Which Standard is best for my ARR Project?

With more and more standards entering the voluntary carbon market, project developers like us face a tough decision:
Do we stick with the established players like Gold Standard, Verra, or Plan Vivo – or do we join the wave of emerging frameworks like ICR, Isometrio, Cercarbono, ERS, and others?

👉 Including national systems, there are now 30+ standards relevant for afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) – each with its own logic, requirements, procedures, tools, templates, and platforms.

But an ARR standard isn’t just “one document” – it’s an entire ecosystem of rules and workflows. Comparing them technically is already a challenge; keeping track of their evolving versions and continuous updates makes it nearly impossible to do a full comparison.

🎯 To support our decision-making, we developed an internal evaluation matrix that reflects our priorities and guides our strategic choices moving forward.

🔍 We’re sharing an elaboration of our evaluation in the table below.

While it doesn’t include the full technical comparison or every standard we reviewed, it provides a snapshot of how we currently assess the ARR standards landscape – and we hope it helps non-experts gain a better understanding of this complex and fast-evolving market.

👉 We’d love to hear how you’re navigating this dynamic market and what guides your strategic decisions when choosing between carbon standards!

Evaluation of Carbon Standards for ARR Projects

	Verra	Gold Standard	Plan Vivo	UNFCCC (AR CDM)	UNFCCC (PACM 6.4)	ICR × ISO 14064
Additionality Proof that the carbon benefit would not occur without the project – typically via regulatory, economic/barrier and common-practice tests.	++ Built on CDM legacy tools but significantly evolved in the past 10 years. Utilizes tools like VT0008 and VT0009 for additionality assessment, incorporating investment, barrier, and common practice analyses to ensure projects wouldn’t occur without carbon finance.	++ Built on CDM legacy tools but significantly evolved in the past 10 years. Requires demonstration that projects are not mandated by law, surpass common practices, and contribute positively to sustainable development goals, ensuring genuine emission reductions/removals.	+ Provides flexibility in each methodology to define an additionality process. Emphasizes community-led projects with clear carbon rights and land tenure, ensuring that activities provide additional environmental and social benefits beyond business-as-usual scenarios.	○ Employs a step-wise approach using tools like AR-TOOL02 to identify baseline scenarios and demonstrate additionality through investment and barrier analyses. However, TOOL02 was hardly developed further since it has never been applied since 2012 and does not include a regulatory test.	++ Builds on the CDM. Now includes a more stringent regulatory test, as well as an additional analysis of locked-in risks. Special guidance on standardized investment analysis is expected by July 2025.	++ Builds on the CDM and applies a tiered additionality framework, requiring projects to meet benchmarks and undergo validation to prove emission reductions or removals exceed regulatory requirements and common practice.
Permanence Longevity of stored carbon and the buffer mechanisms that insure against reversal risks such as fire or pest.	+ Uses a dynamic buffer (15–60 %), referred to as a non-permanence risk buffer, based on AFOLU risk assessment; projects often qualify for the lowest level. Ensures continuous monitoring and cancels buffer credits in case of reversals.	++ Mandates a 20 % buffer contribution to address reversal risks; requires risk mitigation and continuous monitoring.	++ Mandates a fixed 20 % contribution to a risk buffer pool, with stringent requirements for community engagement and sustainable land management practices to minimize reversal risks.	− Issues temporary credits (tCERs and lCERs) that expire after a certain period, requiring periodic re-verification; lacks a centralized buffer pool, placing the responsibility of permanence on project developers.	++ Permanence is managed through a dynamic buffer based on project-specific risk assessment. Detailed guidance on the risk tool and mitigation is expected by mid-2025. Insurance solutions and permanence guarantees also permitted.	++ Employs a third-party risk assessment to determine buffer contributions; mandates implementation of mitigation actions for identified risks and requires compensation for any reversal events.
Sustainability Contribution to broader environmental and social co-benefits beyond carbon (e.g. SDGs, biodiversity).	+ Offers optional certification through the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards, allowing integration of additional biodiversity and livelihood co-benefits; not required by default.	++ Embeds the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) directly into its methodology framework; projects shall demonstrate measurable benefits to at least three SDGs.	++ All projects require improvement of local livelihoods and ecosystems; smallholder and community ownership are central to project design and benefit-sharing.	− Offers limited sustainability safeguards; sustainable development contribution is self-reported by project developers and not subject to standardized verification.	++ Strong focus on environmental, social and economic integrity, employing an integrated Sustainability Development (SD) Tool.	++ Requires a dedicated “sustainability & safeguards” documentation; alignment with IUCN principles and SDGs.
Digital Innovation Degree to which the registry uses digital tools (dMRV, APIs, blockchain) for transparency, efficiency and security.	+ Operates a semi-digital platform (“Project Hub”) for documentation and listing; lacks native API support or blockchain integration; retirements and verifications still require manual uploads and batch processing.	○ Provides digital MRV protocols and some automated documentation tools, but offers no API or ledger integration; audit processes remain largely manual.	○ Prioritizes simplicity over digitization; provides downloadable templates (similar to other standards) but lacks an integrated registry or API access – suited for smallholder contexts.	− Fully manual system with no public registry interface for live project monitoring (dMRV); no blockchain or open data support.	+ Registry and infrastructure are in development.	++ Fully digital-native system: blockchain-based ledger, live APIs for dMRV data (satellite, sensor, mobile), auto-issuance protocols, and live-retirement integrations with broker platforms.
User-Friendliness Ease of navigating documents, certification processes and support for project developers and buyers.	○ Offers extensive documentation but requires steep learning curve; registration, validation and issuance involve multiple portals and Excel/PDF workflows; onboarding typically needs third-party consulting.	− Processes are extremely complex; support is often delayed or lacks expertise, and finding the right documents remains a major challenge.	+ Designed for accessibility in smallholder contexts, with personalized support, clear templates, and a straightforward certification process; however, the absence of a self-service portal or workflow automation makes scaling cumbersome.	− Static documentation, no digital interface, and complex submission requirements make the entry barrier high – especially for first-time developers. The wording used is often highly technical, and guiding documents are difficult to locate.	− Anticipated to be even more complex than the CDM, with heavy procedural and reporting governance and little digital support to ease the process.	++ Clean, guided UI with step-by-step project creation; built-in documentation tools, live chat support, sandbox environment, and intuitive dashboard for issuance, transfer and retirement – tailored for both newcomers and professionals.
Methodology Integrity Specifies how to determine net sequestered carbon by deducting baseline, leakage and project emissions from measured biomass.	++ Provides comprehensive methodologies, including VM0047 for ARR, with complex baseline setting and monitoring procedures.	++ Builds upon the AR CDM foundation, integrating smaller methodological improvements and strengthened monitoring provisions.	+ Tailored for community-led projects, methodologies prioritize simplicity and local applicability. Less suited for technically complex or large-scale projects.	+ AR-ACM0003 forms the foundation of most AR methodologies worldwide, offering an extensive set of tools for baseline setting, leakage and deadwood accounting.	++ Will build upon AR-ACM0003, likely incorporating elements of a dynamic baseline, referred to in PACM as “downward adjustment of baseline.”	+ Allowing the use of existing AR CDM methodologies and development of new ones under ISO 14064-2 standards.
Prominence Volume of credits issued and retired, reflecting market adoption.	++ Maintains a dominant position in the voluntary carbon market, particularly in nature-based solutions and REDD+ projects.	+ Experiencing limited growth in the forestry sector; primarily known for its focus on the energy sector, supply chains and SDGs. Does not offer IFM or REDD protocols.	+ Focuses on community-led, smallholder NBS projects in developing countries, with a strong emphasis on social and environmental co-benefits.	− Never gained traction in the forestry space due to its unpopular temporary crediting approach; now inactive and being replaced by the new Article 6.4 (PACM) framework.	− Yet to be seen.	− A new entrant with a strong digital infrastructure and ISO 14064-based modular design for high integrity – its long-term uptake remains to be seen.
ICROA endorsed Whether the standard is recognised by ICROA.	✔	✔	✔	✔	Mechanism not yet operational; potential for future consideration	✔
ICVCM endorsed Whether the standard is recognised by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).	✔	✔	Under Assessment	✘	Mechanism not yet operational; potential for future consideration	Planned

© Global Woods, June 2025