In Verra’s April 2026 Stakeholder Update Webinar, we shared high-level insights on some topics that have received much attention in the market, namely the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), Article 6.2, and the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). We also discussed speed and integrity in project reviews, provided an overview of Verra’s recently released Article 6 and CORSIA labeling guidance, and reported back on recent news from our Program Management and Technology departments.

April 2026 Stakeholder Update Webinar Presentation SlidesButton Icon

CEO Remarks

At the outset, Mandy Rambharos, Verra CEO, offered some clarifying remarks on what she meant by suggesting that we drop the “v” in “voluntary carbon market” and refer to carbon markets as a whole. Instead of envisioning one unified system, Mandy thinks of it as one market where different credits have different uses and different “destinations.” We need voluntary and compliance carbon markets. We need credits representing avoided, reduced, and removed emissions. We need credits from methane mitigation in agriculture, from avoided emissions in clean cooking approaches, and from removed emissions through direct air capture, to name a few.

We cannot assume that compliance mechanisms are inherently more rigorous than voluntary markets. What determines the quality of a credit is the underlying standards program.

The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has longstanding experience building the methodologies, infrastructure, and governance that so many compliance systems have modeled themselves on. The VCM also includes dedicated project proponents and validation/verification bodies (VVBs) that assess projects and verify emission reductions. All of this delivers real decarbonization and real benefits for communities.

Mandy also reiterated that Verra is committed to becoming faster (by removing bottlenecks, lessening friction, etc.) without lowering the bar on integrity. The market moving toward higher quality is evidence that integrity matters and is valued. Methodology development and improvements, assessment against the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s Core Carbon Principles, third-party validation and verification: this is the system that delivers, and we’re going to keep investing in it.

Mandy stressed the importance of distinguishing between Article 6.2 and Article 6.4 under the Paris Agreement.

Article 6.2 is already having an impact: Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) are being authorized through Letters of Authorization, integrated into bilateral arrangements and government eligibility frameworks, and linked to CORSIA requirements. Article 6.2 alignment is an operational reality for Verra.

Article 6.4 is a different conversation. The Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) is a centralized, UN-governed mechanism that has a packed workplan this year. To date, one methodology has been approved, for landfill gas flaring. The approval process is rigorous and multi-step by design, and rightly so. But it also means full methodological alignment today is neither straightforward nor, in many cases, necessary.

Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodologies are already embedded across multiple frameworks, including Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. A number of them are approved by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) as meeting the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs). Revising our approach in ways that create fragmentation across frameworks that are already functional and recognized is a real risk we are not necessarily keen on.

In some areas, we would argue that the VCS has stricter or better-defined requirements than other systems. Some examples include: management of reversal risk; leakage frameworks for land use-sector activities; Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC); grievance redress and benefit-sharing mechanisms; and, importantly, VVB independence. We also deliberately serve a diverse range of project types and geographies. We seek to preserve an accessible voluntary pathway for buyers who don’t need Article 6-authorized credits, but whose climate finance is no less valuable for that.

Some of these frameworks are still being built out in PACM. Where alignment with PACM will help to reduce the further fragmentation of what’s already working, we will embrace it (e.g., the standardization of templates, methodology approaches). But we will not aim for the lowest common denominator. The scientific rigor of VCS methodologies is non-negotiable. We have the advantage of an operational track record with a deep precedent base.

PACM’s success matters to the market as a whole, and we are committed to engaging constructively with the Secretariat and Supervisory Body—sharing what we’ve learned and contributing to the mechanism’s development. Mandy emphasized that it has been a hard-won battle to get PACM where it is. Having been at Glasgow and having co-chaired the Article 6.4 negotiations herself, Mandy is eager to make sure the hard work pays off and enables the market to reach its goals of solving for the climate and for socio-economic development. Every credit issued in the carbon markets therefore needs to have the highest quality, no matter by which program it is issued.

The bottom line: Article 6.4 alignment is a strategic consideration. Article 6.2 alignment is already how we operate.

CORSIA has dominated the conversation at every market event in the recent past—and for good reason.

Phase 1 of CORSIA is underway, and airlines have shifted from planning to procurement.

Earlier this month, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Advisory Body (TAB) included credits from projects that use our rice methane methodology (VM0051) and are located in developing countries, in the first and second phases of CORSIA.

Supply for the CORSIA markets also depends on government processes, specifically on the timing and predictability of Letters of Authorization and Article 6 reporting. In addition, a clear demand signal is crucial for the CORSIA market to really take off.

Verra has now been approved to supply credits for CORSIA’s second phase, running from 2027 to 2029. Our position in this market is strong and growing. In total, we have tagged almost 29.5 million credits as CORSIA-eligible across the pilot and first phases. Of those, 10.76 million have been retired, 150,451 credits for the first phase specifically. This is indicative of the timing in the compliance cycle and the significant volume still ahead.

We see a lot of runway. And we’re ready for it.

Digitalization remains a priority for Verra, just as it is a priority for stakeholders. We are migrating our registry to a new S&P Global Energy platform with integrated meta-registry functionality that is built specifically to eliminate cross-system double counting. This infrastructure is critical to ensuring integrity, and we are therefore investing in it. We’ll be able to share more on that in the weeks ahead as we near the launch.

Mandy also reminded us of the bigger stakes that are at work. Meeting the 1.5°C goal requires roughly USD 8.4 trillion in annual mitigation finance by 2030, a number that is set to rise to USD 10.4 trillion thereafter. The New Collective Quantified Goal agreed upon at COP29 commits countries to USD 300 billion per year. But the gap between what is in place and what we need is enormous—and private capital is the only mechanism that can realistically bridge it at scale. High-integrity carbon markets are one of the few channels capable of directing that capital to mitigation in geographies where it has the greatest marginal climate impact per dollar. That is why this work matters.

Mandy also thanked the 450 individuals who completed our stakeholder survey. The results from this survey make clear that the 2026 goals we shared in our January stakeholder update webinar are tracking well against your expectations, and your feedback directly shaped today’s agenda: PACM, Article 6, CORSIA, project review times, VVB performance, digitalization.

Program Updates

We recently released updated Article 6 and CORSIA label guidance documents. The revised versions reflect the latest decisions by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and incorporate Verra’s experience with implementing these labels. As a result, the updated documents enable stakeholders to fully participate in these key markets and to have a more streamlined experience when requesting and applying the respective labels.

Article 6 Label Guidance

A key theme running through the updated Article 6 Label Guidance (PDF) document is transparency around host country authorization status. Verra’s Article 6 labels are designed to track a credit’s lifecycle, from authorization through confirmation of the corresponding adjustment, and to make that information visible on the Verra Registry. This is important in a context where governments, buyers, and other stakeholders are seeking clear and traceable evidence of how mitigation outcomes are authorized and accounted for.

Verra offers the following two types of Article 6 labels:

  • Article 6 Authorized labels are applied when Verra receives and approves a Letter of Authorization signed by the host country. Within this category, there are three types of labels depending on the use for which the host country has authorized the credits: (1) Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) use, (2) international mitigation purposes (CORSIA), and (3) other purposes.
  • Article 6 Correspondingly Adjusted labels may be applied once a corresponding adjustment has been confirmed through a Biennial Transparency Report submitted to the UNFCCC. This label indicates the highest level of confidence that there is no longer any risk of double claiming the mitigation outcomes represented by the units.

New Resource: Buyers’ Guide

Because the Article 6 label landscape can be complex to navigate and it can be challenging for buyers to identify which label meets their specific needs, we have released a new buyers’ guide (PDF) alongside the updated label guidance.

We also published updated CORSIA Label Guidance (PDF) to include Verra’s eligibility criteria for the CORSIA second phase (2027–2029), the first compliance period under CORSIA. The new version also includes revisions related to CORSIA requirements for no double claiming.

The presentation slides (PDF) provide a high-level snapshot of which VCS project types are eligible under CORSIA, and under what conditions.

We encourage project proponents and buyers to use this as a quick reference and to consult the full CORSIA Label Guidance document for the detailed eligibility requirements.

No Double Claiming: For VCUs with vintages from 2021 onward, assurance of no double claiming is a requirement for CORSIA labeling to ensure that a VCU used toward CORSIA is not also counted toward a host country’s NDC.

Verra has established the following two pathways for project proponents to demonstrate this assurance:

  • BTR route: In this case, evidence of a completed corresponding adjustment is confirmed in a Biennial Transparency Report submitted by a host country to the UNFCCC.
  • Insurance route: This route is available where a corresponding adjustment has not yet been made, but where project proponents would like to apply CORSIA-eligible labels to their VCUs. To use this pathway, project proponents must sign a CORSIA Accounting Representation Deed and provide a certificate of insurance from a Verra-approved insurance product. Verra has approved several insurance products for this purpose, which are listed on our website.

Both pathways are fully operational, and a growing number of projects have now applied CORSIA-eligible labels to their VCUs. The infrastructure for CORSIA compliance is now live and in use.

Project reviews remain our number one priority. Our efforts at implementing a risk-based review and advancing the digitalization of our review processes, among other things, have so far resulted in an average 23% reduction in project review durations.

Our mission-critical goals for 2026 are the following:

  • To meet or outperform our service-level agreements (SLAs) in more than 95% of cases
  • To reduce project review times by another 20% over 2025 levels

In the first three months of 2026, almost all of our review categories were under the initial review and total SLAs.

The exceptions are initial reviews of verification requests from high-complexity natural climate solutions (NCS) projects and total SLAs for registration requests of regular NCS projects. We are aiming to get those below SLA level and to reduce our review times in general. We seek to achieve this goal through several changes.

Updates to the Review Process

  • We will regularly calibrate risk levels based on methodology and volume of emission reductions and removals.
  • We are working on various ways to enable reviewers to make decisions more quickly, including by implementing additional methodology-specific “red flag” checklists for project reviews.
  • We will publish these “red flag” checklists on the methodology webpages to help project proponents and validation/verification bodies (VVBs) draft project documents that address important key points.
  • We will be implementing eight typologies of findings in our project review reports to standardize our requests to VVBs.
  • We will increase our engagement with VVBs (and, where appropriate, project proponents) during reviews.

We are also working on several broader initiatives to exceed our 20% reduction goal in 2026.

Prioritization Process Pilot

Since we launched this pilot in late 2025, we have accepted and processed five priority requests. Two of these requests are now closed: one was closed within 50% of the respective SLA, and the other was within 40%. In other words, these projects moved through the review process twice as fast as expected.

The extra review resources funded by the prioritization fee enable us to deploy review capacity more easily, ensuring that highly complex projects get the appropriate attention while adding capacity to address other projects in the queue. In short, the process enables us to expedite certain cases without impacting other projects’ review times.

We have received some helpful feedback on this pilot and on how to make it more user-friendly and applicable to a wider range of project request types. We are currently considering how to implement these suggestions.

Digital Monitoring Reporting and Verifications

We are also piloting digital monitoring reporting and verification (DMRV) approaches, including for high-frequency verification, to speed up project review times. We recently completed verification approval of a grid-connected solar project (Verra Project 3788) in 12 business days, a big win compared to the SLA of 15 weeks and our 38-day average review duration for this category.

This example demonstrates how DMRV can move verification from a periodic, document-heavy process to a more continuous, data-driven model without compromising rigor.

Our growing portfolio of DMRV pilot projects spans activity types such as cookstoves, electric vehicle charging systems, and afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation. In addition, we’re exploring DMRV for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration projects. The pilots are DMRV systems with end-to-end data and process flows that leverage advanced geospatial and sensor-based technologies, as well as continuous monitoring, to enable high-frequency issuances in the fastest possible way.

We’ve made solid progress and are continuing to take a close look at every part of the process to drive ongoing improvement.

The Verra Project Hub now includes 24 digitalized methodologies along with other digital tools and forms that make submitting projects and related processes easier.

Automating Verra’s Review Process

We recently launched the digital Project Review Report (PRR), which brings together both registry and technical review steps into a single, end‑to‑end digital review process delivered through the project hub. This marks a clear shift from manual, email‑driven reviews to a structured, fully digital review experience.

In parallel, we have developed a digital Project Review Tool for Verra staff, which has been piloted with our Energy & Industry and Plastics teams. Together, the PRR and the Project Review Tool now serve as the system of record for project reviews, automatically tracking review rounds, findings, and responses.

This digital foundation enables structured review checkpoints, controlled review cycles, and a clear separation between internal reviewer comments and VVB‑visible responses. The result is higher review quality and consistency, reduced manual effort and rework, and a strong foundation for automation, SLA tracking, analytics, and future scalability.

The rollout of the end-to-end digital review for Verra staff began May 1.

Increased Efficiency through Digitalization

Digitalized review processes deliver clear, measurable results. An example illustrates that, compared to a traditional review, the digital review of the same project type, with the same number of review rounds, resulted in fewer findings (nine compared to 11) and a dramatically shorter end-to-end review cycle (63 days versus 163 days).

These gains are driven by smarter review checkpoints that combine automation with system-assisted review, along with built‑in submission validation before requests enter the review queue. By increasing system assistance across checkpoints and providing clearer, more objective templates, we reduce manual effort, eliminate unnecessary back‑and‑forth, and reduce ambiguity for both VVBs and project proponents, which enables faster, more predictable outcomes for all of you.

We continue to enhance the digital PRR, and we’re encouraged by the early efficiency gains. Since its launch in November, average VVB response times have improved from roughly 38 days to under 28 days—a 26% reduction.

Looking at the full end‑to‑end review duration, projects using the digital PRR are completing reviews in approximately 127 days, compared to 169 days under the traditional process; this is nearly 25% faster on average.

These improvements are driven by PRR digitalization, improved notifications and dashboards, methodology‑specific checklists, standardized findings, and stronger guidance and support. Together, these changes are creating a more structured, predictable, and efficient review process for both Verra and external stakeholders, which feedback from both VVBs and Verra reviewers has confirmed. Reviewers value the ability to upload documents directly, with improved visibility into review status and priorities. There is reduced administrative overhead, and greater clarity and consistency in findings.

If you need any assistance navigating the Verra Project Hub, please reach out to hubsupport@verra.org. We are here to help!

Improving VVB performance has been one of Verra’s priorities that will be key to reaching project review requests with fewer findings and shorter overall review times.

In the VVB Performance Management Program (PMP), we take into account (1) project review requests (whether they have appropriately assessed the project’s conformance with the program rules and have adequately documented the assessment process), (2) audits observed by Verra staff (where we verify a VVB’s competence and effectiveness in a given scope), (3) sanctions (quality control reviews and non-conformance reports) and cooperation, and (4) relevant information from the VVB’s accreditation body.

Each VVB approved to audit any of Verra’s programs receives an annual scorecard.

Stakeholders can review these results either by methodology or category (i.e., projects with broadly similar characteristics, such as land-based projects or energy and industry projects). Either view results in a detailed breakdown that shows high-level statistics about VVBs’ success rates.

The results from the VVB PMP guide Verra in its efforts to help strengthen VVBs’ overall auditing capacity across all Verra programs, ensuring the integrity of Verra projects and the units issued.

Verra uses the results of VVB performance monitoring to provide additional VVB trainings, review program rules and methodologies, and increase and/or decrease VVB oversight activities.

We encourage you to use this information as a starting point as you consider potential VVBs for your project, for example, by looking up VVBs’ performance on the methodology your project uses.

However, you should also complement that research by consulting the full list of eligible VVBs on our website and by reviewing publicly available data for projects similar to yours.

In addition, please engage directly with VVBs to discuss relevant experience, qualifications, and project-specific factors.

If you have questions, please email auditing@verra.org.

LinkedInBlueskyChatGPT