> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://help.eq-earth.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://help.eq-earth.com/faq.md). # FAQ Answers to the questions we hear most often from project developers, buyers and partners, grouped by topic. Can't find your question? Contact us at . * [Market recognition and ratings](#market-recognition-and-ratings) * [Why Equitable Earth](#why-equitable-earth) * [Buyers and demand](#buyers-and-demand) * [Registry](#registry) * [Fees](#fees) * [Project eligibility](#project-eligibility) * [Certification process](#certification-process) * [Carbon accounting and methodologies](#carbon-accounting-and-methodologies) ## Market recognition and ratings
Is the Equitable Earth Programme ICVCM-approved? Yes. The Equitable Earth Programme was approved as CCP-eligible by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) in May 2025. See the [ICVCM assessment status](https://icvcm.org/assessment-status/).
Are the M001 and M002 methodologies CCP-approved? Both methodologies have been submitted to ICVCM for CCP-label review. Equitable Earth expects approval in 2026, ahead of the first M002 issuances. You can follow progress on the [ICVCM assessment status](https://icvcm.org/assessment-status/) page.
What is Equitable Earth's status with ICROA? Equitable Earth has received **conditional endorsement** from the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) and is listed in its Code of Best Practice. Conditional endorsement confirms that the programme meets ICROA's integrity requirements, including independence, governance, registry, validation and verification, and environmental and social impacts. The only outstanding criterion is scale: full endorsement requires at least 10 registered projects and 100,000 tCO₂e issued. Equitable Earth is working towards full endorsement as more projects reach Active status and issue credits.
What is Equitable Earth's status with CORSIA? On 9 March 2026, Equitable Earth applied to the CORSIA Technical Advisory Body (TAB) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), under the 2026 assessment cycle, for ECUs to be recognized as CORSIA-eligible emissions units. * The application covers the **2027–2029** compliance period. The TAB indicated that applicants will also be considered for retroactive approval for the **2024–2026** period. * The ICAO Council's final decision is expected in **November 2026**. * As Equitable Earth was not an approved programme for 2024–2026, it was not eligible to submit Material Change Assessments for its methodologies.
What ratings have the M001 and M002 methodologies received? Both methodologies have been independently assessed by carbon ratings agencies (lower scores mean stronger integrity): | Methodology | Sylvera (risk score) | BeZero Carbon | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------- | | [M001](https://docs.eq-earth.com/m001-methodology-for-terrestrial-forest-restoration-v1.2.pdf) – Terrestrial Forest Restoration (v1.2) | 2/10 | 2/5 | | [M002](https://docs.eq-earth.com/m002-methodology-for-terrestrial-forest-conservation-v1.0.2.pdf) – Terrestrial Forest Conservation (v1.0.2) | 3/10 | 3/5 | These assessments place both among the stronger methodologies reviewed, particularly for their safeguards, governance and carbon accounting. Equitable Earth aims to lower these scores further as the methodologies evolve.
What ratings have Equitable Earth projects received? * Samauma's **Tauari Project** in Acre, Brazil, still in certification, received a pre-issuance **A.pre** rating from BeZero Carbon, with low execution risk: the highest rating currently assigned to an avoided unplanned deforestation project. See [Samauma's announcement](https://samauma.com/en/projects/). * An Equitable Earth **ARR project in Africa** received an **A** rating from both Sylvera and BeZero Carbon. * Around 20 REDD+ projects in the Amazon, part of the [Everland and BNP Paribas initiative](https://everland.earth/everland-in-partnership-with-bnp-paribas-announces-50-million-capital-markets-initiative/), are expected to receive Sylvera ratings.
What ratings should projects certified under Equitable Earth expect? No guarantee can be made about project-level ratings. However, projects that meet Equitable Earth's requirements under a methodology already considered low-risk should generally fall within a stronger, more predictable range, often around **BBB to AA**. Rating agencies keep their own discretion. Equitable Earth engages early with BeZero Carbon and Sylvera so that its safeguards and methodology quality are understood upfront.
## Why Equitable Earth
Why do developers choose Equitable Earth? For three main reasons: 1. **Equity.** The Livelihoods and Ecological Condition pillars are measurable, core components of the methodology, not co-benefits layered on top. Every ECU carries these outcomes. 2. **Speed.** A fully digital platform takes projects from feasibility to validation in months. Requirements come as guided surveys, the Project Design Document (PDD) is generated automatically, and developers have dedicated support throughout. 3. **Trust.** Carbon accounting is centralized at the standard level, Equitable Earth contracts VVBs directly rather than developers paying their own auditor, and the [fee schedule](https://www.eq-earth.com/fees-schedule) is per hectare and independent of issuance volume. All three reduce real and perceived conflicts of interest.
What types of developers work with Equitable Earth? A broad mix, across both conservation and restoration: * **REDD+ (conservation):** large international project developers, international NGOs and established for-profit players. * **ARR (restoration):** place-based community organizations and local NGOs, as well as larger technology-driven or commercial restoration players. Activity is strongest in Latin America (especially Brazil, Colombia and Bolivia), with growing engagement in East Africa and other regions. Several projects have transferred from other programmes. For confidentiality, developers and projects are only named once public: projects appear on the [Equitable Earth Registry](https://www.eq-earth.com/registry) after passing the feasibility phase.
Where do the principles of the Livelihoods pillar come from? They were inspired by the work of the **Peoples Forests Partnership**, whose Indigenous and local community members first set them out. A consultation group of Indigenous leaders advised the original Equitable Earth coalition throughout the development of the standard and methodology. The coalition then ran its own Indigenous and stakeholder consultation and turned these principles into enforceable requirements of the Standard's Livelihoods pillar. A background memorandum mapping each principle to the Standard is available on request.
How do Equitable Earth's safeguards compare with Verra's CCB label? In substance, they are largely aligned: both require strong protections for communities, labour rights and biodiversity, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and equitable benefit-sharing. The differences are structural: * CCB is an **additional label** on top of a carbon methodology, whereas Equitable Earth builds social and ecological requirements **into its core rules**. * Equitable Earth is **more prescriptive on monitoring**, with fixed cycles such as five-year adaptive management plans and annual reporting.
## Buyers and demand
How strong is buyer appetite for Equitable Earth? Equitable Earth has passed independent due diligence with **75 buyers, funds and intermediaries**, from sectors including energy, tech, consulting and entertainment. It has also been selected as one of the standards eligible for funding through the [Symbiosis Coalition](https://www.symbiosiscoalition.org/rfp), which facilitates offtake agreements with its members Google, Meta, Microsoft and Salesforce.
Is there forward demand for credits issued under Equitable Earth? Yes. For example, Everland has announced **US$160 million in Letters of Intent** from corporate buyers for future credits from Indigenous- and community-centred forest conservation projects in Greater Amazonia. A **US$50 million outcome bond** from BNP Paribas aims to launch up to 20 new REDD+ projects certified exclusively under Equitable Earth. See [Everland's announcement](https://everland.earth/everland-in-partnership-with-bnp-paribas-announces-50-million-capital-markets-initiative/).
Can Equitable Earth help developers reassure financiers or buyers? Yes. Developers can share the financiers, buyers or partners they are talking to, and Equitable Earth can join these conversations to walk through the standard, the methodologies and the certification process. It can also explain where a project stands in certification and which requirements it has already met, giving financiers and buyers an independent basis to assess project risk.
## Registry
How do I open a Registry account to buy credits? Two requirements apply before an account is approved: 1. **Third-Party Screening.** Every entity is screened by Equitable Earth under the [Anti-Fraud Policy](https://docs.eq-earth.com/anti-fraud-policy.pdf). You can start the account opening process in advance; it is approved once the screening is complete. 2. **Terms of Use.** All users must sign the Registry [Terms of Use](https://drive.google.com/file/d/15uSGo1jtEMhXoaE-rKc3btNcVxKfazoA/view?usp=sharing), and every account holder must have the legal capacity to be bound by them (a registered organization or an individual). For step-by-step instructions, see [Register a New Account](/registry/your-account/register-a-new-account.md) in the Registry help center. The full rules are in the [Registry Procedures](https://docs.eq-earth.com/registry-procedures-v1.3.pdf).
Is there a fee for a buyer account? No. There are no fees for creating or managing a buyer account, and no fees based on the volume of credits issued, transferred or retired. Entities that only receive and retire credits are not charged.
How is the vintage of a credit defined? ECUs are assigned a vintage according to the year in which the GHG reductions or removals occurred (Programme Manual, section 4.1.7). In practice, the vintage is set by the **end date of the verification period**: for a verification period from 1 February 2025 to 1 February 2026, the ECUs have a 2026 vintage.
## Fees
Where can I find Equitable Earth's fee schedule? The current fee schedule is published on our website: [eq-earth.com/fees-schedule](https://www.eq-earth.com/fees-schedule).
Why do Equitable Earth's fees look higher than other standards'? Because they cover services that developers usually source and pay for separately elsewhere: * **Carbon accounting.** Equitable Earth runs all carbon calculations in house, from ex-ante estimates at feasibility to baselines, net GHG calculations and ongoing monitoring reports. Developers don't need their own geospatial, baseline modelling or biomass teams, and conflicts of interest are reduced. * **Certification support.** A digital platform generates the PDD from structured surveys, and dedicated agents (an External Relations Agent before contract, a Certification Agent after) guide developers throughout. These roles are independent from the team that certifies the project. Comparing headline fees across standards is therefore rarely like-for-like.
Are fees based on the project area or the crediting area? On the **total project area**, consistently for contract terms, fee calculation and invoicing. The project area is more stable when contracts are signed, as the crediting area often changes during feasibility, and it reflects the full scope of Equitable Earth's review and monitoring.
How is the project area rounded for invoicing? Invoicing uses the number of hectares provided by the developer: * During the **feasibility and design phases**, the area is rounded **down** to the nearest thousand hectares, as figures may still change. * Once monitoring, reporting and verification invoicing begins, the **finalized** figures are used without rounding.
How does the fee for the Initial GHG Baseline Assessment work? The standard fee is **€15,000** per assessment. Equitable Earth carries out the work without upfront charge. The fee is only due at contract signature if the developer decides to proceed with the project; if not, nothing is payable. These terms are usually set out in a Letter of Intent before the assessment starts.
How much do validation and verification cost? Audit costs depend on the project's scope, complexity and location. Equitable Earth contracts and pays the Validation and Verification Body (VVB) directly, then re-bills the cost to the developer at cost. As an indication, audits typically cost **€25,000 to €30,000** for M001 (restoration) projects, and slightly more for M002 (conservation). Combining validation with the first verification usually lowers the total. The exact figure is confirmed at the time of service.
## Project eligibility
Is there mutual recognition between Equitable Earth and other carbon standards? Not currently. However, projects can **transfer** from other standards following section 5.4 of the [Programme Manual](https://docs.eq-earth.com/programme-manual-v1.3.1.pdf), and are reassessed against Equitable Earth's requirements. Equitable Earth remains open to interoperability with other standards, provided projects and credits meet its requirements.
Can a project span several countries? Grouped projects in the programmatic sense are not allowed: the Programme is project-based and does not credit programmatic, jurisdictional, policy or sectoral approaches (Equitable Earth Standard, section 1.2.2). Several parcels or sites can form one project if combined into a single project entity, and a project can in principle span several countries if it complies with each country's regulations. In practice, separate projects per jurisdiction are usually needed, given differences in land tenure, carbon rights and baselines (section 3.3.8).
Can a single project use several methodologies? Yes. A project that combines GHG reduction and removal activities can apply a separate Equitable Earth methodology to each, and register as a single project. Project crediting areas must have distinct, non-overlapping boundaries. Areas registered under another carbon crediting programme are only eligible once the project has been withdrawn from that programme (Equitable Earth Standard, section 2.4.2). Equitable Earth is clarifying these requirements in a minor revision of the Standard.
## Certification process
How long does certification take? Certification is complete once validation is finalized and the project is registered. If documentation is ready from the start, it typically takes **6 to 12 months**: | Phase | Indicative duration | | ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Feasibility | About 1 month of review, then 1 to 3 rounds of clarifications (about 1 month each) | | Project design | 1 to 2 months of review, then 1 to 3 rounds of clarifications (about 1 month each) | | Public consultation | 30 days | | Validation | Up to 4 months (contractual maximum for VVBs) | Timelines depend mainly on how quickly developers complete documentation and respond to requests, and on VVB availability.
What support do developers receive during certification? Each developer is assigned a **dedicated certification agent**, available for up to one hour per week and by email, with replies typically within one to two business days. The agent clarifies requirements and helps with the certification platform, but does not act as a consultant or do work on the developer's behalf. To avoid conflicts of interest, this agent is not involved in assessing the project: the assessment is carried out by two other certification agents.
Can I get a demo of the certification platform? Yes. Email to arrange a demo. For a quick overview, watch the [short demo video](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/equitable-earth_carboncertification-carbonmanagement-carbonmarkets-activity-7422579579988484096-5l_0), or see more videos on the [Equitable Earth YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@eq-earth).
Is there a Project Design Document (PDD) template? The PDD isn't written from a template: the certification platform turns methodology requirements into surveys and compiles the PDD automatically from your answers and evidence, keeping it consistent as the project progresses. A [demo](mailto:info@eq-earth.com) is the best way to see how it works. Illustrative M001 and M002 PDD templates (not official documents) are available on request.
Why are projects rejected? Mostly at the feasibility stage, which acts as a strict initial screening: only projects that pass it appear on the [Equitable Earth Registry](https://registry.eq-earth.com/home). Common reasons include: * clear misalignment with the methodology; * insufficient evidence of land tenure, carbon rights or required authorizations; * unresolved overlaps or double-registration risks; * missing or non-conforming information. Certification can also be terminated if the developer due diligence raises significant concerns, or if CARs and clarification requests remain unaddressed after repeated rounds.
## Carbon accounting and methodologies
Are the figures in the preliminary quantification guaranteed? No. They are **ex-ante** estimates made before implementation and represent a theoretical maximum, assuming full effectiveness with no losses. They are non-binding and help developers assess viability. ECUs, by contrast, are issued **ex-post**: only after reductions or removals have occurred, been measured and been independently verified.
What shapefiles are needed for the Initial GHG Baseline Assessment? The assessment is a non-binding, early estimate of a project's carbon outcomes. Provide two types of polygons, ideally in KML, KMZ or SHP format: 1. **Project area:** the area(s) planned for restoration or conservation, as one or more representative areas or the whole project area. 2. **Reference area** (restoration projects only): a site representing the ecological state the project aims to reach. It must be in the same country and ecological region, show no significant human degradation in the past 10 years, ideally be at least 40 years old, be ecologically representative, and be accessible for verification. Landscape-scale projects may select one reference site per group. See the "Reference Ecosystem" section of the [M001 methodology](https://docs.eq-earth.com/m001-methodology-for-terrestrial-forest-restoration-v1.2.pdf) for details. Equitable Earth's data team then runs the calculations and sends you the report.
How is the above-ground biomass (AGB) data validated? In several layers: * a **benchmarking study** comparing several providers against the same reference plots, used to select the AGB data provider for M001; * the **provider's own validation** documentation; * **automated quality checks** before every calculation: AGB values between 0 and 1,500, a meaningful standard error raster with values from 0 to 1,000, and fewer than 1% of NoData pixels in the project area.
M001: is land cover used to calculate carbon potential? No longer. Land cover data from the European Space Agency (2021) gives context on the restoration site, but since M001 v1.2 the carbon potential is calculated from above-ground biomass data only. Land cover was used in v1.1.
M001: can developers provide their own growth rates for the carbon curve? Carbon curves default to IPCC growth rates. Where the IPCC tables have no rate for the project's biome and region, Equitable Earth can use developer-provided rates backed by robust data and peer-reviewed literature (section 2.3.3 of the [Protocol for Carbon Curve Modelling](https://docs.eq-earth.com/protocol-carbon-curve-modelling-v1.2.pdf)). Rates must be: * in carbon units (tC/ha/year, tCO₂e/ha/year or tdM/ha/year), converted with IPCC factors if volume-based; * given as three values: minimum, maximum and default (most likely).
M002: which risk map applies to my project's baseline? Each project gets a risk map generated at its start, valid for the five-year **baseline validity period**: a project starting in 2026 uses the 2026 map until 2031. * Projects starting **on or after 1 January 2025** use the full risk model. * Projects starting **on or before 31 December 2024** use a simplified model for the first years, because some input data doesn't go back far enough, then move to the full model from 2024. Baselines are updated every five years with the latest risk maps, and may be updated earlier case by case.
M002: are Jurisdictional Reference Levels and risk maps national? Not necessarily. They are **jurisdictional**: a jurisdiction can be a country or a subnational unit such as a state, province or district. Biome-specific characteristics can be considered within a jurisdiction, but the final Jurisdictional Reference Level remains linked to it.
M002: how does Equitable Earth produce risk maps so quickly? Risk maps are produced in house by a dedicated data science team with significant computing power, and production is prioritized based on developer demand. The list of available risk maps is published on the [M002 overview page](https://www.eq-earth.com/methodologies/m002/m002-overview).
--- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://help.eq-earth.com/faq.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.