The risk-based approach (RBA) is a novel project review process Verra is implementing to reduce review times and improve the efficiency of project reviews without compromising quality and integrity. The RBA classifies projects based on risk, allowing Verra to tailor the intensity of reviews and focus resources where they’re needed most.
The RBA is the result of months of groundwork, historical data analysis, and targeted process adjustments. It is designed to address concerns about review times while maintaining program and project quality.
By systematically incorporating risk factors associated with projects, Verra can define projects as low, medium, or high risk and dedicate the appropriate resources for project reviews where they are most needed. This will generally lead to faster review cycles, saving time for project proponents while maintaining Verra’s rigorous standards.
The RBA has three main components:
- Classification System: Each project is classified as low, medium, or high risk, determined by a combination of criteria such as project scale, methodology, request type (e.g., registration, verification review, crediting period renewal), jurisdiction, potential legal concerns, recent project requests, and validation/verification body performance-related factors.
- Tailored Review Intensity: Review processes are customized to align with the project’s risk level, allowing more focus on high-risk projects while maintaining rigor and diligence.
- Streamlined Checklists: Leveraging Verra’s historical data, we’ve refined the checklists for project reviews to focus on the most critical elements, reducing redundancies and improving efficiency.
Verra will manage the risk-based approach (RBA), including the risk categories and their thresholds, adaptively. We classify risk based on criteria including project scale, methodology, request type (e.g., registration, verification, crediting period renewal), jurisdiction, potential legal concerns (e.g., projects in countries with legal sanctions), recent project requests, and validation/verification body (VVB) performance-related factors. The exact combination of these factors will remain confidential.
No, Verra remains fully committed to the high degree of credibility and integrity expected from us. The RBA allows us to focus on key risk areas, ensuring high scrutiny where necessary and maximizing efficiency without compromising quality. All projects must meet all applicable program requirements and have an externally accredited independent third-party auditor (validation/verification body [VVB]) assess this conformance in order to submit a project registration or verification approval request to Verra. Verra’s project reviews ensure that VVBs have appropriately assessed conformance.
To improve review times, proponents can double-check all documents for clarity, completeness, and quality before submitting them to their validation/verification body (VVB) for validation and/or verification. They can also ensure the validation and verification reports from the VVB are factually correct and written to clearly demonstrate how the VVB assessed conformance to the standard and methodological requirements.
When Verra issues findings to the VVBs during project reviews (findings generally relate to clarification or actions missed by the VVB to appropriately assess conformance), proponents can help move this process forward by cooperating with VVB requests for information and/or conducting additional audit activities in a timely manner.
The RBA rollout begins in the first week of November 2024, with an ongoing evaluation of cycle time impacts and improvements needed to enhance the process based on results.
Verra will share monthly updates on RBA implementation progress and service-level agreement (SLA) targets through our stakeholder newsletter. Our goal is to achieve current SLAs by the end of the year and continue improving them over time.
A project’s risk categorization is not disclosed to project proponents or other registry account holders. It is a dynamic internal categorization for Verra review purposes only and does not reflect the project’s value.
When considering the risk-level categories, it is important to keep in mind that the aim of the RBA is to bring down cycle times for all projects—even those in the highest risk category—while maintaining program integrity.
These types of projects have complexities that necessitate specific checks at any level of risk classification.
Projects may shift risk categories during the review process based on the discovery of previously unrealized information or a change in risk criteria. A project’s risk categorization is not disclosed (not even to project proponents or other registry account holders). It is a dynamic internal categorization for Verra review purposes only and does not reflect the project’s value. Ensuring high-quality project and validation/verification body (VVB) documentation is the main action a project can take to avoid falling into a higher risk category and to facilitate a faster review process.
Once a project has been allocated to a risk category for a specific review round, it will remain in that category unless Verra changes it based on the discovery of previously unrealized information or a change in risk criteria.
No.
No. A project’s risk categorization is not disclosed (even to project proponents or other registry account holders). It is a dynamic internal categorization for Verra’s project review purposes only and is not a reflection of the project’s quality.
No. The updated fee schedule released in October 2024 applies to all projects equally.
The PMP is Verra’s VVB oversight mechanism. It uses 17 indicators from four oversight activity categories (project reviews, performance observation audits, sanctions and cooperation, and accreditation body feedback) to assess and categorize VVB performance at each indicator level and issue an overall score for a VVB’s performance.
The PMP was developed as a tool for Verra to consistently and continuously monitor and strengthen VVB performance across all Verra standards programs. Outcomes of the PMP serve multiple purposes, including informing additional VVB capacity-building needs, indicating necessary Verra program updates, and identifying where additional VVB oversight activities may need to be increased or decreased. Because project reviews themselves are an oversight activity, VVB scorecard results can be used as a risk criterion in the RBA. For example, if the VVB contracted to do the validation/verification has scored below performance, this may contribute to a higher risk classification under the RBA. Conversely, where VVBs have exceeded performance expectations, this may contribute to a lower risk classification.
As part of its digitalization initiative, Verra is developing tools that will enhance our ability to capture and analyze project-related data and make the RBA more efficient at all stages. Use of the new digital project submission tool and digitized methodologies will facilitate faster reviews. Verification review requests for projects participating in Verra’s digital measurement, reporting, and verification (DMRV) issuance pilot initiative will be prioritized.