Projects must provide a complete list of organizations participating in the project. This must include: the organization's name, role in the project, registration number, address, contact person, email address, and phone number.
Work with us as a Enhanced Weathering in Agriculture supplier
We've combined requirements from our modular protocol framework outlining everything you need to be validated as a Enhanced Weathering in Agriculture supplier.
We provide further support to compile a compliant validation package on our platform, Isometric Certify.
Overview
Where do requirements come from?
List of Enhanced Weathering in Agriculture requirements
Search
Table of contents
Project setup
Project setup
Essential project details including who's involved, the location of your project, and how much carbon will be removed.
Projects must provide an estimate of the net removal and/or reduction capacity of this project for the duration of the project crediting period (metric tonnes).
Projects must provide a brief explanation for why they are eligible under the selected protocol.
Projects must submit at least one address and/or specific geo-coordinates for the project. Projects may submit multiple project locations – please specify what role each location plays in the project.
Projects must provide reasoning and evidence for legal ownership over the rights to all removals and reductions that will be claimed.
Projects must provide a brief technical description of the Project activity in accessible language. This should include information on facilities and equipment, the age and average lifespan of equipment, descriptions of technologies, products, services and infrastructure to be utilised, and all further information essential to understanding how carbon removal or emissions reduction is achieved by the Project.
To mitigate the risks of double counting and scheme-hopping, Projects undergoing Validation must disclose any participation in other carbon standards or registries within the past five years, provide recent validation and verification audit reports (including findings and any suspensions or withdrawals), and state whether they withdrew from any prior scheme before completing a first verification.
Protocol & monitoring data
Protocol & monitoring data
How will you be measuring, monitoring and maintaining carbon removal, including data models and risk assessments.
Projects must define the temporal and geographic project boundary.
Projects must provide a detailed description of the GHG statement approach and methodology in relation to calculations.
Projects must define their system boundary to include all sources, sinks, and reservoirs (SSRs) and their associated GHGs as specified in the relevant protocol. Any GHG SSR that is excluded from the system boundary must be clearly identified and supported by robust justification and evidence where applicable.
Projects crediting non-permanent emission impacts must demonstrate a durability in excess of the designated project durability threshold.
Projects crediting non-permanent emission impacts must select from the durability threshold(s) defined in the protocol or module to be the project durability threshold.
Projects must demonstrate Financial Additionality by evidencing removals and/or reductions are the main purpose and only source of revenue; OR demonstrating that economic barriers would prevent project implementation in the absence of carbon finance.
Projects must evaluate leakage by providing a robust assessment of the potential increases in GHG emissions outside the system boundary that occurs as a result of the project activity.
For verification, Projects must conduct a sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO₂e uncertainty. For validation, Projects must describe how the sensitivity analysis will be performed and explicitly state whether they will use Certify
Projects must specify whether they used conservative estimates of input parameters, variance propagation and/or Monte Carlo simulations in consideration of uncertainty (one or multiple options).
Projects crediting non-permanent emission impacts must complete the protocol or module specific risk assessment to support the risk of reversal and buffer pool size.
Projects must assert the method(s) for compliance with regulations for all jurisdictions to which the project is beholden.
Projects must demonstrate that activities similar to the activities of the proposed project are not common practice.
Projects must demonstrate Regulatory Additionality by evidencing that the project is not required by existing laws, regulations, policies, or other binding obligations.
Projects must reason and evidence the baseline scenario of their activities having not taken place. Projects will only be credited for removals or reductions above this counterfactual baseline.
Projects must describe and justify any models used for quantification, monitoring, and meeting specified protocol requirements.
Projects must demonstrate Environmental Additionality by evidencing the climate impact of the project. Removals must be net negative after subtracting the counterfactual CO2 removal and all project GHG emissions, including leakage, from project CO2 removals. Reductions must have a net emission reduction after subtracting the Counterfactual GHG CO2e reduction and all project GHG emissions, including leakage, from project CO2e reductions.
Projects must describe the data collection and storage approach taken, including how data is transmitted, collected and stored, the length of time for which records are archived, backup procedures and strategies and the person(s) / organization(s) responsible for measurement and data collection.
Environmental & social impacts
Environmental & social impacts
How will your project affect people and nature, and how will you manage any risks that arise.
Projects must describe the conditions under which the project will be considered closed, and describe the project closure plan – outlining any post-cessation actions that will be undertaken upon closure of the project.
Projects must demonstrate that it creates no net environmental harm through an environmental impact assessment. This assessment must include, but is not limited to, resource efficiency and pollution prevention and biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources.
Projects must provide an overall assessment for the potential material environmental and social impacts, both within and beyond its boundary.
Projects must outline and detail compliance with applicable national and local laws and regulations.
Projects must demonstrate that it creates no net social harm by evaluating the potential negative social risks from a project’s implementation.
Projects must outline the environmental safeguards in place to prevent or mitigate the release of potentially toxic elements.
Projects must describe the monitoring approach for agricultural productivity and soil quality, including the characteristics that will be tested or proxy variables and at what frequency.
Projects must demonstrate how their carbon removal activities are consistent with relevant SDGs.
Stakeholder input process
Stakeholder input process
How will your project work with and respond to the community while staying compliant and adaptable.
Projects must outline the mechanism for stakeholders to voice, process and resolve grievances.
Projects must provide a description and documentation of how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled, a summary of comments received, report on how due account was taken of comments received, and the date and location of the stakeholder consultation, providing photographic evidence where possible.
Pathway-specific
Pathway-specific
How will your project meet pathway-specific process requirements.
Projects crediting non-permanent emission impacts must create a table that outlines all monitored parameters in their selected protocol and modules.
If using the Isometric river loss model, Projects must provide evidence demonstrating they meet all the eligibility criteria.
Projects must clearly identify all the applicable loss processes depending on the CDR pathway and deployment locations.
For each relevant loss process identified, Projects must 1) describe the risk of the loss process; 2) provide a justification of why the loss is negligible or a strategy for quantifying a corresponding retention factor.
Projects must quantify and aggregate any relevant non-negligible losses (e.g., re-equilibration of the carbonate system, inorganic carbonate precipitation, natural alkalinity flux reduction, additional (bio)geochemical sinks of alkalinity) into the total riverine retention factor (Equation 2)
If not using the Isometric River loss model, Projects must provide detailed information on the model selection, input datasets, validation approaches, kinetic rate-law and relevant transport modeling timescales. See Appendix 2 for more details on model reporting requirements.
Projects must quantify and aggregate any relevant non-negligible losses (e.g., re-equilibration of the carbonate system upon entering the ocean, inorganic carbonate precipitation, changes to natural alkalinity fluxes, changes to biotic calcification) into the total ocean retention factor (Equation 8).
Projects must provide full list of loss processes, description, justification, all records and documentations relevant to alternative model use (if applicable) at Project validation.
Projects must state the MRV approach taken quantifying and validating Enhanced Weathering removals.
Projects must describe how the carbon dioxide removal that would occur in the counterfactual scenario is accounted for through the control plot correction.
Projects must describe how they will determine whether the weathering signal and the change in alkalinity in control plots are statistically significant.
Projects must describe how the baseline will be established through soil samples.
Projects selecting soil based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how gross CDR will be determined from soil samples.
Projects selecting soil based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how they will account for losses by sorption of base cations to cation exchange sites in the soil column.
Projects selecting soil based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how approach estimating the time between when weathering occurs and when bicarbonate is exported to the watershed. Typical approaches may include extrapolation of the upper soil column or geochemical models, e.g., a reactive transport model.
Projects selecting soil based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how they consider the potential for secondary mineral formation. Secondary mineral formation is difficult to quantify and therefore will not be deducted from CDR quantification at this time, but it is an important consideration for CDR potential. Describe the analytical approach and the refinement or fitting techniques used to interpret the data.
Projects must describe how biomass loss will be quantified.
Projects selecting soil based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how they will quantify non-carbonic acid neutralization in the upper soil column. Projects must identify if they are selecting Method A, B, or C to quantify non-carbonic acid neutralization.
Projects selecting Method A to determine non-carbonic acid neutralization must describe the porewater anion determination approach.
Projects selecting Method B to determine non-carbonic acid neutralization must describe how an efficiency factor is calculated.
Projects selecting Method C to determine non-carbonic acid neutralization must describe how fertilizer inputs are used as a conservative estimate.
Projects selecting porewater based quantification from List 1 or 2 must describe how gross CDR will be determined from porewater samples.
Projects selecting porewater quantification from List 1 or 2 must quantify drainage. These projects must state if drainage will be quantified through Method A: Direct Measurement, Method B: Water Balance Equation, or Method C: Darcy's Law and how the chosen method will be used to quantify Q.
Projects selecting porewater based quantification from List 1 or 2 through carbonic acid system measurements must state which carbonic acid system parameters will be monitored.
Projects selecting porewater based quantification from List 1 or 2 through major and trace element analysis must describe the analytical procedure and state which elements will be analyzed.
Projects selecting local ion exchange resin validation as the optional method from List 2 must describe the approach here.
Projects must describe their in-field monitoring approach.
Projects must state if they employ variable application rates over their project area.
Projects must state if they will split their project area into multiple removal areas, and if so describe the approach to minimize heterogeneity within removal areas.
Projects must provide information on field management practices including information on the cropping system, productivity levels of the agricultural land, irrigation, and fertilizer use.
Projects must describe how precipitation data will be collected during the reporting period. This description must include if rain gauges are installed in the project area, and if so, their density.
Projects must describe their soil sampling approach if soil based quantification is selected from List 1 or 2.
Projects must state if they are using Method A or Method B to determine the alkalinity application rate from operational logs.
Projects selecting Method A for determination of alkalinity application rate from operational logs must submit 'as applied' data from the feedstock applicator in the form of maps showing application area and rate.
Projects selecting Method B for determination of alkalinity application rate from operational logs must divide the total mass of rock delivered to the site by the area over which it was applied.
Projects selecting Method B for a direct measurement based determination of alkalinity application rate must conduct a post-application sampling event and state the mobile cations and immobile tracers (if applicable) selected to determine weathering.
Projects selecting Method C for a direct measurement based determination of alkalinity application rate must describe how they will use the ratio of an immobile element or similar tracer to feedstock alkalinity to determine the true feedstock application rate.
Projects must describe their porewater sampling approach if porewater based quantification is selected from List 1 or 2.
Projects must state if solid or liquid samples are pooled for analysis.
Projects must describe how they will use Monte Carlo methods to quantify uncertainty in CO2e stored.
Projects must state if they will determine alkalinity application rate from direct measurements using Method A, B, or C.
Projects selecting Method A for the determination of alkalinity application rate from direct measurement must conduct a pan audit of feedstock application.
Projects must demonstrate agreement in the application rate determined from operational logs and direct measurement.
Projects must carry out a statistical analysis to demonstrate that the number of samples collected is sufficient for resolving the weathering signal above in-field noise.
Projects that were started prior to the certification of the Enhanced Weathering Protocol (V1.0, certified in April 2024) and spread feedstock within 6 months of publication (October 2024), must summarize the areas in which the project may deviate from the requirements.