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 sequestration potential of 0.3 tonnes of Carbon 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.

This Module applies to land that is managed under a grazing land management framework at the time of project initiation, or that has been managed under such a framework within the 5 years immediately prior to project initiation. Land that is grazed for the first time at project initiation, with no prior grazing land use, is not eligible; the Module targets improved management of established grazing systems.

Land that is an established grazing system currently destocked or under reduced stocking, for example due to drought, remains eligible beyond the 5-year window, provided the historical grazing framework is evidenced under this Section, the land has not been converted to a non-grazing land use, and it has not transitioned to a native ecosystem type excluded under Section 4.1.1. Reversion toward natural grassland or open rangeland does not affect eligibility, consistent with Section 4.1.1.

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. Livestock may include traditional domesticated species (e.g., cattle, sheep, goats) and non-traditional herbivores, including non-native or semi-wild species , provided the Project Proponent demonstrates, in accordance with the safeguarding requirements of Section 6.1, that their grazing has no negative consequences for native habitat. Grazing by genuinely wild, unmanaged wildlife does not, by itself, constitute 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 4.1.1 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.

Evidence of a grazing land management framework must be provided 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), corroborated by remote sensing or regional land-use records where available. A recent change of ownership does not remove the requirement to evidence the prior grazing framework; where a Project Proponent cannot establish it by any of these means, the land is not eligible.

Arable croplands, including those in which fodder crops are grown in rotation, are excluded from this Module.

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

Land that held native ecosystem cover at any point within the 10 years prior to project initiation including native grassland, native forest, wetlands (terrestrial or tidal, including peatlands, marshes, and mangroves), or other high-conservation-value habitat. 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.

• Land that was converted from forest, woodland, or shrubland to cropland 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).

• Land 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.

• Land 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.

• Native forest — Forest meeting 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) that is dominated by tree species indigenous to the region and has established and regenerated through natural processes. Native forest includes primary and naturally regenerating forest and excludes planted or plantation forest. Delineation must be supported by remote sensing imagery and/or land-cover classification against these thresholds.
• 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.

High Conservation Values present without conversion. Where high-conservation-value habitat is present within the Project Area but no conversion of native ecosystem cover has occurred within the lookback period, the land is not excluded under this Section by reason of that habitat alone. In such cases the Project Proponent must demonstrate, in accordance with the safeguarding requirements of Section 6.1, that project activities do not harm the High Conservation Values present and, where feasible, enhance them.

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.

The Project must support the livelihoods of farmers and land users enrolled in or affected by project activities. Support must be documented in The Project Design Document. See Section 6.6.1.3 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol for requirements on revenue sharing.

The Project must not result in net disturbance of existing soil carbon pools beyond that occurring in the baseline scenario.

The Project's primary commitment is to maintain cumulative SOC stocks at or above the level corresponding to credits 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 must provide a minimum of 40 years of SOC storage in The project area, as defined by the length of The Project Commitment Period (see Section 5.1)

• The primary commitment is to the maintenance of cumulative SOC stocks at or above the level corresponding to Credits 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: (i) does not breach any other applicability requirement of this Module or the parent Protocol; (ii) is documented in advance in the Monitoring Report and approved at the next verification; and (iii) 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 Credits 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 Credits 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 of any material change to the land management practices implemented within The Project Boundary as soon as practicable, and in any event no later than the next Monitoring Report.

  • A change is material where it alters the practices identified in The Project Design Document as responsible for generating the SOC increase, or where it could reasonably be expected to affect SOC stocks within The Project Area. 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 of secure land tenure or equivalent long-term land access arrangements for The Project area.

• 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.

• The Project must not transform the land use to the extent that it is expected to change or systematically reduce Pre-Project Productivity. This includes converting grazing land or pasture historically used for livestock production to a different land use, replacing the historical forage or livestock system with a materially different one that reduces output (e.g., destocking below historical stocking rates or abandoning grazing), introducing extended rest or exclusion periods that were not otherwise part of the management system, or planting trees. The Project must seek to maintain or enhance agricultural productivity, including livestock and forage productivity, on project sites.

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

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

The Project Commitment Period must be a minimum of 40 years and no longer than 100 years. The length of the Project Commitment Period must be set at project initiation.

For grouped projects where new areas are added to The Project over time, The Project Timeline may be staggered across Project areas to reflect different initiation times of Project activities.

• Definition. The full Crediting Period is the interval between project initiation (first intervention activity on an individual site associated with The Project) and the end of the last Reporting Period. The Crediting Period is made up of successive Reporting Periods.

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

• Issuance. Credit 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.

• 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 (e.g., do not have access to land), the area is considered to experience a full Reversal.

• 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 Credits 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 Credits 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 Credits 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 secure land tenure or equivalent long-term land access for each enrolled area, valid for the duration of that area's Project Commitment Period.

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

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.

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. Project Proponents must identify and assess the environmental and social risks associated with all implemented land management practice changes in adherence with the requirements laid out within the Improved Soil Management Protocol. The following risks are specific to grazing lands management activities and must be addressed in the Project Design Document:

• Food security and pastoral productivity
  • Project 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.
• Inputs, amendments, and supplements
  • Project 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
  • Project 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.
• Erosion and riparian protection
  • Project 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 localised 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
  • Where 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.
  • Project activities must not restrict the seasonal mobility, customary grazing routes, or established access rights of mobile pastoralists or neighbouring 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
  • Where 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
  • Practice 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 recognised animal welfare standards (e.g., WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code) against which project activities will be assessed.
• Biodiversity and wildlife interactions
  • Project 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.
• Enteric emissions and herd dynamics
• Where 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.

For each risk identified in Section 6.1, it is not sufficient for the Project Proponent to assert that the risk has been considered. The Project Design Document must, for every material risk:

• Quantify a baseline
  • Establish a measurable pre-project baseline for the relevant indicator(s), using site data or, where unavailable, regionally representative reference values;
• 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; 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, in accordance with the Introduction.

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 Regulatory 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.

Because grazing management regimes are not adopted on a single, discrete date in the manner of a tillage change, non-adoption of the project intervention must be evidenced over the five years immediately preceding project initiation, aligned to the window used to determine the Pre-Project Stocking Rate (Equations 2–3). The "project intervention" for this purpose is the specific soil-carbon-material grazing regime as defined in the Common Practice activity definition below, not the generic practice label.

Stocking and headcount records evidence livestock density but not the grazing regime itself. Non-adoption of the regime must therefore be evidenced using records that speak to management, which may include: grazing charts, paddock-move logs, or herd-movement records; paddock and fencing maps showing subdivision of the grazing area; installation, purchase, or lease dates for the fencing, water infrastructure, or stock-handling equipment that enable the regime; documented management plans or agronomic advice; and a signed attestation from the operator. Where the infrastructure required to operate the regime was installed within the lookback, its documented installation date may be taken as evidence that the regime was not practised before that date.

For episodic practices whose natural implementation cadence is longer than one year — in particular prescribed fire and mechanical brush management — non-adoption must be assessed against the practice's documented return interval rather than on a strict annual basis. A unit is treated as having prior adoption only where the episodic practice was applied within the lookback at a frequency and intensity comparable to that proposed by The Project; a single historical occurrence at an interval consistent with the practice's ordinary return period does not, by itself, constitute prior adoption.

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 following addition is 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.

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.

Where a practice-linked incentive is paid on a per-head, per-animal-unit, per-Livestock-Unit (LSU), or per-Animal-Unit-Month (AUM) basis, the Project Proponent must convert the payment to a per-acre basis before comparing it to the Per-Acre Materiality Threshold. The conversion must use the project area and the applicable stocking rate derived from the management and animal-day records underlying the Pre-Project Stocking Rate (Equations 2–3). Where project-specific stocking data are unavailable, the Project Proponent must apply the regional (sub-national administrative unit or equivalent) average stocking density published by the relevant agricultural statistics agency, with documented justification. For Project Areas outside the United States, the threshold is applied at the equivalent value per local unit of area.

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 ISM §7.4.3, this Module takes precedence.

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

The Project Proponent must define the anchor practice by the management parameters that are material to soil carbon dynamics, and as a material change relative to the baseline grazing regime on the enrolled unit — not by the name of the grazing subtype. Grazing subtypes (for example continuous, deferred, simple rotational, strip, mob or high-density, leader-follower, or multi-species grazing) are recorded as descriptors of the regime but do not, by themselves, determine eligibility. The scientific evidence base does not support a fixed ranking of grazing subtypes by soil carbon outcome — comparisons of rotational and continuous systems are mixed and the response is strongly dependent on climate, soil, and baseline condition — and the soil carbon effect of a regime is established for crediting through measurement under Section 9, not asserted from its subtype.

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.

For grazing, the geographic area and comparable class of adopters required by the Protocol must be stratified by production system (for example cow-calf, stocker, dairy, or sheep), by land type (rangeland versus improved or sown pasture), and by ecological context (Major Land Resource Area, ecological site, or equivalent). The comparison set must comprise grazing operations of a like system, land type, and ecological context that are not receiving Carbon Finance.

The Protocol's requirement to use the USDA Census of Agriculture where available does not apply to the eligible activities of this Module, as the Census does not record them. In its place, the Project Proponent must assess the market penetration rate of the anchor practice using the most granular source available from the following hierarchy that resolves the specific regime defined in Step 1, using the most recent available estimate:

1. A representative survey of comparable operators conducted in accordance with the survey-based approach of the Protocol (documented sampling design; a minimum of 30 responses recommended), or first-party adoption data for a proprietary program;
2. Sub-national or regional government or agency data (for example NRCS National Resources Inventory, or regional cow-calf statistics from USDA ERS/ARMS);
3. National government or agency data, used only where regional data are unavailable and applied with the subcategory caution in Step 5;
4. Peer-reviewed literature or independent research with full, transparent methods.

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.

Grazing Projects typically deploy an integrated regime in which one practice is the primary driver of the soil carbon increase and others are supporting. Accordingly, where a Project implements more than one eligible practice within a geographic area:

• the anchor practice — the practice defined in Step 1 as primarily responsible for the soil carbon increase — must carry the full Common Practice demonstration (Steps 1–3 and Step 5); and
• each co-implemented secondary practice (for example improved forage species, water management, or brush burning or mulching where these are not the anchor) requires only a qualitative demonstration that it is not, among the comparable class of adopters in the relevant region, a common practice already driven to adoption by market demand, agricultural policy, or regulatory requirement absent Carbon Finance. A separate quantitative penetration test is not required for secondary practices.

Where the Project implements a grazing-management regime (for example rotational or adaptive grazing) alongside supporting practices, that regime is the anchor practice; where no grazing-management regime is implemented, the anchor practice is the practice requiring the greatest capital investment. In all cases the Project Proponent must state and justify the anchor designation.

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.

Where the available data resolve the specific regime defined in Step 1 at the stratified regional level, the Common Practice threshold applies: the anchor practice must be adopted on less than 20% of the comparable, non-Carbon-Finance area (net of the adjustments below).

Where the available data cannot resolve the specific regime — for example, where the only source is a headline "rotational grazing" figure that aggregates simple, deferred, and management-intensive or adaptive systems — that coarse statistic must not be applied at face value to disqualify the Project, because it materially overstates adoption of the narrow soil-carbon-material regime. In such cases the Project Proponent must instead demonstrate that the anchor practice is not common practice through one of the following, consistent with the granular-evidence alternative already permitted in ISM Table 3 (Band 1):

• a comprehensive evidence package using data disaggregated to the regime (survey, first-party, or regional sources under the Step 3 hierarchy) showing adoption below the 20% threshold; or
• where such disaggregated data are not feasible to obtain, a structured qualitative demonstration in accordance with the Qualitative Common Practice demonstration provision below.

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 programmes. Where common practice is instead established qualitatively, incentive and programme 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 programme for the relevant practice;
• area or capacity under any incentive programme 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 programmes in some jurisdictions, gross and net adoption may diverge substantially for those activities; the Project Proponent must document the netting for each relevant programme.

Where the Common Practice status of the anchor practice is established qualitatively under Step 5, the Project Proponent must document all of the following elements. The completed demonstration must be submitted for VVB review at validation.

1. Regime definition and materiality. The material parameters of the regime (rest and recovery period, paddock count or stock density, planned rotation) and why each is material to soil carbon. Evidence: the management plan and supporting scientific literature.
2. Comparable class of adopters and geographic area. The production system, land type, and ecological context defined under Step 2, and the operator population against which the regime is compared. Evidence: a description of the comparison set and its basis.
3. Prevailing practice. A positive statement of the grazing management prevailing among that class absent Carbon Finance, and how it differs materially from the regime, including the prevalence of any incentive- or programme-driven adoption of the regime. Evidence: regional literature, agency or extension reports, expert statements, or first-party/survey observations.
4. Barriers to adoption. The barriers that have prevented widespread adoption of the regime absent Carbon Finance, addressing at least: investment or capital barriers (for example fencing and water capital expenditure); knowledge or technical barriers (agronomic expertise, monitoring capability); and institutional or behavioural barriers (tenure, labour, risk aversion). Evidence: cost data, operator attestations, or literature.
5. Conclusion. A reasoned conclusion, following from elements 1–4, that the specific regime is not common practice among comparable operators absent Carbon Finance.

The qualitative route may only be used where data cannot resolve the specific regime. Where resolving data are available and place the regime's net adoption at or above the 20% threshold, that numeric result prevails and the qualitative route must not be used to override it. The narrowness of the regime definition must reflect genuine soil-carbon materiality under element 1, not the avoidance of a numeric result.

The datasets, conservation-practice standards, and stratification frameworks referenced in this Section — for example USDA and ARMS data, NRCS Conservation Practice Standards, EQIP and CSP, and Major Land Resource Areas — are specific to the United States. For Project Areas in other jurisdictions, the Project Proponent must apply the nearest available equivalent, with documented justification of its equivalence, drawing on: the national or sub-national agricultural statistics agency; the relevant government conservation-programme registry; a recognized rangeland, pasture, or grazing-land classification; and national or regional soil and ecological mapping. Where no dataset resolves the specific regime in the jurisdiction, the Qualitative Common Practice demonstration above is the default pathway for the anchor practice. The financial-additionality Materiality Threshold is applied outside the United States.

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 Credits 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 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. CO₂ from burning of biogenic vegetation is excluded as it is considered carbon-cycle neutral.

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.

The Project Boundary defines the spatial and temporal extent of the project within which all GHG SSRs are quantified. The Project Boundary is set at the time of project initiation in accordance with Section 8 of the Improved Soil Management Protocol and may be modified during the Crediting Period in accordance with the provisions therein. The Project Boundary must encompass:

• All areas of grazing land on which SOC-enhancing management practices are implemented as part of The Project;
• All areas used for the production of fodder or feed that is consumed by livestock within the project (where these areas are enrolled in the project);
• All control plot areas established for counterfactual assessment under Section 9.2 of this Module; and
• Any areas affected by project-related infrastructure (e.g., fencing, water points, stock handling facilities) that lie within the project footprint.

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 of 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 8.3.2.1), 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 8.3.6.

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 and associated market leakage is outlined in Sections 8.3.2 - 8.3.4.

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.

The Pre-Project Headage Rate (PPHR) is the annual average density of livestock supported by the project area, calculated for each livestock category by summing total animal-days for each herd and dividing by the days in the year and the project area or the allocated grazing area. PPHR must reflect an average of the five years prior to project activities. Headcounts must be determined from farm/land-management records (production records, financial logs, activity logs, or GPS tags).

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.

The regional benchmark R(reg,c,y) is the mean stocking rate of the same commodity class across the relevant region, in the same units as the project metric (LSU·ha⁻¹ by default). It is derived from official statistics at the county or equivalent sub-national level — for example, USDA NASS county livestock inventory converted to livestock units using standard coefficients and divided by regional pasture/rangeland area; USDA NASS/ERS regional data; or, where sub-national data are unavailable, national statistics or FAOSTAT. Where a direct output-based metric is used (Section 8.3.2.1), the benchmark must be the corresponding regional output density. The benchmark region must be the smallest jurisdiction for which reliable data exist that is representative of the project's production system and agro-ecological context (by default the county or Major Land Resource Area). The chosen region, source, and vintage must be documented in the PDD and held constant for the baseline-mean calculation.

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 8.3.5).

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:

• $SR\_pp(c,y)$ 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:

• $SR\_ps(c,t)$ 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:

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

(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);
• $t₀$ is the first project year; $R̄(reg,c)$ is the same baseline-period constant as in Equation 4.

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 $SR\_pp(c,y)$ and $SR\_ps(c,t)$ (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 8.3.5. Because the decline is regionally indexed, this gate is triggered only by project-attributable (idiosyncratic) collapse in output, not by region-wide events.

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 neutralises 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 modelled 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).

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

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, enteric, and manure emissions must be quantified under Section 8.5.

Because market leakage is quantified under Sections 8.3.2–8.3.4, 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 8.3.4.2);
• $NL(c)$ is the proportion of increased supply met by new land (Section 8.3.4.3);
• $Y(NL,c)$ is the stocking rate on new land (Section 8.3.4.4).

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:

$$IS_c = ε_s(c) / [ ε_s(c) + | ε_d(c) | ]$$

(Equation 12)

Where:

• $ε\_s(c)$ and $ε\_d(c)$ 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; 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; 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 credits, 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.

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 $f$;
• $PSFI_{f}$ 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.

The Pre-Project Fodder Imports ($PPFI_{fodder}$) into the project area must be quantified from farm or land management records, including financial receipts and invoices, delivery slips, 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 fodder should use a combination of standardized surveys and participatory rural appraisal (PRA). Project Proponents must establish a verifiable baseline by documenting business-as-usual feeding practices such as scavenging roadside grasses or utilizing communal lands through recall-based interviews and the weighing of local units (e.g., head-loads or carts).

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.

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), 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 credits 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 $\text{LSU ha}^{-1}$, per Equation 4c;
• $\overline{PSSR}$ is the project-level Reporting-Period mean Project-Scenario Stocking Rate, in $\text{LSU ha}^{-1}$;
• $Y_{m,PP}$ is the pre-project Methane Conversion Factor (dimensionless), produced by Equation 18b applied to the 5-year pre-project NDF time series;
• $Y_{m,PS,RP}$ is the Reporting-Period weighted-average project-scenario Methane Conversion Factor (dimensionless), produced by Equation 18b applied to the Reporting-Period NDF time series.

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

(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 $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$, applied only when Equation 18b fails.

Where Methane Neutrality status is achieved, the following applies:

• The proponent is not required to perform additional herd-level methane emission modeling or deductions for the reporting period, although these could be conducted for reporting purposes following the IPCC Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies.
• Methane emissions shall be considered "managed and stable" within the project baseline, thus no methane emissions deductions are imposed.
• To maintain this exemption, proponents must provide the weighted-average NDF data and grazing logs as evidence that the dietary quality thresholds were maintained across all herds.

Where Methane Neutrality status is not achieved:

• Methane emissions must be explicitly quantified and compared against the baseline. The proponent must utilize a high-tier modeling approach to determine the emission increase. This must be conducted following IPCC Tier 2/3 protocols or the Niu et al.⁵ predictive equations, or another peer-reviewed and justified alternative model.
• Any calculated increase in methane emissions relative to the baseline must be subtracted as a deduction from the total carbon credits generated by the project for that reporting period.

The primary metric for determining methane intensity is the concentration of Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF). NDF is a measure of the structural components in the forage, which tends to increase with forage age. High concentration of NDF lead to longer fermentation duration increasing the methane emitted. Additional measures such as the Water Soluble Carbon (WSC) could be detected.

The NDF must be estimated using RS-derived data, the following minimum standards must be met:

• Imagery must be sourced from multispectral or hyperspectral sensors with a spatial resolution of $\leq$ 30 meters (e.g., Sentinel-2, Landsat 8/9, or commercial equivalents).
• Any algorithm or model used to translate spectral reflectance into NDF values must demonstrate a correlation ($R^2 \geq 0.70$) when cross-validated against local laboratory "wet chemistry" samples or standardized NIR (Near-Infrared) spectral libraries. This should include samples that span the range observed in the project fields.
• Data must be processed at a frequency that captures significant phenological shifts in forage quality, at a minimum of once per month during the growing season or aligned with harvest/grazing rotations.

Because livestock consume forage across diverse management units, a single project-wide average is insufficient. Instead, the project must calculate a Weighted Functional Average based on the following:

• Zonal Mean: Forage quality parameters (NDF, WSC, CP) must be calculated as the mean value of pixels within a defined management unit (paddock or field).
• Time-Weighting: The final value used for methane modeling must be a weighted average reflecting the proportion of fodder/silage consumed from each fields. This should be calculated using a weighted average reflecting the livestock stocking units and time spent in each field.

As an example for NDF, which could also be used for other measures, the weighted functional average is calculated as follows:

$$\text{NDF}_{av} \;=\; \frac{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{n_{T}} \sum_{h=1}^{n_H} \sum_{f=1}^{m} \left(\text{NDF}_{f,t}\,\times\,LSU_{h}\,\times\,D_{h,f,t}\right)}{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{n_{T}} \sum_{h=1}^{n_H} \sum_{f=1}^{m} \left(LSU_{h}\,\times\,D_{h,f,t}\right)}$$

(Equation 19)

Where:

• $t$ indexes time bins within the averaging window, $t = 1, \dots, n_T$;
• $n_T$ is the number of time bins (e.g. months) within the relevant averaging window (5 pre-project years for $Y_{m,PP}$; the Reporting Period for $Y_{m,PS,RP}$);
• $h$ indexes herd, $h = 1, \dots, n_H$;
• $n_H$ is the number of herds present in the relevant period;
• $f$ indexes field/grazing area, $f = 1, \dots, m$;
• $m$ is the total number of fields/grazing areas in the Project Area;
• $\text{NDF}_{f,t}$ is the field-level zonal-mean NDF in field $f$ at time bin $t$, in $\text{g kg}^{-1}\,\text{DM}$;
• $LSU_{h}$ is the count of Livestock Stocking Units in herd $h$, in $\text{LSU}$ (a count, not a density);
• $D_{h,f,t}$ is the number of days herd $h$ spent grazing in (or fed from) field $f$ during time bin $t$, in $\text{days}$;
• $\text{NDF}_{av}$ is the weighted-functional-average NDF, in $\text{g kg}^{-1}\,\text{DM}$.

The project must utilize the monitored NDF data to determine the $Y\_m$ through one of the following hierarchical pathways:

1. Standard Pathway (IPCC): Proponents may adopt the updated default values from the IPCC 2019 Refinement, utilizing the RS-derived NDF to justify the selection of "High Quality" vs. "Low Quality" diet categories.
2. Advanced Pathway (Niu et al.⁵): Proponents may utilize the predictive equation developed by Niu et al.⁵ to calculate a dynamic $Y_m$ based on NDF and fermentable carbohydrates (WSC/Starch).
3. Alternative Models: The use of alternative Tier 3 enteric models is permitted provided the proponent provides a written justification demonstrating that the alternative model is better suited to the specific geography, livestock breed, or forage species of the project area, and is supported by peer-reviewed literature.

The quantification of nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions is a requirement of this methodology to ensure a comprehensive net carbon balance. Nitrous oxide is a highly potent greenhouse gas. Project activities that increase Livestock Units (LSU) or improve forage quality (measured via Crude Protein) inevitably increase the volume of nitrogen (N) entering the soil via animal excreta (urine and dung). In grazing systems, this deposited nitrogen is the primary precursor for N₂O production through the microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification.

The CO₂e of nitrous oxide emissions due to the project activities shall be calculated for each reporting period following:

$$CO_{2}e_{N_{2}O,RP} \;=\; \frac{44}{28}\,\times\,GWP_{N_{2}O}\,\times\,EF\,\times\,A\,\times\,\Delta t\,\times\,\sum_{l=1}^{n_L} \sum_{y=1}^{n_{RP}} \max\!\Big(0,\; PSSR_{l,y}\,N_{Excretion,PS,l,y} \;-\; PPSR_{l}\,N_{Excretion,PP,l}\Big)$$

(Equation 20)

Where:

• $\Delta t = 1\,\text{yr}$ — explicit annual integration step, so dimensions reconcile;
• $PSSR_{l,y}$ in $\text{LSU ha}^{-1}$ (per Equation 2b);
• $N_{Excretion,PS,l,y}$ and $N_{Excretion,PP,l}$ in $\text{kg N LSU}^{-1}\,\text{yr}^{-1}$;
• $EF$ is the combined direct + indirect N₂O emission factor for nitrogen deposited on pasture, range, and paddock, in $\text{kg N}_2\text{O-N kg N}^{-1}$ (IPCC 2019 Refinement Vol.4 Ch.11 $EF_3$ + $EF_4$ + $EF_5$);
• $A$ is the Project Area, in $\text{ha}$;
• $\frac{44}{28}$ is the molar mass ratio converting $\text{N}_2\text{O-N}$ to $\text{N}_2\text{O}$;
• $GWP_{N_{2}O}$ is the 100-year GWP of N₂O consistent with the parent Protocol's GWP register, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}\,\text{t}^{-1}\,\text{N}_2\text{O}$, with an implicit $\text{kg} \to \text{t}$ conversion ($\times 10^{-3}$) folded into $GWP_{N_{2}O}$'s declared units;
• $CO_{2}e_{N_{2}O,RP}$ is the Reporting-Period N₂O deduction, in $\text{t CO}_2\text{e}$.

The nitrogen intake of grazing livestock is directly linked to the crude protein (CP) content of the forage they consume. The CP must be estimated using RS-derived data, the following minimum standards must be met:

• Imagery must be sourced from multispectral or hyperspectral sensors with a spatial resolution of $\leq$ 30 meters (e.g., Sentinel-2, Landsat 8/9, or commercial equivalents).
• Any algorithm or model used to translate spectral reflectance into CP values must demonstrate a correlation ($R^2 \geq 0.70$) when cross-validated against local laboratory "wet chemistry" samples or standardized NIR (Near-Infrared) spectral libraries. This should include samples that span the range observed in the project fields.
• Data must be processed at a frequency that captures significant phenological shifts in forage quality, at a minimum of once per month during the growing season or aligned with harvest/grazing rotations.

$$N_{Intake,s,l,y} \;=\; DMI_{l,y} \times \frac{CP_{l,y}}{6.25}$$

(Equation 21a)

$$N_{Excretion,s,l,y} \;=\; N_{Intake,s,l,y} \times \left(1 - N_{Ret,l,y}\right)$$

(Equation 21b)

Where:

• $s \in \{PP, PS\}$ denotes scenario (pre-project or project-scenario); each equation is applied separately under each scenario using the appropriate $DMI$, $CP$, $N_{Ret}$ values for that scenario;
• $l$ indexes livestock category;
• $y$ indexes year (a calendar year in scenario $s$);
• $DMI_{l,y}$ is the Dry Matter Intake per Livestock Unit for category $l$ in year $y$, in $\text{kg DM LSU}^{-1}\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ (IPCC 2019 Refinement Vol.4 Ch.10 Table 10A.1 scaled to LSU, or measured);
• $CP_{l,y}$ is the average Crude Protein content of the diet consumed by category $l$ in year $y$, as a dimensionless mass fraction of dry matter (e.g. $CP = 0.16$ for 16 % CP). RS-derived where applicable, with the spatial average via the Weighted Functional Average (Equation 20);
• $6.25$ is the protein → nitrogen conversion factor (g protein per g N), dimensionless;
• $N_{Ret,l,y}$ is the fraction of nitrogen intake retained by livestock of category $l$ in year $y$, dimensionless;
• $N_{Intake,s,l,y}$, $N_{Excretion,s,l,y}$ are in $\text{kg N LSU}^{-1}\,\text{yr}^{-1}$ (consistent with the units required by Equation 19).

Dry Matter Intake (DMI) shall be determined using standardized animal physiological tables (e.g., IPCC 2019). These values shall be cross-referenced with remote-sensed biomass estimates to ensure that the total DMI does not exceed the available herbage mass within the project boundary.

Where category-specific $DMI\_{l,y}$ cannot be evidenced, $DMI\_{l,y}$ for the affected category must be set to $\\max\_l DMI\_{l,y}^{\\text{IPCC default}}$ (i.e. the highest IPCC default $DMI$ across categories present) and this conservative substitution must be documented in the Monitoring Report.

The net removals are calculated following the requirements within the Improved Soil Management Protocol. Under this Module, the carbon storage ($CO_2e_{stored}$) is considered to consist of soil organic carbon. Terms for aboveground and belowground woody biomass must be set to 0.

The following calculations apply equally to both Quantification Approach 1 (direct measurement and remeasurement, Section 9.1.2) and Quantification Approach 2 (biogeochemical modeling with remeasurement, Section 9.1.3). They consume the stratum level SOC stock outputs from either approach and produce The Project-level total stock and cumulative stock change used for credit issuance.

The Project-level total carbon stock at any time $t$ is expressed as total carbon mass of soil organic carbon across all strata within the primary quantification unit:

$$CO_2e_{stored,t} = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \left( SOC_{j,t} \times A_j \right)\times \frac{44}{12}$$