Core principles

All certified projects are challenged according the criteria defined in our methodology.

The criteria set by Riverse ensure our standard respects the best practice of the market, respect carbon credit core principles:

  • Measurability
  • Additionality
  • Co-benefits
  • Non-permanence risks

In parallel our process ensure Unicity and Third-Party Verifier.

We have chosen and design these criteria to provide qualitative carbon credits to the market. In the list bellow the other criteria are detailed.

Additionally, we are limited the number of technologies that are eligible for our standard. With time, we will work in assessing and allowing more technologies to get certified.

Independently Verified

First of all, each Riverse methodology has been validated by a relevant carbon credit experts, DNV Group, on the following elements:

  • Compliance of the methodology with ICVCM recommandation to certify highest quality carbon credit
  • Quality of measurement guidelines to ensure LCA rigourness and conservativeness
  • Robustness of verification process over time

Besides, during validation phasis, each PDD is audited by a accredited, independant and competent third-party verifier (validation & verification body - VVB), on the following elements:

  • Robustess of carbon gain measurement
  • Compliance with Riverse methodology specifications
  • Validity of verification KPIs, supporting document proofs and check frequences

VVB needs to be compliant with Riverse accreditation rules, which main principles are the following

  • Prove a sufficient knowledge in carbon measurement
  • Prove a sufficient knowledge in carbon credit system
  • Sign Riverse VVB Agreement
  • Sign Riverse Conflicts of Interest Policy

Finally, to finalize carbon credit emission over time, each project developer has to use Riverse decentralized verification framework, necessiting disclosure of supporting documents for each verification KPIs, or to support an accredited VVB audit for each carbon credit emission.

Clarity & methodologies

When LCA do not provide a sufficient precision level, project impact measurement can be supported by a specific methodology. In this case, scientific reviews will be added to project's case.


1. Clarity assesses if the asset's promise of benefit match with the probably outcomes based on scientific research. Broad claims that are not possibly met by a defined asset are of low quality and erode trust.

2. Calculations of the volume of carbon sequestered should be supported by a comprehensive, peer-reviewed literature review in the relevant scientific field.

Inputs from developers

Review the methodologies and scientific documents provided by the project.Review the asset definition and expected outcomes. Review the data on whether those outcomes were met or show progress towards being met.

Intended outcome

Ensure that Riverse carbon credits are scientifically accurate and that one credit is equivalent to at least one ton of CO2eq


The project must prove its financial additionality, by demonstrating 1 of the 4 points below:The project must demonstrate that it does not have sufficient profitability conditions to be developed in the following manner:

1. Justify a price difference between the baseline and the project scenario that prevents or significantly delays its deployment

2. Justify administrative or technological constraints that could be overcome by additional funding

The project must justify that additional funding would increase the impact of the solution in the short term:

3. Prove that the current funding of the project does not allow for its wider deployment

4. Demonstrate that the project's current funding reduces or limits its potential impact


A project is considered additional if it cannot be implemented without the carbon contribution mechanism.

Inputs from developers

One of the following:

- (1) Price gap analysis between baseline (or main available solution) and project's solution

- (2) Study on administrative constrains that can be overcome with additional funding

- (3) and (4) Business plan that demonstrate that without founding the project is not scaling

Intended outcome

CCCs must fund the emergence of solutions and substitution of carbon products that would not have been possible without this funding.
Additionality is a key criterion to ensure that the financing provided has a real impact on the fight against climate change.


Projects emissions capture will be classified in following categories:

1. Under 50y sequestration / avoidance

2. Between 50 to 150y

3. Over 150y


Permanence assesses whether a project will have a lasting impact on the environment during and beyond the project period. Higher quality carbon credits will have a longer lasting beneficial impact to a defined boundary and adjacent ecosystem.

Inputs from developers

Review of scientific technology backgroung and studies or associated LCA.

Review of capture/sequestration means and carbon-containing substance.

Nb of year "guaranteed" for sequestration.

Intended outcome

For reduction/avoi project, the permanence of non-emitted emissions is not arguable. For removals, we aim to ensure a minimum of 50 years.

Non-delivery risks

Additionally to measurement or process faults, the registry mechanisms covers also delivery risks:

- For all projects: a 10% of the credits amount are systematically send the insurance funds in provision to cover the risks of project failure.

- For projects whose CCCs are sold prior to their verification, a mechanism known as "ex-ante": an additional discount R is applied, depending on the number of years separating the date of purchase and the date of the estimated verification, this discount allows to cover the risk that the project stops before the planned end or does not reach the planned objectives. The further out the sequestration, the larger the discount. (cf our registry mechanism)


Precautions taken to prevent risks not to deliver the expected positive impact (ie the emission reduction or capture)

Inputs from developers

Review of the Life Cycle Assessment of both baseline and project (hypothesis, error margins taken)

Review of the production targets and project development perspective.

Intended outcome

The number of CCCs associated with the project must take into account the risk of non-delivery of negative emissions (avoided or capture) by selecting funding consistent with the nature of the project and a rebate associated with the risk.



Co-Benefits are ancillary positive impacts to the environment and the project developer's financial wellbeing and surrounding community. A higher quality project has a greater number of and greater impact on Co-Benefits. A project must justified 2 cobenefits, with according quantification.

Inputs from developers

Co-Benefits are ancillary positive impacts to the environment and the project developer's financial wellbeing and surrounding community. A higher quality project has a greater number of and greater impact on Co-Benefits. A project must justified 2 cobenefits, with according quantification.

Intended outcome

Show the broader positive impact a project has. All Riverse certified projects must have a positive systemic impact to ensure that they are part of a sustainable world by having two quantifiable and verifiable co-benefits.

Do not harm


The project must be assessed against all SDGs. If the assessors or Riverse have doubts in the verification and certification process, additional proof should be asked.

The process/project must not significantly impair any of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Inputs from developers

Review documentation on how the project developer perceive risks associated with the project.Review of production process and project description

Intended outcome

Assessment of the acknowledgement of and mitigation support for side effects of the project on the environment, associated with the creation and maintenance of the project.

Stay in touch

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form