There is a more recent version of this standard - view it for the latest updates.
Isometric Standard
Loading...
The Isometric Registry (A database that holds information on Verified Removals and Reductions based on Protocols. Registries Issue Credits, and track their ownership and Retirement.) records Verified Credits (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) that represent net Removals (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) of atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) which satisfy the latest Version of the Isometric Standard. The Isometric Standard, detailed in this document, lists the requirements that ensure Delivered (The outcome of a Project Proponent providing Credits to fulfill Buyers' purchases.) Credits have measurable climate impact. In summary, Credits must be Durable (The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.), Additional (An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.), and calculated using the latest scientific techniques. These Credits must also include a scientifically robust Uncertainty (A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.) quantification meeting at minimum with the requirements outlined in the Standard.
As outlined in this Isometric Standard, Isometric coordinates data curation, quantification and Verification (A process for evaluating and confirming the net Removals and Reductions for a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing conformity with the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which it is governed. Verification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) necessary to Issue (Credits are issued to the Credit Account of a Project Proponent with whom Isometric has a Validated Protocol after an Order for Verification and Credit Issuance services from a Buyer and once a Verified Removal or Reduction has taken place.) Credits on the Isometric Registry. All data, calculations and evidence associated with Credits are publicly available. The Isometric Registry is designed for voluntary Buyers (An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.) focused on high durability Removals, not offsets or Emission Reductions (Lowering future GHG releases from a specific entity.).
This Isometric Standard sets out the duties and obligations of stakeholders in relation to the Isometric Registry. Its purpose is also to provide for a consistent and predictable experience for all parties engaging with the Isometric Registry.
This Standard and the rules contained herein were designed and developed by Isometric HQ Limited.
Throughout this Standard, theand usethroughout ofIsometric Protocols, the words "must"below andshould "should"be bothinterpreted indicateas follows:
The Isometric Crediting Program (The scope of Isometric which involves all of the processes relevant to the entire life cycle of a Credit.) is guided by the Isometric Standard, and exists to:
The Isometric Standard sets requirements that all Isometric Protocols must meet at a minimum.
The Isometric Crediting Program adheres to the following principles:
Collaboration
Incentive Alignment
Scientific Rigor
Transparency
Isometric works with Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Projects conforming to a Protocol which has undergone or will undergo the Isometric Certification Process.
Isometric works with Projects worldwide. Isometric works in English. Additional languages may be considered given translation by a trusted source.
In some instances, Modules (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.) within Protocols may be tailored for Projects which have geographical specificities. In this circumstance, geography-specific alterations to utilized Modules will be made clear in order to maintain transparency amongst Project Proponents.
Isometric Issues Credits for the Removal of atmospheric CO₂ only. In evaluating the comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a Project, all GHGs are considered. Isometric uses the United States Environmental Protection Agency definition of GHGs1, which includes: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
Projects partaking solely in any of the following will not meet Isometric Protocol Requirements.
Projects partaking in activities leading to Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery (EHR) will also not meet Isometric Protocol Requirements.
This Isometric Standard was first published 4th October 2023.
This document will be updated on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the operation, governance and/or rules that apply to either Projects on, or activity described by, the Registry.
Any proposed material changes to the Standard will be put forward for review by the independent Science Network. Following any amendments resulting from that process, the draft changes will be put out for public comment. After having incorporated any further amendments, the final changes will be published in an updated version of the Standard, alongside a clear explanation of the stakeholder input received and how this informed the final changes that were made.
Version numbers are updated according to standard Semantic Versioning3 practice, where three positive integers A.B.C denote the version of the Standard.
A full change-log, along with all previously published versions and their dates of publication, is publicly available on Isometric’s website.
The latest version is always the current version.
The appropriate citation for the document is the Isometric Standard (20232025), version 1.06.0.
This section outlines the requirements for all Isometric Certified Protocols including Isometric Certified Modules.
All Projects must be Validated (A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) against, and Removals (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) Verified against, an Isometric Certified Protocol.
An Isometric Certified Protocol is a Protocol developed by Isometric that has undergone Public Consultation, and is listed as Certified on the Isometric Registry. Protocols may reference or incorporate Modules, using the Isometric Modular Framework.
Isometric will not list multiple Protocols or Modules as Certified where they pertain to the same or essentially the same underlying carbon removal activities.
The external Consultation process will be as follows:
Expert review will be conducted through the Isometric Science Network. Expert review is the process in which the internal Isometric Science Team invites individuals with deep subject matter expertise to submit feedback on a Protocol. Isometric generously compensates experts for their detailed review with a flat hourly fee paid upon feedback submission.
Public Consultation will be announced on the Isometric Registry and to the Isometric Science Network. Protocols are open for public commenting for a minimum of 30 days. All relevant stakeholder (Any person or entity who can potentially affect or be affected by Isometric or an individual Project activity.) comments are considered and responded to by the internal Isometric Science Team, and the results of the Consultation will be published on the Registry. All anonymized comments and reviews will be made available upon request.
Typically, at least 5-10 scientific experts are engaged for a given Module or Protocol via the combination of the above processes.
The Consultation process will be conducted in compliance with the Isometric Stakeholder Input Process for Projects.
A Protocol can reference or incorporate an existing Isometric Certified Module. Modules are developed by Isometric and will be Certified either during the Certification of a Protocol, or individually as stand-alone items, through the same Certification process.
Individual Certified Modules which are incorporated into a Protocol will not be subject to individual Consultation unless changes are made in accordance with Isometric's Updates to Protocols policy. Protocols which incorporate Modules will still require Consultation, with input and revisions only occurring to additional (non-Modular) parts of the Protocol and to assess the suitability of the incorporation of appropriate Modules.
All Protocols will include the same Modules for accounting for transport emissions, energy emissions and embodied emissions (Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.), in order to create a consistent accounting framework across all Projects.
Isometric will review individual Modules annually and be responsible for version changes in accordance with our Updates to Protocols policy.
The internal Isometric Science Team will review a Protocol or Module if Isometric deems it necessary due to material changes in realms such as scientific knowledge, technology and/or regulatory frameworks. This review mustwill be completed within a period of 6 months from the date an issue is raised. If the review results in substantial changes to a Protocol or Module such that a new version is required, these changes mustwill adhere to the Protocol Certification process.
In addition to the triggers for review outlined above, each Protocol will be reviewed at the sooner of the following criteria:
Major and minor changes will be documented on the Isometric Registry and published alongside the results of a public commenting period of a minimum duration of 30 days. All versions of Protocols and Modules will be documented, archived and made publicly available. Revisions and updates to Protocols will be made in accordance with our Protocol Versioning Policy.
If a Module is updated, all existing Protocols which make use of this Module will be automatically updated.
Isometric reserves the right to suspend and/or withdraw a Protocol if deemed necessary due to credible, evidence-based concerns that carbon removal activities are being overestimated or that additionality may not be ensured. In such exceptional cases, Isometric may take immediate action to suspend and/or withdraw a Protocol. The Protocol may then be re-introduced following the usual period of public consultation in the case of any material change.
Credits issued against a previous Protocol version are not affected by Protocol updates, unless otherwise specified with justification in the updated Protocol. Projects must update to newer Protocol versions in accordance with the Protocol Versioning Policy, and may update more frequently if desired.
Version numbers are updated according to standard Semantic Versioning3 practice, where three positive integers A.B.C denote the version of the Protocol.
A full change-log for each Protocol, along with all previously published versions and their dates of publication, is publicly available on Isometric’s website.
Protocols require Cradle-to-Grave (Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.) GHG accounting of all emissions associated with a Project's Removal process. The GHG emissions that result from the Project's activities within the defined boundary, combined with any Leakages (The increase in GHG emissions outside the geographic or temporal boundary of a project that results from that project's activities.) shouldmust together encompass the entire impact of a Project on GHG emissions. This shouldmust be presented as part of a GHG Statement and corresponding GHG Statement Report.
All Projects must have a defined temporal and geographic project boundary (The defined temporal and geographical boundary of a Project.). The system boundary (GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with the project boundary and included in the GHG Statement.) for GHG accounting sets out the GHG Sources (Any process or activity that releases a greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.), Sinks (Any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, a precursor to a greenhouse gas, or an aerosol from the atmosphere.), and Reservoirs (A location where carbon is stored. This can be via physical barriers (such as geological formations) or through partitioning based on chemical or biological processes (such as mineralization or photosynthesis).) associated with the project boundary and to be considered in the GHG Statement. The system boundary is specified by the relevant Protocol and must include at a minimum all GHG SSRs from:
All Projects must be assessed against a Baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) scenario of their activities not having taken place. Establishment of the Baseline scenario will differ between Project types and will be specified in the relevant Protocol.
A project's Counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) is a quantification of the CO2 removal and storage that would have taken place without the project's activities, assuming the Baseline scenario. This must be calculated using conservative assumptions, as outlined in relevant Protocols, and must be assessed for every Removal. Project Baselines must account for any existing government policies or legal requirements that lower GHG emissions. Projects will only be Credited for Removals above and beyond what was likely to have occurred in the Baseline scenario.
Projects will not be Credited for emissions reductions or avoidance, and will only be Credited for the generation of storage in excess of the specified Project Durability Threshold, as described in Durability and Monitoring.
IfWhere Projects cause additional non-Durable (<1,000 years) CO2 storage throughbelow theirthe processesProject Durability Threshold for the Project, this isstorage not able tocannot count positively towards the end number of Credits, but this can be used to offset losses in non-Durable Counterfactual storage below the Project Durability Threshold, as outlined in the relevant Certified Protocol.
Projects must reassess the Baseline scenario whenever a Crediting Period (The period of time over which a Project Design Document is valid, and over which Removals or Reductions may be Verified, resulting in Issued Credits.) renewal is requested and must be validated as part of Project Validation.
The Project Proponent must be able to demonstrate three pillars of Additionality (Financial, Environmental and Regulatory), in order to show that the claimed environmental impact would not have otherwise occurred in the Baseline Scenario.
A Project can be considered Additional when all of the following criteria are met.
Evidence of Financial Additionality must be provided via full Project financials.
Proof of Financial Additionality requires, at minimum, the calculation of the return on investment via calculation of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the Project. The IRR determination must be completed in accordance with generally-accepted accounting practices. The analysis should be completed for a 10-year period, withor nonif another length of time is chosen, justification must be given based on project circumstances. Non-depreciated residual values of any equipment or assets must be included as positive cash flows in the final year 10. Existing government subsidies or tax incentives must be taken into account as a revenue stream.
The Project Proponent must determine the IRR for the Project without Carbon Finance revenues. For new Projects, the Project must ultimately demonstrate:
A Project may justify a higher IRR as additional if the Project Proponent can demonstrate that the Project requires such an IRR to enable financing for higher risk Projects, which may require higher interest rate loans, high interest rate venture or equity investment, or similar.
The IRR analysis shouldmust also include a scenario analysis that demonstrates the ability to meet the above Additionality criteria for cases where values in the analysis change. Scenario analyses shouldmust include:
At a minimum, the IRR analysis shouldmust include variation of the factors above by ±20% or by a more appropriate value based on historical data or literature.
For pre-existing Projects:
Project Proponents must demonstrate that the Project is not required by existing laws, regulations, policies, or other binding obligations. If the activity is required by such legal requirements, the Project is not considered Additional. Legal requirements that shouldmust be considered include, but are not limited to:
If the Project is legally required as described above, but the Project provides Removals that exceed the legal requirement, the Removals in excess of the legal requirement may be considered additional if the other Additionality requirements are also met.
Projects shouldmust demonstrate a robust assessment of potential increases in GHG emissions outside the defined GHG system boundary that occurs as a result of the Project activity. Leakage may be as a result of activity shifting or, market transformation or shifts in ecosystem processes and can relate to both upstream and downstream activities. Where the potential for such Leakage is identified, it must be quantified and deducted from the CO2 Removals in accordance with the relevant Protocol.
Protocols can use Default Emission Factors, Standards (Standard physical constants as well as standard values set forth by bodies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or others.), Proxies (A measurement which correlates with but is not a direct measurement of the variable of interest.) and Models (A calculation, series of calculations or simulations that use input variables in order to generate values for variables of interest that are not directly measured.) to quantify Removals, demonstrate Additionality and/or establish Baselines. In metered systems, the preference is for direct measurement of required variables.
Proxies and Models will only be permitted for use under circumstances which are justifiable, such as for reasons of practicality, reliability, and for gap filling in variable un-metered systems. This justification must be outlined in the Protocol. Proxy measurements are secondarily preferred, and models may be used when neither Proxy or direct measurements are viable. When used, Models and Proxy measurements must apply Conservative Uncertainty factors and make Conservative assumptions. Assumptions and estimations must be disclosed and justified. When Models and Proxy measurements are used, Uncertainty must be assessed and clearly outlined in the Protocol.
Further requirements and guidance for the use of Default Emission Factors, Standards, Proxies and Models in Protocols are outlined below.
The Protocol must appropriately cite and describe the source of any third-party Default Emission Factor, Standard, Model or Proxy. Third-party Default Emission Factors and Standards must be either internationally recognized or derived from a Reputable Source (A source that would be widely considered trustworthy based on the process undertaken (e.g., peer review) or origin of the information (e.g., government body).).
Where a newly established Default Emission Factor is used in a Protocol, the reasoning behind this choice and documentation of Default Emission Factor calculations must be clearly outlined and will be subject to review in accordance with the Consultation Requirements.
Protocols must identify Default Emission Factors that are likely subject to future changes. Default Emission Factors can be subject to updates and revisions given the Isometric Updates to Protocols policy.
Proxies must be shown to be well-correlated with the variable of interest, preferably through established calibration studies from Reputable Sources. The Proxy data, empirical fits, correlation data, and sources must be provided to Isometric.
Models must be from a Reputable Source (A source that would be widely considered trustworthy based on the process undertaken (e.g., peer review) or origin of the information (e.g., government body).) and/or shown to be reliable via peer-review, testing or correlation with empirical data. The source of models, any modifications, input parameters, data used and validation results must be clearly outlined to Isometric.
All calculations shouldmust use consistent, standardized factors, including the following:
Global Warming Potential (GWP): CalculationsUnless shouldotherwise stated in a Protocol or Module, calculations must use the 100-yr GWP for the GHG of interest, based on the most recent volume of the IPCC Assessment Report, currently the Sixth Assessment Report4.
Uncertainty is due to factors such as inability to precisely measure certain physical phenomena and/or assumptions in Models or GHG accounting. Protocols must set up frameworks that allow for the reduction of uncertainties with time as measurements, models, and scientific understanding improves.
Protocols must report a list of all parameters that are used in the Removal calculations. A sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO2e uncertainty must be provided. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided so that the results can be re-created. Parameters may be omitted from a full uncertainty analysis if a Sensitivity Analysis (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) can demonstrate that the parameter contributes to <1% change in Removal. For all other parameters, information about Uncertainty must be specified.
Uncertainty information will vary depending on the data, but may include the type of distribution and parameters needed to describe uncertainty and/or shape of the data when plotted. Appendix A provides additional guidelines for assessing different types of uncertainties.
Furthermore, the source for information relevant to Uncertainty calculation and/or justification is required for each input parameter. The Uncertainty information may be obtained from instrument calibrations, measurement variability, published literature, Proxies, expert judgment, and/or other Reputable Sources.
Protocols must include a procedure for incorporating Uncertainties into a Conservative estimate of Removal. The following approaches are acceptable, and other methods may be considered after an internal Isometric review.
A. Conservative estimate of input parameters
B. Variance propagation
C. Monte Carlo Simulations (A mathematical approach for estimating the possible outcomes of an uncertain event through repeated random sampling. It can also be referred to as a "multiple probability simulation".)
Option A is suitable for Projects where it is difficult to obtain detailed information on input parameter distributions. Using conservative estimates of input parameters will lead to a Conservative Removal estimate.
Option B can be used when parameters follow normal distributions and errors are linear (i.e., errors increase linearly as parameter values increase) and independent (i.e., changing one variable has no effect on another variable).
Option C provides a more comprehensive representation of Uncertainties and may result in more Credits Issued. This approach is suitable for Projects where sufficient information is available for all input variables so that Monte Carlo Simulations can be conducted.
As Removal quantifications become better-constrained and more data is gathered, Protocols may progress from using Option A to Option B to Option C.
For Option A, a uniform distribution is assumed for all parameters, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Isometric recommends that the value used in the Removal calculation be either ≤16th or ≥84th percentile, depending on which one yields a more Conservative estimate of Removal. There may be instances where a parameter might only have a few reported values, and it does not make sense to assume a continuous distribution. In these cases, it would be more appropriate to use the minimum or maximum value as the Conservative estimate. See Appendix A for some examples.
For Option B, the variance must be defined for all input parameters. Variance propagation should be conducted following uncertainty propagation rules5, where the outcome is the variance in the Removal. Isometric recommends that the Conservative Removal estimate be at least 1 standard deviation (square-root of the variance) below the mean, equivalent to ≤16th percentile.
For Option C, the input distributions must be specified for all input parameters. The final distribution for the Removal is determined by randomly sampling from input distributions many times (e.g., n = 1,000).6 The Conservative estimate of Removal will be ≤16th percentile for consistency between Option B and C in the case of normal distributions.
Parameter Uncertainties that are based on expert judgment and which contribute the most significantly to the final Removal calculation (based on a Sensitivity Analysis) will be subject to expert review by Isometric and/or selected Science Network experts.
Uncertainty assessment should initially be revisited as part of every Verification, with updates incorporated as appropriate. The frequency of assessments may be amended on a Protocol-by-Protocol basis as Uncertainties reduce over time.
Protocols and Modules may specify one or more Durability Threshold(s). Where a Protocol or Module does not explicitly specify a Durability Threshold, the default Durability Threshold for the Protocol or Module is 1,000 years.
Projects following a Protocol or Module must select from the Durability Threshold(s) defined in the Protocol or Module to be the Project ProponentsDurability Threshold, by specifying this in the Project’s PDD.
Projects must demonstrate a Durability in excess of atthe leastdesignated 1,000Project yearsDurability Threshold. The Durability of all Credits issued from a Project will be equal to ensurethe meaningfulProject long-termDurability climate action. Projects with <1,000 year durability will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basisThreshold.
JustificationProtocols ofand Modules will set requirements which Projects must meet in order to justify the claimed Project Durability canThreshold. beThese establishedrequirements inmay two possible waysinclude:
A full risk assessment must be undertaken to identify all possible mechanisms that will lead to Reversals (The escape of CO₂ to the atmosphere after it has been stored, and after a Credit has been Issued. A Reversal is classified as avoidable if a Project Proponent has influence or control over it and it likely could have been averted through application of reasonable risk mitigation measures. Any other Reversals will be classified as unavoidable.) and subsequent decreases in Durability. There must be a monitoring plan in place to quantify the amount of potential Reversal that may occur via each identified Reversal mechanism.
The duration of storage monitoring required is process and location specific and requirements will be specified in the relevant Protocol.
Monitoring requirements must include:
reassessment of reversal risk using the risk reversal questionnaire at a minimum every 5 years, in addition to when any of the following milestones are met:
Protocols must categorize the Risk of Reversal for determining the appropriate Buffer Pool Size. For Projects whose Protocol or Module for Crediting does not have its own risk assessment, Isometric has provided a risk questionnaire (see Appendix B) that can serve as guidance on how Risk of Reversal is determined. The answers to the Protocol or Module specific risk assessment, or the default risk questionnaire, are used to support the Risk of Reversal and Buffer Pool Size.
The Risk of Reversal and the corresponding Buffer Pool Size are meant to insure against Reversals that may be observed as a result of monitoring. The Buffer Pool is not meant to insure against risks in cases in which CO2 is stored in an open system (e.g., the ocean) and direct observation would not be possible. In open systems, storage risks shouldmust be assessed as part of the Uncertainty assessment and accounted for in the Conservative estimate of Removal. Thus, the default Risk Assessment Questionnaire is designed so that CO2 storage in open systems will have the lowest risk of reversal score, and the buffer pool corresponding to that lowest risk category is meant as an additional precaution against unknowns.
All Projects must follow GHG accounting guidelines as set out by the relevant Protocol. This includes guidelines for conducting transport emission accounting, energy use accounting and embodied emission accounting, as well as specific Protocol requirements.
Protocols Certified by Isometric should use Consequential Analysis (The analysis of specific Uncertainties, hazards and scenarios inherent in complex systems such as the natural and engineered environment, aiming to describe how systems-level environmentally relevant flows will change in response to possible decisions.) to determine GHG emissions. Protocols must address:
byproduct accounting;
Attributional Analysis (Analysis aiming to describe the environmentally relevant physical flows to and from a life cycle and its subsystems.) may be permitted on a case by case basis by Isometric, if appropriately justified (e.g. on grounds of accuracy and feasibility).
When submitting Claimed Removals, the Project's emissions, Removals and Leakages must be presented together in net metric tonnes of CO2e as part of a GHG Statement.
All Protocols must include an Applicability section.
The Applicability section must, at a minimum, outline the activities to which the Protocol applies. It may also explicitly set out activities to which the Protocol does not apply.
The Applicability section may also set out conditions that a project must meet in order to be eligible for crediting under the Protocol, including specific baseline requirements.
Removals are conducted and Verified as part of specific Projects. This section describes the requirements for Projects to be compliant with the Isometric Standard.
Projects must demonstrate that they have legal ownership over the rights to all Removals that will be claimed from the Project, including at minimum making a representation to Isometric to this effect.
When there are multiple parties involved in the Removal process, and to avoid Double Counting (Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.), a single Project Proponent must be specified as the sole owner of the Removals.
Ownership must be defined in contracts between the Project Proponent and other Project participants, which may include, for example, suppliers of Feedstocks, transportation and logistics companies, and/or storage site owners and operators.
Contracts must:
For a Project to be evaluated for the Isometric Registry, the Project Proponent must document Project characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD). The document will form the basis for Project Validation and evaluation in accordance with the relevant Certified Protocol. The PDD shouldmust be consistent with ISO 14064-2:2019^ISO-14064-2
a chronological plan or actual dates and justification for the following:
Project Start Date;
Project Risk of Reversal.
Isometric will not publicly disclose sensitive business information inherent to data included in the PDD or otherwise provided by the Project Proponent. Information will be labeled as sensitive by the Project Proponent, and Isometric will communicate to the Project Proponent whether any information deemed sensitive is necessary to be shared in order to accurately reflect Removal GHG calculations. Sensitive business information may include, but is not limited to:
This cannot prevent the disclosure of baselines and other underlying assumptions critical for robust quantification of carbon removal.
Projects are only eligible to claim Credits for activities that are exclusively registered with the Isometric Registry. Projects are only eligible to receive Credits on the Isometric Registry using an Isometric Certified Protocol.
Prior to Project registration on the Isometric Registry, projects must undergo a 30 day public comment period. Isometric will review all comments received during that period, and share these with the Project Proponent and the Project’s appointed VVB. In response to comments received, Isometric or the appointed VVB may issue clarification requests or corrective action requests to the Project Proponent during the validation process. Any such corrective action requests must be addressed by the Project Proponent during the validation process. Isometric will publish a summary of comments received once Project validation is complete.
At time of Project application and Validation, Projects must use the latest available version of a Certified Protocol, unless a grace period has been explicitly specified by Isometric, whereby a former version of a Protocol may continue to be used for a defined time period.
Projects shouldmust conform to all relevant laws and regulations in the jurisdiction in which they operate.
Projects must be Additional, according to the guidance described in the Isometric Standard Additionality approach.
Projects must use appropriate Emission Factors as set out in relevant Protocols. Protocols and modules set guidelines for the types of emissions factors and sources of emission factors that are acceptable.
The Project Proponent is responsible for notifying Isometric of any changes to operations that could change the eligibility of their process.
Projects are eligible to begin submitting Claimed Removals to Isometric following Project Validation. Once Removals are Verified, they may be used to issue Credits. See Section 6 for more information on Crediting.
The initial Crediting Period Start Date for a Project designates the beginning of operational carbon removal activity for the Project. The requested Crediting Period Start Date must be no earlier than 25 years before the initial submission of the Project to the Registry. Claimed Removals may be submitted for activity which took place on or following the Crediting Period Start Date.
Projects are eligible to Issue Credits for the duration of the Crediting Period specified in the Project's PDD. If a Project Proponent wishes to renew the Crediting Period of a Project, an updated PDD must be provided and the Project must be re-Validated. There is no limit on the number of times a project can be renewed providing it is still in compliance with the relevant Certified Protocol. In general, the maximum Crediting Period is 5 years, unless otherwise specified by the relevant Certified Protocol.
IfUnless otherwise specified in the applicable Protocol or Module, if a validated Project has not undergone a verification for more than 12 months since the previous verification, an updated PDD must be provided and the Project must be re-Validated.
Isometric does not Issue Ex-ante Credits (Issuance of Credits prior to the carbon removal or GHG reduction taking place. Isometric does not Deliver Credits in this manner.).
Relevant stakeholders must be informed of the Project's proposed and current activities by the Project Proponent. All stakeholders shouldmust be equitably represented, involved and able to contribute freely. This includes but is not limited to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), stakeholders with land-tenure rights, local policymakers. Additional stakeholders may include regional or national government officials, local NGOs, or other groups likely to be affected by the project.
Consultation with stakeholders and rights-holders must be conducted and evidence of these meetings must be submitted to Isometric. Consultations must meet the requirements below.
Iterative:
Accessible:
Stakeholders (Any person or entity who can potentially affect or be affected by Isometric or an individual Project activity.) and rights-holders shouldmust be invited to consultation meetings with a minimum notice of 14 days.
Meetings, documentation and correspondence shouldmust be:
in the local language(s), or have a translator where necessary to facilitate communication;
Transparent:
The intention of each consultation meeting shouldmust be communicated to all stakeholders prior to the meeting.
Include a system for stakeholders to voice, process, and resolve grievances:
Project Proponent contact information must be made available to all stakeholders.
Project Proponents must inform Isometric about any new grievances that are raised no later than 14 days after receipt by the Project Proponent.
Projects must assert with the PDD the method(s) for compliance with regulations for all jurisdictions to which the Project is beholden.
Projects must comply with national and local laws and regulations and, where relevant, international conventions and standards.
Projects must consider the material environmental and social impacts that could potentially arise as a result of their activities, both within and beyond its boundary, and at minimum must do no net environmental or social harm. Remediation of any unintentional harm, caused directly or indirectly by a project, must be carried out by a Project Proponent. Failure to adequately remediate any harm caused may lead to a project being subject to Credit cessation and cancellation. The consideration of these impacts shouldmust be ongoing throughout a Project's lifespan and assessments updated when necessary, and shouldmust include provisions for Project closure and post-closure.
For each aspect of the environmental and social impacts assessment, the Project must demonstrate how these risks have been assessed and, if applicable, what mitigation plan is in place to prevent them. If risks are not applicable to the project this finding must be reported to Isometric, and environmental regulators where applicable, and justified within the PDD.
A full Environmental and/or Social Impact Assessment (EIA and/or SIA) conducted by a third party is suggested for all Projects but is only required if impacts are considered significant and/or if required by the host jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of the Project to ensure that any EIA or SIA undertaken meets all local, regional and national and international regulations and laws.
Assessments undertaken to evaluate the potential for environmental harm by a Project may be undertaken with varying formats, names and costs, depending on the location of a Project. These assessments are commonly named environmental impact assessments (EIA) and are often required under specific environmental laws or regulations. Within some countries, such as the U.S., multiple levels or types of EIA may exist. Within the U.S. EIA’s exist as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA), with requirements for each type of assessment varying on a federal and state by state basis. It is the responsibility of the Project Proponent to identify specific requirements for EIA’s within the location and type of a Project. Within this Standard all such assessments are referred to as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).
A Project must demonstrate that it creates no net environmental harm. These assessments and mitigation strategies shouldmust consider, where applicable, the potential negative environmental risks from a Project’s implementation. This shouldmust include, but is not limited to, the following, as outlined in the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles7:
A Project must demonstrate that it creates no net social harm. These assessments and mitigation strategies shouldmust consider, wherethe applicable, any risk of apotential negative social impactrisks from a Project’s implementation. This shouldmust include, but is not be limited to, the following, as outlined in the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles7:
Projects must demonstrate, where relevant and feasible, how their carbon removal activities are consistent with relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) objectives of all jurisdictions in which they operate. The SDGs are a set of 17 global and interconnected goals established by the United Nations in 2015 to address a wide range of social, economic, and environmental issues.
Such an explanation shouldmust be included in the Project Design Document. If applicable, a qualitative assessment shouldmust be included for any positive impacts identified in relation to SDGs other than SDG13. Project Proponents shouldmust provide information on any standardized assessment tools and methods used as part of this explanation.
All evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of Removals will be available to the public through Isometric's platform for any Verified Credit. This includes:
The Project Proponent may request for confidential information to be restricted, whereby it will only be available to authorized Buyers, Isometric and designated VVBs (during Validation or Verification). This includes emissions factors from licensed databases. However, all other numerical data produced or used as part of the quantification of CO₂e removed may not be restricted in this way.
This section defines the requirements for Validation and Verification of Projects on the Isometric Registry. Accredited VVBs Validate Projects and Verify Removals in line with this Isometric Standard and a Certified Protocol.
All VVBs are approved by Isometric independently and impartially based on alignment with Conflict of Interest policies, rotation of VVB policies, oversight on quality, and the following requirements:
VVBs must be able to demonstrate accreditation from:
an International Accreditation Forum14 member against ISO (A worldwide federation (NGO) of national standards bodies from more than 160 countries, one from each member country.) 14065 or other relevant ISO standard, including but not limited to ISO 14034, ISO 17020, ISO 17029; or
All Projects must undergo an initial Project Validation, carried out by an independent VVB, to assess conformity with the Isometric Standard, and with the applied Certified Protocol. Once a Project has been Validated, the Project is subsequently able to submit Claimed Removals to Isometric. Isometric requires Verification of any Claimed Removal in order to Issue Credits. Validation and Verification will be carried out in line with ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065. Additional requirements are listed below.
Prior to Validation/Verification, the third party shouldmust prepare a Validation/Verification plan that details the activities and schedules. The plan may be revised as necessary during the process. The plan shouldmust be communicated with the Project Proponent and shouldmust include, at minimum:
The Verifier shouldmust produce a report that documents the activities, results, findings, and conclusion of the Verification. The Verification report shouldmust contain, at a minimum15:
Following this process, Isometric will review the Project documents used for Validation and Verification, and either accept them, request corrections or clarifications for the Project Proponent or VVB to address, or reject them. Once Isometric has reviewed and approved the initial Validation Report for a Project, the Project will be listed as Validated on the Registry, with the date of Isometric’s approval listed as the “Approval Date (The date on which Isometric approves the initial Validation Report for a Project, following which the Project will be listed as Validated on the Registry. (Also known as “Registration Date”).)” (also known as a “registration date”) of the Project. For Verifications, once Isometric has accepted a Verification Report, the corresponding Removals will be deemed Verified, and eligible for issuance of Credits.
For both Validations and Verifications, the results of the Validation/Verification process, including the Validation/Verification Report and Opinion, will be made available for each Project.
The threshold for Materiality (An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.), considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5% for all Projects. To accept a Verification Opinion, Isometric requires that discrepancies between the Removal Claimed by the Project Proponent and that estimated by the VVB for a given statement be less than the Materiality threshold.
Qualitative materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as16:
If an overstated Project (one which claims more Credits than it has produced) is discovered after Credits have been Issued, please see the Isometric policy on Changes to Issued Credits.
Any organization which has been involved in the development of a particular Project Proponent may not act as a VVB for Validation and/or Verification purposes for that Project. Any organization which has been paid by a particular Project to assist in developing any part of a Certified Protocol for their process may not act as a VVB for Validation and/or Verification purposes for that Project.
To minimize the risk of conflicts of interest occurring between the Project Proponent and the VVB, Isometric will select and engage VVBs for Project Validation and Verification, and VVBs must complete a conflict of interest disclosure.
Isometric requires that Projects must work with a single VVB for no longer than five consecutive years. A given VVB may conduct Verification for a Project during no more than five out of seven consecutive years.
In addition to the qualification requirements, Isometric may oversee VVB activity during the Validation and/or Verification process, and may suspend approval of a previously approved VVB. Oversight can include review of VVB documentation, including Verification and sampling plans, reports, opinions and conflict of interest disclosures, as well as review of Project Proponent documentation.
Isometric will report significant and/or repeated VVB performance concerns to the relevant accreditation body.
Isometric Credits (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) represent one net metric tonne of verified CO2e removal, and may be Issued, Transferred and Retired (The act of confirming the final ownership of a given Credit and permanent withdrawal from circulation. The Counterfactual of this act is the ultimate owner of the tonne of Removal or Reduction and the sole claimant as to its attributes for the purpose of carbon accounting.) on the Isometric Registry according to the rules and requirements set out in this section.
Isometric is the sole Credit issuing body on the Isometric Registry.
Credits have only one owner at any time. A full ownership history is tracked and is publicly visible for each Credit. Each Credit is Issued Ex-post (Issuance of Credits after removal or reduction took place. This is the manner in which Isometric Delivers Credits.) against a net Verified Removal, thereby ensuring every net tonne of CO2e removed is Credited and accounted for only once, and that any Credit can be traced back to an individual Removal.
Each Credit has a publicly available history of ownership that indicates when the Credit was first Issued, who it was first Issued to, if and when it was subsequently Delivered or Transfered, if and when it was Retired and by whom, on behalf of whom.
When first Issued, a Credit's status is Active. Upon Retirement of a Credit, its status becomes Retired. Similarly, upon Cancelation of a Credit (for example, in compensation for erroneous overissuance, or in compensation for a Reversal as outlined in Reversals and Buffer Pools), its status becomes Canceled.
Credit metadata include:
Credits are Issued against a specific Removal. This process is undertaken once a Removal has been Verified. Credits are always Issued to the Project Proponent of the Removal. The Project Proponent is then able to Deliver (The outcome of a Project Proponent providing Credits to fulfill Buyers' purchases.) Credits to Buyer Credit Accounts (A function of the Isometric Registry that allows either Buyers or Project Proponents to receive Issued Credits, either by way of direct Credit Issuance in the case of Project Proponents, or by way of a Credit Transfer in the case of a Buyer.) on the Registry, and can do so at a time and in an order of their own discretion.
Deliveries can be made by Project Proponents to Buyer Credit Accounts, resulting in transfer of ownership of one or more newly Issued Credits. Further Transfers can be made by Credit Account holders to other Credit Accounts, resulting in transfer of ownership of one or more Credits. For each Credit, the initial Delivery and all Transfers are logged on the Credit and made publicly available in the Credit's history.
Project Proponent Deliveries are subject to the following rules:
Buyer Transfers are subject to the following rules:
Retirement is the mechanism by which a Credit's ownership state is finalized. This ensures that once the net tonne of CO2e represented by the retired Credit is used towards an accounting activity, it can never be used again by the owner, the Beneficiary of the retirement, or any other actor.
The Beneficiary of a Retirement is the organization on behalf of whom the Credit was retired, and must be publicly identified. Beneficiaries can be the current holder of a Credit at the time of retirement, or an organization that is specified by the Credit Account holder during the Retirement procedure. The Credit Account holder can retire Credits by following the Retirement process through their Credit Account on the Registry.
The owner of an unretired Credit may publicly market its ownership of said Credit, as well as the potential for the Credit to be retired by any current or future owners, but only the Beneficiary of a Retired Credit may claim the environmental benefits associated with that Credit.
Retirement is subject to the following rules:
Retirement Certificates serve as proof of the Retirement of one or more Credits, and are produced only on completion of a Retirement. Every Retirement Certificate relates to one or more Retired Credits. If more than one Credit is Retired at a time, the Certificate will list all Retired Credits. Retirement Certificates show the relationship between retired Credits and the Removals they derive from.
This section outlines how Reversals are handled on the Isometric Registry, through the use of Buffer Pools.
All Reversals will be reviewed by the Isometric Science Team.
Note that changes to calculations as a result of updates to Protocols are not considered Reversals, and will generally not affect previously issued Credits. However, Isometric will monitor for significant impacts due to Protocol updates to ensure overall quality and to address system level impacts (e.g. considerable evolution of scientific consensus).
Project Proponents must monitor for Reversals as prescribed by a Project's Monitoring Plan, and promptly report Reversals to Isometric if identified. Isometric’s expectation is for such a report to be made within one business day of having been identified, but must be made within a maximum of three business days. At the verification following a Reversal, the Project Proponent must report relevant monitoring data for any Reversal which has occurred, to be assessed by the verifier as part of that verification. Reversal data from Projects will be made public.
When a Reversal is identified, Credits will be Canceled from the Project Proponent's Buffer Pool to compensate for the Reversal. The number of Credits to be Canceled must equal the size of the Reversal.
In the event that a Project Proponent is not able to comply with monitoring, closing or Embodied Emission allocation requirements as outlined in the relevant Protocol, the treatment of possible Reversals will be assessed on a case by case basis.
Buffer Pools are the current solution to Uncertainty in storage and are subject to re-evaluation given advancements in understanding of their effectiveness and of the risk of Reversal of Removal Projects. Isometric reserves the right to amend its Buffer Pool approach given notice and consultation with Project Propenents in line with this Standard's Updates to Protocols policy.
Isometric will maintain a Buffer Pool of Credits in accounts specific to each Project Proponent from which Credits will be Canceled in the case of a Reversal.
Whenever Credits are Issued following a Verified Removal, a percentage of these Credits will be Issued to the Project Proponent's Buffer Pool account, according to the Buffer Pool Size below.
Credits in a Buffer Pool cannot be Transferred, or used to make Deliveries during the Crediting Period or after the Crediting Period has ended, as they are held to accomodate for as long as there is a risk of Reversal from a Project. Exceptions may occur when Uncertainty decreases and thus Buffer Pool size is amended for a Project Proponent, in which case extra Buffer Pool Credits may be used to make Deliveries.
In the case that there are insufficient Credits in a Project Proponent's Buffer Pool to compensate for any triggered Reversals, all further Credits Issued from Removals conducted by the Project Proponent (whether from the same Project, or other Projects run by the same Project Proponent) will be assigned to their Buffer Pool and Canceled, until all such Reversals have been fully compensated. Cases where Project Proponents cease operations will be addressed on an individual basis.
The Buffer Pool Size is determined by the Risk of Reversal of a given approach, as outlined below. The Risk of Reversal is defined in the relevant Certified Protocol. Projects with a higher Risk of Reversal have a correspondingly larger Buffer Pool. Note that the Buffer Pool is applied in addition to the Conservative approach taken in the quantification of net CO2e Removal, whereby uncertainty is factored into the Credited Removal. The following Buffer Pool sizes may be subject to change in future Standard versions based on empirical data.
| Risk of Reversal | Buffer Pool Size |
|---|---|
| Very low | 2% |
| Low | 5% |
| Medium | 7% |
| High | 10-20% |
Furthermore, Reversals (The escape of CO₂ to the atmosphere after it has been stored, and after a Credit has been Issued. A Reversal is classified as avoidable if a Project Proponent has influence or control over it and it likely could have been averted through application of reasonable risk mitigation measures. Any other Reversals will be classified as unavoidable.) are classed as either avoidable or unavoidable, as judged by Isometric, in consultation with selected VVB(s) and/or Science Network representatives.
Where an Avoidable Reversal has occurred, a Project Proponent must reimburse their Buffer Pool account by transferring a number of Credits equal to the size of the Reversal to the Buffer Account. While there are any outstanding Avoidable Reversals to be remedied in this way, all further Credits Issued from Removals conducted by the Project Proponent (whether from the same Project, or other Projects run by the same Project Proponent) will be assigned to their Buffer Pool, until all such Reversals have been fully remedied.
Where an Unavoidable Reversal has occurred, the Project Proponent is not required to reimburse their Buffer Pool account.
Isometric has rules and procedures in place to mitigate the risk of occurrence of Double Counting, which can occur in different ways, including double issuance, double use and double claiming.
Double issuance (occurring when more than one unique unit is Issued for the same Removal activity) is not permissible, and Isometric has checks in place to mitigate the possibility of double issuance. Any Removal activity listed on the Isometric registry must not be listed on another program, and may not be used to make a separate Removal claim elsewhere.
Double use (occurring when an Issued credit is further transferred, used or retired after already having been retired) is mitigated through a transparent, public record of all Credits and Retirements, ensuring all Retirements used as claims towards mitigation targets can be uniquely identified, and can be traced back to the specific Removal activity the Credit was Issued against. Once a Credit has been Retired, it cannot be used further, and a unique, public Retirement Certificate is produced.
Double claiming (occurring when an Issued credit is claimed twice towards achieving mitigation targets or goals) is not permitted on the Isometric Registry. For any Credit, no separate Removal claims may be made for the underlying Removal from which the Credit was Issued. Isometric will monitor for instances of Double claiming, and Credit Account users engaging in double claiming may have their Credit Account suspended.
Project Proponents wishing to issue credits that would be eligible as emissions units for the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) must comply with Isometric’s CORSIA Eligibility Policy.
To mitigate the risk of double claiming of any CORSIA-eligible emissions units, Project Proponents must agree with Isometric suitable mechanisms to compensate for double claims of their CORSIA-eligible emissions units by airline operators for CORSIA and Host Countries working towards fulfillment of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Project Proponents of CORSIA-eligible emissions must also comply with the information and reporting requirements in Isometric’s CORSIA Eligibility Policy, including monitoring relevant Host Country reporting and submitting accurate, timely information on corresponding adjustments to Isometric.
Isometric commits to being the final guarantor of CORSIA-eligible emissions units, if other safeguards to reimburse CORSIA-eligible emissions units, such as a project's buffer pool contributions, other mechanisms outlined in Buffer Pools or insurance policies, are insufficient to fully compensate for any reversal of issued CORSIA-eligible emission units. Further detail is provided in the CORSIA Eligibility Policy.
Calculation of Uncertainty should follow documented best practices, such as the requirements of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) JCGM100:2008 - Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM).16 Uncertainty can be assessed using two different methods17:
Type B Uncertainties may frequently be encountered, since it is not always practical to make repeated measurements for every input parameter, and many input parameters are published values or estimated through other means.
Emission factors utilized should provide an Uncertainty value associated with the specific factor. Some databases from which emission factors are derived include and report the Uncertainty within the database18. The factor used, its source, and the value of the Uncertainty reported and used, should be documented. For emission factors for which no Uncertainty information is provided, clearly document this and refer to [11.10.5 Unknown Uncertainties].
See the GUM for details on calculation of parameter or measurement Uncertainty. For instance, measurement parameter Uncertainty estimates could be derived from manufacturers specifications or calibration records. If repeated measurements are taken, the type A uncertainty should be reported as the standard deviation. Uncertainties should be documented and reported for each measured parameter.
For laboratory analyses, Uncertainty may be reported based on laboratory quality assurance documentation, including laboratory calibration results and records which use a reference calibration standard that is traceable to a national standard.
For a reported value based on multiple laboratory analyses, for which the value is reported as a mean, the type A uncertainty is calculated based on the standard deviation of the value around the mean.
When published Uncertainty information is not available and calculation via direct measurement is not feasible, estimation of Uncertainty should follow documented best practices, such as guidance from the GUM for evaluating type B Uncertainty. The specific approaches taken should be clearly documented.
Specifically regarding emission factors, the default values for basic Uncertainty from Section 10.1 of Ecoinvent’s Overview and Methodology document may be used. Ecoinvent’s protocol assumes a lognormal distribution for a value and then uses a Pedigree Matrix to assign uncertainties based on data quality.
Here are a couple of examples on how Option A (conservative estimate of input parameters) can be applied. These examples are for illustration purposes only:
Example 1: Uncertainty in Truck transportation carbon intensity
There are only a few carbon intensity factors published in a reputable emissions factor database for truck transportation. The factors range from 0.2 kg/km/t to 1.2 kg/km/t depending on different vehicle types, and the Project Proponent doesn’t know exactly what type of vehicle is used. In this case, a higher carbon intensity leads to less net CO2e Removal, and there are only a few relevant emissions factors to choose from so a distribution is not assumed. The project must take the conservative estimate to be the maximum value of 1.2 kg/km/t.
Example 2: Uncertainty in ocean DIC retention
For enhanced weathering in agriculture, a downstream loss term in the Removal calculation that cannot be directly measured is the percentage of bicarbonate ions from weathering that is retained as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) upon reaching the ocean. A Project Proponent uses a regional ocean model to determine that the DIC retention fraction follows a normal distribution, with a mean of 0.90 and a standard deviation of 0.02. A lower DIC retention fraction results in less net CO2e Removal, so the conservative estimate is taken to be 1 standard deviation below the mean (corresponding to the 16th percentile). The conservative estimate of the DIC retention index is thus 0.88.
This questionnaire provides guidance on assessing Risk of Reversal, to be used by Protocols and Projects which need to make this assessment for use on the Isometric Registry. Projects must re-assess their reversal risk using this questionnaire at the renewal of each crediting period, or if monitoring identifies a reversal-related risk, or if an actual reversal event takes place. In any event, projects should reassess their reversal risk at a minimum every 5 years.
Please see the Reversals and Buffer Pools for more details on how Risk of Reversal is used.
| # | Question | If answered “Yes” | If answered “No” |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is a reversal directly observable with a physical or chemical measurement as opposed to a modeled result? | Proceed to questions 2-9 | Proceed to questions 8-9 |
| 2 | Is the carbon being stored in an impermeable geologic system? (e.g., salt cavern) | Proceed to questions 8-9 | Add 1 to Risk Score and proceed to questions 3-9 |
| 3 | Is the carbon being stored organic? | Add 1 to Risk Score | |
| 4 | Are conditions for methane production present (anaerobic conditions, lignin content)? | Add 1 to Risk Score | |
| 5 | Does this approach have a material risk of reversal due to natural disasters including, but not limited to, floods, storms, earthquakes, fires, etc.? | Add 1 to Risk Score | |
| 6 | Does this approach have a material risk of reversal due to human-induced events from outside actors, such as change in farming practices, change in ownership and management of project sites, or similar? | Add up to 2 to Risk Score | |
| 7 | Applicable only for subsurface storage: Is the carbon being stored with trapping mechanisms preventing reversals? (e.g., multiple confining layers, CO₂ dissolves or solidifies) | Minus 1 to Risk Score (unless 0) | |
| 8 | Is there 10+ years of monitoring and/or lab data demonstrating low project risk? | Minus up to 2 to Risk Score | |
| 9 | Does this pathway have a documented history of reversals? | Add 2 to Risk Score | |
| 10 | Is there one or more project-specific factors that merit a high risk level? | Add up to 2 to Risk Score |
Risk Score Categories
Isometric's Uncertainty and Buffer Pool policies represent two mostly non-overlapping approaches for how Isometric plans to be conservative in how credits are quantified and to potentially insure against future events that may result in a Reversal. Specifically, in removal pathways that utilize large, open-system reservoirs (e.g., the ocean) where direct observation of a reversal is not feasible, Isometric's Uncertainty policy will generally result in a larger uncertainty discount19, and Isometric's Buffer Pool policy will generally result in a smaller Buffer Pool Size. Conversely, in removal pathways that utilize closed-system reservoirs that are more straightforward to monitor, Isometric's Uncertainty policy will generally result in a smaller uncertainty discount, but the activity will be subject to a larger Buffer Pool Size. Below are two example scenarios that illustrate how and when these two policies are invoked.
Example 1: Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement
An OAE Project Proponent releases a known amount of alkalinity into the ocean. In accordance with the Protocol and PDD, the Project Proponent uses a model to estimate that the median CO2 uptake after a certain amount of time is 100 tonnes. In accordance with Isometric's Uncertainty policy, the Project Proponent reports that the 16th percentile of CO2 uptake outcomes is 15 tonnes below the median (resulting in a 15t uncertainty discount that is subtracted from the gross CO2 removed). The Project Proponent follows Isometric's guidance in answering the risk questionnaire and determines they have a Risk of Reversal that corresponds to Risk Level A (resulting in a 2% Buffer Pool Size).
Net CO2e removed = 100t - 20t - 15t = 65t
Gross CO2 removed: 100t
Credits issued to Supplier: 63.7 credits (65 - 1.3)
Total Credits issued: 65 credits
Example 2: Bio-oil Production and Injection
A bio-oil production and injection Project Proponent produces 100 tonnes of bio-oil with a well-constrained GHG Assessment and counterfactuals (there is no uncertainty discount for the amount of CO2e removed because conservative parameters were used in the calculation). This bio-oil is then injected into an underground reservoir that is equipped with a suite of chemical sensors that can measure CO2 and methane. The corresponding PDD has provisions to continue monitoring for fugitive gases for 40 years after injection has concluded. The Project Proponent follows Isometric's guidance in answering the risk questionnaire and determines they have a Risk of Reversal that corresponds to Risk Level B (resulting in a 5% Buffer Pool Size).
Net CO2e removed = 100t - 20t - 0t = 80t
Gross CO2 removed: 100t
Credits issued to Supplier: 76 credits (80 - 4)
Total Credits Issued: 80 credits
| Version | Date | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.6.0 | 31 Jan 2025 | Introduce language guide and corresponding wording clarifications. Update CORSIA section regarding CORSIA-eligible emissions units. Change handling of Durability, introducing definition of Protocol Durability Threshold(s) and Project Durability Threshold. |
| 1.5.2 | 25 Oct 2024 | Wording clarifications relating to protocol versioning. |
| 1.5.1 | 15 Oct 2024 | Clarifies requirements for evidence of Financial Additionality. |
| 1.5.0 | 12 Sep 2024 | Introduce a project public comment period. Clarify use of 'should' and 'must'. Add clarifying footnotes. |
| 1.4.0 | 12 Aug 2024 | Update to the Buffer Pool Questionnaire. Size of Buffer Pool for Medium Risk Level is now 7% (previous 10%). |
| 1.3.1 | 8 Aug 2024 | Clarifies requirements for Applicability & Baseline sections of the Protocols |
| 1.3.0 | 28 May 2024 | Update to maximum timing between verification events. Clarify expected reporting timeline for Projects to report Reversals. Remove all use of External (non-Isometric) Protocols. Include definition of Project "Approval Date" and clarify requirements regarding "Crediting Period Start Date". Include requirement for protecting against gender-based violence. Clarify requirement regarding provision of equal pay. Include reference to ILO-169 regarding IPLC rights. Update to Protocol versioning policy. Clarify a requirement around financial analysis. Minor grammar and formatting updates. |
| 1.2.2 | 08 May 2024 | Buffer pool clarification. |
| 1.2.1 | 07 May 2024 | GHG terminology update. |
| 1.2.0 | 15 Feb 2024 | Include Sustainable Development Goals. Include right to withdraw a Protocol. Clarify FPIC requirements. Clarify respect for human rights. |
| 1.1.0 | 8 Jan 2024 | Clarify mechanisms to ensure no double issuance of credits. Clarify that only one Protocol or Module can be available for a particular carbon removal method. |
| 1.0.0 | 20 Dec 2023 | Initial release |
https://www.geol.lsu.edu/jlorenzo/geophysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart2.html#muldiv↩
Johansen, A.M., Evers, L. and Whiteley, N., 2010. Monte Carlo methods. International Encyclopedia of Education, pp.296-303. ↩
Section 4: Assessment Framework - Core Carbon Principles 2023, The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market ↩↩2
International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples↩
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007↩
A negative impact is any adverse effect from a particular action that leaves an individual or community worse off, (i.e. where given a choice between the status quo and their position after that action, the individual would strictly prefer the status quo). ↩
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Reporting Framework with implementation guidance (2015); International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIAM), September 2011 ↩
FPIC must be obtained by following a suitable process. That process must identify the indigenous peoples concerned, document geographic and demographic mapping, involve a participatory communication approach which discloses project information transparently, reach consent, document any specific needs of indigenous peoples that must be included in the project, and include a feedback and complaints mechanism. ↩
ISO 14064-3:2019, 6.3.3 ↩
https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM/JCGM100/C045315e-html/C045315e.html?csnumber=50461↩↩2
Ibid. ↩
Databases such as Ecoinvent provide uncertainty factors, often based on a lognormal probability distribution, with a 95% confidence interval. The reported uncertainty accounts for systematic error, random error, and may also use a pedigree matrix to assign additional qualitative data quality impacts as an uncertainty value. These uncertainties are reported as a combined standard uncertainty. See details and examples for ecoinvent: https://ecoinvent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/dataqualityguidelineecoinvent_3_20130506.pdf↩
"Uncertainty discount" is defined as the difference between the Conservative estimate of Removal, and the estimate of Removal in the absence of accounting for uncertainty ↩