Carbon Credit Verification — Emission Baseline Verifier

Environment Carbon Credits Emissions ISO 14064 Verra Gold Standard Finance

Overview

The Emission Baseline Verifier skill guides Rakenne users through the elaboration and compliance validation of MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) documentation for voluntary carbon credit projects. It covers the full project design document lifecycle: defining the project boundary and GHG sources/sinks/reservoirs, constructing and justifying the baseline scenario, demonstrating additionality through regulatory surplus, barrier, and common practice analysis, systematically assessing and quantifying leakage (activity shifting, market effects, ecological leakage), and building a monitoring plan. The skill includes a comprehensive reference covering ISO 14064-2, Verra VCS, and Gold Standard requirements, a pre-structured MRV document template, and an automated audit tool that checks for compliance gaps before VVB submission.

Getting Started

Add your project data to the workspace — emission inventories, financial models, methodology references, stakeholder records, and any existing project documentation — then activate the Emission Baseline Verifier skill. The agent will determine the applicable standard(s), apply the MRV document template, and guide you through each section from project boundary through net emission reductions. The baseline_leakage_audit tool can be run at any stage to catch compliance issues early.

Example Conversation

Below is an example of how a typical session might unfold when drafting an MRV document for a REDD+ avoided deforestation project under Verra VCS. The agent collects project context, applies the template, and runs compliance validation.

You: I need to prepare an MRV project design document for the Cerrado Forest Conservation Project. It’s a REDD+ avoided deforestation project in Goiás, Brazil, targeting Verra VCS certification. We’re applying methodology VM0015. The crediting period is 30 years starting 2025-01-01. The project area is 12,000 hectares of cerrado woodland. We estimate 45,000 tCO2e/year in avoided emissions. There’s a nearby soy farming frontier that may cause some leakage.
Agent: I’ll set up the MRV document using the template. This is an AFOLU project under VCS, so I need to address a few additional requirements:
Non-permanence risk — AFOLU projects require a VCS buffer pool contribution. I’ll include the risk assessment section.
Leakage — You mentioned soy farming frontier pressure. This will likely involve both activity shifting (deforestation displaced to adjacent areas) and market leakage (reduced agricultural supply from the protected area). Both need quantification.
VM0015 requires specific baseline deforestation rate analysis using historical remote sensing data.
Before I populate the template, a few questions:
What is the historical deforestation rate in the project area and reference region? (needed for VM0015 baseline)
Do you have emission factors for cerrado biomass (tC/ha above-ground, below-ground, soil)?
Are there any communities with legal land use rights within the project boundary?
You: Historical deforestation rate is 1.8%/year based on PRODES data 2010–2024. Reference region rate is 2.1%/year. Biomass: 85 tC/ha above-ground, 25 tC/ha below-ground, soil carbon excluded as conservative. No communities with legal rights inside the boundary, but three settlements within 10 km.
Agent: I’ve created the MRV document at output/mrv-document.md with:
Project boundary: 12,000 ha cerrado woodland, Goiás, Brazil. GHG gases: CO2 (primary), CH4 (fire emissions, included), N2O (fire, excluded as conservative).
Baseline emissions: 1.8%/yr deforestation × 12,000 ha × (85 + 25) tC/ha × 3.67 = ~87,000 tCO2e/yr gross. Discounted to 45,000 tCO2e/yr after project emissions and leakage.
Additionality: Regulatory surplus confirmed (no legal mandate to conserve this specific area), investment barrier documented, common practice analysis shows < 5% of cerrado under voluntary conservation.
Leakage assessment:
Activity shifting: 15% discount applied (VM0015 default for high frontier pressure)
Market leakage: 5,400 tCO2e/yr from displaced soy production
Ecological leakage: Not applicable (no wildlife corridor displacement documented)
Buffer pool: 15% non-permanence risk deduction (political risk + natural disturbance)
I ran baseline_leakage_audit on the draft:
✓ Baseline scenario description — present
✓ Baseline emission quantification — present
✓ Baseline methodology — present (VM0015 referenced)
✓ Activity shifting leakage — quantified (15% discount)
✓ Market leakage — quantified (5,400 tCO2e/yr)
✓ Regulatory surplus test — present
✓ Barrier analysis — present
✓ Common practice analysis — present
⚠ Monitoring QA/QC procedures — needs detail on remote sensing calibration
⚠ 8 placeholders remaining (stakeholder consultation, financial model details)
⚠ SDG contributions not documented (only required for Gold Standard, but recommended)
The draft is ready for your review. Shall I expand the monitoring plan section or fill in the financial analysis next?

Excerpt from a Generated MRV Document

Below is a representative excerpt from an MRV project design document produced with the skill.

MRV Project Design Document — Cerrado Forest Conservation Project (Excerpt)

Project Proponent: Cerrado Verde Conservation Ltd. Location: Goiás, Brazil (15.2°S, 49.8°W) Methodology: VM0015 v1.1 — Avoided Unplanned Deforestation Crediting Period: 2025-01-01 to 2054-12-31 (30 years, renewable)

5. Leakage Assessment

5.1 Leakage Sources Identified

Leakage Type	Applicable	Justification
Activity Shifting	Yes	Soy farming frontier within 10 km creates displacement pressure. Historical land-use change analysis shows 68% of deforestation in the reference region is driven by agricultural expansion.
Market Leakage	Yes	Protecting 12,000 ha reduces potential agricultural output, partially displaced to other areas. Market leakage factor applied per VM0015 §8.3.
Ecological Leakage	No	No evidence of wildlife corridor displacement. Nearest protected area (Serra Geral) is 45 km away with distinct ecological pressure drivers.
Upstream Emissions	No	Conservatively excluded. No significant supply chain emissions attributable to the conservation activity.

5.2 Leakage Quantification

Leakage Source	Quantification	Unit	Method
Activity shifting	13,050	tCO2e/yr	VM0015 default: 15% of baseline emissions (87,000 × 0.15). Applied due to high frontier pressure index (> 0.6).
Market leakage	5,400	tCO2e/yr	Displaced soy area × regional emission factor: 600 ha/yr × 9.0 tCO2e/ha (IPCC Tier 2, cerrado conversion to cropland).

5.3 Total Leakage Emissions (LE)

Total leakage: 18,450 tCO2e/year

Note: Leakage represents 21.2% of gross baseline emissions. This is within the expected range for REDD+ projects in high-pressure frontier regions (VM0015 Table 8: 10–30%). The activity shifting discount is conservative — actual displacement may be lower given the distance to the nearest agricultural frontier (8–12 km).

This excerpt is illustrative only. Final content must reflect actual project data and be reviewed by a qualified auditor.

Validations Performed by the Tool

The skill includes one automated validation tool that checks MRV compliance of a project design document in markdown format. Below is a summary of what it validates and how to interpret results.

Tool: `baseline_leakage_audit`

Audits the full MRV document for structural completeness and compliance gaps.

Check	Description
Baseline Scenario	Verifies presence of: baseline scenario description, baseline emission quantification, baseline methodology/approach, data sources with provenance, and validity period / reassessment schedule. Reports ERROR for each missing element (ISO 14064-2 §5.4).
Leakage Assessment	Checks for a leakage section, identifies specific leakage categories (activity shifting, market, ecological, upstream/downstream, displacement), and verifies each identified type is quantified in tCO2e or justified as negligible. Reports ERROR if identified leakage lacks quantification (VCS §3.14, ISO 14064-2 §5.6).
Leakage Deduction	Verifies leakage is explicitly deducted in the net emission reduction formula (ER = BE − PE − LE). Reports WARNING if leakage is discussed but no deduction is detected.
Additionality	Checks for regulatory surplus test, barrier analysis, common practice analysis, investment/financial analysis, and additionality conclusion. Reports ERROR for missing regulatory surplus or conclusion.
Approved Methodology	Detects VCS methodology references (VMxxxx, ACMxxxx, AMSxxxx). Reports WARNING if none found.
SDG Contributions	Checks for SDG references. Reports ERROR for Gold Standard projects, WARNING for others.
Project Boundary	Verifies SSR (sources, sinks, reservoirs) boundary definition and identification of specific GHG gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). Reports ERROR if no boundary found.
Monitoring Plan	Checks for monitoring parameters, frequency, QA/QC procedures, and responsibility assignments. Reports WARNING for missing elements.
Emission Reductions	Detects the net emission reduction/removal calculation and uncertainty/conservativeness assessment. Reports WARNING if missing.
Document Completeness	Detects unfilled placeholders (`[TODO]`, `...`, `{}`) and reports count.

Interpreting Results

RESULT: COMPLIANT — Baseline, leakage, and additionality checks passed. Document can proceed to VVB review.
RESULT: REVIEW NEEDED — Potential gaps detected (missing monitoring details, placeholders, optional elements). Check warnings.
RESULT: NON-COMPLIANT — Leakage or baseline issues found. Must be corrected before VVB submission.

The tool does not replace review by a Validation/Verification Body (VVB): it provides automated pre-screening for structural completeness and leakage accounting integrity. Final compliance with ISO 14064-2, VCS, and Gold Standard must be validated by an accredited VVB.