpose. This authorization will be made publicly available with the project documentation, and updated as needed.

Obtain confirmation from the project’s host country, that the corresponding carbon credits will be granted a corresponding adjustment. This written confirmation will be made publicly available with the project documentation, and updated as needed.

Ensure the project’s compliance with host country regulations/guidance relating to the voluntary use of carbon credits that are also accounted towards a country’s NDC.

Double claiming with national climate policies and emissions trading schemes

If the following conditions are met, Project Developers shall follow requirements in 3.3.3.

• the host country has a regulated domestic climate mitigation target and/or national emissions trading scheme, and

• the project’s GHG removal/avoidance units fall within the scope of the host country’s domestic climate mitigation target and/or national emissions trading scheme, and

• the GHG avoidance or removal units may also be claimed by another country, jurisdiction, or entity

Obtain a letter from the host country/regional regulator stating that the GHG removal or avoidance unit is not accounted for under the host country’s domestic mitigation target and/or national emissions trading scheme, or that an accounting adjustment or cancellation has been made.

Double claiming with other GHG-related environmental credits

If the Project Developer seeks to issue credits with another GHG-related environmental credit framework for a different time period than GHG avoidance and removal units sought under the Riverse Standard, the Project Developer shall provide evidence that the other GHG-related environmental credits will not be issued for the same time period as the impact credited under the Riverse Standard.

Double Claiming of Emissions for Reporting Towards Voluntary Climate Pledges

Where the Project Developer is a buyer or seller of a product within a supply chain, and implements a project that generates a GHG avoidance/removal that changes the GHG inventory of another entity within the supply chain (e.g. through insetting), there is a risk that the other entity upstream or downstream within the supply chain could double claim the GHG avoidance/removal.

The Project Developer shall

• inform entities throughout the supply chain that they are claiming and reporting the emission reductions from the associated intervention,

• retire the associated Riverse Carbon Credits on the registry on their own behalf,

• and inform Riverse of the associated change in their product's emission footprint through an issued statement.

Any transfer of GHG removal/avoidance units from one entity to another within the supply chain must be documented through an authorized project representative issuing a signed statement detailing the transfer that has occurred.

Situations may arise where two end users seek different types of claims (e.g. contributory vs. offsetting claims) from GHG avoidance/removal units issued by the same Project Developer from the same project. Under such circumstances, the company shall seek guidance from reporting companies, the GHG Protocol, and other accounting tracking mechanisms that emerge.

Claims under Article 6 of Paris Agreement

Projects that aim to issue RCCs that meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, or other Paris Agreement-related programs such as CORSIA, must be differentiated from RCCs that are only eligible to be used for voluntary carbon market purposes. This is to prevent double counting between the host country’s NDC and the buyer or airline’s own climate targets, accounting and claims. As such, unique Riverse Standard labels can be issued to avoidance or removal credits that meet the requirements of Article 6 and CORSIA.

The Riverse Standard mainly covers projects based in Europe. In the context of Article 6, sellers of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) are most likely to be low-income countries, while high-income countries, such as European countries are more likely to be the buyers. This is due to greater financial need, higher emission reduction potential at a lower cost, and the ability for ITMOs to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building in lower-income countries. Furthermore, high-income countries are more likely to purchase ITMOs to take responsibility for historical emissions and meet emission reduction targets.

Therefore, while the Riverse Standard has introduced the use of Riverse Standard labels to enable the use of credits under Article 6, at least in the short term, projects located in Europe are unlikely to become sellers of ITMOs under Article 6. However, seeking the labeling of Riverse Carbon Credits remains an option for Project Developers, since ITMOs may be used for other purposes.

Requirements

Any project that intends to issue Riverse Carbon Credits for use under Article 6 or CORSIA shall meet any necessary established requirements specifically recognised under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and CORSIA mechanisms. Projects that meet these requirements, including those relating to double counting and corresponding adjustments, may receive the relevant Riverse Standard labels. These credits will be labeled accordingly and be made available within the Riverse Registry.

Riverse labeled credits may also be used for voluntary carbon market purposes that do not require Article 6 or CORSIA labels but not vice versa.

The Project Developer applying these requirements shall provide evidence to Riverse that the Host Country has applied relevant corresponding adjustments in accordance with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and its Letter of Authorisation. It shall also provide evidence that the Host Country is and continues to fulfill its obligations required under the relevant Paris Requirements.

The Project Developer shall provide evidence of the appropriate application of a corresponding adjustment within two years of the required application of corresponding adjustments pursuant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

If the Project Developer is unable to provide evidence of the appropriate application of a corresponding adjustment as per 4.2.5 above, Riverse upholds the right to withdraw the Riverse Standard label from carbon credits in the registry and inform all account holders.

Riverse shall prepare and publish regular annual reports prior to April 1st of each calendar year, on the status of Riverse Carbon Credits associated with Article 6 authorisations on its website. The report will provide information relating to Riverse Carbon Credits authorized for use as ITMOs and categorize this data by host country, project activity type, and vintage. This will provide information to fulfill their reporting obligations in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

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.

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.