.jpg)
Understand more about voluntary carbon standards and methodologies and how landowners and carbon credit buyers can choose the right ones for them.
If you’re a landowner considering if a voluntary carbon project is right for your land, one of the first steps is navigating the different voluntary carbon standards and methodologies. Standards and methodologies underpin how voluntary carbon credits projects are recognised and credits are issued, so understanding how these work is a crucial part of developing carbon credits on your land.
Every project that generates voluntary carbon credits must be recognised under a voluntary carbon standard from an organisation that sets the rules for how carbon projects are designed, monitored, and verified (with the organisations that build and run them often referred to as carbon credit programs or schemes). A voluntary carbon standard provides the framework that determines what it looks like for a project to be high quality, and what’s required for a project to have carbon credits issued to it.
Once you’ve identified a suitable standard, the next step is choosing the methodology that applies to your project’s specific activity. A particular methodology is nested within a particular voluntary carbon standard to describe how to correctly measure and account for the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions or removals achieved by a particular type of activity, according to that standard. Generally speaking, you can’t mix-and-match standards and methodologies.
So, as a landowner designing a carbon project, two key questions will guide your early decisions:
Understanding these two layers of carbon standard and carbon methodology is essential to developing a project that will be recognised in credible carbon markets.
From credit buyers’ point of view, choosing carbon credits issued under a particular standard and methodology helps them understand how the project has been built and managed, and the specifics of the carbon credits available. Buyers often look for credits issued from a particular standard and methodology based on what meets their internal needs for quality, reliability and trustworthiness. Buyers want to understand how the projects are managed and credits are generated as part of their decisions about which credits to buy, and the different standards and methodologies available are a key part of this.
As a buyer, the two key questions to consider are:
What Carbon Standards and Methodologies Do
Carbon standard provides the overarching governance system for carbon projects by setting out how projects must be designed and managed so that real, additional, measurable, and permanent climate benefits happen.
From this basis, a methodology then provides detailed instructions for how to quantify those benefits for a specific activity type. It describes how to estimate and measure GHG reductions or removals, how to establish baselines, and how to account for uncertainties and risks specific to the activities occurring a part of the project.
| Voluntary Carbon Standard | Voluntary Carbon Methodology |
|---|---|
| How a carbon project is governed, built and managed. | How the activities within a carbon project reduce or remove GHG emissions, and how to account for these. |
| What level of quality and integrity is required? | Which types of activities will generate the GHG emissions and reductions? |
Because methodologies operate at the activity level, a single standard may include dozens of them, each tailored to a particular project type. For example:
Each time a project undertakes a different kind of activity to generate greenhouse gas emission reductions or removals, it must use the appropriate methodology to accurately measure and report those outcomes.
Carbon standards ensure quality and consistency across all projects, while the methodology ensures technical accuracy and credibility for each project type. Together, they form the foundation of integrity in the carbon market: Standards defining the rules of the game, and Methodologies describing the playbook for each position on the field.
Over the past two decades, a range of established and emerging carbon standards have developed to support different project types, geographies, and communities. Understanding this landscape is important for anyone developing a project as not every standard is relevant in every location, and not all will suit your goals or circumstances.
The most widely used standards include:
Alongside these well-established systems, a new generation of emerging standards has begun to appear. Often these standards are designed for specific technologies or regional contexts such as a focus on blue carbon, biochar, or soil carbon, and region-specific systems developed to serve African or Asia-Pacific projects.
Each standard has its own priorities. Some are global in scope and suitable for large-scale or corporate-led projects. Others are more community-focused or designed for smaller landholders. This means that when you’re assessing your options, it’s not simply a matter of choosing from a long list, instead it’s about finding the standard that speaks to your project type, location, and the type of credit buyers you’d like to sell to.
A standard that’s ideal for a multinational forestry company may not be practical for an individual farmer, and vice versa. Alternatively, you might be looking for a standard that meets the needs of a particular credit buyer. The right fit depends on your project’s scale, the type of activity you plan to undertake, your monitoring capabilities, and your long-term objectives.
Comparing Verra and Gold Standard
Two of the most recognised international carbon standards are Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Gold Standard for the Global Goals (GS4GG). Both provide credible frameworks, but they differ in focus, scale, and the types of project activities they support.
Verra offers one of the widest ranges of methodologies, including forestry and soil carbon to industrial and emerging carbon removal technologies. In comparison, Gold Standard’s strength lies in smaller-scale, community-based, and renewable energy projects with strong links to sustainable development outcomes. The table below summarises the key differences to help you assess which might best fit your project’s goals and capacity.
| Feature | Verra VCS | Gold Standard (GS4GG) |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Very broad across sectors (AFOLU, energy, industrial, CDR, blue carbon) | Focused on energy efficiency, renewables, and community / sustainable development projects |
| Scale | Suitable for small to very large projects; often data-intensive | Strong microscale path for smallholder and community projects |
| Native Forest Projects | Strong — afforestation, reforestation, REDD+, and blue carbon well covered | Limited forestry coverage; more emphasis on smaller land-use and agroforestry |
| Landowner Fit | Suitable for both individual landowners (via grouped projects) and large corporates | Strong fit for smaller landowners, community initiatives, and sustainability-driven corporates |
| Monitoring / Complexity | Higher technical requirements; robust MRV systems expected | Generally simpler at small scale, but rigorous for larger projects |
After evaluating several voluntary carbon standard options, MyNativeForest chose to develop projects under the Verra Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), and using Methodology VM0047: Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) for our project.
This decision reflects both the nature of our work to restore permanent native forests on degraded land, and our commitment to international best practice and integrity.
1. Global recognition and credibility.
Verra’s VCS is the most widely adopted standard in the world. For developers and buyers alike, it represents a trusted framework backed by more than 15 years of operational experience and thousands of validated projects.
2. A strong fit for native forest restoration.
The VM0047 methodology is specifically designed for projects that establish or restore natural forests and woodlands. It’s particularly well-suited to New Zealand’s landscape, where permanent native forest regeneration can deliver both carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits.
3. Robust accounting for permanence and ecosystem health.
VM0047 requires detailed monitoring of biomass growth, forest composition, and ecosystem resilience. This ensures that credits represent durable and scientifically sound carbon removals.
4. Alignment with emerging global integrity benchmarks.
Verra is recognised by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) as aligning with their Core Carbon Principles (CCPs). This helps ensure that Verra-issued credits remain compatible with future definitions of “high-integrity” climate action.
5. Shared values.
Verra’s emphasis on transparency, environmental integrity, and long-term impact aligns closely with MyNativeForest’s mission: to restore Aotearoa New Zealand's native ecosystems while delivering measurable and enduring climate benefits.
For anyone developing a carbon project, understanding carbon standards and methodologies is not just an administrative step, it’s the foundation of credibility and impact. The choice of standard and methodology determines how your project will be evaluated, how your carbon credits will be recognised, and how the market will value your work.
At MyNativeForest, our decision to work under Verra and VM0047 reflects a long-term commitment to credibility, transparency, and environmental integrity. It’s about building a foundation that can scale responsibly to ensure that every hectare of restored native forest contributes meaningfully to climate goals, biodiversity, and the future resilience of Aotearoa New Zealand.
To learn more about how wider environmental and social impacts are included within voluntary carbon standards and methodologies, explore our other voluntary carbon market articles.
