12. Verification Requirements
This section provides a general overview of the requirements for ex post verification of GHG and Co-Benefits assertions by an independent third-party verifier. As defined in this section, verification will be conducted by an independent verifier chosen by the Project Proponent as per the requirements stipulated in the Credit Class.
Regen Registry seeks a balance between adequate assurances, the overhead, and costs associated with verification. Therefore, each Credit Class can stipulate the requirements that are best suited to the ecosystem, best management practice and/or locale(s) to which it pertains.
12.1. Verifier Requirements
Credit Classes must specify the Verifier Requirements. Examples of recommended requirements include:
Verification bodies accredited under ISO 14065 and in good standing with their relevant ISO member body.
Verifiers approved by Established Registries.
Verifiers with Errors and Omissions Insurance for at least $1 million.
Has demonstrated technical expertise in the Project Activity specified in the Credit Class.
Verifiers for all Credit Classes must satisfy these minimum requirements:
Have sufficient proof of identity.
Be in a position of fiduciary duty.
Verifiers must sign a statement confirming their lack of conflict of interest with the Project Proponent. The Registry Agent and the Project Proponent must be satisfied that any potential for conflict of interest can be mitigated.
To limit the potential for conflict of interest, Verifiers will not conduct a verification for any project in which:
Any member of the verification team has a financial interest in the project or the Project Proponent.
The Verifier has played a role in developing the project.
The verifier will disclose all relationships, such as familial or fiduciary, within the past three years between the Verifier on the one hand, and the project and Project Proponent on the other.
12.2. Payment for Verification
Project Proponent is responsible for engaging and paying for verifications.
12.3. Evidence Gathering
Verifiers shall take necessary and appropriate steps to assure the project inputs are authentic, using a random sampling approach whenever appropriate.
Verifiers are required to provide assurance as to the reasonableness, accuracy and validity of the data the Project Proponent has provided to the Registry Agent and the Monitor.
The Credit Class and Approved Methodology contains specific guidance on the scope of evidence gathering necessary to provide reasonable assurance with respect to the data the Project Proponent provides the Monitor.
The verification requirements specified in the Credit Class should include but is not limited to the following categories:
Project Plan - the verifier shall verify the information provided in the Project Plan.
Project Ownership and Rights
Verifier shall verify that the Project Proponent has legal rights to the land defined in the project boundaries. If the Project Proponent is an organization, the verifier shall also verify the documents provided to the Registry Agent have been signed by the organization’s representatives without a reasonable doubt.
The verifier shall choose the appropriate level of Land Owner rights verification from the list below, where the default shall be the least strictest approach. Documentation verification levels, from strictest to least:
Evidence of land title or deed of ownership - official documentation of Federal / State government.
Rate payments, such as utility services provided by local jurisdictions to the property and Project Proponent.
Copies of email exchanges, letters, agreements or similar documentation (or their extracts).
In the case the land is leased, the verifier shall also verify the lease agreement between Project Proponent (or the entity/individual represented) and Land Owner.
If the Project Proponent is representing the Land Owner, the verifier shall verify the Deed of Representation between the Project Proponent and the Land Owner.
Data inputs provided by Project Proponent to the Monitor - as stipulated by the Approved Methodology.
The Monitor followed the procedures stipulated in the Approved Methodology.
Compliance with Credit Class and Approved Methodology requirements:
Project eligibility - see section above for full details. Including, but not limited to:
Ownership type - matches the type mentioned in Project Plan
Project Activity falls within the defined accepted list of activities
Project Area matches land tenure descriptions
Adoption Date falls after the earliest accepted date and evidence is provided to attest to that
No double issuance - see Avoiding Double Counting section
Compliance with existing laws and regulations
Leakage - verifying estimated leakage by Project Proponent is a reasonable estimate (for example, uses regional default emission factors or is in line with similar projects).
12.4. Verification Report
Verifiers shall generate a report summarizing their findings per the requirements stipulated in the Credit Class, including a verification rating using the following or similar language:
Acceptance - if all the corresponding requirements in the Evidence Gathering section (10.4) have been satisfactorily met.
Acceptance with Contingencies
If there were any deviations from the Approved Methodology.
If data provided by the Project Proponent (e.g. in the Project Plan) which is inconsequential to GHG estimation, could not be satisfactorily verified.
Rejection
If project ownership could not be satisfactorily verified.
If the Monitor did not follow key Methodology guidelines (excluding minor deviations).
If data provided by the Project Proponent for GHG estimation is suspected to be fraudulent.
Lack of compliance with Project Eligibility, Double Counting requirements, or existing laws/regulations.
12.5. Verification Acceptance
The Registry Agent will review each verification report and proceed based on its rating as specified below.
The Registry Agent will post all verification reports publicly.
12.5.1. Acceptance
Regen Registry will issue credits (if applicable) to the Project Proponents per the monitoring outcome and Program Guide / Credit Class stipulations.
12.5.2. Acceptance with Contingencies
The Project Proponent shall make the necessary corrections and clarifications per the contingencies identified in the report. If needed, the Verifier will resubmit their report after reviewing the information provided by the Project Proponent.
Registry Agent will issue credits (if applicable) following the Acceptance procedure above.
If the resubmitted verification report still retains the Acceptance with Contingencies, Registry Agent will highlight this in the corresponding MRV section.
12.5.3. Rejection
The project is put on hold until the issues identified are addressed (see Project on Hold section).
The carbon stock level will revert to the last level that was recorded and verified with the verification report with Acceptance or Acceptance with Contingencies rating. If the project has already been issued credits, then the Buffer Pool will be used to reconcile any gaps (see Buffer Pool section).
12.6. Verification Schedule
Verification is required prior to issuance. Any issuance of GHG removal or other forms of ecological credits which require verification based on the requirements stipulated in the credit class shall require a verification report prior to issuance.
Project Proponents shall follow the verification schedule required by the Credit Class. The Verification shall be completed within three months of the monitoring round.
12.7. Unscheduled Verification
The following circumstances will warrant a potential additional verification:
A previous verification report with a Rejection or Acceptance with Contingencies ranking.
Compliance verifications - when the Registry Agent has reasonable grounds to suspect the Project Proponent has contravened, is contravening, or is proposing to contravene with the rules and regulations.
12.8. Verification Oversight
The Registry Agent reserves the right to conduct oversight activities of verification performance participating verifiers. Oversight activities are conducted to ensure an adequate level of quality control and are intended to supplement accreditation body oversight and audit processes.
Last updated