Grazing Lands Management

This Module provides the requirements and procedures for the quantification of net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) removal from the atmosphere via improvements to soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in grazing lands. This Module sits under the Improved Soil Management Protocol and must be read in conjunction with it.

Grasslands encompass nearly 2 billion hectares of global grazing land and sequester approximately 20% of the world’s terrestrial carbon stocks¹. Recent FAO assessments indicate a global storage potential of 0.3 tonnes of Carbon (C) per hectare annually, though this varies significantly by soil type and climatic conditions¹. Grazing lands are characterized by high below-ground biomass; root-derived carbon is incorporated into SOC more efficiently than above-ground litter, as it is deposited directly into the soil matrix where it is better protected from oxidation². While intensive management, specifically heavy grazing, is a documented driver of soil organic carbon (SOC) depletion³, regenerative strategies offer a pathway for restoration although these must be balanced alongside other emissions from livestock systems including methane and nitrous oxide^4,5.

This Module is process-agnostic with respect to the specific management practices employed. Eligible project activities encompass any practice or combination of practices that results in a demonstrable net increase in SOC stocks against a counterfactual baseline, provided all eligibility and safeguarding requirements set out in this Module and the parent Protocol are met. This approach reflects the wide diversity of grazing systems, soil types, and climatic conditions encountered globally, and recognizes that effective SOC enhancement strategies will vary substantially by region and context. Using common terminology for SOC-enhancing practices, examples of such eligible activities include, but are not limited to:

• Rotational or Adaptive Grazing: The movement of livestock between two or more areas of grazing lands following a schedule or based on observations of vegetation, allowing periods of vegetation recovery and growth between grazing periods.
• Improved forage species: The seeding of new forage species such as N-fixing legumes or deep seeding grasses to increase biomass production.
• Water management: The use of irrigation to establish vegetation on degraded soils or extend the growing season to reduce periods of bare soil.
• Brush burning or mulching: The strategic management of woody encroachment through prescribed fire or mechanical means to restore grassland health, stimulate root biomass, and maintain high-quality forage for livestock.

In addition to climate mitigation, improvements to SOC in grazing lands can provide environmental and social co-benefits, including enhanced soil water retention and drought resilience, reduced dependency on synthetic fertilizers, mitigation of erosion and nutrient runoff into waterways, and support for soil biodiversity ^6,7,8,9. Carbon finance presents a meaningful opportunity to overcome the adoption barriers, including implementation costs, agronomic support, and the absence of financial incentives, that have historically constrained farmer uptake of SOC-enhancing practices.

Project Proponents must meet all the requirements set out in the Improved Soil Management Protocol and relevant Modules, as well as the requirements set out in the Module. Where this Module contains requirements that duplicate or conflict with those in other Modules, this Module takes precedence.

Throughout this Module, the use of “must” indicates a requirement, whereas “should” indicates a recommendation.

This Module relies on and is intended to be compliant with the following Standards and Protocols:

• The Isometric Standard
• Improved Soil Management Protocol v1.0, Isometric
• ISO 14064-2: 2019 — Greenhouse Gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements

Additional reference standards that inform the requirements of this Module include:

• ISO 14064-3: 2019 — Greenhouse Gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements
• ISO 14040: 2006 — Environmental Management — Lifecycle Assessment — Principles & Framework
• ISO 14044: 2006 — Environmental Management — Lifecycle Assessment — Requirements & Guidelines

Additional principles that were considered in the development of this Module include:

• The Core Carbon Principles of The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, v1.1, ICVCM, 2024
• Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, Carbon Direct & Microsoft, 2025

This Module was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding grazing lands soil organic carbon dynamics and land management interventions. This Module aims to be scientifically stringent and robust. We recognize that some requirements may exceed the status quo in the voluntary carbon market and that there are numerous opportunities to improve the rigor of this Module as new approaches and techniques emerge.

Additionally, this Module will be reviewed when there is an update to published scientific literature, government policies, or legal requirements which would affect net CO₂e removal quantification or the monitoring guidelines outlined in this Module, or at a minimum of every 2 years.

In addition to the requirements outlined in the Improved Soil Management Protocol, Projects are subject to the following applicability requirements, which must be demonstrated in the Project Design Document.

A grazing land management framework is land that is used for grazing livestock on a permanent or rotational basis, together with associated grasslands used for feed production. For the purposes of this Module, livestock means herbivores managed under a grazing land management framework.

Grazing on natural (non-converted) grasslands, and open rangeland systems is within the scope of this Module. The native-ecosystem provisions of Section 4.1.2 concern the conversion of native ecosystems, not the presence of natural vegetation under grazing; land that is, and has remained, natural rangeland under an established grazing framework is eligible provided no conversion has occurred.

Project Proponents must provide evidence of a grazing land management framework in the Project Design Document. Acceptable evidence, in order of preference, includes: stocking, livestock-sale, and grazing-management records; property grazing management plans; and attestations or affidavits from landowners, managers, or knowledgeable third parties (e.g., neighboring operators or local agricultural authorities). Attestations and affidavits must meet the Tier 3 requirements of Section 4.3.1, including corroboration by at least one independent source, such as remote sensing imagery or derived products, regional land-use records or statistics, or Tier 2 records. Uncorroborated attestations are not sufficient to evidence a grazing land management framework.

For the purposes of this Module, arable cropland is land that is cultivated for the production of annual crops (including annual fodder crops such as maize for silage or small grains), or on which perennial forage is grown in rotation with annual crops. A perennial forage stand that meets all of the conditions for perennial forage stands set out below is not arable cropland, and a break crop permitted under the Stand life and break crops condition does not place the stand in an annual crop rotation. Grassland is land whose vegetation is dominated by perennial grasses, legumes, or forbs, whether native or sown, that is managed for grazing or forage production and is not part of an annual crop rotation.

System boundary treatment. Where perennial forage stands are included in the Project Area, the GHG sources associated with forage production on those stands are within the system boundary. They must be assessed in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and the "Perennial forage stand production" SSR in Table 1. These sources include: stand re-establishment and any break crop; the manufacture, transport and application of fertilizers, lime and other inputs, including direct CO₂ from liming and urea; direct and indirect N₂O from nitrogen inputs, nitrogen-fixing species and crop residues; irrigation energy; and harvesting, baling, ensiling, and the on-farm transport and storage of forage.

In accordance with Section 8.1.1, emissions from forage-production activities that were occurring in the baseline and are not materially altered by the Project may be excluded, so that only emissions above the baseline are quantified, provided all of the conditions in Section 8.1.1 are demonstrated. Where those conditions are not demonstrated, the full emissions must be quantified. Any increase relative to the baseline in the area of perennial forage, the frequency of re-establishment or harvest, the irrigated area, or input rates is a material alteration, and the resulting incremental emissions must be quantified. Consistent with Section 8.1.3, a reduction in one source must not be offset against an increase in another. Forage produced on these stands and fed to livestock within the Project is not imported fodder under Section 8.4.

Forage from land outside the Project Area. Forage produced on land outside the Project Area is imported fodder and must be accounted for under Section 8.4. This includes perennial forage stands or arable land on the same operation that are not included in the Project Area, or that do not meet the conditions above.

Project Proponents must classify each forage-producing area of the operation as inside or outside the Project Area at Validation, and record the classification in the Project Design Document and the boundary shapefile. The classification may change during the Project Commitment Period, for example where a perennial forage stand is added to or removed from the Project Area. Each change must meet all of the following:

• the change takes effect from the start of a Reporting Period and applies to the whole of that Reporting Period;
• the change, the reason for it, and the areas affected are described in the GHG Statement for that Reporting Period, with an updated boundary shapefile, for review by the VVB at the next Verification;
• pre-project and project-scenario feed imports are calculated on the same classification in every Reporting Period. Where the classification changes, Pre-Project Feed Imports ($PPFI_f$) under Section 8.4.3 must be recalculated on the revised basis: forage from an area now inside the Project Area is excluded from both $PPFI_f$ and $PSFI_f$, and forage from an area now outside it is included in both. Where the baseline forage supplied by the affected area cannot be quantified from Tier 1 or Tier 2 records (Section 4.3.1), the value adverse to The Project must be used: the upper credible value when an area is added, and the lower credible value when an area is removed;
• where the change alters the area supporting livestock, the Pre-Project Headage Rate, Stocking Rates and Pre-Project Productivity under Section 8.3 are recalculated on the revised area;
• an area added to the Project Area meets the conditions for perennial forage stands above, with the five-year baseline land-use condition assessed against the date it is added. It must be sampled at t₀ before it contributes to quantification under Section 9, and its forage-production emissions are quantified within the system boundary from the Reporting Period in which it is added; and
• an area removed from the Project Area is treated as unenrolled under Section 5.1.3 for any Certificates attributable to it (Section 10.4.2.1).

Recalculated values apply from the Reporting Period in which the change takes effect. Deductions for earlier Reporting Periods are not restated.

Project Proponents must not include any of the following land types within the Project Boundary:

• R-60Z0-0Land that was converted from native ecosystem cover, including native grassland, native forest, wetlands (terrestrial or tidal, including peatlands, marshes, and mangroves), or other high-conservation-value habitat, at any point within the 10 years prior to project initiation. Land that holds, and has retained, native ecosystem cover under an established grazing land management framework is not excluded by this paragraph (see Section 4.1). Project Proponents must provide evidence that land-use change from native ecosystem cover did not occur within this lookback period, using remote sensing imagery, land cover classification data, or equivalent authoritative sources.

• G-02PS-0Land that was converted from forest, woodland, or shrubland to a grazing system within the 10 years prior to project initiation, unless the Project Proponent can demonstrate that the conversion was the result of a documented natural disaster or is consistent with non-industrial common practice in the region unrelated to carbon market activities or incentives. Evidence must include historical land ownership records, remote sensing data, land manager attestations, or traditional ecological knowledge documentation (e.g., documented oral histories or elder testimony, participatory community mapping of historical land use, or records of customary or seasonal land-management practices, provided it is gathered through structured methods and is verifiable and attributable to identified knowledge holders).

• G-KQJE-0Land classified as wetland, peatland, or organic soil (histosol), as evidenced by national or regional soil maps, land cover classification, or site-specific soil survey data. This exclusion applies regardless of whether the land is currently under grazing land management.

• G-7CE3-0Land under active litigation or dispute regarding ownership, tenure, or use rights, unless the dispute has been resolved prior to project validation, or unless all of the following are demonstrated to Isometric's satisfaction and verified by the VVB: (i) all parties to the dispute consent in writing to the land's enrolment; (ii) the Project Proponent demonstrates that the Project will not affect the resolution of the dispute and that the dispute will not affect the project's activities, carbon outcomes, or its ability to maintain the durability commitment for the Project Commitment Period, regardless of the dispute's outcome; and (iii) sufficient evidence supports both conditions. Where a dispute arising during the Project Commitment Period cannot satisfy these conditions and materially threatens the durability commitment or the rights of affected parties, the affected area is treated in accordance with the withdrawal and reversal provisions of this Module.

  • Fractionated or undivided ownership interests (for example, heirship interests in allotted land in the United States, or undivided family interests under local law) and pending probate or estate administration do not, of themselves, constitute active litigation or dispute regarding ownership, tenure, or use rights for the purposes of this exclusion or of the corresponding land-dispute question in the Appendix A Risk Assessment, provided that the consents and approvals required under applicable law for the land's enrollment have been obtained and the applicable consent pathway in Section 5.1.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol (including the multiple-owner pathway) is satisfied. Where the ownership, partition, or use of the enrolled land is itself contested in a pending legal or administrative proceeding (e.g., a contested probate or a partition action), the land remains subject to this exclusion and the conditions above.

• G-EP5D-0Native forest — Land that meets both of the following criteria and is dominated by tree species indigenous to the region that have established and regenerated through natural processes:

  • (i) Structure: the land meets the FAO forest definition (land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher than 5 m and canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ, excluding land predominantly under agricultural or urban use). For the purposes of this definition, use of land for livestock grazing does not by itself constitute agricultural use; and
  • (ii) Classification: the land is classified as a forest (tree-dominated) vegetation type under an established vegetation classification system, namely LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type in the United States or, elsewhere, an equivalent national vegetation or land-cover classification or the FAO Land Cover Classification System. Where the Project Proponent demonstrates that the classification product is inaccurate for the land in question, a documented site-level vegetation assessment applying the same classification system may be used instead, subject to review by the VVB.
  • Native forest includes primary and naturally regenerating forest and excludes planted or plantation forest. Savanna, wooded rangeland, and other tree-scattered systems with a grass-dominated understory that are not classified as a forest vegetation type under criterion (ii) are not native forest for the purposes of this Module, irrespective of canopy cover; where such land meets the definition of native grassland below, it is treated as native grassland. In such systems, clearing of native woody vegetation within the lookback period is treated as conversion of native ecosystem cover under Section 4.1.2, except where it is the control of documented woody encroachment (i.e., expansion of woody species into areas previously dominated by grassland or savanna, evidenced by historical imagery, ecological site descriptions, or equivalent sources) or brush or fire management consistent with the historical management regime of the land. Delineation must be supported by remote sensing imagery and/or land-cover classification against these criteria.

• Native grassland — A grassland dominated by grass and herbaceous species indigenous to the region that has formed and persisted through natural processes, distinct from sown, "improved," or cultivated pasture composed of introduced forage species, and distinct from grassland created by clearing forest. For delineation, native grassland is characterised by a dominance (≥ 50%) of indigenous, non-sown species cover and the absence of documented cultivation or sowing, evidenced by land-cover classification and a remote-sensing time series.

• Native wetland — A wetland whose hydrology, soils, and biological communities have formed and persisted through natural processes, and whose vegetation is dominated by water-adapted species indigenous to the region.

• High-conservation-value habitat — Habitat holding one or more of the six High Conservation Values as defined by the HCV framework: HCV1 (concentrations of biological diversity, including endemic, rare, threatened or endangered species); HCV2 (large landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics); HCV3 (rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia); HCV4 (critical ecosystem services, including watershed protection and erosion control); HCV5 (sites and resources fundamental to the basic needs of local communities or Indigenous peoples); and HCV6 (sites and resources of cultural, archaeological or historical significance). For the exclusions above, conversion of an HCV3 ecosystem is treated as conversion of native ecosystem cover; the presence of any HCV1–6 triggers the no-harm and enhancement requirement rather than exclusion.

Project-induced conversion of native grassland, native forest and HCV habitat is prohibited.

Following requirements under the Protocol, Project Proponents should implement practices which can provide additional ecological benefits in addition to increasing carbon sequestration. SOC-enhancing land management practices, including forage diversification, rotational grazing, and brush management are encouraged where they deliver co-benefits for soil health, water quality, and habitat connectivity in addition to their primary carbon benefit.

Enrolled parties must be categorized in accordance with Section 6.6.3.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol. Owners of commercial (non-subsistence) grazing operations fall within the Landowner category and, where they manage the enrolled land, the Operator category; they do not fall within the Subsistence smallholder category unless they meet its description. This Module does not set a different revenue-share threshold from that in Section 6.6.3.6 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol.

The Project's primary commitment is to maintain cumulative SOC stocks at or above the level corresponding to Certificates or certificates previously issued, quantified through the monitoring framework set out in Section 9. Because the Module is practice-agnostic, Project Proponents may adapt the specific practices used over time, provided the outcome-based commitment continues to hold.

The Project Proponent must maintain SOC stocks in The Project Area, monitor for Reversals, and compensate for any Reversal for the full length of the Project Commitment Period, which must be a minimum of 40 years (see Section 5.1). This 40-year minimum is the duration of the Project Proponent's storage obligation. It is distinct from the Durability assigned to Certificates issued under this Module, which is set in Section 5.3 at one half of the length of the Project Commitment Period (a minimum of 20 years).

• The primary commitment is to the maintenance of cumulative SOC stocks at or above the level corresponding to Certificates previously issued, as quantified through the monitoring framework set out in Section 9.

• Project Proponents may adapt the specific land management practices implemented during the Project Commitment Period, provided that any such adaptation:

  1. does not breach any other applicability requirement of this Module or the parent Protocol;

  2. is documented is in the next verification and unforeseen changes are notified within 90 days of implementation; and

  3. is accompanied by evidence, through the Section 9 framework, that the 30th-percentile estimate of cumulative SOC stocks (calculated in accordance with Section 9.1.1) remains at or above the level corresponding to Certificates previously issued. Reversion to baseline land management practices, or any practice change for which the 30th-percentile cumulative SOC stock estimate falls below the level corresponding to Certificates previously issued, will be treated as a reversal in accordance with the Isometric Standard.

• Independently of the outcome-based test set out above, Project Proponents must notify Isometric in writing of any material change to the land management practices implemented within the Project Boundary. A planned material change must be notified before it is implemented. A material change made in response to circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen (e.g., drought, wildfire, flood, disease, or a regulatory order) must be notified within 90 days of its implementation. In all cases, notification must be made no later than the submission of the GHG Statement for the Reporting Period in which the change occurs. The notification must describe the change, the enrolled areas affected, the date or planned date of implementation, and the reasons for the change.

  • A change is material where it alters, replaces, or discontinues a practice identified in the Project Design Document as responsible for generating the SOC increase, or where it could otherwise reasonably be expected to affect SOC stocks within the Project Area. Operational variation within the project grazing regime described in the Project Design Document, including its stocking ranges and adaptive-management decision rules, is not a material change. the Project Design Document must describe the project grazing regime with sufficient specificity (e.g., target stocking ranges, planned rest periods, and adaptive-management decision rules) to allow material changes to be distinguished from operational variation. For example:
    • Material changes include: reverting from planned rotational or adaptive grazing to continuous or set-stocked grazing; discontinuing planned rest or recovery periods; stocking rates or grazing intensity outside the ranges set out in the project grazing regime for more than one grazing season; and introducing tillage-based pasture renovation, reseeding, cropping, irrigation, fertilizer or other soil amendments, prescribed burning, or mechanical brush management not described in the Project Design Document.
    • Routine operational variation, which is not a material change, includes: adjusting paddock move dates, grazing durations, rotation sequence, or herd numbers within the ranges and decision rules of the project grazing regime; temporary destocking or deferral in response to drought, fire, or other exogenous events in accordance with the drought or contingency provisions of the project grazing regime; repair or like-for-like replacement of existing fencing and water infrastructure; subdividing paddocks to implement the same grazing system; and changes in livestock class or breed that keep stocking within the ranges of the project grazing regime.
    • Where a Project Proponent is uncertain whether a change is material, it should notify Isometric; notifying a change that is subsequently determined not to be material carries no adverse consequence. All practice changes, whether or not material, must be described in the GHG Statement for the Reporting Period in which they occur. Failure to notify a material practice change will be treated as a non-conformance and may result in the suspension of crediting until the change has been assessed and verified."

• The Project Proponent must provide evidence that the land management practices required to maintain SOC stocks can be sustained throughout the Project Commitment Period. This includes evidence that, for each enrolled area, the landowner or operator holds legal, documented land tenure or rights of use for the duration of the Crediting Period applicable to that area, in accordance with Section 5.1.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol. Consistent with Section 5.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, the Project Commitment Period is a project-level obligation held by the Project Proponent. Individual tenure arrangements and contracts with enrolled landowners or operators are not required to run for the full Project Commitment Period, and land held under shorter or renewable tenure (e.g., fixed-term or renewable grazing leases or permits, including on public or state trust land) may be enrolled, provided that:

  1. the Project Proponent demonstrates how monitoring and reversal liability for that land will be sustained for the remainder of the Project Commitment Period, including through any Ongoing Monitoring Period (Sections 5.1.3 and 10.4);

  2. the Contract Coverage Buffer contribution set out in Section 10.4.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol is applied for each Reporting Period in which contracts do not cover the full remaining Project Commitment Period; and

  3. for land held by a government or in commons, or held in trust, the requirements of the applicable pathway in Section 5.1.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol are met.

  • Loss of access to such land during the Project Commitment Period is treated in accordance with Sections 5.1.3 and 10.4.

• Where the Project involves smallholder farmers or customary land users, land tenure arrangements must be consistent with the farmer and land user rights requirements of Section 6.6 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol.

• R-DAPA-0The Project must not transform the land use of the Project Area such that it ceases to be managed as a working grazing system.

  • This includes:
    • converting grazing land or pasture historically used for livestock production to a different land use (e.g., cropland, plantation forestry, or built development);
    • abandoning grazing, or ceasing grazing management such that the land is no longer managed as a working grazing system;
    • excluding livestock from all or part of the Project Area where the exclusion does not form part of a working grazing regime described in the Project Design Document (e.g., permanently retiring land from grazing); and
    • planting trees.
  • The following are permitted project activities, and do not constitute land-use transformation under this Section, where they are implemented as part of the project grazing regime described in the Project Design Document:
    • planned rest, deferral, and rotational-recovery periods within a working grazing regime, including where such periods were not part of the baseline management system;
    • reductions in stocking below historical stocking rates implemented as planned recovery from documented historic overstocking, where the Project Design Document documents the evidence of overstocking (e.g., against a carrying-capacity or rangeland-condition assessment) and the intended stocking trajectory;
    • temporary destocking or deferral in response to drought, fire, flood, disease, regulatory orders, or other exogenous events (see Section 8.3.4); and
    • exclusion of livestock from riparian zones, wetlands, or other sensitive areas within an otherwise working grazing system, as contemplated in Section 6.1.
  • The productivity effects of these activities are addressed quantitatively through the productivity and leakage assessment of Section 8.3, not through this Section. Their inclusion in the project grazing regime does not exempt the Project from Section 8.3: leakage deductions apply to any productivity shortfall in accordance with Section 8.3, the crediting-suspension threshold of Section 8.3.3 applies to any project-attributable decline in net productivity, and the relief for exogenous events in Section 8.3.4 applies where its conditions are met. These activities also remain subject to the food security and pastoral productivity safeguards of Section 6.1.
  • The Project must seek to maintain or enhance agricultural productivity, including livestock and forage productivity, on project sites over the medium to long term.
    • G-9MRC-0Short-term reductions in productivity during the transition to the project grazing regime are not inconsistent with this requirement where the Project Design Document describes the expected productivity trajectory, supported by the grazing plan and by peer-reviewed literature or other documented evidence; any such reductions remain subject to Section 8.3.

• Planting trees and comparable land-use transformations are scoped under the Isometric Agroforestry and Reforestation Protocols.

This Section applies wherever this Module requires a Project Proponent to evidence historical, pre-project, or other site-specific facts or parameters (for example, prior land use and management, the prior grazing land management framework, livestock numbers and stocking, feed imports, and practice history) and the preferred evidence is incomplete or unavailable, including where records were never kept or have been lost, or where ownership, management, or customary rights over the land have changed. Where another Section of this Module sets specific evidence requirements, gap-filling rules, or default values for a particular fact or parameter, those requirements take precedence over this Section to the extent of any inconsistency, and this Section applies to matters they do not address.

Evidence must be drawn from the highest of the following tiers that is reasonably available for the fact or parameter in question:

1. Tier 1: Contemporaneous project-specific records. Records created at or near the time of the events they record by the landowner, operator, or manager of the enrolled land, for example grazing and stocking records, livestock inventories and movement logs, livestock sale and purchase records, feed and input invoices, financial accounts, grazing management plans, and GPS or collar data.
2. Tier 2: Prior-operator and third-party records. Records relating to the enrolled land that are held by a prior owner or operator or were created by an independent third party, for example livestock sale receipts and auction or saleyard records, brand inspection or animal identification and traceability records, tax schedules and agricultural-use property tax classifications, veterinary records, grazing leases, government agency permits and grazing allotment or permit records, and agricultural program or disaster-assistance records.
3. Tier 3: Corroborated attestations. Signed and dated attestations or affidavits from landowners, managers, prior operators, or knowledgeable third parties (for example neighboring operators, extension officers, local agricultural authorities, or customary authorities), including traditional ecological knowledge documented in accordance with Section 4.1.2. Each attestation must identify the attester, their relationship to the enrolled land, the basis of their knowledge, and the period to which it relates, and must be corroborated by at least one independent source, such as remote sensing imagery or derived products, regional statistics, or Tier 2 records. Uncorroborated attestations are not sufficient.
4. Tier 4: Regional or default values. Values derived from government statistics at the most local level available that is representative of the enrolled land's production system and agro-ecological context (by default the county or equivalent sub-national unit), or from peer-reviewed literature, or, where neither is available, from national statistics, FAOSTAT, or IPCC default values. Tier 4 values may be used for quantitative parameters but must not, on their own, be used to establish a site-specific fact such as the existence of a prior grazing land management framework or the absence of land-use conversion, unless another Section of this Module expressly permits it.

Where evidence below Tier 1 is relied upon, the Project Proponent must:

1. document, in the Project Design Document or the relevant GHG Statement, the fact or parameter to which the evidence applies, the efforts made to obtain higher-tier evidence and why it is unavailable, and why the evidence relied upon is credible and representative of the enrolled land;

2. where more than one source is available, cross-check the sources and explain any material discrepancy;

3. where the evidence is used to set a quantitative value, apply the value conservatively by selecting, from the range supported by the evidence, the value that is adverse to the Project for each use to which the value is put. Where the same parameter is used in more than one calculation, the conservative value must be determined separately for each use (for example, the higher credible value of pre-project stocking where it determines Pre-Project Productivity under Section 8.3, and the lower credible value where it determines the Methane Neutrality condition under Section 8.5.1); and

4. submit the evidence and justification for review by the VVB at Validation or Verification, as applicable. Isometric may require additional corroboration, or may reject evidence it considers insufficient.

This Section applies principally to historical and pre-project information. From the Project Enrollment Date, Project Proponents must maintain Tier 1 records for project-scenario activities and parameters. Lower-tier evidence may be used for a project-scenario parameter only to fill an isolated, documented gap, subject to the requirements above; repeated or systematic reliance on lower-tier evidence for project-scenario data is not permitted."

The Project Commitment Period encompasses the Crediting Period and any Ongoing Monitoring Period commitments following the end of this period.

• Definition. The full Crediting Period is the interval between project initiation (the date on which the first project-activity land management change, for example the first change in grazing management or the first application of another eligible practice such as brush management or forage seeding, is implemented on an individual site associated with the Project) and the end of the last Reporting Period. Where the Project uses the optional Enablement Window defined in Section 5.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, installation of project infrastructure and the baseline (t₀) soil-carbon campaign during that window, subject to the conditions set out there, do not of themselves constitute project initiation. The Enablement Window defers the start of the Crediting Period and the claiming of Certificates only; it does not exclude any emissions from accounting. All GHG emissions arising from activities carried out for the Project during the Enablement Window must be quantified and accounted for as project establishment emissions ($CO_2e_{Establishment,RP}$), in accordance with Section 9.5.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and the SSR table in Section 8.2.1 of this Module. This includes the embodied, transport and installation emissions of project infrastructure (e.g., fencing, virtual fencing, water points and reticulation) and the emissions associated with the baseline ($t_0$) soil-carbon campaign (e.g., field sampling, travel and laboratory analysis). These emissions must be included in the first Reporting Period, or amortized in accordance with Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module, and are subject only to the materiality provision for excluded SSRs referenced in Section 8.2.1.

• Duration. The total Crediting Period (including renewals) must be no longer than the Project Commitment Period set at project initiation.

• Issuance. Certificate issuances occur throughout the Crediting Period. Credits are issued upon Verification of a Reporting Period. Credits issued at each verification event represent the cumulative net CO₂e removal from project initiation to the end of the current Reporting Period, less all credits previously issued under the Project.

• Renewal. The Crediting Period may be renewed up to the duration of the Project Commitment Period.

• Considerations for Grouped Projects. For grouped projects composed of multiple discrete areas, the individual Crediting Periods may be staggered across individual sites to reflect the different timings of project activity initiation within the sites.

• Definition. The Reporting Period is the interval of time over which removals are assessed and crediting calculations are updated. The first Reporting Period starts at the beginning of the Crediting Period. Subsequent Reporting Periods begin at the end of the previous Reporting Period.

• Duration. The minimum duration of a Reporting Period is one year. The maximum duration of a Reporting Period is five years. Project Proponents may request an alternative length of the Reporting Period provided they submit suitable justification for the deviation (e.g., evidence of carbon stock impacts of intervention anticipated to take longer during establishment; matching relevant cultivation cycles).

• Verification. Verification of project activities by a third-party Verification and Validation Body (VVB) is conducted for each Reporting Period (see Section 7.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol).

• Last Reporting Period. Project Proponents must indicate the last Reporting Period to be submitted for Verification. Failure to initiate a Verification within 5 years of the previous Reporting Period or request an extension will conclude the Crediting Period.

• Definition. The Ongoing Monitoring Period is an optional interval between the end of The Crediting Period through the end of The Project Commitment Period. An Ongoing Monitoring Period is only required if The Crediting Period is less than the length of the Project Commitment Period set at project initiation (minimum 40 years). This may be the case if an enrolled property chooses not to renew their contract to the full Project Commitment Period Length. An enrolled area that is unenrolled before the end of its Crediting Period, or for which the Project Proponent loses the access required to conduct sampling under Section 9.1.2 before the end of its Crediting Period, ceases to generate Certificates. It enters its Ongoing Monitoring Period from the date of unenrollment or loss of access.

• Duration. If the Crediting Period is less than the Project Commitment Period, the Ongoing Monitoring Period must encompass the length of time from the end of the Crediting Period to the end of the Project Commitment Period.

• Monitoring. Monitoring for Reversals is the responsibility of the Project Proponent and must follow the same requirements for the measure re-measure approach used for quantification of $CO_2e_{stored}$ (Section 9.1.2). If monitoring is not possible for an enrolled area (e.g., the Project Proponent no longer has access to the land), that enrolled area is considered to have experienced a full Reversal of the cumulative Certificates attributable to it (Section 10.4.2). This does not apply where the Project Proponent elects, and is eligible for, the Remote Monitoring of Reversals procedure in Section 10.4.3. This treatment applies only to the enrolled area for which monitoring is not possible, and not to the remainder of the Project Area. Monitoring obligations for an enrolled area end at the end of that area's Project Commitment Period.

• Definition. The indefinite period of time after the Project Commitment Period has ended.
• Project Proponents must provide details of how the Project design and activities will encourage long-term maintenance and sustainability of soil carbon stocks after the Project Commitment Period to prevent Reversals after the Project ends.

Project A is a grazing lands management project consisting of multiple properties. It sets a Project Commitment Period of 40 years, with an initial Crediting Period of 20 years for all enrolled properties. At the end of the initial Crediting Period, most of the properties renew their enrollment for another 20 years and continue to accumulate Certificates for the remainder of the Project Commitment Period. The remaining properties which did not renew their enrollment enter an Ongoing Monitoring Period to monitor for Reversals for the remaining 20 years of the Project Commitment Period. the Project Proponent is responsible for quantification and monitoring through all of the Project Area for the full duration of the Project Commitment Period, and the reported activities are verified by a Validation and Verification Body (VVB). All Certificates from Project A have a durability of 20 years, equivalent to half of the 40 year Project Commitment Period.

Project B is a soil carbon project which sets a Project Commitment Period of 60 years, which fully consists of the Crediting Period. All Certificates from Project B have a durability of 30 years, equivalent to half the 60 year Project Commitment Period.

Where new areas are added to a grouped Project over time, the Project Proponent must maintain a complete and current record of all enrolled areas sufficient for Isometric and the VVB to track the project area and each area's Project Timeline over the life of the Project. At minimum, the Proponent must:

• Maintain a spatial enrollment register

  • Georeferenced boundaries for every enrolled area, each assigned a unique and persistent identifier, uploaded to Certify at the point of enrollment and maintained thereafter;

• Record initiation dates and timelines per area

  • The initiation date of each enrolled area, together with its resulting Project Commitment Period, Crediting Period, and Reporting Period schedule, so that staggered timelines are tracked individually rather than at the Project level only;

• Establish an area-specific baseline

  • A baseline determined for each new area as at its own initiation, in accordance with the baseline requirements of this Module, so that removals are credited against the correct counterfactual;

• Prevent overlap and double counting

  • A demonstration at each Verification that enrolled areas do not overlap spatially and are not enrolled in any other project, with spatial changes to the register version-controlled and auditable; and

• Evidence tenure per area

  • Evidence of legal, documented land tenure or rights of use for each enrolled area for the duration of the Crediting Period applicable to that area, in accordance with Section 5.1.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, together with the remaining contract term for each enrolled area and, where that term is shorter than the remainder of that area's Project Commitment Period, the arrangements for sustaining monitoring and reversal liability for the remainder of that period (see Section 4.3).

• Record Certificates attributable per area

  • The cumulative Certificates attributable to each enrolled area, calculated in accordance with Section 10.4.2 and updated at each Verification.

Enrollment data must be made available to the VVB at each Verification, and any additions or changes since the previous Reporting Period must be clearly identified.

The Durability of Certificates is set to one half the length of the Project Commitment Period.

The Durability of Certificates is distinct from the length of the Project Commitment Period. the Project Commitment Period (a minimum of 40 years; Section 5.1) is the period over which the Project Proponent must maintain SOC stocks, monitor for Reversals, and compensate for any Reversal (Section 4.3). The Durability is the storage duration represented for each Credit issued under this Module. For example, a Project with a 40-year Project Commitment Period issues Credits with a Durability of 20 years (see Section 5.1.5).

The Project Commitment Period must be set at the time of PDD submission. If the initial Crediting Period is less than the Project Commitment Period, The Crediting Period may be extended up to the duration of the Project Commitment Period. If the initial Crediting Period is not extended, the remainder of the Project Commitment Period must consist of an Ongoing Monitoring Period. For grouped projects, the Project Commitment Period must be the same duration for all areas, but Crediting Period and Ongoing Monitoring Period duration may vary across individual areas to reflect differences in land tenure.

This Section sets out the environmental and social risks specific to grazing lands management and the requirements for managing them. Examples of eligible activities are given in Section 1, and the project activity (anchor practice) is defined by its material management parameters in Section 7.4.1. Project interventions involve deliberate changes to grazing lands management practices that may affect local ecosystems, livestock, communities, and pastoral land users beyond the direct project benefit.

The following risks are specific to grazing lands management activities and must be addressed in the Project Design Document:

• Food security and pastoral productivity

  • G-4KBB-0Project Proponents must demonstrate that implemented practice changes do not compromise the productive output of project land (e.g., liveweight gain, milk yield, off-take, fibre production) or the food security of communities dependent on it. Where practice changes involve reductions in stocking rate, lengthening of rest periods, exclusion of livestock from defined areas, or shifts in herd composition or species mix, the Project Proponent must provide evidence that animal productivity is not materially reduced in a manner that adversely affects local food systems, household nutrition, or pastoral livelihoods.
  • The productivity assessment under Section 8.3 (Pre-Project Productivity and Project-Scenario Productivity, together with the materiality and suspension thresholds of Section 8.3.3) may be relied upon as the evidence required by this paragraph in respect of the productive output of project land, in which case no separate productivity indicator or threshold is required under Section 6.1.1 for that purpose. Where the Project Area supports households or communities that depend on it for food security or livelihoods, including any party in the Subsistence smallholder category of Section 6.6.3.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and any pastoralists or customary land users affected by the Project, the Project Proponent must additionally demonstrate, in accordance with Section 6.1.1, that household food security, nutrition, and pastoral livelihoods are not adversely affected.

• Inputs, amendments, and supplements

  • G-R870-0Project Proponents applying soil amendments (e.g., organic amendments, compost, or other soil inputs), pasture seed mixes, mineral supplements, or veterinary chemicals as part of project activities must assess the risk of soil and water contamination, harm to non-target soil biota (e.g., dung beetles, earthworms). Risk assessments must consider the composition of all applied inputs, including potential contaminants, the cumulative effect of repeated applications over the Project lifetime, and the ecotoxicity of any veterinary residues excreted to pasture.
  • Where inputs are subject to regulation (including veterinary medicines regulation), this must be evidenced via demonstration of adherence to all relevant regulations.

• Soil health and land degradation

  • G-BX2N-0Project Proponents must demonstrate that implemented practice changes do not cause net soil degradation, including compaction, pugging or poaching, erosion, salinization, or acidification, relative to the baseline scenario. Monitoring plans must include indicators of soil health beyond SOC stocks where degradation risks are identified, with particular attention to bare-ground extent, livestock-trail formation, and soil structure under hoof action.
  • These indicators may be evidenced from data the Project already generates where fit for purpose, for example fine-earth bulk density derived from soil cores collected in sampling campaigns under Section 9 (where sampled volume is recorded) as an indicator of compaction, remote-sensing estimates of bare-ground extent, and imagery or photo points for livestock-trail formation and degradation around watering points. A separate sampling program is not required unless those data are insufficient to detect the identified risk.

• Erosion and riparian protection

  • G-ZHYA-0Project Proponents must assess the risk of soil erosion arising from or exacerbated by project activities, including stocking density, livestock-trail formation, watering-point pressure, and livestock access to watercourses. Where erosion risk is identified, Project Proponents must implement and document appropriate erosion control measures. These may include, but are not limited to:
    • The maintenance of permanent vegetative ground cover through stocking-rate management, rotational grazing, or rest periods
    • The exclusion or controlled access of livestock from streambanks, riparian zones, and wetlands using fencing or herding
    • The relocation or hardening of watering points and stock camps to prevent localized degradation
    • The establishment of vegetated buffer strips along watercourses
    • The avoidance of grazing during high-risk periods such as prolonged wet conditions or drought.
    • Erosion and riparian protection measures must be documented in the Project Monitoring Plan.
  • Pastoralist, smallholder, and land user rights
  • G-K6SZ-0Where project activities are implemented on land managed by pastoralists, smallholder herders, tenants, or customary land users, including land subject to communal tenure, seasonal access rights, or transhumant use, Project Proponents must ensure that participation is fully voluntary, that benefit-sharing arrangements are documented and equitable, and that land users retain the right to withdraw from the project without penalty.
    • Transhumant use means the seasonal movement of livestock by pastoralist households or communities between grazing areas, typically along customary routes or across communal or shared land, as part of a mobile pastoral livelihood. The seasonal movement of a commercial operation's own livestock between pastures it owns, leases, or holds under a grazing permit (for example between summer and winter range) is not transhumant use for the purposes of this paragraph. Effects of project activities on the seasonal mobility or access rights of mobile pastoralists or neighboring users remain subject to the requirement below on seasonal mobility, customary grazing routes, and access rights.
    • For the purposes of this paragraph, protected land users are pastoralists, smallholder herders, tenants, and customary land users who hold or exercise rights to use the land under customary, communal, informal, or seasonal arrangements, or who depend on the land primarily for their own subsistence or household livelihood, including any party in the Subsistence smallholder category of Section 6.6.3.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol. Tenants in this sense are land users who hold use rights to land they do not own under such arrangements (for example customary or informal tenants, sharecroppers, or holders of seasonal grazing rights on communal land). A commercial operation that holds land under an arm's-length lease, a statutory pastoral lease, or a grazing permit (for example a ranching business renting additional pasture) is not a tenant for the purposes of this paragraph; it falls within the Operator category (and, where applicable, the Landowner and Worker categories) of Section 6.6.3.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and is owed the safeguarding objectives of those categories. Where a party's position is unclear, the Project Proponent must apply the categories purposively in accordance with Section 6.6.3.3 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and document its reasoning in the Project Design Document.
    • Without penalty means that a protected land user who withdraws from the Project must not be subject to any fine, damages, forfeiture of payments or benefits already earned, loss of land or use rights, or other detriment as a consequence of withdrawal. A participation agreement with a protected land user may require only (i) repayment of advance payments to the extent that they relate to project obligations not yet performed at the date of withdrawal, and (ii) return of moveable equipment provided by, and remaining the property of, the Project (for example virtual-fencing collars or portable water equipment). The total value of any such repayment and return must not exceed the value the land user has received from the Project. These terms must be disclosed to the land user before enrollment and documented in the Project Design Document. The withdrawal of a protected land user does not relieve the Project Proponent of its monitoring and Reversal obligations for the affected area (Section 5.1.3 of this Module and Section 5.1.1.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol); those consequences are borne by the Project Proponent and must not be passed to the land user.
    • For enrolled parties who are not protected land users, such as commercial Landowners and Operators under Section 6.6.3.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, an enforceable participation agreement that defines the party's obligations for the duration of its participation and the remedies for breach (including any obligation to return benefits received from the Project) does not of itself make participation involuntary, provided that the agreement is entered into voluntarily, its terms are disclosed before enrollment in accordance with Section 6.6.3.5 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, and engagement with Operators is consistent with the principles of FPIC. Any obligation to repay or return benefits on breach should be proportionate and should not exceed the value the party has received from the Project.
    • Project activities must not restrict the seasonal mobility, customary grazing routes, or established access rights of mobile pastoralists or neighboring users, except where such restriction has been agreed through documented free, prior and informed consent of all affected groups.
    • Involuntary changes to land management practices are not permitted under this Protocol.

• Water use and access

  • G-6VNM-0Where practice changes affect livestock water demand, watering-point placement, or fencing of watercourses, Project Proponents must assess impacts on local water availability and access, including access to clean water for surrounding communities, wildlife, and existing water-intensive operations in the project area.

• Animal welfare

  • G-E5CY-0Practice changes that alter stocking density, rest periods, supplementary feeding regimes, shade and shelter availability, or herd structure must not compromise the welfare of livestock on the project area. The Project Monitoring Plan must reference applicable national or internationally recognized animal welfare standards (e.g., WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code) against which project activities will be assessed.

• Biodiversity and wildlife interactions

  • G-1T8K-0Project Proponents must assess the impact of fencing, water-point relocation, and grazing-pattern changes on the movement, habitat connectivity, and population dynamics of native wildlife. Where project activities are expected to alter predator–livestock conflict patterns, the Project Proponent must document non-lethal mitigation measures to be implemented, consistent with the safeguarding requirements of the Improved Soil Management Protocol.
  • Population-level change in native wildlife is typically driven at scales larger than the Project Area and requires intensive, long-term survey to detect, therefore the assessment of population dynamics must be proportionate to the identified risk. It may rely on habitat-condition proxies for priority species (including any rare, threatened, or endangered species identified under Section 6.4.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and other species identified through the risk assessment or stakeholder engagement), such as vegetation structure, residual cover, or nesting and foraging habitat; on presence/absence or occupancy of indicator species; and on existing regional monitoring data (for example wildlife agency surveys or breeding bird surveys). Project Proponents are not required to detect population trends directly, except that where project activities pose an identified risk to a rare, threatened, or endangered species, the population monitoring plan required by Section 6.4.2 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol applies.

• Enteric emissions and herd dynamics

  • G-NF48-0Where practice changes affect total animal-days, stocking rate, or herd composition, the Project Proponent must consider whether project-induced changes in enteric methane emissions are appropriately captured under the system boundary and leakage requirements of this Module.
  • Project Proponents must not pursue net SOC gains via management changes whose enteric emission consequences are excluded from quantification.

1. whether the relevant activity, pathway, and receptor are present (for example whether any watercourses, soil amendments, changes in veterinary treatment, mobile pastoralists, or customary land users are present in or affected by the Project);

2. the likelihood of harm given the practice change and site conditions (for example slope, soil erodibility, climate, and the direction and size of changes in stocking density);

3. the severity and reversibility of potential harm; and

4. input received through stakeholder engagement under Section 6.6.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol.

A risk may be screened as not material only with supporting evidence, and where materiality is uncertain the risk must be treated as material. The screening is subject to VVB review at Validation and must be revisited where practice changes or new information could alter it. the Project Design Document must, for every risk screened as material:

• Quantify a baseline
  • Establish a measurable pre-project baseline for the relevant indicator(s), using site data or, where unavailable, regionally representative reference values, in accordance with the evidence hierarchy in Section 4.3. Where the baseline relies on lower-tier evidence (for example operator attestations corroborated by remote sensing, or regional reference values), the basis must be documented and the value applied must be one that does not mask deterioration relative to the baseline;
• Define measurable indicators
  • Specify the objective, monitorable indicator(s) by which the risk will be tracked, rather than qualitative description alone;
• State a performance threshold
  • Commit to a defined threshold or performance standard that constitutes an acceptable outcome, referencing an applicable national or internationally recognized standard where one exists;
• Commit to monitoring
  • Set out the monitoring method and frequency by which the indicator will be measured against the threshold over the Project lifetime. Monitoring must be proportionate to the materiality of the risk and may rely on periodic rather than continuous measurement, including operational and infrastructure records, telemetry, spot checks, photo points, and remote-sensing indicators, provided the method and frequency are sufficient to detect a breach of the threshold in time for the corrective action to be effective. Indicators may be evidenced from data the Project already generates (for example soil sampling campaigns under Section 9, remote sensing, and grazing and herd records) where those data are fit for purpose; and
• Define a corrective-action trigger
  • Specify the remedial action, and the point at which it is triggered, should an indicator breach its threshold.

Where a threshold is breached and not remediated within the timeframe set out in the Project Monitoring Plan, the affected practice change may not be relied upon for crediting until the indicator is restored to its threshold. All indicators, thresholds, and monitoring results are subject to verification by the VVB. Certain risks in Section 6.1, including pastoralist and land user rights, and the treatment of enteric emissions, are governed by absolute requirements rather than thresholds, and those requirements apply in full irrespective of this subsection.

Illustrative indicators and thresholds. The following is indicative of the bar expected; Project Proponents must set ecoregion-appropriate values and justify them at Validation.

The Additionality requirements of the Improved Soil Management Protocol (Section 7.4) and the Additionality Section of the Isometric Standard apply in full to Projects under this Module. This Section sets out grazing-specific supplements and modifications that are necessary because the inherited provisions are, in places, calibrated to discrete, individually-datable land-management practices and to public datasets that do not record grazing management. Where a provision in this Section conflicts with the corresponding provision in the Protocol, this Module takes precedence.

As under the Protocol, additionality is assessed against a project-specific Baseline scenario and Counterfactual each Reporting Period, and Projects must not occur in regions where significant rates of the Project interventions are driven by market demand, local and/or national incentives, or policies that would lead to similar grazing management practices without Carbon Finance. Government subsidies or civil contractual obligations for specific grazing practices are assessed under the Financial additionality criteria of the Isometric Standard.

The prior-adoption requirement of the Protocol applies to Projects under this Module, with the following grazing-specific interpretations. The default 5 consecutive years of non-adoption, the extended 7–10 year window for a single year of adoption, and the reduced 3-year lookback following documented arm's-length management change are inherited unchanged.

The financial additionality requirements of the Protocol, including the USD $5.00 per-acre-per-year Per-Acre Materiality Threshold, the NPV test and its conventions, the incentive-payment definition, and the reassessment timeline, apply in full to Projects under this Module. The Per-Acre Materiality Threshold is a screening criterion rather than a bar: a practice that receives practice-linked incentive payments above the threshold may still demonstrate financial additionality under the NPV criterion (criterion 2 of Table 1 of the Protocol), which compares the incentive payments received, together with reduced input costs, against the installation and ongoing costs of the practice. The following additions are made to reflect that grazing incentives are commonly denominated per head of livestock or per unit of grazing capacity rather than per unit of area, that grazing practices often receive one-time cost-share payments for infrastructure, and that grazing Projects are commonly structured as cohorts of enrolled operations.

SOC-enhancing grazing practices frequently require upfront investment in fencing, water infrastructure, forage establishment, and agronomic expertise, while delivering climate benefits not captured by commodity (livestock) markets. Project Proponents must demonstrate that the adoption of project activities is contingent on Carbon Finance, in accordance with the financial additionality requirements of the Protocol and the Isometric Standard.

The Common Practice demonstration of the Protocol applies to Projects under this Module, adapted as set out below. The adaptations are necessary because (i) the public dataset the Protocol mandates where available — the USDA Census of Agriculture — does not record the eligible grazing activities, so the Census-anchored trend bands in ISM Table 3 cannot be evaluated for grazing; and (ii) coarse public statistics that do exist for grazing (for example, headline "rotational grazing" adoption rates) aggregate management sub-types with materially different soil-carbon outcomes, and so do not measure the specific regime a Project implements. Where this Section conflicts with Section 7.4.3 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, this Module takes precedence.

The five demonstration steps of the Protocol are retained. Their grazing-specific application is as follows.

The material parameters used to define the regime must be stated and justified, and must be the parameters through which the regime is expected to affect soil carbon. On the current evidence base these are, in particular: grazing intensity (stocking rate or density, and the resulting forage utilisation, residual biomass, or ground cover); the length and timing of rest and recovery periods; and the rotation and timing of grazing across the grazing area. The Project Proponent must reference the best available scientific literature linking the chosen parameters to soil carbon outcomes in a comparable production system, land type, and ecological context, and must acknowledge where that evidence is limited or contested.

Eligibility as an anchor practice does not depend on the regime bearing any particular label or matching a proprietary system; it depends on the regime representing a material change in these parameters from the baseline regime, expected to increase soil carbon. The regime as defined here is the basis for the like-for-like comparison used in the prior-adoption assessment above and in the remainder of this Common Practice assessment: adoption and non-adoption must be assessed against operations running a materially equivalent regime, not against the broad subtype label.

Where available data do not support stratification on one or more of these dimensions (for example where regional statistics do not distinguish cow-calf from stocker operations, or rangeland from improved pasture), the Project Proponent may use the finest stratification the available data support, with documented justification of why the resulting comparison set is representative of comparable operations. Stratification choices must be made on the basis of data availability and comparability, not to reduce the measured adoption rate, and are subject to review at Validation. Where the Project Proponent collects primary data (for example a survey under Step 3), the comparison set should be stratified as set out above, subject to the pooling provision in Step 3.

1. Survey-based classification. Where a survey is conducted under Step 3, the sampling frame may be drawn at a broader level than the default strata (for example, all grazing operations in the relevant counties, MLRAs, or states). The survey must record each respondent's production system, land type, and location, and the comparable class must be identified from those responses.
2. Proxy classification. A published classification that approximates the default dimension may be used, for example operations reporting beef cows as a proxy for cow-calf operations, or NRCS National Resources Inventory estimates of rangeland and pastureland area as the basis for land type. The Project Proponent must explain how the proxy departs from the default dimension.
3. Pooled strata. Two or more strata may be combined into a single comparison set (for example, cow-calf and stocker operations, or adjacent MLRAs within a Land Resource Region). The Project Proponent must show that the pooled strata do not differ materially in the factors that govern adoption of the regime defined in Step 1: in particular, infrastructure and capital requirements, forage and climatic conditions, land tenure, and access to incentive programes and technical assistance.

Where any of these alternatives is used:

• the comparison set must include operations of the Project's own production system, land type, and ecological context. It must exclude operations that differ materially from the Project in the factors listed under item 3;
• the comparable class must be defined and documented before adoption data are collected (for a survey) or analyzed (for other sources). It must not be revised in light of the resulting adoption rate;
• where a survey is used, the Project Proponent must report the adoption rate for the full comparison set. It must also report the rate for the sub-group of respondents that match the Project on each proxied or pooled dimension. Where that sub-group has at least 30 responses, the higher of the two rates must be used in Step 5. Where it has fewer than 30 responses and its rate is at or above the Common Practice threshold, the Project Proponent must justify why the full comparison-set rate is the more reliable estimate;
• the survey documentation required by the Protocol must also identify the source of the sampling frame (for example, producer-association membership, extension or conservation-district contacts, or commercial agricultural lists). It must state the frame's known coverage limitations and the likely direction of any resulting bias in the adoption estimate;
• the Protocol's recommended minimum of 30 responses applies to each comparison set as defined, not to each default stratum within a pooled set. A single survey may serve more than one Project, provided each Project's comparison set meets the requirements of this Step; and
• where the size of the comparable class cannot be taken directly from published data, it may be estimated from official area totals for the geographic area (for example, Census of Agriculture or National Resources Inventory estimates for the relevant counties or MLRAs). The shares by production system or land type applied to those totals must come from the survey or the best available secondary source.

For each default dimension that is not applied, the Project Proponent must document in the PDD:

• the datasets searched, and why none resolves the dimension;
• the alternative used, and why it was chosen;
• evidence that any pooled strata are comparable; and
• where applicable, the sub-group results above.

This documentation must be made available at validation.

Remote-sensing-derived adoption estimates (for example the Rangeland Analysis Platform) may supplement the above with documented justification. The trend-based 20–35% and 35–50% adoption bands of ISM Table 3 are not available under this Module, as no grazing dataset provides a comparable multi-period time series.

This modification is justified on the grounds that the anchor practice is the binding common-practice constraint and the principal SOC driver; secondary practices are supporting and are rarely the dominant regional practice; and disaggregated penetration data for secondary grazing practices generally do not exist. It does not relax the netting requirement below or the financial additionality and prior-adoption requirements, which continue to apply to the Project as a whole.

For the purposes of this Section and the Qualitative Common Practice demonstration, data resolve the specific regime where they are disaggregated on the material parameters identified under Step 1 (for example grazing intensity, rest and recovery period, and rotation timing), or on a category whose definition in the data source corresponds unambiguously to the regime as defined by those parameters, such that operations running a materially equivalent regime can be distinguished from those that are not. A subtype label that is not defined by reference to those parameters (for example a headline "rotational grazing" category) does not resolve the regime. The Project Proponent must document in the Project Design Document the basis on which each data source is judged to resolve or not resolve the regime, for review at Validation.

Disaggregated data are not feasible to obtain where the Project Proponent documents in the Project Design Document (i) a search of each level of the Step 3 hierarchy, identifying the sources examined and why each does not resolve the regime; and (ii) a costed feasibility assessment of commissioning a representative survey, including a pooled survey under Step 3, setting out the estimated cost and expected sample and demonstrating that the cost or practicability of the survey is disproportionate to the evidentiary value it would add, having regard to the scale of the Project. The search and the feasibility assessment must be submitted at Validation.

Where the anchor practice's Common Practice status is established qualitatively under this provision, financial additionality and prior adoption serve as the binding quantitative demonstrations of additionality for the Project.

Where the numeric threshold is used, the adoption rate assessed for the anchor practice must be net of adoption funded or motivated by other incentives or programes. Where common practice is instead established qualitatively, incentive and program prevalence must be addressed within the prevailing-practice and barriers elements of the Qualitative Common Practice demonstration below. Consistent with the Protocol, the following must be subtracted, expressed in the area or capacity unit used for the assessment, where quantifiable:

• area or capacity enrolled in any private-market carbon program for the relevant practice;
• area or capacity under any incentive program paying more than the Materiality Threshold (converted per head or AUM to a per-acre basis as under the Financial Additionality Section above) for the relevant practice; and
• area or capacity under USDA EQIP or CSP contracts, or equivalent government conservation programmes, that specifically name the relevant practice — including, as applicable, Prescribed Grazing (528) and its enhancement (E528R), Brush Management (314), Prescribed Burning (338), Forage and Biomass Planting (512), and Range Planting (550).

Because brush management and prescribed burning are heavily funded through conservation programes in some jurisdictions, gross and net adoption may diverge substantially for those activities; the Project Proponent must document the netting for each relevant program.

The System Boundary for grazing land management projects encompasses all GHG sources, sinks, and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with the implementation of SOC-enhancing land management practices on eligible grazing lands. The system boundary must be defined in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and the requirements below. GHG emissions and removals associated with the Project may be direct emissions from a process, or indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources.

A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must be prepared encompassing the GHG emissions and removals relating to all activities within the system boundary. the Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.

Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR Project must be fully considered in the system boundary. Any additional activity that ultimately leads to the issuance of Certificates must be included in the system boundary.

The system boundary must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled and related to the Project, as set out in Table 4 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol. Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR Project must be fully considered in the system boundary.

Grazing lands management projects are implemented on land under active livestock production, meaning that certain operational activities (e.g., grazing management, supplementary feeding, pasture maintenance, animal husbandry) were occurring prior to, and may continue alongside, project activities. Activities or portions of activities that were already occurring in the baseline and would have continued to occur without the grazing lands management project may be omitted from the system boundary, subject to the conditions below.

For the purpose of this provision, an “activity” may refer to an operational sub-unit, such as a discrete supplementary feeding event, a rotational grazing movement, or a paddock maintenance operation, where such sub-units can be cleanly delineated by equipment, timing, and physical scope. Where a pre-existing activity is partially modified by the Project (for example, a feeding regime whose composition is altered, or a grazing rotation whose rest periods are changed), the activity must be partitioned into:

• Portions that are materially unchanged by the Project, which may be excluded from the system boundary under this provision; and
• Portions that are new, extended, or altered as a result of the Project, which must remain within the system boundary and be quantified in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol.

Activities or portions of activities that were already occurring in the baseline and would have continued to occur without the grazing land management project may be omitted from the system boundary, subject to the conditions below. An activity, or portion of an activity, may only be excluded where the Project Proponent can demonstrate all of the following:

• It was occurring as part of routine grazing land operations prior to project activities;
• It will continue to be represented in the counterfactual assessment;
• It would have continued to occur in the absence of the grazing lands management project; and
• Its scope, frequency, equipment, inputs, and intensity are not materially altered as a result of project activities.

Evidence supporting these conditions must be provided in the LCA. This must include either:

• Historic farm or station records documenting the activity prior to project start. Acceptable records include management logs, operational records, equipment usage records, invoices, livestock movement records, or equivalent documentation; or
• A signed affidavit from the relevant operator (e.g., grazier, station manager, pastoralist, or equivalent party) confirming the activity was part of routine operations prior to the Project.

And the following:

• A signed affidavit from the relevant operator confirming:
  • The equipment, timing, cadence, and intensity of the activity are not materially changed as a result of the Project; and
  • The activity would have continued at a comparable level absent the Project.

Where these conditions are met, only the emissions associated with the activity as it would have occurred in the baseline may be excluded. Any incremental emissions attributable to the Project must remain within the system boundary and be accounted for in the relevant emissions section.

The following SSRs are particularly relevant to grazing lands management projects and must be assessed:

• Enteric methane (CH₄): Where project activities alter the total animal-days, stocking rate, herd composition, or diet quality (as measured by NDF or equivalent forage quality parameters), the enteric methane emissions associated with the change must be quantified in accordance with Section 8.5 of this Module.
• Manure and urea nitrogen (N₂O): Where project activities alter stocking rate, forage crude protein content, or supplementary feeding regimes, the resulting change in nitrogen deposition via urine and dung must be quantified in accordance with Section 8.5.2 of this Module.
• Imported fodder and feed concentrate: Where project activities result in a net increase in fodder or concentrate feed imported from outside the project boundary, the embodied emissions, enteric emissions, and manure emissions associated with the additional imports must be quantified in accordance with Sections 8.4 of this Module.
• Fencing and water infrastructure: Where new fencing, watering points, or stock handling infrastructure is installed as part of the Project (e.g., for rotational grazing, riparian exclusion, or water-point relocation), the embodied emissions associated with materials manufacture, transport, and installation must be included.
• Pasture renovation and forage establishment: Where improved pasture species are sown, or pasture renovation is undertaken as a project activity, the embodied emissions associated with seed production, transport, and establishment operations (including any tillage or direct-drilling) must be included.
• Soil amendments: Where compost, manure, lime, biochar, or other soil amendments are applied as part of the Project, embodied emissions associated with their production, processing, and transport to site must be included.
• Brush management and prescribed fire: Where project activities include prescribed burning or mechanical brush clearing, CH₄ and N₂O emissions from biomass burning, and fuel emissions from mechanical operations, must be included.

In accordance with the Improved Soil Management Protocol, the following are excluded from the system boundary for grazing lands management projects:

• Aboveground woody biomass and belowground woody biomass carbon pools (these terms must be set to zero in Equation 3 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol, as specified in Section 9 of this Module);
• Deadwood, litter, and non-woody herbaceous biomass carbon pools, as these are considered transient;
• Emissions reductions: Any emissions reductions (e.g., reduced enteric methane from lower stocking rates, or reduced N₂O from reduced fertiliser application) will not count to offset positive emissions for purposes of calculating CO₂e Removals. All emissions sources within the system boundary must be reported as strictly positive values. Emissions reductions are not credited through this Module and emissions reductions scoped in the Agricultural Practices Reductions Module are not applicable.

• G-J591-0Forest stands, woodlots, and patches of trees or dense woody vegetation within an enrolled property may be excluded from the Project Area at delineation, and must be excluded where they meet the definition of native forest in Section 4.1.1.1 or are otherwise excluded under Section 4.1.1. Excluded woody areas must be included in the boundary shapefile in the PDD. No soil, biomass, or remote-sensing monitoring obligation attaches to excluded woody areas. Where such an area is grazed as part of the operation, the requirements for grazed but ineligible in-holding areas in Section 8.3.5 apply (documentation of historical use and confirmation of no project-induced intensification); where it is not grazed, no further requirement applies. Where small tree patches that do not meet the native forest definition are retained within the Project Area, aboveground and belowground woody biomass remain excluded under Section 8.1.3.

The system boundary must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled and related to the Project, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 4 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and the module-specific SSRs set out in Table 1 below. Values for all SSRs must be strictly positive. Any emissions reductions will not count to offset positive emissions for purposes of calculating CO₂eRemovals.

If any GHG SSR within Table 1 is deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, it may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided in the PDD. Furthermore, if any SSR is expected to be negligible, it may be excluded in line with Section 5 (Materiality) of the GHG Accounting Module, which permits exclusion where the estimated emissions of the SSR are less than 1% of estimated net CO₂e removals for the Reporting Period, both individually and collectively with all other excluded SSRs. SSRs relating to monitoring (soil sampling campaigns, laboratory analysis, remote sensing data acquisition, site visits and associated travel, whether during the Crediting Period or the Ongoing Monitoring Period) and to fencing and water infrastructure may in many Projects fall below this threshold. The Materiality Assessment for these SSRs may use the high-level, conservative screening estimates permitted by the GHG Accounting Module (readily available project data, or expenditure data combined with an environmentally-extended input-output emission-factor model or physical benchmarks from life cycle inventory databases or literature). Where these SSRs are material and must be quantified, published default emission factors from Reputable Sources may be used, with the data-quality justification required by the GHG Accounting Module.

Table 1 — Module-Specific SSRs for Grazing Lands Management Projects

Leakage emissions, $CO_2e_{Leakage}$, occur when project activities lead to emissions that occur outside the system boundary of grazing land management projects. They include increases in GHG emissions as a result of grazing land management projects displacing emissions or causing a secondary effect that increases emissions elsewhere. Three key types of leakage can theoretically occur for grazing land management projects:

• Activity-shifting leakage. Grazing land management projects may displace activities in their project areas, leading to an increase in those activities outside of the project area, which may result in potential land conversion. Examples are where the local community can no longer use the whole project site for subsistence, or where part of a farmer’s productivity is displaced as a result of project activities. This type of leakage is known as “Direct” leakage as the relevant stakeholders can be identified and the activity-shifting is traceable.
• Market leakage. Grazing land management projects may displace activities, which results in a reduction in supply of a commodity. Changes to the supply and demand equilibrium causes other market actors to shift their activities, leading to potential land conversion. This type of leakage is known as “Indirect” leakage because its effects cannot be isolated and measured directly. Quantifying the likelihood and potential magnitude of market leakage is complex and relies heavily on modeling and available literature.
• Ecological leakage. Project activities may lead to emissions in areas outside of the project site as a result of ecological interactions, for example unintended hydrological impacts, introduction of disease, or secondary impacts of faunal influx.

Regarding activity-shifting leakage, as an eligibility criteria Projects must not systematically or permanently reduce the productive capacity of the enrolled land (as calculated in Section 8.3.2), and should seek to maintain or enhance production on Project Sites over the medium to long-term relative to historical productivity levels. Requirements for activity-shifting leakage are set out in Section 8.3.5.

Regarding market leakage, the Project should seek to maintain or enhance productivity from pre-project levels, so any reductions in productivity should be incidental. An approach for assessing productivity is outlined in Sections 8.3.2–8.3.4, and market leakage is quantified in accordance with Section 8.3.6.

Regarding ecological leakage, Project activities that adversely alter the water table, harming ecological integrity within the project area and surrounding landscape and watershed, are not permitted under this Module. Assessing wider ecological leakage impacts is complex. For this version of the Module ecological leakage is assumed to be zero. This will be revisited in future updates to the Protocol.

Market-leakage risk arises where a project reduces the supply of a livestock commodity, inducing production and potential land conversion elsewhere. Project productivity is therefore indexed against a regional benchmark so that only project-attributable changes are assessed.

For each livestock category l, the Headage Rate is the animal-day-weighted mean number of head carried per hectare over a year. It is calculated for the pre-project baseline (the Pre-Project Headage Rate, PPHR) and, identically, for each project year (the Project-Scenario Headage Rate, PSHR):

$$PPHR_{l,y} = [ Σ_h N_{h,y} × T_{h,y} ] / [ D_y × A ]$$

(Equation 1)

Where:

• $l$ indexes livestock category;

• $h$ is a distinct herd of category l present on the project area during the year;

• $N_{h,y}$ is the headcount of herd h in year y (heads);

• $T_{h,y}$ is the number of days herd h was supported by the project area in year y, including days housed off-pasture but fed on forage produced on the project area (days);

• $D_{y}$ is the number of days in year y (365 or 366);

• $A$ is the relevant grazing area: the project area, or the commodity's allocated area $A_c$ under Equation 9 where productivity is assessed at commodity level (ha);

• $PPHR_{l,y}$ is the Pre-Project Headage Rate (heads·ha⁻¹). The Project-Scenario Headage Rate $PSHR_{l,t}$ is computed identically over project years $t$.

The Headage Rate is converted to the Stocking Rate in livestock units per hectare (LSU·ha⁻¹) using a category scaling factor, giving the Pre-Project Stocking Rate (PPSR) and Project-Scenario Stocking Rate (PSSR):

$$PPSR_{l,y} = PPHR_{l,y} × SF_{PP,l,y}$$

(Equation 2a)

$$PSSR_{l,t} = PSHR_{l,t} × SF_{PS,l,t}$$

(Equation 2b)

Where:

• $SF_{l,·}$ is the scaling factor for category l (LSU·head⁻¹), converting one head of category l to a common livestock-unit basis by forage intake / liveweight equivalence. SF is sourced from standard coefficients (e.g., FAO 2011; IPCC 2019 Refinement, Vol. 4, Ch. 10) or from project-specific liveweight measurements, and must be applied consistently to the pre-project and project-scenario calculations;
• $PPSR_{l,y}$ is the Pre-Project Stocking Rate (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $PSSR_{l,t}$ is the Project-Scenario Stocking Rate (LSU·ha⁻¹).

The stocking rate (LSU·ha⁻¹) is the productivity metric used for leakage estimation: it normalises headage across livestock categories and age classes and, where the scaling factor is derived from liveweight, reflects differences in animal size.

Productivity is assessed by livestock-commodity class c (e.g., beef cattle, dairy, sheep/goat meat, wool). The category stocking rates are aggregated to the commodity class they supply (Sections 8.3.2.3–8.3.2.4). Where Appendix D provides a single livestock default (as at present), all livestock commodities share that increased-supply and new-land value; commodity-specific defaults may be adopted as they become available.

A Project Proponent may instead use a direct output-based productivity metric (e.g., liveweight sold or milk produced, per hectare) where reliable saleable-output records and a corresponding regional output benchmark exist. The same metric and source must be used consistently for the pre-project and project-scenario calculations for a given commodity class.

Regional indexing is the mechanism by which region-wide shocks are neutralised: when a drought depresses both project and regional productivity proportionally, the indexed ratio is preserved and no leakage is registered (see Section 8.3.4).

The project-level pre-project stocking rate for a commodity class aggregates the Pre-Project Stocking Rates of the livestock categories that supply that commodity:

$$SRpp_{c,y} = Σ_{l∈c} PPSR_{l,y}$$

(Equation 3)

Where:

• $SRpp_{c,y}$ is the project-level pre-project stocking rate for commodity c in baseline year y (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $PPSR_{l,y}$ is the Pre-Project Stocking Rate of category $l$ (Equation 2a); $l$ ranges over the categories supplying commodity $c$.

Pre-Project Productivity for commodity class $c$ is then calculated over a baseline of at least five calendar years, indexed to the regional benchmark:

$$PPP_c = R̄_{reg,c} × [ Σ_y SR_pp_{c,y} ] / [ Σ_y R_{reg,c,y} ]$$

(Equation 4)

Where:

• $PPP_c$ is the Pre-Project Productivity for commodity $c$ (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $R_{reg,c,y}$ is the regional benchmark stocking rate for commodity $c$in baseline year $y$ (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $R̄_{reg,c}$ is the mean regional benchmark stocking rate for commodity c over the baseline period (≥5 years);
• $y$ indexes the ≥5 baseline years (y = −5 … −1 relative to project initiation).

The project-level project-scenario stocking rate for a commodity class aggregates the Project-Scenario Stocking Rates of its supplying categories:

$$SRps_{c,t} = Σ_{l∈c} PSSR_{l,t}$$

(Equation 5)

Where:

• $SRps_{c,t}$ is the project-level project-scenario stocking rate for commodity $c$ in project year $t$ (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $PSSR_{l,t}$ is the Project-Scenario Stocking Rate of category $l$ (Equation 2b).

From the fifth project year onward, Project-Scenario Productivity is evaluated on a rolling five-year window ending in the Reporting Period RP, using the same regional source:

$$PSP_{c,RP} = R̄_{reg,c} × [ Σ_{t∈W} SRps_{c,t} ] / [ Σ_{t∈W} R_{reg,c,t} ],   RP ≥ t₀+4$$

(Equation 6)

Where:

• $PSP_{c,RP}$ is the Project-Scenario Productivity for commodity $c$ in Reporting Period $RP$ (LSU·ha⁻¹);
• $W$ is the trailing five-year window (RP−4 ≤ t ≤ RP);
• $t_0$ is the first project year; $R̄_{reg,c}$ is the same baseline-period constant as in Equation 4.

For Reporting Periods ending before the fifth project year, $W$ comprises all project years from $t_0$ to the end of the Reporting Period, and Equation 6 is applied over those years.

The productivity shortfall for commodity c is the indexed decline relative to the pre-project baseline, floored at zero:

$$ΔP_{c,RP} = max(PPP_{c} − PSP_{c,RP}, 0 )$$

(Equation 7)

Where $PSP_{c,RP}$ ≥ $PPP_c$, the shortfall is zero and no leakage assessment is required for that commodity. Productivity surpluses are not carried over between Reporting Periods and are not used to offset shortfalls in other commodity classes.

Project-level expected baseline production for commodity $c$, expressed in livestock units, is:

$$EP_{c,RP} = PPP_c × A_{c,RP}$$

(Equation 8)

Where:

• $EP_{c,RP}$ is the expected baseline production for commodity $c$ in the Reporting Period (LSU);
• $A_{c,RP}$ is the project area supporting commodity $c$ in the Reporting Period (ha), determined under Equation 9.

Area allocation for mixed-species paddocks. Where a paddock or management unit is grazed by more than one livestock-commodity class including at different times under a rotation its area is allocated among those commodities in proportion to each commodity's share of the paddock's total livestock units over the Reporting Period:

$$A_{c,RP} = Σ_g  A_g × [ LSU_{c,g} / Σ_{c^′} LSU_{c′,g} ]$$

(Equation 9)

Where:

• $g$ indexes paddocks or management units within the project area;
• $A_g$ is the area of paddock $g$ (ha);
• $LSU_{c,g}$ is the animal-day-weighted livestock units of commodity c carried on paddock g over the Reporting Period, computed from the headage and scaling-factor terms of Equations 1–2b, so that a commodity's time-share of a rotationally grazed paddock is captured;
• the denominator sums over all commodities $c^′$ grazing paddock $g$.

The same allocation is applied consistently to the pre-project baseline and the project scenario, and the allocated areas sum to the total grazed project area with no double-counting. The commodity stocking rates $SRpp_{c,y}$ and $SRps_{c,t}$ (Equations 3 and 5) are expressed per hectare of the area so allocated; where a paddock is grazed by a single commodity, $A_{c,RP}$ is simply that paddock's area.

The Net Project Productivity shortfall for commodity c is the indexed shortfall applied over that area:

$$NPP(c,RP) = ΔP(c,RP) × A(c,RP)$$

(Equation 10)

Where:

• $NPP_{c,RP}$ is the Net Project Productivity shortfall for commodity $c$ in the Reporting Period (LSU).

The shortfall ratio for commodity $c$ is $NPP_{c,RP}$ / $EP_{c,RP}$. Two thresholds apply to this ratio:

• De minimis threshold (materiality gate). Where $NPP_{c,RP}$ / $EP_{c,RP}$ ≤ 0.03, the decline is within the de minimis materiality threshold and no leakage deduction applies for that commodity in that Reporting Period. The threshold is a materiality gate, not a deductible: where the ratio exceeds 3%, leakage is assessed on the full value of $NPP_{c,RP}$, not only the portion above 3%.
• Crediting-suspension threshold. Where $NPP_{c,RP}$ / $EP_{c,RP}$ > 0.15 for any commodity class, the project is ineligible for crediting for that Reporting Period unless a temporary exemption is granted under Section 8.3.4. Because the decline is regionally indexed, this gate is triggered only by project-attributable (idiosyncratic) collapse in output, not by region-wide events.
• Planned reductions in stocking. Reductions in stocking that are permitted project activities under Section 4.3, including planned rest, deferral and rotational-recovery periods within a working grazing regime and planned recovery from documented historic overstocking, are assessed under this Section in the same way as any other project-attributable change in productivity. Where the resulting shortfall ratio exceeds the de minimis threshold, leakage is quantified under Section 8.3.6; where it exceeds the crediting-suspension threshold, the suspension applies. That a reduction is planned or documented in the PDD does not exempt it from either threshold. Relief under Section 8.3.4 applies only to the extent that a shortfall is attributable to exogenous causes, and the counterfactual-herd treatment of livestock emissions in Section 8.3.4 applies only to exogenous destocking; for planned reductions, livestock emissions are calculated on actual stocking under Section 8.5.

Grazing systems, particularly on North American rangelands, are subject to large weather-driven swings in stocking. Multi-year drought, regulatory destocking orders, and disease or biosecurity events routinely force destocking well beyond a few percent, and destocking in these circumstances is the agronomically correct response; it protects baseline soil carbon, forage recovery, and animal welfare, consistent with the safeguarding requirements of Section 6.1. The approach handles these events in three complementary ways.

(a) Regional indexing neutralizes region-wide events. Because Project-Scenario Productivity is indexed to the regional benchmark (Equation 6), a decline that is shared across the region depresses both the numerator and denominator proportionally, leaving the indexed ratio, and therefore ΔP, largely unchanged. A project that destocks no more than its regional peers during a drought therefore registers little or no shortfall, incurs no leakage deduction, and does not approach the suspension gate. No application or exemption is required for this to operate.

(b) The soil is modeled as actually managed; livestock emissions are held at the normal-herd counterfactual. SOC is modeled and measured as activities actually occur (including reduced or removed livestock), while the enteric CH₄ (Section 8.5.1) and manure/urine N₂O (Section 8.5.2) terms are held at the emissions the regionally-indexed pre-project herd (the PPSR herd, Equation 2a) would have produced absent the event, so the project cannot bank reductions from cattle it intends to return.

(c) Localized events. Where an exogenous cause contributes to a PSP shortfall that is not reflected in regional data, Isometric may adjust PSP by a counterfactual estimate reflecting the localized impact. The Project must submit evidence that the shortfall is unrelated to project design, management, or land-use change, and that comparable systems in the surrounding region did not experience similar impacts (e.g., county-level statistics, meteorological or disaster records, government or insurance reports). Adjustments under this provision are applied to the annual project-scenario stocking rates $SRps_{c,t}$ of the affected years and are carried with those years in every window $W$ (Equation 6) that includes them.

Documentation and eligibility. Relief persists for as long as the exogenous condition is independently verified to be ongoing, consistent with the drought treatment recognized for reversals under the ISM Protocol.

Qualifying drought evidence. A drought classification of D2 (Severe Drought) or worse on the United States Drought Monitor or, outside the United States, an equivalent classification from a national or sub-national drought monitoring index whose equivalence is justified in the PDD, covering at least 50% of the Project Area for at least eight consecutive weeks during the grazing season of a project year, is accepted as independent verification that an exogenous drought condition existed in that year. For such a year, the Project Proponent is not required to demonstrate separately that the drought was unrelated to project design, management, or land-use change, but must still either provide the counterfactual estimate required under (c) or apply for a temporary exemption under the following paragraph. Qualifying drought evidence does not by itself reduce leakage deductions. It may also be relied upon as evidence of an exogenous natural cause under Section 8.4.5.

Temporary exemption from the crediting-suspension threshold. Where the shortfall ratio for a commodity class exceeds the crediting-suspension threshold in Section 8.3.3, and one or more years in the window $W$ are subject to an exogenous condition verified under this Section (including by qualifying drought evidence), Isometric may, on application by the Project Proponent, grant a temporary exemption from the crediting-suspension threshold for that Reporting Period, where the Project Proponent demonstrates that its destocking was a response to that condition consistent with its grazing management plan and the safeguarding requirements of Section 6.1. A temporary exemption does not reduce the leakage deduction, which is quantified on the full value of $NPP(c,RP)$ after any adjustment under (c). The exemption lapses once no year in the window is subject to a verified exogenous condition.

Order of operations. For each commodity class and Reporting Period: (1) Project-Scenario Productivity is calculated with regional indexing under Equation 6, which neutralizes region-wide events under (a) without application; (2) any adjustment under (c) is applied to the affected years; (3) the productivity shortfall is calculated under Equation 7; (4) Net Project Productivity and the shortfall ratio are calculated under Equations 8–10; (5) the de minimis and crediting-suspension thresholds of Section 8.3.3 are applied, taking account of any temporary exemption under this Section; and (6) where the shortfall ratio exceeds the de minimis threshold, leakage is quantified on the full value of $NPP(c,RP)$ under Section 8.3.6.

Activity-shifting leakage occurs where project activities displace grazing or production to identifiable land outside the project boundary. Projects must not systematically or permanently reduce the productive capacity of enrolled land, and must seek to maintain or enhance production relative to historical levels. Where livestock must be relocated in the early stages of a project, the Project Proponent must either:

• include the land to which livestock are moved within the project boundary (in which case no deduction applies, provided the receiving land is not overgrazed to the detriment of its own soil carbon); or
• move livestock to alternative land or house and feed them, in which case the associated fodder-import emissions must be quantified under Section 8.4, and the associated enteric and manure emissions under Section 8.5.

Because productivity is assessed under Sections 8.3.2–8.3.4 and market leakage is quantified under Section 8.3.6, any genuine displacement that manifests as a project-attributable reduction in project-area output is captured through that assessment. Residual traceable activity-shifting leakage is treated as immaterial for this version of the Module.

Grazed but ineligible in-holding areas. Areas within a ranch that are grazed but not eligible for crediting (for example dense forest, crop-residue on adjacent row crops, or high-slope non-sampleable terrain) and that were grazed historically do not, by themselves, constitute activity shifting and do not trigger a leakage penalty, provided grazing on them is not increased beyond historical levels as a result of the project. Proponents must document historical use of such areas and confirm no project-induced intensification.

For each commodity class with a net shortfall above the de minimis threshold, foregone project output expressed as foregone stocking, in livestock units is assumed to be partially replaced by production elsewhere, a portion of which is met by bringing new land into production. Default parameters for the quantification are provided in Appendix D.

The area of induced land conversion for commodity $c$ is:

$$ha_{LC,c,RP} = [ NPP_{c,RP} × IS_c × NL_c ] / Y_{NL,c}$$

(Equation 11)

Where:

• $ha_{LC,c,RP}$ is the induced land conversion for commodity $c$ in the Reporting Period (ha);
• $IS_{c}$ is the increased-supply fraction (Section 8.3.6.2);
• $NL_c$ is the proportion of increased supply met by new land (Section 8.3.6.3);
• $Y_{NL,c}$ is the stocking rate on new land (Section 8.3.6.4).

IS is the proportion of the foregone output that will be replaced by increased supply elsewhere, derived from the price elasticities of supply and demand for the commodity:

$$IS_c = εs_{c} / [ εs_{c} + | εd_{c} | ]$$

(Equation 12)

Where:

• $εs_{c}$ and $εd_{c}$ are the price elasticities of supply and demand for commodity $c$.

Where Isometric has provided default elasticities for the project's region and commodity in Appendix D, those defaults must be used unless a more specific value is substituted in accordance with Appendix D; Appendix D provides livestock elasticity defaults for North America and South America. For regions or commodities not covered, elasticities must be sourced from academic literature published in the last 15 years in reputable journals or reports, using dynamic-panel or instrumental-variable techniques based on planting/production-season time-series prices, following the procedure in Appendix D.

NL is the share of increased supply that is met by bringing new land into production (extensification) rather than by intensification on existing land. Where Isometric has provided a default NL for the project's region and land use in Appendix D, that default must be used unless a more specific value is substituted in accordance with Appendix D; Appendix D provides livestock NL defaults for the United States and Brazil. For other regions, NL is sourced by the standard approach (Method B), analysing land-use change relative to production change from a policy or price shock:

$$NL = ΔArea_x / [ ΔArea_x + ΔYield_x ]$$

(Equation 13)
Where:

• $x$ is a one-tonne reduction in supply (or a one-unit price increase);
• $ΔArea_x$ and $ΔYield_x$ are the area-expansion and yield-intensification responses to $x$.

Method A (the ratio of land deforested to total new agricultural land during large, demand-driven expansions in markets disconnected from international trade) may be used only in the special cases described in Appendix D.

The stocking rate of new land brought into production for commodity $c$ is set equal to the pre-project regional mean stocking rate, $R̄_{reg,c}$, used in Equation 4.

$EF_{CarbonStock,c}$ is derived from the IPCC average national aboveground biomass content of the land cover for the ecosystem displaced by commodity c, using Table 3A.1.4 of the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (2003). Biomass carbon is converted to CO₂e using the carbon fraction (CF) specified by the IPCC for the relevant vegetation type and the CO₂/C mass ratio (44/12).

Total leakage emissions for the Reporting Period are the sum across all commodity classes with a net shortfall:

$$CO₂e_{Leakage,RP} = Σ_c  ha_{LC,c,RP} × EF_{CarbonStock,c}$$

(Equation 14)

Where:

• the sum is taken over all commodity classes c for which $NPP_{c,RP}$ > 0.

$CO_2e_{Leakage,RP}$ is included in project emissions and the leakage discount is applied exclusively to removal Certificates, in accordance with the ISM Protocol. Leakage is quantified for every Reporting Period.

Imported feed refers to any feed material brought into the project boundary from an external source for consumption by livestock within the project area. Imported feed comprises two categories: fodder and feed concentrate, as defined in Table G3.

Table G3. Categories of imported feed.

Ideally, all lands utilised for the production of fodder should be included within the project boundary. Incorporating these lands ensures a closed-loop system where all carbon cycles, from atmospheric sequestration in plant biomass to soil deposition via manure, are fully accounted for without the need for deductions. Where fodder or feed concentrate is imported from production areas outside of the project boundary, the project is subject to the monitoring and quantification requirements set out in this Section.

Forage produced on perennial forage stands included in the Project Area under Section 4.1 is not imported fodder; emissions from its production are quantified within the system boundary in accordance with Section 4.1 and Table 1. Forage produced on land of the same operation that is outside the Project Area is imported fodder, and the classification and recalculation requirements of Section 4.1.1 apply.

The requirements below apply separately to each feed category (fodder and feed concentrate). A net increase in one category cannot be offset against a net decrease in the other.

Given that feed imports are already a part of many livestock systems, a net-increase approach is applied. Deductions are only required where there is a net increase in imported feed relative to the pre-project baseline. The net increase is calculated separately for each feed category:

$$NFI_{f} = PSFI_{f} - n_{RP}\, PPFI_{f} \qquad \text{for } f \in \{\text{fodder},\,\text{concentrate}\}$$

(Equation 15)

Where:

• $f$ indexes feed category, with feed bases:
  • $f = \text{fodder}$: quantities are in $\text{tonnes DM}$ (tonnes of dry matter);
  • $f = \text{concentrate}$: quantities are in $\text{tonnes (as-fed)}$;
• $PPFI_{f}$ is the annual Pre-Project Feed Imports of category $f$, defined as the 5-year historical mean plus one standard deviation of annual imports, in the units of $f$, or, where records are unavailable for part of the five-year baseline, as determined under Section 8.4.3.3 (Equation 15a);
• $PSFI_{f}$ is the Project-Scenario Feed Imports of category $f$ for the Reporting Period, calculated as the sum over the Reporting Period of annual imports of $f$ in the units of $f$;
• $n_{RP}$​ is the number of years in the Reporting Period.
• $NFI_{f}$ is the Net Feed Imports for category $f$, in the units of $f$. $NFI_{f} > 0$ triggers a deduction; $NFI_{f} \leq 0$ requires no deduction.

$$CO_{2}e_{NFI,f,RP} = E^{ent}_{f,RP} + E^{man}_{f,RP} + E^{emb}_{f,RP} + E^{trans}_{f,RP}$$

(Equation 16)

Where:

• $E^{ent}_{f,RP}$ is enteric CH₄ emissions associated with $NFI_{f}$ in the Reporting Period, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$, calculated per Section 8.5.1 (applied incrementally to $NFI_{f}$);
• $E^{man}_{f,RP}$ is manure-management N₂O emissions associated with $NFI_{f}$, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$, calculated per Section 8.5.2;
• $E^{emb}_{f,RP}$ is embodied (upstream production + processing + packaging) emissions associated with $NFI_{f}$, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$, calculated using published LCA data or IPCC Vol. 4 Ch. 10 / 11 factors;
• $E^{trans}_{f,RP}$ is transport CO₂ emissions for imports in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$;
• for $f = \text{fodder}$, $E^{emb}_{f,RP}$ may be set to zero where the fodder is unprocessed grass/hay; for $f = \text{concentrate}$, $E^{emb}_{f,RP}$ must always be quantified.

For purposes of evaluating whether there are differences between PPFI and PSFI, and in recognition of the variability of feed usage in a given year for a range of factors many outside of the Project's control (e.g., weather, commodity prices), $PPFI_{fodder}$ shall reflect one standard deviation above the mean of the historical fodder imports. While this presents the potential for a small amount of unaccounted emissions from additional fodder usage, this flexibility is considered reasonable given the natural incentive for farmers to reduce fodder imports to reduce costs.

The Pre-Project Feed Concentrate Imports ($PPFI_{concentrate}$) into the project area must be quantified from farm or land management records, including financial receipts and invoices, delivery slips, feed mill records, or daily feed logs. The import rate must be reflective of an average of the five years prior to the project activities.

In subsistence or smallholder contexts, if formal receipts and invoices are not available, the quantification of imported feed concentrate should use a combination of standardized surveys and participatory rural appraisal (PRA), consistent with the approach for fodder in Section 8.4.3.1.

As with fodder, $PPFI_{concentrate}$ shall reflect one standard deviation above the mean of the historical feed concentrate imports, for the same rationale as set out in Section 8.4.3.1.

Where the records required under Sections 8.4.3.1 and 8.4.3.2 are unavailable for part of the five-year baseline (for example, following a recent change of ownership), the following applies separately to each feed category, consistent with the evidence hierarchy for limited records in Section 4.3.

1. Documented years. A baseline year is a documented year where annual imports are established from farm or land management records, or from prior-operator or third-party records such as supplier or feed-store statements, invoices obtained from suppliers, or farm tax schedules. Where records state expenditure only, quantities may be derived using a published regional price series for the relevant feed type and year, applying a price at the upper end of the published range so that the derived quantity is not overstated.
2. Gap-filled years. Up to two of the five baseline years may be gap-filled using a signed attestation from the current or prior operator, supplemented by whatever records exist. Each gap-filled year must be entered at the lower of the attested value and the lowest annual import among the documented years.
3. Calculation. Where at least three baseline years are documented, $PPFI_{f}$ is calculated as:

$$PPFI_{f} = \frac{\sum_{y \in D} FI_{f,y} \;+\; \sum_{y \in G} \min\!\left(FI^{att}_{f,y},\; \min_{y' \in D} FI_{f,y'}\right)}{5} \;+\; \sigma_{D,f}$$

(Equation 15a)

Where:

• $D$ is the set of documented baseline years and $G$ is the set of gap-filled baseline years, with $|D| + |G| = 5$ and $|G| \leq 2$;
• $FI_{f,y}$ is the documented annual import of category $f$ in year $y$, in the units of $f$;
• $FI^{att}_{f,y}$ is the attested annual import of category $f$ in gap-filled year $y$, in the units of $f$;
• $\sigma_{D,f}$ is the sample standard deviation of $FI_{f,y}$ calculated over documented years only, in the units of $f$.

4. Fewer than three documented years. Where fewer than three baseline years can be documented, or where any baseline year is neither documented nor gap-filled under item 2, $PPFI_{f}$ must be set to the lowest documented annual import, with no standard-deviation uplift, or to zero where no baseline year can be documented.

The sources, attestations, and derivations used must be documented in the PDD and reviewed by the VVB at Validation. The subsistence and smallholder provisions of Sections 8.4.3.1 and 8.4.3.2 are unaffected.

The Project-Scenario import of feed into the project area must be documented in a Feed Imports Log and quantified for each Reporting Period, separately for each feed category. Imports must be quantified from farm or land management records, including financial receipts and invoices, delivery slips, feed mill records, or daily feed logs.

For subsistence or smallholder projects where formal receipts may be unavailable, the project must utilize Digital Proxy Logs (e.g., time-stamped photos of feed bags, fodder bundles, or containers with standardized weight estimations) or a Community Ledger verified by a project coordinator.

Where $PSFI$ for either feed category is significantly larger than the corresponding $PPFI$, and the increase is primarily due to exogenous natural causes beyond the reasonable control of the Project (such as extreme weather events, drought, flooding, hail, or region-wide pest or disease outbreaks), PSFI may be evaluated in a broader regional context.

In such circumstances, the Project Proponent must provide evidence demonstrating that:

1. The cause of the feed requirement is unrelated to Project design, management decisions, or land-use change; and
2. Comparable agricultural systems in the surrounding region experienced similar impacts during the same period.

Evidence may include, but is not limited to: regional or county-level yield statistics, meteorological or disaster records, government or insurance reports, and peer-reviewed or authoritative third-party data.

Where Isometric determines that the exogenous natural causes materially contribute to the increase in $PSFI$, Isometric may adjust the $PSFI$ for that Reporting Period by applying a counterfactual estimate that reflects regional impacts, for the purposes of a difference-in-differences analysis.

All imported fodder must be converted to Metric Tonnes of Dry Matter to ensure standardized carbon and nitrogen accounting. If records only provide bale counts, the project must periodically weigh representative samples to establish an average mass per unit. In the absence of lab-tested moisture data, the project shall apply conservative default values (e.g., 15% moisture for hay, 60% moisture for silage) to determine the dry weight. The assumptions made for unit conversion must be clearly documented.

All imported feed concentrate must be converted to Metric Tonnes (as-fed basis) to ensure standardized accounting. Where records provide unit counts (e.g., bags, blocks, tubs), the average mass per unit may be taken from the net mass stated on sale receipts, invoices, delivery slips, product labels, or manufacturer specifications. Where no stated mass is available, the project must establish an average mass per unit through periodic weighing of representative samples. Where feed concentrate is supplied in compound or mixed form, the total mass of the compound product must be recorded. The assumptions made for unit conversion must be clearly documented.

Emissions must be calculated for any net increase in feed imports ($NFI_f$ > 0). The emission sources differ by feed category, as set out below.

The following emission sources must be quantified for any net increase in imported fodder, using the latest IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:

1. Enteric Fermentation (CH₄): Emissions resulting from the digestion of the additional fodder by the livestock, following the approach in Section 8.5.1 of this Module.
2. Manure Management (N₂O): Emissions resulting from the nitrogen content of the fodder once excreted as manure on the project land, following the approach in Section 8.5.2 of this Module.
3. Upstream/Transport Emissions (CO₂): If the fodder is sourced from further than 50 km one-way delivery distance, CO₂ emissions from transport must be included.

The following emission sources must be quantified for any net increase in imported feed concentrate:

1. Embodied Emissions (CO₂e): Emissions associated with the manufacture, processing, and packaging of the feed product, using published lifecycle assessment data or emission factors from the latest IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
2. Enteric Fermentation (CH₄): Where the additional feed concentrate is consumed by livestock on the project area, the enteric methane emissions resulting from digestion of the additional feed must be calculated, following the approach in Section 8.5.1 of this Module.
3. Manure Management (N₂O): Emissions resulting from the nitrogen content of the feed once excreted as manure on the project land, following the approach in Section 8.5.2 of this Module.
4. Upstream/Transport Emissions (CO₂): If the feed concentrate is sourced from further than 50 km one-way delivery distance, CO₂ emissions from transport must be included.

The total deduction for increased feed imports in a given Reporting Period is the sum of all quantified emissions across both feed categories:

$$CO_{2}e_{FeedImports,RP} = \sum_{f \in \{\text{fodder},\,\text{concentrate}\}} CO_{2}e_{NFI,f,RP}$$

(Equation 17)

Where:

• $CO_{2}e_{FeedImports,RP}$ is the total feed-import deduction for the Reporting Period, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$.

This deduction must be subtracted from the net carbon benefit of the project for that Reporting Period. If the total deduction exceeds the sequestration gains, the project shall yield zero Certificates issued for that period.

As all grazing lands include livestock the cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must consider CH₄ emissions due to enteric fermentation as well as CH₄ and N₂O emissions due to manure and urea deposition.

The quantification of enteric methane (CH₄) emissions is a requirement of this methodology to ensure a comprehensive net carbon balance. Given that enteric fermentation is the primary source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in livestock-based land use, it represents a significant potential source of emissions that could offset gains achieved through soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration.

Project proponents shall be exempt from enteric methane deductions provided they demonstrate Methane Neutrality, defined as a project-scenario methane load that does not exceed the baseline. This condition is satisfied if the following condition is met:

$$\overline{PSSR} \times Y_{m,PS,RP} \;\leq\; PPSR \times Y_{m,PP}$$

(Equation 18a)

Where:

• $PPSR$ is the project-level Pre-Project Stocking Rate, in $\text{LSU ha}^{-1}$. It is the mean, over the pre-project baseline years, of the Pre-Project Stocking Rates (Equation 2a) summed across all livestock categories present on The Project Area: $PPSR = \frac{1}{N_{BL}} \sum_{y} \sum_{l} PPSR_{l,y}$. Here $y$y indexes the baseline years used to determine the Pre-Project Headage Rate (Section 8.3.2.1), and $N_{BL}$ is the number of those years (a minimum of five);
• $\overline{PSSR}$ is the project-level Reporting-Period mean Project-Scenario Stocking Rate, in $\text{LSU ha}^{-1}$. It is the mean, over the project years of the Reporting Period, of the Project-Scenario Stocking Rates (Equation 2b) summed across all livestock categories present on The Project Area: $\overline{PSSR} = \frac{1}{n_{RP}} \sum_{t \in RP} \sum_{l} PSSR_{l,t}$. Here $n_{RP}$ is the number of years in the Reporting Period (as in Equation 18c);
• for both $PPSR$ and $\overline{PSSR}$, the grazing area $A$ in Equation 1 must be taken as The Project Area (not a commodity-allocated area $A_c$), so that both are on the same area basis as the Project Area $A$ in Equation 18c. The same livestock categories and scaling factors $SF_l$ (Section 8.3.2.1.1) must be applied to both;
• $Y_{m,PP}$ is the pre-project Methane Conversion Factor (dimensionless), produced by Equation 18b applied to the 5-year pre-project NDF time series or, under the Conservative Default Pathway, set to $Y_{m,low}^{IPCC}$ (Equation 18d);
• $Y_{m,PS,RP}$ is the Reporting-Period weighted-average project-scenario Methane Conversion Factor (dimensionless), produced by Equation 18b applied to the Reporting-Period NDF time series or, under the Conservative Default Pathway, set to $Y_{m,high}^{IPCC}$ (Equation 18d).

$$Y_{m} \;=\;
\begin{cases}
Y_{m}^{\text{IPCC}}\!\left(\text{NDF}_{av}\right) & \text{Standard Pathway (IPCC 2019 Refinement Vol.4 Ch.10 Table 10.12)} \\[4pt]
\alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1}\,\text{NDF}_{av} + \alpha_{2}\,\text{WSC}_{av} + \alpha_{3}\,\text{Starch}_{av} & \text{Advanced Pathway (Niu et al. 2018)} \\[4pt]
f^{\text{alt}}\!\left(\cdot\right) & \text{Alternative Tier-3 model, approved at Validation}
\end{cases}$$

(Equation 18b)

Where:

• $\text{NDF}_{av}$ is the weighted-functional-average Neutral Detergent Fibre concentration (g/kg DM), per Equation 19;
• $\text{WSC}_{av}$, $\text{Starch}_{av}$ are the analogous weighted-functional averages of Water-Soluble Carbohydrate and Starch (g/kg DM);
• $\alpha_{0}, \alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \alpha_{3}$ are the regression coefficients from Niu et al. (2018), which must be cited verbatim with their reported standard errors and propagated through the Section 9.1.1 Monte Carlo;
• $Y_{m}^{\text{IPCC}}$ is the IPCC tabular function (step function over diet-quality classes);
• $f^{\text{alt}}$ is any alternative peer-reviewed model approved at Validation.

$$CO_{2}e_{CH_{4},RP} \;=\; \max\!\left(0,\;\; (\overline{PSSR}\,Y_{m,PS,RP} \times GE_{PS}) - (PPSR\,Y_{m,PP} \times GE_{PP})\right) \times A \times \frac{1}{HHV_{CH_{4}}} \times GWP_{CH_{4}} \times n_{RP}$$

(Equation 18c)

Where:

• $A$ is the Project Area, in $\text{ha}$;

• $GE_{PP}$ is the gross energy intake per LSU per year, in $\text{MJ LSU}^{-1}\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ corresponding to the pre-project stocking rate (IPCC 2019 Refinement Vol.4 Ch.10 Eq. 10.16, per livestock category, LSU-weighted);

• $GE_{PS}$ is the gross energy intake per LSU per year, in $\text{MJ LSU}^{-1}\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ corresponding to the project-scenario stocking rate (IPCC 2019 Refinement Vol.4 Ch.10 Eq. 10.16, per livestock category, LSU-weighted);

• $HHV_{CH_{4}} = 55.65 \text{ MJ kg}^{-1}\,\text{CH}_4$ (IPCC default);

• $GWP_{CH_{4}}$ is the 100-year Global Warming Potential of methane in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}\,\text{t}^{-1}\,\text{CH}_4$, with an implicit $\text{kg} \to \text{t}$ conversion ($\times 10^{-3}$) folded into $GWP_{CH_{4}}$'s declared units;

• $n_{RP}$ is the number of years in the Reporting Period;

• $CO_{2}e_{CH_{4},RP}$ is the Reporting-Period methane deduction, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$. It is applied only where the Methane Neutrality condition in Equation 18a is not met for the Reporting Period. Where the applicable condition is met, $CO_{2}e_{CH_{4},RP}$ is zero for that Reporting Period.