Schemes should:
- require validation of project design before project activity is credited
- require verification of delivered outcomes before verified credits can be issued or retired
- allow ex-ante credits only if clearly distinguished from verified ex-post credits. Ex-ante credits should not be capable of retirement or final outcome claims before verification
- require every project validation or verification engagement to have a named lead verifier or lead assurance practitioner.
The table below outlines key functional definitions and their timing in a project’s process.
Table A2.1: Validation and verification roles
| Function |
Purpose |
Timing |
| Validation |
Assesses whether project design, baseline, methodology application, monitoring plan and projected outcomes are plausible and conform to the approved method. Under ISAE 5000-style assurance, this may include assurance over assumptions, processes or forward-looking sustainability information where appropriate. |
Before project registration or before crediting period commences. |
| Verification |
Assesses whether reported outcomes actually occurred and are truthfully stated, quantified and supported by evidence. |
Before issue or conversion of verified credits, and at monitoring intervals. |
| Assurance/conformity review |
Broader confidence process that may apply to scheme systems or project claims but should not be described as a guarantee. ISAE 5000 may be used where sustainability or greenhouse gas information is subject to an assurance engagement. |
As specified by scheme, method or MCERT. |
A2.1 Suitable qualification and experience considerations for validation/verification
To balance rigour and flexibility, validation and verification may be undertaken by:
- accredited VVB (eg, ISO 14065) or
- organisations and people qualified to use ISAE 5000 as an assurance pathway (eg, auditors and assurance firms, subject to satisfactory technical qualifications and experience).
The table below outlines who can provide validation/verification in particular circumstances.
Table A2.2: Recognition pathways
| Pathway |
When suitable |
Evidence required |
| Accredited VVB |
Carbon/GHG projects where relevant accreditation exists. |
Accreditation scope, personnel competence, conflict of interest declaration. |
| ISAE 5000 assurance provider |
Where sustainability, nature or GHG information is subject to assurance by a auditor or assurance practitioner. |
Assurance credentials, assurance methodology, ethics/independence systems, technical specialist capability, named lead practitioner. |
| Accredited assurance body with specialist team |
Complex cross-domain projects needing assurance systems plus technical experts. |
Accreditation/assurance credentials, technical CVs, method-specific capability. |
| Qualified specialist organisation |
Nature/biodiversity projects where accreditation pathway is immature. |
Ecological credentials, verification experience, quality procedures, independent review. |
| Multidisciplinary consortium |
Integrated nature-based carbon projects. |
Lead accountable entity, team roles, conflicts, QA process, lead practitioner. |
| Case-by-case approval |
Emerging methods, remote locations, specialist knowledge gaps. |
Scheme assessment against minimum competence and independence criteria. |
The table below outlines organisational requirements for validation/verification providers.
Table A2.3: Minimum organisation requirements validation/verification
| Requirement |
Minimum expectation |
| Legal, accountable entity |
Validator/verifier is a legal entity or clearly accountable professional practice. |
| Impartiality |
No unmanaged conflict with scheme, project owner, project developer, credit buyer or methodology proponent. |
| Competence |
Named competent personnel for the project type, method, data and local context. |
| Lead practitioner |
Each engagement has a named lead verifier/lead assurance practitioner responsible for engagement quality, evidence sufficiency and final conclusion. |
| Quality system |
Documented procedures for engagement acceptance, planning, evidence review, sampling, reporting, review and complaints. |
| Assurance system where applicable |
For ISAE 5000 engagements, must demonstrate appropriate assurance methodology, ethics, independence and engagement quality management. |
| Confidentiality |
Systems to protect commercially, culturally and ecologically sensitive data. |
| Professional risk controls |
Professional indemnity or equivalent risk controls appropriate to the assignment. |
| Record retention |
Records retained for the crediting and review period required by the scheme. |
| Independent review |
Internal technical review or engagement quality review before issuing validation, verification or assurance statements. |
The following table complements the above requirements, outlining specific expertise required to provide validation and verification for different methodology/project types.
Table A2.4: Competence requirements by project type
| Competence area |
Nature credits |
Nature-based carbon credits |
Carbon removal / industrial credits |
| Method and eligibility |
Ecological method and site eligibility |
Ecological plus GHG method |
GHG/engineering method |
| Quantification |
Biodiversity/ecosystem metrics, sampling, condition scoring |
Carbon plus ecological indicators |
CO2e, energy/process data, removals |
| Baseline/additionality |
Ecological counterfactual/common practice |
Ecological and GHG baseline |
GHG baseline/project scenario |
| Monitoring design |
Sampling, remote sensing, field ecology, data quality |
Field ecology plus carbon monitoring |
Metering, sampling, modelling, data systems |
| Leakage/spillover |
Ecological displacement and pressure shifting |
Ecological and emissions leakage |
GHG leakage/activity shifting |
| Durability/permanence |
Management durability, land tenure, threats |
Reversal and ecological durability |
Reversal risk and operational control |
| Rights and safeguards |
Māori/community/land rights and sensitive ecological data |
Same plus carbon attribute rights |
Project rights and impacts where relevant |
| Assurance competence |
Assurance over sustainability information where claims or reporting subject to assurance |
ISAE 5000 competence plus GHG competence |
ISAE 5000 competence plus GHG/engineering competence |
The following table outlines specific reference standards for validation and verification for different methodology/project types.
Table A2.5: Recommended standards hierarchy
| Use case |
Relevant references |
| GHG project quantification |
ISO 14064-2:201921; approved project methodology; programme rules. |
| GHG validation and verification |
ISO 14064-3:2019; ISO 14065:2020; ISO/IEC 17029:2019. |
| Sustainability assurance including GHG information |
ISAE 5000, especially where assurance is provided by company auditors or assurance practitioners over sustainability or GHG information. |
| Nature/biodiversity validation and verification |
MCERT assessed nature credit methodology; ISO 17298:202522 as supporting organisational biodiversity guidance where relevant. |
| General conformity assessment body competence |
ISO/IEC 17029:2019 principles: competence, consistent operation and impartiality. |
| Assurance engagements |
ISAE 5000 should be treated as the current primary sustainability assurance reference, rather than relying on ISAE 3000/ISAE 3410 as standalone references. |
21 ISO 14064-2:2019. Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions reductions or removal enhancements.
22 ISO 17298:2025. Biodiversity – Considering biodiversity in the strategy and operations of organizations – Requirements and guidelines.
A2.2 Selection process for validators/verifiers
Scheme operators should maintain a published procedure for selecting validators/verifiers, which could comprise the following elements:
Project owner or scheme proposes validator/verifier from a scheme approved list or by case-by-case application.
Validator/verifier submits competence statement, conflict declaration and proposed validation/verification/assurance plan.
Validator/verifier organisation nominates a named lead verifier or lead assurance practitioner for the engagement.
Scheme reviews organisation competence, lead practitioner competence and project-type suitability. Scheme records acceptance decision and conditions.
Validator/verifier performs engagement in accordance with approved methodology and relevant standards.
Validation/verification/assurance report and statement are submitted to the scheme.
Scheme monitors validator/verifier performance and may suspend acceptance for poor performance, conflict breach, or material errors.
Table A2.6: Lead verifier/lead assurance practitioner requirements
| Requirement |
Minimum expectation |
| Named individual |
A single named individual leads each engagement and is responsible for engagement direction, review and conclusion. |
| Professional standing |
Relevant professional membership, accreditation, assurance role, audit role, technical professional standing or equivalent demonstrated competence. |
| Assurance/audit competence |
Experience in audit, assurance, validation, verification, evidence evaluation, sampling, materiality and reporting. |
| Technical competence |
Competence relevant to the project type, or demonstrable access to and supervision of specialists with relevant competence. |
| GHG competence where relevant |
For carbon or nature-based carbon projects, competence in GHG accounting, baselines, removals, uncertainty and leakage. |
| Nature competence where relevant |
For nature credits, competence in ecology, biodiversity measurement, ecosystem condition, restoration monitoring or equivalent specialist support. |
| New Zealand context |
Understanding of New Zealand land systems, Māori rights and interests, community safeguards and sensitive data obligations, or access to appropriately qualified New Zealand-context expertise. |
| Independence |
No unmanaged conflict with project owner, scheme operator, developer, buyer or methodology proponent. |
| Accountability |
Lead individual signs, approves or is identified in the final report and may be subject to MCERT review. |
A2.3 Validation/verification report scope
A validation/verification should outline the following:
- engagement scope and criteria
- project description and method used
- independence and competence declaration
- lead verifier / lead assurance practitioner identity, role and competence statement
- validation/verification/assurance plan
- evidence reviewed, including site visits, remote assessment performed, data and sampling
- baseline and additionality assessment
- quantification and uncertainty assessment
- leakage and reversal risk assessment
- safeguards and rights checks
- findings and non-conformities
- corrections and residual limitations
- validation, verification or assurance conclusion, including credit issuance recommendation
- restriction on use of the statement.
A2.4 Prohibited arrangements
The following practices would not be considered appropriate as constituting independent and transparent processes:
- scheme operator verifying their own project outcomes
- project developer validating their own project design
- credit buyer controlling the verifier’s conclusion
- validator/verifier providing material design advice and then verifying the same design without safeguards
- use of pending credits as verified credits before outcomes are delivered and verified.
