# M-ICR013 ## Scalable On-site GHG Measurements Methodology for Sustainable Land Management Projects ### Methodology developer [Carbon Real](https://www.carbonregistry.com/directory/0ca05429-1239-47dd-b714-b1e7d7d0af38) ### Sectoral scope 14. Afforestation and reforestation 15. Agriculture ### ID: [M-ICR013](https://www.carbonregistry.com/methodologies/m-icr-013) ### Summary: The capability of the eddy covariance technology to measure carbon fluxes at the ecosystem scale makes this methodology suitable for any project activities focused on sustainable land management, particularly those designed to enhance carbon sequestration from the atmosphere into terrestrial carbon pools. Biogenic carbon fluxes are assessed as a whole without disaggregating individual sources from different carbon pools. This innovative approach is critical for reducing the cumulative errors that typically arise when estimating changes across separate carbon pools over time. In parallel, it enables monitoring and reporting of additionality in real-time, as the quantification of carbon dynamics is based on evaluating Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) data from both a control area and a sustainably managed treatment area. Consequently, it effectively measures differences in carbon balance resulting from ecosystem processes such as carbon uptake through photosynthesis and emissions through respiration, decomposition, soil microbial activity, and other ecosystem processes occurring within both zones. This methodology relies on the combined use of eddy covariance (EC) stations installed specifically for the project, along with those that are part of a global network, which can serve as a complementary source of information. The stations installed specifically for the project provide real-time measurements of carbon fluxes in key areas where sustainable management activities are implemented, as well as in control areas where no project activities take place. By measuring carbon fluxes directly at the project implementation sites, accurate quantification of the actual impact of the activities and dynamic reporting of additionality are possible. The scalability of this model is achieved through the use of ML algorithms capable of spatially extrapolating the data to regions with similar vegetation, topographic, and climatic characteristics. One of the essential features of this approach is the evaluation of model uncertainty and error, which shall be explicitly addressed to ensure clarity regarding the accuracy and precision of its application. At the same time, the methodology is adaptive, allowing for the continuous improvement of models through calibration with independently measured carbon flux data throughout the duration of the project. It also enables the incorporation of new EC technologies and advanced statistical data treatments, all of which will be based on scientific evidence and have the potential to improve data quality and measurement precision throughout the data collection process. *** ## Documentation and public consultation {% tabs %} {% tab title="Methodology Summary" %} [M-ICR013](https://www.carbonregistry.com/methodologies/m-icr-013) {% endtab %} {% tab title="Methodology Description" %} {% file src="/files/0zlOBhvq3fUq117zyFve" %} {% endtab %} {% tab title="Methodology Validation Report" %} Not validated yet {% endtab %} {% tab title="Public Consultation" %} #### Public consultation 8. April 2026 - 8. May 2026 #### Public consultation form {% endtab %} {% tab title="Webinar" %} #### Webinar recording {% embed url="" %} {% endtab %} {% tab title="Public comments" %} #### Public comments {% file src="/files/DQ35XPEj9zssagOAvgsm" %} *** #### Comment 1: Radica |

Although the methodology quantifies carbon dynamics at the ecosystem level through Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE), it is essential to recognize that soil properties constitute one of the primary biophysical drivers of carbon fluxes and cannot be implicitly subsumed under the broader concept of ecological equivalence. NEE represents the integrated balance between carbon uptake and release processes, including photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration; however, these processes are strongly regulated by soil characteristics such as organic carbon content, texture, structure, water retention capacity, and microbial activity. Consequently, even under similar climatic conditions and vegetation cover, variations in soil properties can lead to structurally different NEE responses.

In this context, the assumption that ecosystem-level measurements alone are sufficient to ensure comparability between control and project areas represents a methodological limitation. While NEE provides direct and continuous measurements of carbon exchange, it does not inherently isolate the influence of underlying soil variability. Therefore, if significant differences in soil conditions exist between control and treatment areas, the observed differences in NEE may reflect intrinsic site characteristics rather than the actual impact of project activities. This introduces a potential source of systematic bias in the estimation of additionality, which is a core requirement in carbon accounting frameworks and leading international standards.

To mitigate this risk, the selection of control areas must incorporate explicit soil comparability criteria as a fundamental condition for establishing a valid counterfactual scenario. This includes the assessment of soil classification, texture, baseline soil organic carbon (SOC) levels, depth, and hydrological behavior. Ensuring alignment across these parameters reduces the risk that differences in carbon fluxes are driven by pre-existing soil conditions rather than project-induced changes. In this sense, soil comparability should not be treated as a secondary or optional aspect, but rather as a structural requirement for the environmental integrity of the analysis.

Furthermore, while ecosystem-level measurements provide empirical validation of carbon flux dynamics, they should be complemented by a robust framework of pedoclimatic stratification and spatial modeling. The use of soil datasets and geospatial analysis enables the identification of homogeneous units and supports the calibration of remote sensing-based models used to upscale NEE across the project landscape. By explicitly incorporating soil variables into these models, the methodology can better capture spatial heterogeneity and improve the reliability of extrapolated results.

In conclusion, although the methodology operates at the ecosystem scale through continuous NEE measurements, soil comparability remains a critical prerequisite for ensuring the validity and credibility of the results. The control area should therefore not be defined solely based on general ecosystem similarity, but rather through a rigorous evaluation of pedological and ecological equivalence. Only under these conditions can differences in carbon fluxes be confidently attributed to project activities rather than inherent site variability, thereby ensuring the robustness of additionality estimates and the overall integrity of the carbon accounting process.

| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 2: RE Carbon Ltd. |

Dear ICR Methodology Team,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during the public consultation period for the proposed methodology “M-ICR013 Scalable On-site GHG Measurements Methodology for Sustainable Land Management Projects”.

We would like to provide a comment regarding the applicability of sectoral scopes for Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs).

The methodology currently lists both:

Sectoral Scope 14 – Afforestation and Reforestation (AFOLU) Sectoral Scope 15 – Agriculture

However, the methodology also explicitly includes project activities that are solely related to agricultural soils and soil organic carbon enhancement practices, including:

These activities are fundamentally agricultural in nature and may not involve:

In particular, the methodology itself distinguishes between:

Furthermore, the methodology specifically includes soil carbon enhancement practices within the ILM category.

Therefore, we suggest that the methodology and/or the upcoming revision of the ICR Validation and Verification Specifications (VVS) should clarify that:

“A VVB accredited under Sectoral Scope 15 (Agriculture) may validate and verify projects under this methodology where the project activity is exclusively related to agricultural soil carbon enhancement, sustainable agricultural intensification, cropland management, grazing management, or other purely agricultural interventions that do not include afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation, forest degradation, wetland restoration, or other AFOLU/forestry-related components.”

Requiring SS14 accreditation in addition to SS15 for purely agricultural soil carbon projects may unnecessarily restrict the pool of technically competent VVBs, despite the fact that such projects may fall entirely within agricultural expertise rather than forestry or AFOLU competencies.

This distinction would:

At the same time, projects involving forestry, ARR, avoided degradation, wetlands, peatlands, or mixed AFOLU interventions should of course continue to require SS14 accreditation.

Kind regards,

Christian Johannes General Manager RE Carbon Ltd.

| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 3: EMBRASCA | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 4: Sergio Saez |

P1: La sección 6.3 establece criterios cualitativos y algunos umbrales cuantitativos para la selección del área de control (similitud de vegetación, topografía, clima, suelos). Sin embargo, la metodología no requiere ningún test estadístico formal de equivalencia entre zonas — como distancia de Mahalanobis, propensity score matching, o análisis de balance multivariado — que permita verificar que el delta NEE observado no está contaminado por diferencias preexistentes de sitio. ¿Considera ICR que los criterios cualitativos de la sección 6.3 son suficientes para garantizar validez causal del delta NEE como métrica de adicionalidad, o planea exigir un protocolo de matching estadístico formal en versiones futuras?

P2: En ecosistemas degradados en recuperación — el caso objetivo central de la metodología — una fracción del delta NEE entre zonas de tratamiento y control puede atribuirse a sucesión ecológica natural diferencial, recuperación microbiana autónoma, y retroalimentaciones ecológicas no lineales independientes de la intervención. La metodología no incluye ningún modelo explícito de sucesión natural como componente del contrafactual, ni un descuento por esta fuente de incertidumbre de atribución causal. ¿Cómo determina M-ICR013 qué fracción del delta NEE es atribuible causalmente a la intervención del proyecto, y no a procesos de recuperación que habrían ocurrido de todas formas?

P3: La sección 2.4 define cuatro niveles de adicionalidad, siendo el Nivel 4 — adicionalidad financiera — explícitamente opcional. En contextos donde existen mecanismos de financiamiento público para restauración de ecosistemas (fondos estatales, compensaciones ambientales de proyectos de inversión, subsidios forestales), la ausencia de una evaluación financiera obligatoria implica que proyectos que habrían ocurrido de todas formas pueden generar créditos bajo M-ICR013. ¿Cuál es la justificación metodológica para hacer opcional la adicionalidad financiera, y qué salvaguarda impide que proyectos financiados públicamente accedan a créditos bajo esta metodología?

| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 5: Anonymized | Carbon Real SpA is simultaneously the developer of M-ICR013 and the commercial operator of projects to be accredited under this methodology—acting through related companies—including the sale of properties whose valuation depends directly on the volume of credits that the methodology allows to be issued. What independent review mechanisms did ICR apply to identify and mitigate methodological design biases derived from this structural conflict of interest, and why did the approval process not require the methodology to be developed by an entity with no direct commercial interest in its results? | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 6: UNL/DWFI/LI-COR/CarbonDew | Attached | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 7: International Center for Sustainable Energy Department under auspices of UNESCO, NGO Independent Institute for Applied Environmental Researches | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 8: CarbonSpace Ltd. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| #### Comment 9: Hyphen Global AG | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Attachment** | |
| | {% endtab %} | | {% endtabs %} | --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://documentation.carbonregistry.com/documentation/icr-program/public-consultation/methodologies/2026/m-icr013.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.