Frequently Asked Questions: VM0042, v2.1

Project proponents should be aware of different timelines that may impact the development of a VM0042, v2.1 project. These include methodology and program deadlines and timelines for the following:

• Baseline historical look-back period: VM0042, v2.1, Section 6
  • See “Development of Schedule of Activities in the Baseline Scenario.” The baseline schedule of activities requires that historical practices be assessed over a minimum of three years before the project start date (i.e., t = −3) and must include at least one complete crop rotation, where applicable.
• Frequency of sampling and measurements: VM0042, v2.1, Section 8.1
  • Measurements of SOC stocks are required every five years and may occur more frequently.
• Pipeline listing: VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.8.2
  • “AFOLU projects shall initiate the pipeline listing process (as set out in the Registration and Issuance Process) within three years of the project start date.”
• Project validation for all other AFOLU projects: VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.8.4
  • “… AFOLU projects shall complete validation within five years of the project start date.”
• Project validation for projects with low expected reductions and removals: VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.8.3
  • “All AFOLU projects with ex-ante emission reduction/removal estimates of 20,000 t CO2e per year or less […] shall complete validation within eight years of the project start date.”
• Project crediting period: VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.9.3
  • “… the initial project crediting period shall be a minimum of 20 years up to a maximum of 100 years, which may be renewed at most four times, with a total project crediting period not to exceed 100 years.”
• Project longevity period: VCS Standard, 4.7, Section 3.2.11
  • “Projects shall have a minimum of a 40-year project longevity.”
• Baseline reassessment period: VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.2.5
  • “For all […] ALM project types, the project proponent shall, for the duration of the project, reassess the baseline every ten years.”

VM0042, v2.1 permits many different improved agricultural management practices. The methodology is designed to allow for the implementation of innovative new practices that reduce GHG emissions or remove CO₂ over a project’s lifetime.

Section 4 of the methodology (see Applicability Condition 1) requires that projects introduce one or more new changes to pre-existing practices that:

• improve fertilizer (organic or inorganic) management,
• improve water management/irrigation,
• reduce tillage/improve residue management,
• improve crop planting and harvesting (e.g., improved agroforestry, crop rotations, cover crops), and/or
• improve grazing practices.

Appendix 1 of the methodology provides a non-exhaustive list of eligible practices. A change in practice constitutes adopting a new practice, stopping a pre-existing practice, or adjusting a pre-existing practice that results in reductions or removals.

Where a practice change constitutes a quantitative change (e.g., fertilizer rate reduction), the minimum change must exceed 5% of the pre-existing value, calculated as the average value over the historical look-back period of the baseline scenario.

Per VM0042, v2.1, Section 4, Applicability Condition 2, where a project activity constitutes a quantitative change to an ALM practice (e.g., application rate of fertilizer), the change must be greater than 5% compared to a historical baseline. This 5% threshold is calculated for each parameter within a quantification unit, based on annual values over the historical look-back period’s baseline schedule of activities. (See VM0042, v2.1, Section 6, Table 4 for specifications for the baseline schedule of activities.) Information about eligible qualitative data sources for the baseline period can be found within Box 1 in Section 6 of VM0042, v2.1.

When initiating a project, the following requirements regarding baseline and project start date must be considered:

1. The requirements within Section 6 of VM0042, v2.1 under “Development of Schedule of Activities in the Baseline Scenario.” The baseline schedule of activities requires historical practices to be assessed over a minimum of three years before the project start date (i.e., t = −3) and the period must include at least one complete crop rotation, where applicable.
2. AFOLU projects must begin the pipeline listing process (see the Registration and Issuance Process, v4.6) within three years of the project start date and must complete validation within five years of the project start date per the VCS Standard, v4.7, Sections 3.8.2–3.8.4.

Note that the VCS Program Definitions, v4.5 states: “The start date of a non-AFOLU project is the date on which the project began generating GHG emission reductions or removals. The start date of an AFOLU project or jurisdictional REDD+ program is the date on which activities that led to the generation of GHG emission reductions or removals are implemented (e.g., planting, changing agricultural or forestry practices, rewetting, restoring hydrological functions, or implementing management or protection plans).”

Yes, proponents of grouped projects should thoroughly review the VCS Program requirements, in particular Sections 3.6.10–3.6.22 of the VCS Standard, v4.7 and the general content of VM0042, v2.1, to ensure they conform to requirements for every different geographic region (e.g., state, province, or country) included in the project area.

Project proponents should pay attention to designating clear geographic areas of grouped projects and describing clear baseline scenario and additionality eligibility criteria specific to these geographic areas (see Sections 3.6.10, 3.6.11, 3.6.13, 3.6.14, and 3.6.16 of the VCS Standard, v4.7).

The baseline scenario and additionality must be demonstrated at validation for the entirety of the geographic area or for areas defined for the grouped project per the requirements in Section 6 and Section 7, Step 3 of VM0042, v2.1 (i.e., “the project area must be stratified to the state or provincial level”). A practical option for many projects would be to have individual projects for each country where homogeneous conditions can be demonstrated, or to very clearly delineate the eligibility, applicability, baseline, and additionality of project activity instances in each state or province.

A single project may combine multiple methodologies (such as livestock, waste, and agroforestry methodologies VM0041, VM0044, and VM0047). Project proponents should consider the project design requirements (Section 3.6) of the VCS Standard, v4.7 as well as the sectoral scope rules of any methodology they apply. It is not permitted to combine VM0042, v2.1 and another methodology to quantify only GHG emission reductions due to conflicting requirements (e.g., Sections 3.2.5, 3.8, and 3.9 of the VCS Standard, v4.7). It is possible to combine two methodologies that quantify CO₂ removals, but the project proponent may encounter further complexity depending on the methodologies used.

Project proponents must consider the requirements of the VCS Standard, v4.7 that would affect these situations, in particular:

1. Section 3.6.2, which outlines conditions for applying more than one methodology.
2. Section 3.11.3, which requires clear project areas to be defined that do not overlap with other existing projects.

Table 5 of VM0042, v2.1 provides a summary of quantification approaches for each GHG source, illustrating which quantification approaches are allowable to quantify each GHG flux and carbon stock change. There are no requirements preventing the alternation of quantification approaches. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure and demonstrate the accuracy and conservativeness of reduction and removal estimates.

Any changes made to calculation approaches must adhere to the project description deviation requirements outlined in Section 3.21 of the VCS Standard, v4.7, as they would represent changes in the procedures for measurement and monitoring. The deviation shall be described in the monitoring report and include a description of when the changes occurred and the reasons for the changes.

The following factors influence whether a project proponent selects Quantification Approach 1 (measure and model) or Quantification Approach 2 (measure and remeasure) to quantify SOC stock changes:

1. Data availability for calibration and validation of biogeochemical models under Quantification Approach 1, along with the models’ applicability to the project scenario
2. Availability of an independent modeling expert (IME) to assess how a particular model is applied within a project
3. The costs, level of effort, and complexity required to generate modeled outcomes with sufficient documentation
4. The capacity and financial means of the project proponent to conduct sampling and analysis of SOC (requirements provided in Section 8.2.1 of VM0042, v2.1), which is expectedly more intensive under Quantification Approach 2

Project proponents using Quantification Approach 1 (measure and model) to quantify SOC must submit a model validation report (MVR) describing the use of biogeochemical process-based models as required per VCS Module VMD0053 Model Calibration, Validation, and Uncertainty Guidance for the Methodology for Improved Agricultural Land Management, v2.0, Section 5.2.6 and Appendix 1. IMEs are experts who evaluate MVRs as part of a validation/verification body (VVB) evaluation.

IMEs are qualified experts contracted by the VVB when evaluating a project using the guidance in VMD0053, v2.0. Verra defines minimum criteria that individuals or organizations must fulfill to be allowed to serve as an IME. Further information is available in Appendix 1 of VMD0053, v2.0.

The list of IMEs is available on Verra’s VMD0053 webpage. Prospective IMEs who wish to be added to this list are welcome to submit their qualification form to Verra.

VM0042, v2.1 does not permit the use of remote sensing technologies to estimate and monitor SOC stock changes. A VCS tool for quantifying organic carbon stocks using digital soil mapping is currently under development.

Proximal sensing (i.e., spectroscopy technology used at the field level) may be used to quantify SOC content provided that measuring and quantification uncertainty is accounted for per the criteria outlined in VM0042, v2.1, Section 8.6 and Appendix 4.

Proponents of grouped projects are permitted to add instances (i.e., farms) to an existing project activity instance or create new activity instances within an established geographic area to expand their projects after initial validation.

A grouped project comprises multiple project activity instances (see VCS Program Definitions, v4.5) within a single project. A grouped project must define eligibility criteria for project activity instances within the project description (per the VCS Standard, v4.7, Sections 3.6.11, 3.6.16, and 3.6.17) and present them during project validation.

New farms must demonstrate that they conform to the defined eligibility criteria of the project activity instances in the validated grouped project. Information on assessing whether new project activity instances are common practice, to determine additionality in grouped projects, is available within Appendix 3 of VM0042, v2.1.

Smallholders can be included within a group project by combining farmers into different project activity instances and quantification units. These characterize the cropping systems into different groupings that can quantify SOC changes through “measurement and modeling” (i.e., Quantification Approach 1) or “measurement and remeasurement” (i.e., Quantification Approach 2). Each instance may also use different quantification approaches per Section 8.1 of the methodology, which might be necessary where:

1. measuring and modeling can quantify SOC stock changes only within subsets of the project area for which datasets are available for calibration and validation (see Section 4 of guidance module VMD0053, v2.0).
2. measuring and remeasuring can quantify different cropping systems through specific baseline control sites using the similarity criteria within Table 7 of VM0042, v2.1. These sites represent the baseline scenario (see Table 4 in VM0042, v2.1) to allow measurement of SOC stocks over the project’s lifetime. There are no size requirements for baseline control sites. Smaller holdings can be incorporated into baseline control sites where edge effects are eliminated (see Section 8.2 of VM0042, v2.1).

Quantification units and baseline control sites do not have a minimum size requirement under the methodology. However, they should be large enough to prevent edge effects (e.g., proximity to trees or traffic lanes that create uncertainty for measurement). Baseline control sites must allow for baseline practices to continue unimpeded (e.g., tractors, combines, or other equipment must be able to operate as they would under business-as-usual conditions).

VM0042, v2.1 is applicable in different agricultural systems that may include livestock. Livestock emissions are quantified following Quantification Approach 3 (default factors). Depending on the types of livestock (e.g., ruminant or nonruminant), different default factors should be used to calculate emissions based on management activity data for the associated GHG source.

Important sections of the methodology for quantifying emissions from livestock are:

• 8.2.6 Methane Emissions from Livestock Enteric Fermentation
• 8.2.7 Methane Emissions from Manure Deposition
• 8.2.10 Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Manure Deposition

Livestock can introduce new sources of leakage within a project. This must be quantified and accounted for. More information can be found in the following sections:

• 8.4.2 Accounting for Leakage from Livestock Displacement
• 8.4.3 Accounting for Leakage from Productivity Declines

Where a reversal occurs, the project proponent must comply with the requirements provided in Sections 3.2.18–3.2.27 of the VCS Standard, v4.7. Legal liabilities and more information are available within Section 4 of the AFOLU Buffer Account Compensation for Reversals Deed (for AFOLU Projects), v1.2.

VM0042, v2.1 projects may proceed with project validation, registration, and verification before the release of the new version of the methodology. After that, the project would only need to adapt to the most recent version of VM0042 at the time of crediting period renewal (every 20 years per VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.9.3) or the baseline reassessment period (i.e., every ten years per the VCS Standard, v4.7, Section 3.2.5). Before version 3.0 is released, Verra will conduct a public consultation (planned to begin in Q2 2025) to gather feedback and inform stakeholders about the upcoming changes. This is also applicable to any future version releases.

Please refer to Sections 3.22.1–3.22.3 of the VCS Standard, v4.7 that outline the requirements for methodology grace periods that explain when new methodology versions come into effect.