01
Project documentation
Project design document, baseline approach, safeguards, and monitoring plan are submitted to the standard's public registry.
Methodology
We build projects for credibility, not just credit volume.
Conservative modeling, integrated field execution, third-party verification, transparent governance, and measurable community and biodiversity outcomes, all in one system.
Our process
A structured approach to high-integrity carbon project development.
From project origination and financing through carbon structuring, field implementation, verification, and long-term commercialisation.
01
Engage
Identify participants, establish signed cooperation agreements, and build community alignment with clear rights, roles, and benefit structures from day one.
- Signed participation agreements
- Community consultations documented
- FPIC process initiated
02
Define
Model carbon baselines using conservative historical trends and realistic projections of economic drivers. Additionality is assessed rigorously, not optimistically.
- Historical deforestation baselines
- Conservative additionality assessment
- Revenue-share structure agreed
03
Develop
Structure legal agreements, revenue models, and technical documentation. Build governance frameworks that meet institutional buyer expectations.
- Project design document prepared
- Legal entities and revenue structures
- Community governance entity established
04
Implement
Deploy field teams for community programmes, monitoring infrastructure, local capacity building, and on-the-ground project activities every month.
- Monthly field expeditions
- Community programmes and local hiring
- MRV infrastructure established
05
Verify
Submit through third-party validation, address auditor feedback, complete verification to industry standards, and maintain public documentation.
- Third-party auditors engaged
- Coordinated verification programmes
- Public registry documentation
06
Commercialise
Build buyer relationships, develop offtake agreements, and manage long-term credit infrastructure to support institutional partners at scale.
- Long-term offtake relationships
- Institutional buyer engagement
- Ongoing project monitoring and renewal
Modeling integrity
Baselines built on evidence, not optimistic assumptions.
Carbon baselines determine how many credits a project can issue. We build ours from verified historical deforestation data and realistic economic drivers, not by selecting the period that produces the highest numbers.
Deforestation pressure
Baselines reflect documented land-use dynamics, not modelled worst cases.
What the industry often does
Selecting the highest-deforestation period to inflate credit volumes
Modelling threats that have no documented field evidence
Discounting existing land protection or governance efforts
Applying assumptions designed to maximise issuance, not reflect reality
Our approach
Multi-year deforestation averages that smooth out peak periods
Geospatial data cross-checked against field observations
Deforestation pressure modelled from actual economic drivers in the region
Conservative buffers for leakage, permanence, and uncertainty
ResultFewer credits. Higher credibility.
Integrated MRV
Geospatial analysis and on-the-ground validation working together to strengthen project integrity.
Monitoring & verification
Remote sensing and fieldwork belong in one system.
Satellite data detects changes. Field teams validate reality on the ground. Biodiversity and community indicators add evidence beyond carbon. Together, these components support a project that can be evaluated by serious buyers and investors.
Carbon integrity
Baseline modelling, leakage assessment, permanence planning, monitoring design, and verification coordination.
Field evidence
Monthly expedition reports, GPS data, training records, and on-ground monitoring from local teams.
Community indicators
Participation rates, benefit distributions, grievance records, and governance meeting documentation.
Standards & Verification
A verification pathway designed for credible issuance.
Carbon credits are only credible when project design, monitoring data, and emission reductions are independently assessed. Our projects are structured under reputable standards with accredited third-party validation and verification built into the issuance pathway.
Issuance pathway
02
Independent validation
An accredited VVB independently confirms the project design meets the standard's requirements before any monitoring begins.
03
Monitoring & verification
At each monitoring period, an accredited VVB independently verifies the emission reductions against the approved baseline.
04
Credit issuance
The standard reviews the verification report and, if approved, issues the corresponding volume of carbon credits to the project registry account.
Standards we work under
Reputable standards, independent controls.
The value of a carbon standard is in its control system, public documentation, accredited VVB review, monitored evidence, and registry approval before any credit reaches the market.
Registry process
Project documentation and monitoring reports are submitted through the standard's public registry.
Accredited VVBs
An accredited VVB independently validates the project design and verifies emission reductions before issuance.
Issued after review
The standard approves credit issuance only after the VVB's verification report confirms actual emission reductions.
ICVCM Core Carbon Principles
Integrity benchmark
ICVCM independently assesses carbon standards and their approved methodologies against 10 criteria. A CCP label means both the standard and the methodology have been evaluated by a body with no commercial interest in the outcome.
AGovernance
1Effective governance
2Tracking
3Transparency
4Third-party validation and verification
BEmissions impact
5Additionality
6Permanence
7Robust quantification
8No double-counting
CSustainable impact
9Benefits and safeguards
10Net zero contribution
The CCP label is awarded at the program and methodology level by the ICVCM, not directly at the individual project level.
Benefit sharing and permanence
Community incentives are not an add-on. They are part of the permanence model.
A clear benefit-sharing explanation can become one of the most trust-building sections on the website.
Gross carbon credit revenueRevenue from verified credit sales
↓
Direct project costsRegistry, validation, verification, MRV, monitoring, and direct project operations
↓
Net carbon credit revenueRevenue available for benefit sharing and project sustainability
↓
50%
Community Benefit Pool for approved local investments, livelihood incentives, in-kind support, and limited direct payments where appropriate.
50%
TBV / Forestbase share for project sustainability, MRV continuity, risk buffer, working capital, capital recovery, and future NbS development.
Why this supports permanence
Incentives linked to forest protection
Benefits are designed to make standing forest economically relevant over time.
Community-approved plans
Funds are deployed through formal governance processes, not ad hoc donations.
Long-term participation commitments
Benefit sharing is tied to continued participation, monitoring, and conservation outcomes.
Transparency and reporting
Impact metrics and benefit deployment can be reported progressively alongside verification milestones.
Impact outcomes
Impact is designed into the project economics.
We treat social and biodiversity outcomes as part of carbon quality, not as separate storytelling. Forest conservation must compete with land-use pressures; impact work is what makes protection economically rational long-term.
People
Community engagement, local employment, training, institutional bridges, and benefit-sharing plans create a stronger foundation for permanence.
- Participation and training attendance
- Local hiring and benefit-sharing records
- Grievance handling outcomes
Biodiversity
Forest protection safeguards habitat. Biodiversity monitoring demonstrates value beyond carbon accounting.
- Forest plots and species observations
- Acoustic monitoring where applicable
- Habitat condition assessments
Climate
REDD+ avoids emissions from deforestation. Restoration can increase carbon removals where implementation conditions support credible outcomes.
- Forest cover change tracking
- Deforestation alert monitoring
- Field verification of changes
Not charity. Alignment.
The purpose of impact work is not to decorate the project. It reduces social risk, supports permanence, strengthens monitoring, and ensures the people closest to the forest participate in the value generated by protecting it.
Not claims. Evidence.
Investors and buyers should be able to see what has happened, what is planned, what is measured, and what remains subject to validation, feasibility, and community approval.
Social safeguards
Community safeguards and grievance mechanisms.
Projects adhere to recognised community engagement standards, benefit sharing, and conflict mediation frameworks.
01
Free, Prior & Informed Consent
Communities voluntarily participate with full information about project terms and implications, documented through consultation and FPIC processes.
02
Grievance Mechanisms
Formal complaint submission, required response timelines, independent review where disputes persist, and records of grievances and resolutions.
03
Benefit-Sharing Transparency
Revenue-sharing agreements, financial reporting commitments, and operational requirements are shared with communities and reflected in project documentation.
Want to see our work in action?
Review project documentation, baseline models, and verification progress through our active project work.