📄ICR validation and verification specifications v2.0
Last updated
Last updated
Summary
ICR serves as a framework for climate projects of any size, promoting environmental integrity through accelerating credible action and ensuring credibility, consistency, and transparency in quantification, monitoring, reporting, validation, and verification
The ICR program establishes a normalized criteria and framework for independent third-party accredited validation of projects and methodologies, along with verification of GHG emission mitigations. The program adopts the principles from and aligns with ISO 14064-2 and ISO 14064-3. The mandatory requirements for conformity with the ICR program are detailed in the following documents:
ICR requirement document
ICR methodology requirements
ICR definitions
Procedural requirements are detailed in the following documents:
ICR process requirements
ICR methodology approval process
The ICR documentation is available on ICRs website, and isare regularly updated to reflect program updates. Note that new requirements take effect immediately upon issuance, however projects that have started validation/verification may continue without adapting the revised criteria. In some cases, a grace period may also be granted to allow proponents ample time to adapt to the changes. VVBs should refer directly to the ICR website for comprehensive information regarding program updates. Additionally, specific information for VVBs may be provided directly through the ICR registry platform.
Independent third-party validation and verification play a crucial role in upholding the integrity and quality of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation achieved by projects registered with the ICR program. Validation/verification bodies (VVBs) have three key roles within the ICR program: GHG project validation, GHG emission mitigations verification, and assessment of methodologies under the ICR methodology approval process.
To be eligible for providing validation and verification services under the ICR program, VVBs must be accredited under an ICR-approved GHG program and/or hold accreditation under ISO 14065 by an accreditation body that is a member of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). Temporary approval may be granted to VVBs that provide documentation of being in the accreditation process. The specific accreditation requirements for VVBs are detailed in the ICR requirement document.
The ICR validation and verification specifications aim to enhance the consistency, quality, and transparency of project validation and verification within the ICR program, as well as provide guidance on assessing methodologies under the ICR methodology approval process. These specifications should be used in conjunction with other ICR program documents that outline the program's framework, as well as ISO 14064-3, which establishes program-neutral specification for validation and verification of GHG related activities.
The specifications serve to provide further clarification on ICR requirements and, in some instances, clarifications on the application of ISO 14064-3 on validation and verification as they relate to the ICR program. The specifications do not discuss ISO 14065 or other VVB accreditation-specific topics such as IAF MD6, IAF ID12, nor do they offer methodology-specific or sectoral scope-specific guidance which VVBs should consider for their engagement and assessment activities.
While VVBs are the primary intended users of these specifications, the guidance presented may also be useful for project proponents and methodology developers.
The VVB shall follow the validation and verification requirements from ISO 14065 and ISO 17029 towards requirements for the competence, consistent operation and impartiality of bodies performing validation/verification as conformity assessment activities. For validation and verification activities the VVB shall follow ISO 14064-3 and IAF MD 6 for requirements and guidelines. Additional to the ISO 14064-3 and IAF MD 6 the VVB shall follow the guidance provided in this document. The structure of the document is aligned with the structure of ISO 14064-3. Some sections are intentionally without content for consistency with ISO 14064-3.
This document specifies principles and requirements and provides guidance for verifying and validating greenhouse gas (GHG) statements. It is applicable to project GHG statements relating to quantification, monitoring and reporting of activities intended to cause greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigations intending to register the project with the International Carbon Registry (ICR) and issue international carbon credits (ICCs) or for methodology validation according to ICR methodology approval process. ISO 14064-3 is indispensable for applying this document.
ICR requirement document
ICR methodology requirements
ICR definitions
ICR process requirements
ICR methodology approval process
ISO 14064-2, Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements.
ISO 14064-3, Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements
ISO 14065, General principles and requirements for bodies validating and verifying environmental information
ISO 14066, Greenhouse gases — Competence requirements for greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in the ICR definitions apply in addition definitions and acronyms from ISO 14064-2, ISO 14064-3, ISO 17029 and ISO 14065 apply. If there exists inconsistency in definitions, ICR definitions prevail.
To support VVBs in comprehending the overall objectives of the ICR program and ISO 14064-2 requirements, overarching principles serve as valuable guidance for validation and verification. These principles offer direction for VVBs in circumstances where project- or methodology-specific requirements lack complete specificity.
While the ISO 14064-2 and ISO 14064-3 principles are not auditable criteria, they play a significant role in GHG projects and acts as a guiding light for validation and verification assessment. These principles provide a framework and set of guidelines that help ensure the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of GHG-related information and help maintaining the integrity and quality of the GHG projects and GHG emission mitigations claimed.
VVBs shall consider the principles during project validation, verification, and methodology assessments and exercise professional judgement for the purpose evaluating how the assessment harmonizes with the principles.
When a VVB is engaged to carry out a validation or verification, both the VVB and the client need to reach a mutual understanding regarding the objectives, scope, criteria, level of assurance, and materiality of the assessment as outlined in section 5.1.1 in ISO 14064-3. These five elements serve as the foundation for developing validation and/or verification plans, associated evidence gathering and sampling plans. The VVB shall consider acknowledgement that ICR and interested parties to the ICR are the primary intended users of project design descriptions, monitoring reports, produced by the proponent and validation and verification reports produced by the VVB, where the proponents intends to issue ICCs as representing the GHG emission mitigations in t CO2-e.
The VVB shall confirm that the project has been pre-registered with the ICR before signing a validation agreement with the project proponent.
The VVB shall confirm that the project has been validated and registered with the ICR before signing a verification agreement with the proponent. When performing joint validation and verification, the project needs to be pre-registered.
Validation and verification bodies (VVBs)are eligible to provide validation and verification services under the ICR if they have signed an agreement with ICR and are accredited under an ICR approved GHG program and/or accredited under ISO 14065 by an accreditation body that is a member of the IAF.
The VVB shall hold such accreditation or approval for validation or verification (as applicable) for the sectoral scope(s) applicable to the project. Where the project falls under more than one sectoral scope, the VVB shall hold accreditation or approval for validation or verification (as applicable) for all relevant sectoral scopes.
VVBs who are in the process of achieving accreditation or expanding their sectoral scope of accreditation may conduct a validation or verification as a part of their witness audit during their accreditation process with a member of the IAF. Approval of VVBs under accreditation or expansion of sectoral scopes is granted for up to 12 months.
The VVB and the client need to reach a mutual understanding for the criteria for validation/verification activities. For validation activities minimum criteria are:
ISO 14064-2
ICR requirement document
And for verification:
ISO 14064-2
ICR requirement document
Project design description
The VVB and the proponent may add other criteria for the validation/verification, e.g., approved methodology, other benefits (SDGs).
VVBs are encouraged to conduct an assessment prior to undertaking project validation to ensure the project is eligible under the ICR program.
New requirements take effect immediately upon issuance of revised documentation, however projects that have started validation/verification may continue without adapting the revised criteria. In some cases, a grace period may also be granted to allow proponents ample time to adapt to the changes. VVBs should refer directly to the ICR website for comprehensive information regarding program updates. Additionally, specific information for VVBs may be provided directly through the ICR registry platform.
The VVB may engage in validation or verification activities. When reporting on validation and verification activities VVBs shall use validation and verification report templates provided by ICR respectively.
The VVB may perform a joint (mixed engagement) verification and validation activities performed at the same time. When performing joint validation and verification the VVB shall use the ICR validation and verification report.
The concept of materiality is applicable to the verification of all types of projects registered with ICR. It is however not applicable to uncertainties related to measurement, or temporary deviations and permanent changes to the registered monitoring plan or applied methodologies.
5.1.3.1 Verification
The ICR program requires a reasonable level of assurance in verification that GHG assertions are free of material errors, omissions, and misstatements.
An omission, misstatement, or erroneous reporting of information is material if it might lead, at an aggregated level, to an overestimation of the total GHG emission mitigations achieved by a registered project activity equal to or higher than the materiality threshold.
The VVB shall plan and perform verification with an attitude of professional scepticism and rely on professional judgement when applying the concept of materiality.
A reasonable level of assurance imply that some data or information may not be checked. However, the VVB should design its verification and sampling plans to detect all material errors, omissions or misstatements, and any unchecked data or information should not contain any material errors, omissions or misstatements.
For a reasonable level of assurance engagement, the VVB must test a sufficient amount of data to ensure with confidence that no material errors are present. The amount of testing to be conducted is determined based on the outcome of a risk assessment.
5.1.3.2 Validation
For validation the ICR program requires limited assurance on the process for formulating the projection on projected GHG emission mitigations.
All validation opinions shall clearly state that assurance is provided only on the reasonable basis for the assumptions, limitations and methods used to project or forecast information, and not on the
content of the projections or forecasts. All validation opinions shall include a warning that actual impacts may be different from the GHG emission mitigations projection when verified since anticipated events may not occur as expected and the variation may be material.
The initial step in the validation and verification involves defining objectives and identifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) assertions that will be evaluated during the validation or verification process. The primary goal of project validation or verification is to assess these assertions in accordance with the requirements of the ICR Program, ISO 14064-2 and where applicable, the applied methodology or other identified criteria.
The specific objectives may differ depending on whether it is a validation or verification engagement. Additionally, the scope, criteria, level of assurance, and materiality of the validation and verification assessment should be considered when establishing the objectives.
5.1.4.1 Verification objectives
Verification takes place after the project has started its implemented and produces GHG emission mitigation. It involves an ex-post assessment of the monitored GHG data relevant information to the project operation, implementation, and monitoring. During the verification process, VVBs are responsible for assessing the monitoring report and associated date. Considering the following:
Continued conformity to ISO 14064-2
Continued conformity of the project to the ICR requirements.
The degree to which the methods and procedures, including monitoring procedures, have been implemented as outlined in the validated project design description and monitoring plan.
The accuracy of the reported GHG emission mitigations in the monitoring report, with emphasis on their materiality.
5.1.4.2 Validation objectives
Validation requires VVBs to evaluate the project description based on the following criteria:
Conformity of the project to the ISO 14064-2
Conformity of the project to the ICR requirements.
Conformity of the project to the applied methodology, where applicable.
Reasonableness that methods and procedures described in the project will achieve claimed GHG emission mitigations.
The criteria specify the standards or benchmarks against which the project shall be assessed during validation or verification. These criteria serve as the basis for determining compliance, performance, or other relevant aspects.
The project proponent may request the VVB to add criteria for validation and verification. The VVB shall evaluate the requested criteria for it to be auditable and further the criteria needs to be publicly available.
While it is not necessary for VVBs to document every criterion applicable to the validation or verification engagement, they should indicate the relevant documents that contain the criteria, such as the ICR requirement document, ISO 14064-2, where applicable the applied methodology or other applied criteria. Further details about key validation and verification criteria are discussed in Section 5.1.5.
5.1.5.1 Validation
The criteria against which the validation or verification is conducted are guided by the requirements of the ICR program and ISO 14064-2. When applying a methodology to demonstrate conformity to the criteria, the methodology may be added to the criteria. When a methodology is applied the VVB needs to have a comprehensive understanding of the methodology before conducting the assessment. If the project applies methodologies from other approved GHG programs VVBs should refer to the guidance provided by those programs regarding the application of the methodology. Note that projects may rely on methodologies to demonstrate conformity to the ICR program requirements. When projects apply methodologies partially, the VVB shall evaluate how it affects the overall performance of the project and assess impacts of any deviations from the methodology on the performance. When projects do not apply an established methodology the VVB needs to have comprehensive knowledge and understanding about the sectors the project activities fall under and shall conduct an extensive assessment of how the project conforms to the criteria and the overarching principles of ISO 14064-2 and the ICR requirement document.
When project do not apply an approved methodology the validation shall include assessment of the justification for “selection or establishment of the criteria and procedures” relating to clauses 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.10 of ISO 14064-2.
5.1.5.2 Verification
For verification the criteria are the same in addition to the project design description.
When determining the scope of the assessment, VVBs need to consider the physical boundaries, project sites or facilities, and the temporal boundaries which indicate the specific years during which GHG emission mitigations are quantified. For validation, the temporal boundaries are determined based on the ICR project crediting period requirements outlined in the ICR requirement document. For verification, the temporal boundaries are determined by the duration of the monitoring period.
Materiality refers to the concept that individual misstatements or the aggregation of misstatements could influence the intended users’ decisions. Meaning that errors, omissions, or misrepresentations, whether occurring individually or collectively, can impact GHG claims and consequently influence the decisions made by intended users.
The materiality threshold is a predefined level set to determine what is considered significant enough to influence the decision-making process. It helps identify the boundaries within which errors or discrepancies are deemed immaterial or inconsequential.
The determination of materiality is important in validation, verification, and reporting processes to ensure that information provided is accurate, reliable, and relevant. Adhering to materiality thresholds helps maintain the integrity and credibility of GHG projects, issued instruments and their associated claims.
The materiality threshold, which determines the level of significance that triggers action, cannot be negotiated between the project proponent and the VVB. It is crucial to adhere to the materiality thresholds as it informs the determination of the threshold.
The VVB planning and conducting verification shall achieve a reasonable level of assurance that the reported GHG emission mitigations are free from material errors, omissions or misstatements. An omission, misstatement, or erroneous reporting of information is material if it might lead, at an aggregated level, to an overestimation of the total GHG emission mitigations achieved by a registered project activity equal to or higher than the following thresholds:
2 per cent of the GHG emission mitigations for project activities achieving a total GHG emission mitigations equal to or more than 250,000 t CO2-e/yr.
5 per cent of the GHG emission mitigations for project activities achieving a total GHG emission mitigations equal to or less than 250,000 t CO2-e/yr.
For projects activities achieving a total GHG emission mitigations equal to or less than 10,000 t CO2-e/yr, 10 per cent is allowed.
5.1.7.1 Materiality considerations
Materiality encompasses both qualitative and quantitative aspects. When evaluating qualitative materiality, VVBs are responsible for determining whether a project conforms to the ICR requirements and when applicable methodology requirements. Certain qualitative discrepancies, such as those related to ownership or applicability criteria, must always be acknowledged as significant non-conformities.
In other instances, qualitative discrepancies may be less definitive and could potentially manifest as quantitative discrepancies. When encountering such less definite qualitative discrepancies, VVBs should exercise professional judgement to identify immediate material issues and determine which ones require further investigation through sampling and testing.
Regarding quantitative materiality, VVBs assess the significance of data errors, omissions, or misrepresentations in relation to the cumulative estimate of GHG emission reductions and removals presented in the project description or monitoring report. It is important to note that uncertainties inherent in applied methodology or identified in the project’s documentation should not be factored into the materiality assessment.
While all material errors, omissions, and misrepresentations shall be addressed for a project to receive an unmodified validation or verification opinion, non-material errors found in the project documents should still be addressed by the project proponent to the extent feasible, as per the findings provided by the VVBs.
The VVB shall disclose how competence of the validation/verification team has been determined in the validation/verification report.
The verification team members shall not be involved in more than five consecutive verifications or up to five years monitoring whichever comes first.
During the validation/verification assessment, the validation/verification team shall be added as project members in the registry platform.
The VVB shall disclose activities and techniques performed in the validation/verification report.
Within 21 days from the closing meeting the VVB shall communicate any clarification, material misstatements and nonconformities raised during the assessment. The time for the project to respond to the communication may range from 1-8 weeks, based on the expert judgement by the VVB and extensivity of the response required.
Non-material misstatements shall be communicated to the project within 4 weeks from the closing meeting.
When the VVB findings are adverse, ICR shall be informed.
When the VVB determines that there is insufficient information to support the GHG statement the VVB shall allow the project to provide such information within 4 weeks. If the project does not provide sufficient information the VVB shall follow section 5.4.1.
Where the VVB believes there exists intentional misstatement or noncompliance by the project with laws and regulations, the VVB shall communicate the matter to the ICR.
The VVB shall share verification/validation plan with the ICR and upload to the ICR platform, not for public disclosure. When the verification/validation plan has been updated, revised version shall be shared with the ICR and uploaded to the ICR platform.
For further clarification on project processes and involvement of VVBs in the process are discussed further in the ICR process requirements.
6.1.1.1 General
During the verification strategic analysis, the VVB shall document relevant outcomes from the analysis in the ICR verification report template appropriately.
The validation team shall consider all information provided in the ICR registry, the documentation provided by the project proponent, consistency with documentation provided to the VVB by the project proponent, and information in the registry platform.
The validation team shall consider all media provided by the proponent to the registry platform. All insights provided for the validation team shall assess if they relate to the project activities and represent the documentation fairly.
Validation and verification of multiple project activities shall assess conformity of the multiple project activity to requirements for multiple project activities under section 5 of the ICR requirement document.
ICR allows for grouped projects meaning expansion of project activities over time and over a geographically dispersed area. New project activity instances can be added to the project over time (ie, following initial project validation) within predefined geographic areas, provided they meet the set of eligibility criteria set out in the PDD. The new instances are validated at the time of verification.
Inclusion of additional project activities under a grouped project shall be validated, based on the information reported in the monitoring report, for conformity to the eligibility criteria.
For instances where a grouped project is expanded the VVB needs to ensure added project elements meet the validation criteria and the established eligibility criteria for the grouped project.
6.1.1.2 Additional requirements for project GHG statement verification
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.1.3 Additional requirements for product GHG statement verification
Not applicable
6.1.2.1 General
Qualitative risks identified shall be documented in the verification report.
When the proponent request validation of other criteria, e.g. SDGs, the VVB shall include them in the risk assessment. They shall be documented separately.
6.1.2.2 Types of risks
Inherent risks refer to the risks that are inherent to the operations of the GHG project. These risks arise from the nature of the project activities, the complexity of GHG SSRs, the accuracy of data collection and monitoring methods, and other relevant factors. Inherent risks highlight potential vulnerabilities in the GHG emission mitigations accounting process that could lead to misstatements in overall GHG emission mitigations.
Control risks are the risks associated with the design and effectiveness of the GHG projects internal controls over GHG emission mitigations activities. Internal controls are policies, procedures, and safeguards put in place to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data collected. High control risks suggest that the internal controls might be inadequate or poorly implemented, increasing the likelihood of errors or misstatements in GHG emission mitigations reported. VVBs shall assess control risks and determine if there are weaknesses that need to be addressed to improve the accuracy and reliability of the GHG accounting.
Detection risks are the risks that an auditor may fail to detect material misstatements in GHG data during the assurance or auditing process. It relates to the effectiveness of audit procedures and the sampling methods used by auditors to evaluate the GHG data. Auditors shall minimize detection risks by employing appropriate audit procedures and sampling.
6.1.2.3 Risk assessment considerations
When criteria for validation are, in addition to ISO 14064-2 and ICR requirement document, an approved methodology, the VVB may rely on specifics in the methodology, to reduce the level of detail in the risk assessment where the methodology has considered some risk types, e.g., significant emission sources, statutory requirements, quantification methods.
The VVB shall consider risks associated with applied methodologies align with best practices, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and technical advancements.
6.1.2.4 Information sources for risk assessment
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.2.5 Additional requirements for project GHG statement verification
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.2.6 Additional requirements for product GHG statement verification
Not applicable.
6.1.2.7 Uses for risk assessment information
The risk assessment may be used to evaluate if remote audit may be applicable. Risk assessment may be used, where relevant, to inform ICR if the VVB considers the applied methodology not in line with alignment with best practices, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and technical advancements
6.1.3.1 General
For the evidence-gathering design the VVB shall consider the ICR requirements and other applied criteria for the verification.
6.1.3.2 Data trail
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.3 GHG information system and controls
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.4 GHG data and information
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.5 Data aggregation process
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.6 Application of selected verification activities and techniques
6.1.3.6.1 Analytical testing,
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.6.2 Control testing
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.6.3 Estimate testing
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.3.6.4 Sampling
In instances where it is not feasible to conduct an individual assessment of each initial or new additional multiple project activity due to their number, the VVB shall document and explain sampling techniques used for the validation/verification of such instances.
6.1.3.6.5 Evaluation of ownership
VVBs are not responsible for giving an opinion on the legal right of GHG emission mitigations. However, they are required to assess project ownership and rights to claim GHG emission mitigations from the project activities communicated in the GHG statement, with a reasonable level of assurance. This assessment involves evaluating whether the project proponent can demonstrate their claim to project ownership through the evidence they provide. The evidence may include contractual rights, such as legal title to the relevant plant or equipment generating GHG emission mitigations, or binding agreements e.g. long-term leases for land management.
The extent of due diligence necessary to evaluate project ownership evidence varies depending on the specific project. At a minimum, VVBs shall assess whether the project proponent has provided adequate evidence to establish the authenticity of the documentation supporting their claim of project ownership. Additionally, VVBs shall evaluate the regulatory and jurisdictional framework in which the project is implemented to ensure there are no apparent conflicts with the project proponent's assertions. In cases where limited knowledge or expertise exists regarding a specific geographic jurisdiction or sector, VVBs are encouraged to seek external expertise for a comprehensive evaluation.
VVBs may rely on:
Project ownership obtained through the issuance or authorization of a competent authority as per statute, regulation, or decree.
Project ownership acquired in accordance with applicable laws.
Project ownership derived from a statutory, property, or contractual right over the plant, equipment, or process that generates GHG emission mitigations (provided the project proponent retains ownership).
Project ownership derived from a statutory, property, or contractual right over the land, vegetation, or conservation or management process that generates GHG emission mitigations (provided the project proponent retains ownership).
An enforceable and irrevocable agreement with the holder of the statutory, property, or contractual right over the plant, equipment, or process or over the land, vegetation, or conservation or management process that generates GHG emission mitigations, transferring project ownership to the project proponent.
Project ownership resulting from the implementation or enforcement of laws, statutes, or regulatory frameworks that mandate or incentivize activities generating GHG emission mitigations.
The VVB shall confirm for each monitoring period that no double counting exists to a reasonable level of assurance, considering section 5.8 and 5.10 of the ICR requirement document.
When planning and performing remote assessment the VVB shall consider IAF ID 12:2023
6.1.4.1 Site and facility selection
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.1.4.2 Circumstances requiring a site or facility visit
Example of unexplained material changes in emissions, removals and storage can be material deviation from validated GHG emission mitigations from the project design or material changes from last verification assessment, reversal events or non-performance of the project.
6.1.4.3 Activities to perform during site visits
Monitoring practices are derived from the monitoring plan from the project design.
The VVB shall identify any activities that may be assessed by remote assessment.
The VVB shall upload the final version of the verification plan to the ICR registry platform. The VVB shall upload any changes made to the verification plan to the ICR registry platform during the verification after the verification has been completed. The verification plan is not intended to be publicly available.
The evidence-gathering plan is not required to be uploaded to the registry platform.
No additional guidance or requirements.
Any identification of areas requiring further clarification and discrepancies shall be addressed. VVBs must clearly document the following:
Clarification requests (CLs): Project reporting lacks transparency and further information is needed to determine if a material misstatement or non-conformity is present.
Corrective action requests (CARs): The VVB has identified a material misstatement or non-conformity that the project proponent must address.
Any requests for clarification, misstatements and non-conformities shall be shared with the proponent as soon as practically possible. The VVB shall use the Appendix in the ICR validation and verification report template or the ICR verification report template for submission and response by the proponent.
For bundled project activities the VVB shall state its opinion on conformity if the bundled project activities with the criteria and describe any steps taken to assess the conformity. For added project element under a grouped project activities the VVB shall state its opinion on conformity to the eligibility criteria and describe any steps taken to assess the conformity.
The VVB shall complete the verification as soon as practically possible and share the result with the proponent, no later than 4 weeks after the end of the assessment. Any results shall further be shared with the ICR.
6.3.1.1 Evaluation of changes
No additional guidance or requirements.
The VVB shall consider all comments received from any public consultation, if they affect the GHG statement by the proponent.
6.3.1.2 Evaluation of sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.3.1.3 Evaluation of material misstatements
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.3.1.4 Evaluation of conformity with criteria
Methodology can refer to criteria and procedures established by the proponent in the project design for the quantification, baseline, project emissions etc.
6.3.1.5 Evaluation of changes from prior periods
If a deviation has been applied the VVB shall assess if any deviations are material and affects the relevance of the established criteria and procedures for the quantification of GHG emission mitigations, the project's additionality, or the suitability of the baseline scenario
Assessment of deviations from project design description should determine whether the deviation is appropriately described and justified, and whether the project remains in conformity with the validation criteria. The process, findings and conclusions of the assessment needs to be addressed in the verification report and the deviation shall also be reported on in all subsequent verification reports.
6.3.2.1 General
No additional guidance or requirements.
6.3.2.2 Unmodified opinion
When the VVB drafts an unmodified opinion, it shall be using the standard wording provided for in the ICR verification report template or the ICR validation and verification report template.
6.3.2.3 Modified opinion
When the VVB drafts a modified opinion, it shall be using the standard wording provided for in the ICR verification report template or the ICR validation and verification report template. The VVB shall however include to what extent the VVB can’t issue an unmodified opinion and disclose if it impairs the usefulness of claimed GHG emission mitigations.
6.3.2.4 Adverse opinion
When the VVB has drafted an adverse opinion, he shall share that with the ICR as soon as practicable.
6.3.2.5 Disclaiming the issuance of an opinion
When the VVB has disclaimed the issuance of an opinion he shall share that with ICR as soon as practicable.
The verification report shall describe the verification process, any findings raised during verification, actions to react, and the conclusions reached by the VVB. The VVB shall use the verification report template for the verification report (or validation and verification report template for joint validation and verification) and follow all instructional text contained in the template. The verification report shall include a verification statement and the opinion of the verification.
The verification statement shall state the volume of GHG emission mitigation outcomes generated during the monitoring period and verified with respect to non-permanence risk and leakage eligible to be issued as ICCs.
For the strategic analysis other relevant information referred to in section 7.1.1 in ISO 14064-3 may include other criteria applied for the validation and stakeholder consideration. Where relevant, the VVB should inform ICR if the VVB considers the applied methodology not in line with alignment with best practices, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and technical advancements
See section 5.1.7.
For avoidance of doubt, estimate methodology can refer to criteria and procedures applied in relevant sections from ISO 14064-2 and appropriateness of proponent’s establishment, justification and applied criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in comparison to the determined GHG baseline.
7.1.4.1 General
Where a methodology is applied the VVB shall consider if it aligns with best practices, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and technical advancements and are scientifically proven and peer-reviewed.
Where criteria and procedures are developed and not following an approved methodology the VVB shall consider if they align with best practices, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and technical advancements and are scientifically proven and peer-reviewed.
The VVB shall consider all comments received from any public consultation, if they affect the GHG statement by the proponent.
The VVB shall further consider claimed SDG contributions and environmental and socio-economic safeguards implemented in the evidence-gathering plan.
7.1.4.2 Recognition
The VVB may consult with the ICR if there are any restrictions on participation of the project within the ICR program. The VVB should consider especially sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.9, 4.2.1 and 6.4.1 in the ICR requirements and the likelihood of the project meeting the stipulated requirements.
7.1.4.3 Ownership
See section 6.1.3.6.5
7.1.4.4 GHG Boundary
VVBs shall assess whether the GHG SSRs identified for the project and those identified in the baseline scenario are equivalent and consistent. VVBs shall assess whether the project boundary includes, at minimum, all GHG SSRs controlled by the project proponent, related to the project and affected.
7.1.4.5 Baseline selection
The VVB shall determine whether the baseline identified for the proposed project activity is the scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by GHG SSRs that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity.
When following an approved methodology, the VVB shall determine whether any procedure contained in the methodology to identify the most reasonable baseline scenario has been correctly applied. If the applied methodologies require the use of methodological tools to establish the baseline scenario, the VVB shall refer to the methodologies on the application of these methodological tools. In such cases, the specific guidance in the methodologies shall supersede the corresponding requirements of the methodological tools.
If applied approved methodology requires several alternative scenarios to be considered in the identification of the most plausible baseline scenario, the VVB shall, based on financial expertise and local and sectoral knowledge, determine whether all scenarios that are considered by the project proponent and any scenarios that are supplementary to those required by the methodologies, are realistic and credible in the context of the proposed project activity and that no alternative scenario has been excluded.
If the proponent doesn’t apply an approved methodology for the baseline or relies on a methodology the VVB shall consider alternative scenarios considered by the proponent when determining the most plausible and conservatively determined baseline and exercise professional judgement if the baseline scenario represents the most likely scenario.
The VVB shall determine whether the most plausible baseline scenario identified is reasonable by validating the assumptions, calculations and rationales used in the PDD. It shall determine whether documents and sources referred to in the PDD are correctly quoted and interpreted. The VVB shall cross-check the information provided in the PDD with other verifiable and credible sources, such as local expert opinion, if available.
The VVB shall determine, relying on its knowledge of the sector and/or advice from local technical experts, weather all applicable ICR requirements have been taken into account in the identification of the baseline scenario for the proposed project activity, as well as relevant national and/or sectoral policies, regulations, NDCs, local energy availability, energy expansion plans, and the economic situation in the project sector.
When not applying or relying on a methodology, or where the baseline scenario is not prescribed in the applied methodologies, the VVB shall assess the list of identified credible alternatives to the proposed project activity in the PDD selected to determine the most realistic baseline scenario.
The VVB shall assess the alternative baseline scenarios in the PDD and determine whether the alternatives include as one of the options that the project activity is undertaken without being registered as a proposed project activity, the alternatives are plausible that the VVB considers to be viable means of supplying the comparable outputs or services that are to be supplied by the proposed project activity, relying the basis of its local and sectoral knowledge and the alternatives comply with all applicable and enforced legislation. The VVB shall further determine if the alternative baseline scenarios are credible and complete.
For bundled project activities of the same type, demonstration of the baseline scenario and additionality may be combined.
A bundled project with multiple project activities refers to the implementation of different types of project activities and can entail application of a combination of methodologies or criteria and procedures for quantification of GHG emission mitigations. The VVBs needs to perform the assessment of baseline and additionality separately for each project activity.
Where the baseline scenario is prescribed in applied methodologies, no further analysis is required.
7.1.4.5.1 Additionality
The VVB shall determine whether the proposed project activity is additional as demonstrated in the PDD.
The VVB shall assess and verify the reliability and credibility of all data, rationales, assumptions, justifications and documentation provided by the project proponent to support the demonstration of additionality. This requires the VVB to critically assess the evidence presented, using local knowledge, sectoral and financial expertise.
Where applicable, the VVB shall consider methodological tools and guidelines to demonstrate the additionality of proposed project activities. The VVB shall also consider specific complementary or alternative requirements included in the applied methodologies for demonstrating the additionality of the proposed project activity. VVB needs to assess if projects meet the relevant level of additionality, i.e. project shall demonstrate they meet the applied level of additionality. PD/PPs and the VVB may rely on arguments from positive lists or similar automatic additionality tools but shall make an independent assessment.
Level 1
The VVB shall determine whether the description of how to undertake the ex-ante and ex-post calculations of baseline, project and leakage GHG emissions as well as GHG emission mitigations to be achieved by the proposed project activity is in accordance with the applied methodologies or criteria and procedures prescribed in the PDD.
The VVB shall determine whether the correct equations and parameters have been used, in accordance with the applied methodologies or with prescribed criteria and procedures in the PDD.
The VVB shall verify the justification given in the PDD for the choice of data and parameters used in the equations:
Data and parameters remaining constant: If data and parameters are not monitored throughout the crediting period of the proposed project activity, but are already determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, the VVB shall determine whether all data sources and assumptions are appropriate and calculations are correct as applicable to the proposed project activity, and will result in an accurate or otherwise conservative estimate of the GHG emission mitigations.
Monitored data and parameters: If data and parameters will be monitored or estimated during implementation and become available after validation of the proposed project activity, the VVB shall determine whether the estimates provided for in the PDD are reasonable.
Level 2
The VVB shall, relying on local and sectoral knowledge, determine whether the proposed project activity is.
not required by statutory requirements, Level 2a;
required by statutory requirements but the VVB has determined that they are systematically not enforced and non-compliance with those requirements is widespread in the host country, Level 2b.
Level 3
The VVB shall confirm whether the proposed project activity is not common practice relying on official sources and local and sectoral expertise to:
Assess whether the geographical region of the common practice analysis is appropriate for the assessment of common practice related to the project activity’s technology or industry type.
Determine to what extent similar and operational projects (e.g. using a similar technology or practice), other than the project activities, have been undertaken in the defined region;
Assess, if similar and operational projects, other than the project activities, are already widely observed and commonly carried out in the defined region, whether there are essential distinctions between the proposed CDM project activity and other similar activities.
For the barriers analysis, the types of barriers that may be assessed are:
Investment Barriers: Similar activities have only been implemented with grants or other non-commercial financing terms. Similar activities are defined as activities that rely on a broadly similar technology or practices, are of a similar scale, take place in a comparable environment with respect to regulatory framework.
No capital is available from domestic or international capital markets due to real or perceived risks associated with investments in the country where the project activity is to be implemented, e.g. by the credit rating of the country or other country investment reports of reputed origin.
Technological Barriers: Skilled and/or properly trained labor to operate and maintain the technology is not available in the applicable geographical area, which leads to an unacceptably high risk of equipment disrepair, malfunctioning or another underperformance. Lack of infrastructure for implementation and logistics for maintenance of the technology. The process/technology failure risk in the local circumstances is significantly greater than for other technologies that provide services or outputs comparable The particular technology used in the proposed project activity is not available in the applicable geographical area.
Institutional Barriers: Institutional barriers include other barriers not reflected above such as organizational, cultural, social, or educational barriers.
Level 4
When investment analysis is used to demonstrate the level 4 additionality of the proposed project activity, the VVB shall determine whether the proposed project activity would not be:
The most economically or financially attractive alternative; or
Economically or financially feasible without the revenue from the sale of ICCs.
The VVB shall apply the most recent version of the CDM Methodological tool: Investment analysis, Tool27[3].
The VVB shall determine whether the proposed project activity is not the most economically or financially attractive alternative, or that it is not economically or financially feasible without the revenues from sale of ICCs.
The proposed project activity would produce no financial or economic benefits other than GHG emission mitigations related income, e.g. negative IRR. The VVB shall determine whether the documented costs associated with the proposed VVB project activity and the alternatives identified demonstrate that there is at least one alternative which is less costly than the proposed project activity, Level 4b;
The proposed project activity is less economically or financially attractive than at least one other credible and realistic alternative, Level 4a;
The financial returns of the proposed project activity would be insufficient to justify the required investment, Level 4a.
Level 5
The VVB shall determine whether the proposed project activity and resulting GHG emission mitigations are not included in the host-country national GHG inventory or that the project proponent has attained a letter of confirmation for corresponding adjustment subject to section B of Annex II of COP26 decision -/CMA.3 on Article 6.2.
7.1.4.6 Activity measurement
For avoidance of doubt, GHG quantification methodology can refer to criteria and procedures applied in sections 6.7 and 6.8 from ISO 14064-2.
Non-permanence
The non-permanence risk shall be assessed for projects with GHG emission SSRs that may be reversed. GHG project activities are not subject to risk assessment if they do not store carbon in biomass or carbon pools. Where applicable the VVB shall confirm whether the project proponent has addressed non-permanence and specified in the PDD. The VVB shall assess the project’s non-performance risk and the defined permanence of the GHG emission mitigations.
7.1.4.7 Secondary effects
No additional guidance or requirements.
7.1.4.8 Quantification methodologies and measurements
For avoidance of doubt, GHG quantification methodology can refer to criteria and procedures applied in sections 6.7, 6.8 from ISO 14064-2. Further, proponents may rely on good practice guidelines demonstrating conformity to the criteria as stipulated in ISO 14064-2. Methodologies established by approved GHG programs are generally considered a good practice guidelines.
When projects apply methodologies but deviate from the prescribed criteria and procedures the VVBs shall ensure that the deviations do not negatively affect the conservativeness of the quantification of GHG emission mitigations, except where the deviations result in greater accuracy.
7.1.4.9 GHG information system and controls
Assessing data management, the VVB shall also consider other criteria applied.
7.1.4.10 Functional equivalence
No additional guidance or requirements.
7.1.4.11 Calculation of GHG statement
VVBs shall assess all data sources, assumptions and calculations for correctness and applicability to the project. Where models are used to estimate GHG emission mitigations the VVBs shall assess whether the model is understandable, transparent steps and applies appropriate parameters and adjusted for the context of the project. Where VVBs find uncertainty associated with a project’s data, parameters and monitoring procedures, the principle of conservativeness should be applied to adjust estimates of GHG emission mitigations and, where appropriate, manage the risk of associated uncertainty.
7.1.4.12 Future estimates
The VVB shall evaluate projected GHG emission mitigations for the crediting period adjusted for leakage (GHG SSRs affected/secondary effects).
7.1.4.13 Uncertainty
No additional guidance or requirements.
7.1.4.14 Sensitivity
The VVB should adapt identified assumptions to be assessed during the next verification assessment.
7.1.4.15 Other benefits and safeguards
The VVB shall consider if the project proponent has completed the ICR ESES-SD tool and that parameters determined for monitoring are relevant to demonstrate alignment with claimed mitigations for environmental and socio-economic safeguards or SDG contributions.
The VVB shall upload the final version of the validation plan to the registry platform. The VVB shall upload any changes made to the validation plan to the registry platform during the validation after the validation has been completed. The validation plan is not intended to be publicly available.
The evidence-gathering plan is not required to be uploaded to the registry platform.
No additional guidance or requirements.
Any updates to the validation plan shall be uploaded to the ICR registry platform.
No additional guidance or requirements.
No additional guidance or requirements.
The VVB shall consider, in addition to the project design and other disclosure, presentation of information in the ICR registry platform and evaluate.
For bundled project activities the VVB shall state its opinion on conformity if the bundled project activities with the criteria and describe any steps taken to assess the conformity. The VVB shall complete the validation as soon as practically possible and share the result with the proponent. Any results shall further be shared with the ICR.
7.3.2.1 General
No additional guidance or requirements.
7.3.2.2 Unmodified opinion
When the VVB drafts an unmodified opinion, it shall be using the standard wording provided for in the ICR validation report template or the ICR validation and verification report template.
7.3.2.3 Modified opinion
When the VVB drafts a modified opinion, it shall be using the standard wording provided for in the ICR verification report template or the ICR validation and verification report template. It shall however include to what extent the VVB can’t issue an unmodified opinion and disclose if it impairs the usefulness of claimed GHG emission mitigation.
7.3.2.4 Adverse opinion
When the VVB has drafted an adverse opinion, he shall share that with the ICR as soon as practicable.
7.3.2.5 Disclaiming the issuance of the opinion
When the VVB has disclaimed the issuance of an opinion he shall share that with ICR as soon as practicable.
The validation report shall describe the validation process, any findings raised during validation, actions to react, and the conclusions reached by the validation body. The validation body shall use the validation report template (or validation and verification report template for joint validation and verification) and follow all instructional text in the validation report template. The validation report shall include a validation statement and the opinion of the validation.
Where the project being validated does not meet the validation criteria, the validation/verification body shall produce an adverse validation opinion and provide the validation report to the project proponent and ICR. The project proponent shall inform the ICR of any adverse validation opinion and is ineligible for registration until implementation of corrective actions and the validation/verification body has closed any non-conformities and provided a positive validation opinion.
The independent reviewer shall not be involved in more than five consecutive verifications or up to five years monitoring whichever comes first.
The ICR program applies the following names for opinion are Unmodified, Modified, Adverse, Disclaim the issuance of an opinion.
Where the project being validated does not meet the validation criteria, the VVB shall produce an adverse validation opinion and provide the validation report to the project proponent and ICR.
If project impacts under verification assessment do not meet the verification criteria, the VVB shall produce an adverse verification opinion and provide the verification report to the project proponent and ICR.
The opinion shall include the level of assurance. The criteria for the validation/verification.
For any facts or new information that could materially affect verification or validation opinion discovered after the date of the opinion the VVB shall immediately report such information to the proponent and the ICR.
Approved VVBs are eligible to conduct validation of methodology under the methodology approval process. The VVB shall hold accreditation for validation for the sectoral scope(s) applicable to the methodology. Where the methodology falls under more than one sectoral scope, the VVB shall hold accreditation for validation for all relevant sectoral scopes.
In the process of methodology approval, VVBs are required to assess the methodology. This assessment entails a comprehensive desk review encompassing all aspects outlined in the ICR methodology approval process and ICR methodology requirements. The assessment may involve an iteration where the VVBs provide CLs and CARs that must be addressed by the developer until satisfactory resolution.
Validation involves determining if the proposed methodology is eligible to generate GHG emission mitigation outcomes when applied. Validation shall be conducted according to ISO 14064-3, especially section 7, and ISO 14065 and these ICR validation and verification specifications, especially section 7.
The criteria for validation are ISO 14064-2, ICR methodology requirements, and applicable requirements from the ICR requirement document. During methodology assessment, VVBs need to assess whether the methodology conforms to the validation criteria with the establishment of criteria and procedures ensuring conservativeness and scientific integrity and technical advancements and are scientifically proven and peer-reviewed and alignment with other principles from section 4 of the ICR methodology requirements.
Methodology assessment requires background research, review of documentation, and interviews with experts and key stakeholders to determine whether the criteria and procedures established in the methodology conform to requirements and principles set out in the ICR methodology requirements, ICR requirement document and good practice standards. VVBs need to consider underlying assumptions and approaches used in the methodology and assess whether and how the methodology incorporates relevant scientific and sector-specific considerations.
VVBs need to consider that methodologies shall be written in a manner that provides a prescriptive set of criteria and procedures that projects can apply and be assessed by VVBs to minimize subjective interpretation by project proponents applying the methodology and VVBs assessing projects. This includes using precise language, avoiding vague terminology, and ensuring the application and proper use of the keywords “can,” “shall,” “should,” and “may.”
VVBs are responsible for assembling a competent validation team capable of conducting the assessment of the methodology, considering sector-specific competencies and qualifications. The teams shall include an impartial, suitably qualified technical reviewer.
In cases where intricate technical or scientific expertise is demanded beyond the VVB's technical expertise, VVBs shall engage external technical experts for the validation who are experts in the pertinent field. Given the dynamic nature of science and technology in various sectors, these experts play a pivotal role in ensuring that the methodology adheres to the latest scientific best practices.
Methodologies establish detailed criteria and procedures that project proponents need to adhere to for project design following the methodology. The exhaustive requisites for methodologies are outlined within the ICR methodology requirements and complementary documentation.
During methodology assessments, VVBs shall assess the alignment of the methodology with ICR requirements and its capacity to maintain rigor and scientific integrity. VVBs are further required to assess that methodologies present a comprehensive, prescriptive framework of criteria and procedures that projects can apply and VVBs can assess, thereby curbing preventing subjective interpretations by project proponents and VVBs applying the methodology.
VVBs shall assess whether the methodology provides a clear and defined specification and/or list of project activities eligible under the methodology. This means that applicability conditions cannot be open ended. Applicability conditions shall not include criteria and procedures that are addressed in other sections of the methodology.
The project boundary in a methodology sets out criteria and procedures for identifying and describing the GHG SSRs relevant to the project and baseline scenarios. The VVB shall assess whether the methodology has provided adequate justification for the included and excluded GHG SSRs and whether the GHG SSRs identified for the project and those identified in the baseline scenario are equivalent and consistent. VVBs shall assess whether the boundary includes, at minimum, all GHG SSRs controlled by the project proponent and related to the project (leakage).
All methodologies need to establish criteria and procedures for identifying the baseline scenario and determining the most plausible scenario. VVBs shall assess whether procedures for identifying the baseline scenario allows for identifying the most plausible baseline scenario, see section 6.4 in ISO 14064-2, and determine whether the procedure takes into account relevant information concerning present or future conditions such as political, technical, environmental and socio-economic conditions.
The procedures for demonstrating additionality provide a step-wise approach to demonstrate whether a project activity would have occurred in the absence of the intervention of the carbon market. The ICR program relies on benchmarking of additionality. The VVB shall assess if the level of additionality can reasonably be met for project activities.
During the assessment of quantification criteria and procedures, the VVB shall assess the appropriateness of applied formulas, calculation, and quantification methods. These methods should offer a coherent and consistent approach to determine net greenhouse gas emission mitigations. The assessment also involves assessing the application of suitable parameters within the calculation methods or formulas.
Quantification criteria and procedures inherently involve a level of uncertainty. VVBs shall assess whether the methodology relies on assumptions, parameters, or procedures carrying significant uncertainty. The methodology should incorporate measures to manage such uncertainty. The VVBs are advised to refer to good practice guidance on uncertainty to assess methodological uncertainties.
VVBs should give special attention to uncertainty when employing indirect methods like models, default factors, and proxies to estimate GHG emission mitigations. This is particularly crucial when direct measurements are impractical due to project activity nature or cost constraints. When methodologies adopt a model-based approach, VVBs should assess the model's foundation in publicly recognized and reputable sources.
VVBs may also need to determine whether a model has been appropriately calibrated for the specific ecological jurisdiction. Methodologies should offer a mechanism to calibrate or refine model uncertainty using available data and measurements.
Evaluating GHG SSRs affected by the project activities (leakage) can pose challenges due to intricate interconnections between a project activity and external activities. VVBs shall determine if changes in GHG emissions outside the project's boundary can be directly linked to the project activities.
When a project induces GHG emission alterations beyond its boundary, these emissions are classified as leakage. An essential consideration for VVBs is whether the methodology addresses potential emissions sources upstream and downstream of the project activity. As a project's impact can span various upstream and downstream effects, VVBs should assess the significance and direct correlation of these effects with the project's activity, guided by the principle of relevance.
VVBs shall ensure that appropriate criteria and procedures address distinct types of leakage, i.e. market leakage, activity-shifting leakage, ecological leakage, economic leakage, substitution leakage, technology leakage, where applicable:
When assessing monitoring data and parameters, VVBs shall assess that default factors and standards utilized originate from publicly accessible, reputable, and recognized sources, such as the IPCC or government publications. These factors and standards should be peer-reviewed and suitable for the specific GHG SSRs being assessed, while also reflecting the most up-to-date data.
In cases where methodologies lack explicit data values, VVBs are required to assess whether the methodology outlines proper procedures for project proponents to determine these values.
VVBs shall also assess the appropriateness of measurement methods prescribed by the methodology considering trade-offs between accuracy, cost-benefit and uncertainty. If a methodology selects a less accurate monitoring approach for a particular GHG SSR, the VVB must assess whether the methodology implements procedures to ensure that estimates remain conservative.
Methodology assessment reports should clearly outline both the assessment process and its outcomes, any findings raised during validation, actions to react, and the conclusions reached by the validation body. The validation report shall include a validation statement and the opinion of the validation. The VVB shall use the ICR methodology validation template. The documentation shall encompass all CLs, CARs, and the responses from the methodology developer.
VVBs are responsible to ensure that methodology assessment reports present an adequate level of detail, facilitating comprehension of interested parties regarding the methodology's alignment with ICR requirements and scientific best practices.
The validation statement shall be according to ISO 14065
In addition to the accreditation requirements to which all VVBs must adhere, ICR reserves the right to conduct oversight activities. Oversight activities are conducted to ensure an adequate level of quality control and assess performance of the VVB operating under the ICR program. It’s intended to supplement accreditation body oversight and audit processes during ongoing validation and verification activities and to complement ABs regular audits and provide additional input to ABs assessments.
Oversight activities conducted by ICR may include the following:
Review of information and supplementary documentation submitted by VVBs regarding project specific conflict of interest determinations.
Review of VVB documentation such as validation/verification requirements stipulated in ISO 14064-3 and this document.
Review of Validation Reports, Verification Reports, and Verification Opinion; and
Participation during onsite assessments.
VVB shall allocate time for training on the ICR requirements. All VVBs shall be members of the VVB forum and shall participate in biannual meetings with ICR.
If VVBs require further clarification from ICR, they can request guidance from the VVB forum , with forms on the ICR website or the registry platform. They may also inquire guidance by sending an email to admin@carbonregistry.com. For inquiries related to proprietary or commercially sensitive matters, VVBs may contact the ICR management directly. When inquiring for guidance from the ICR on interpretation of requirements an explicit reference shall be made to the relevant stipulation. Requests shall clearly outline the specific areas requiring clarification, including any relevant context and background information.
Guidance provided by ICR directly to VVBs or are outlined in this ICR validation and verification specifications shall not be considered as decisions, approvals, or consultations regarding specific project activities.
Section 4, ISO 14064-2:2019 ↑
Section 4, ISO 14064-3:2019 ↑