Methodology Development and Revision Procedure

Development Phase

The creation of a new Methodology or the revision of an existing one may be triggered by one or more of the following three (3) situations: 

1. Methodology Development/Revision Proposition. Based on strategic objectives and/or the feedback collected internally and from stakeholders such as Developers, VVBs, external experts, and ERS entities, the Secretariat may develop or revise a Methodology and its associated documents and submit it to the TAB. The Secretariat may draft the development/revision with other ERS Entities, and external experts gathered in a Working Group. The Methodology developed/revised must exhaustively detail the rules, requirements and procedures in all the elements of the Methodology, including but not limited to:
   1. Eligibility criteria; 
   2. Ecological Recovery Pillar with its Principles and Methods; 
   3. Livelihoods Pillar with its Principles and Methods; 
   4. Carbon Pillar with its Principles, Methods and its associated Quantification Methodology, specifically: 
      • Determination of the Project boundary, including selection of relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs.
      • Establishment of a baseline scenario.
      • Demonstration of additionality.
      • Quantification of net GHG removals:
        • Determination of the baseline scenario;
        • Determination of the Project’s removals; 
        • Determination of Project emissions; 
        • Determination of leakage;
        • Uncertainty and associated parameters.
   5. Determination of GHG reversal risk and a reversal mitigation plan.
   6. Monitoring and Reporting of achieved net GHG removals and Project interventions. 
2. Methodology Development/Revision Mandate. The TAB may mandate the Secretariat to develop/revise a Methodology. The mandate must come with the following guidelines:
   • The aim and rationale for the Methodology Development/Revision; 
   • The scope of the Methodology Development/Revision; 
   • A provisional timeline for Methodology Development/Revision;
   • If applicable, the expected risks associated with the proposed Methodology or the Project type;
   • The scope and duration of the expected Public Comment Period, if different from the standard thirty (30) days; 
   • The necessity to engage with external experts (individuals or organisations) to review the Methodology developed/revised. 
3. Regular updates. The Secretariat must review and update Methodologies every two (2) years to align its requirements with the latest market best practices and latest science. A review or update to the Methodology may also be requested by the TAB before two (2) years.

Review Phase

1. Review. The TAB must review and respond to the Methodology Development/Revision Proposition within thirty (30) consecutive days or any pre-defined timeline. If the TAB fails to respond within this period, the proposition is considered rejected. Based on their review, the TAB may:

• Accept the Methodology Development/Revision Proposition;
• Request the Secretariat for further revisions. A Methodology Development/Revision Proposition can be sent back to the Secretariat up to five (5) times, after which it will be deemed rejected; 
• Request the Secretariat to engage with additional external experts, gathered into a Working Group, alongside the TAB to review the Methodology Development/Revision Proposition to ensure its accuracy and robustness; 
• Reject the Methodology Development/Revision Proposition. 

2. Justification. In every case, the TAB must provide a written justification for its decision.
3. Public Comment. 
   1. Depending on the Methodology, Project type, and scope of development/revision, a Public Comment Period may be required to account for Stakeholders' comments and feedback. 
   2. A Public Comment is mandatory when:

• A new Methodology or Methodology document, such as a tool not previously established in any other document, is proposed. 
• A significant revision to the eligibility criteria, the Livelihoods, Ecological Recovery or Carbon pillars that significantly alters the approach for baseline setting, monitoring and reporting. This specifically includes the carbon baseline scenario and additionality demonstration. 

1. If necessary, the Secretariat must organise and launch a Public Comment Period for at least thirty (30) consecutive days unless a different period is mandated by TAB. 
• The Call for Public Comment will be published on the ERS website and social media. 
• The Secretariat must proactively reach out to identified key Stakeholders, including local stakeholders where Projects are certified. 
• ERS must strive to include diverse views from ecologists, carbon market experts, and livelihood experts.
2. Consultation Digest. The Secretariat assesses all comments, feedback and suggestions received during the consultation and summarises them in a Consultation Digest, which must include:

• A structured review of all suggestions, with the Secretariat’s response on whether or not these suggestions will be implemented;
• A justification for each comment or suggestion that is accepted or rejected.

5. Timeline. The Secretariat must publish the Consultation Digest no more than 75 business days from the closing date of the Call for Public Comment on the ERS website and social media. if this timeline is exceeded, ERS must issue a public justification for the delay.

Approval Phase

1. Final Methodology Version. If no Public Comment Period is warranted, the Secretariat must incorporate comments from the TAB (including independent experts if mandated) and submit the Methodology document to the TAB for final review and approval. Where there was a Public Comment Period, the Secretariat must incorporate relevant comments and suggestions into the Methodology document for review and approval by TAB.
2. Final Standard Development/Revision. The TAB can:
   1. Accept the Final Methodology document.
   2. Deem the Final Methodology version to be incomplete and send it back to the Secretariat for further revisions. This can be done an unlimited number of times. If a Public Comment Period was required, the TAB can deem its feedback was not properly integrated. 

Grace Periods

Withdrawal

Outdated methodologies or methodologies identified by Stakeholders and/or the TAB as overestimating net GHG removals must be immediately withdrawn. If any significant issues or "red flags"