This frequently asked questions (FAQ) document addresses review procedures in the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program; the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) Program; the Plastic Waste Reduction Program (Plastic Program); and the Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard (SD VISta) Program.
Disclaimer: This FAQ document is current as of November 28, 2023. This FAQ document is provided for informational purposes only. The scope and nature of every review depends on the underlying facts and circumstances.
General
Review procedures enable Verra to oversee program quality and, if necessary, to take action following the completion of any review.
The relevant provisions, which generally operate similarly across all programs, include:
- VCS Program: Section 2.5.6 of the VCS Program Guide, v4.4 (PDF) and Section 6 of the VCS Registration and Issuance Process, v4.4 (PDF)
- CCBS Program: Sections 2.5.4 and 4.7.3 of the CCB Program Rules, v3.1 (PDF)
- Plastic Program: Sections 3.6 and 5.12 of the Plastic Program Guide, v1.0 (PDF)
- SD VISta Program: Sections 2.5.5 and 3.1.1 of the SD VISta Program Guide, v1.0 (PDF)
Procedural
A review may be initiated by Verra at any time. For example, Verra may become aware of a concern about a project as part of its internal routine operations or due to external reporting. As another example, external entities such as project proponents, validation/verification bodies, or other stakeholders (including members of the public) may raise a concern to Verra. When Verra becomes aware of a potential concern, Verra will evaluate whether to initiate a review pursuant to its review procedures.
A review can encompass any aspect of a project. For example, a review under Section 6 of the VCS Registration and Issuance Process, v4.4 (PDF), often referred to as a “Section 6 review,” refers to Verra’s review of a registered VCS project and/or issued credits. During a Section 6 review, Verra may review the project for adherence to the VCS Program rules and the applied methodology.
Verra communicates the initiation of a review by sending a notification letter to the project proponent(s) and authorized representative and uploading this letter as a public document on the project’s page on the Verra Registry. The status of the project will then be changed on the Verra Registry. During the conduct of a review, Verra may update the status of the project from time to time.
The steps in a review, as well as the timeline for completing the review, depend on the underlying facts and circumstances, the complexity of the issues, the cooperation of third parties such as the project proponent and validation/verification body, and other factors.
A review may take several weeks or months to complete. While every review is different, Verra aims to conduct an appropriately scoped review as expeditiously as possible.
Implications of a review
Every review is different, but a project being placed under review does not mean that Verra has concluded that there is a problem with a project. Rather, it means that Verra has a basis for reviewing the project pursuant to its review procedures to assess the identified concern and decide what actions, if any, should be taken in response.
Verra may take a number of different actions during the course of a review. Verra is not required to suspend further issuances of credits from a project, but may do so depending on the nature of the concerns.
If Verra places a project under Section 6 review, per the Registration and Issuance Process, v4.5 and also following Section 2.5.6 of the VCS Program Guide, v4.4, any credits that the project generated and that have since been transacted (issued/retired) are not affected (invalidated).
If Verra determines that it has over-issued credits to a project under Section 6 review, it will request the project proponent to compensate for the excess credits, following Section 6.1.5 of the Registration and Issuance Process, v4.5.
Verra’s rules provide a number of ways to address a situation where it is determined, whether through a Verra review or otherwise, that the wrong number of credits were issued to a project or the wrong number of labels were applied to credits. For example, the project proponent may need to compensate for any “excess issuance” of credits from a project in certain circumstances (i.e., an issuance of credits greater than the correct amount on account of, for example, the fraudulent conduct, negligence, intentional act, recklessness, misrepresentation, or mistake of the project proponent). This may be done by canceling credits that are still held by the project proponent, canceling credits from subsequent issuances of credits to the project, or requiring the project proponent to purchase and cancel an equivalent number of replacement credits. Although Verra has the ability to cancel credits where it deems that the credits were not issued in conformance with project rules, Verra has not to date canceled credits held by third parties.