Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria requirements that are applicable to all projects under this methodology are detailed in the sections below. Other eligibility criteria requirements shall be taken from the Riverse Standard Rules:

• Measurability

• Real

• TRL

• Minimum impact

Additionality

To demonstrate additionality, Project Developers shall perform regulatory surplus analysis, plus either investment or barrier analysis, using the Riverse Additionality Template.

Regulatory surplus analysis

Regulatory surplus analysis shall demonstrate that there are no regulations that require or mandate project activities.

Project Developers must demonstrate that CO₂ capture was not mandated under an Emissions Trading System (ETS). A site may be eligible if the site had already met its ETS obligations, and the captured CO₂ exceeded those required reductions, and the site complies with the No double counting criteria.

At the European Union level, projects automatically pass the regulatory surplus analysis, which has been conducted by the Riverse Climate Team. Project Developers are only required to provide a country-level regulatory surplus analysis.

Investment analysis

Investment analysis may be used to prove that revenue from carbon finance is necessary to make the project investment a financially viable and interesting option. The investment may cover:

• The creation and launching of new sites

• Expansion of capacity of existing activities

• Expansion by installing new processes

Business plans shall be provided as initial proof for investment analysis. During verification, audited financial statements shall be used to demonstrate that the initial estimates from the business plan were reasonable, and that carbon finance was used as initially described for the expected investment.

For launching brand new sites, additionality can be simply demonstrated if the business plan shows that carbon finance is expected to make up at least 80% of the company’s revenue, as detailed in the Riverse Additionality Template.

Note that for investments in expansion, only the additional carbon reductions enabled by the expansion shall be eligible for Riverse Carbon Credits.

Barrier analysis

Barrier analysis may be used to prove that the project faces financial, institutional, or technological barriers to ongoing operations that can only be overcome using carbon finance. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Financial barrier: financial analysis demonstrating that the project is not financially viable, evidenced by net cash being lower than the working capital requirements, or proof that the project is not meeting the projected financial targets in the business plans and loan documents, and that carbon finance would make it financially viable.

• Institutional barrier: description of new regulation that the project must make costly changes to comply with, financial analysis showing that the project cannot fund the changes on their own, and carbon finance is necessary to make it viable.

For any type of barrier analysis, audited financial statements must be provided as proof. These documents should either demonstrate the financial status to prove financial barriers, or show that the project could not independently fund solutions to overcome institutional or technological barriers.

Permanence

The permanence horizon for mineral carbonation of materials projects certified under this methodology is 1000+ years. This is ensured in part by the eligible uses of carbonated materials, which include only materials that won't be incinerated (i.e. concrete).

Carbon is considered upon carbonation/material production, but the final end use of the material affects its risk of reversal. Therefore, credits are issued upon sale or use of the product, to ensure appropriate end use of the product with minimal risk of reversal. These shall assess notably the risk of reversal due to:

• burning

• acid degradation from acidic groundwater infiltration

• acid degradation from acid rain.

Projects that carbonate solid materials to add to concrete or asphalt, that have high reversal risks and uncertain final uses, shall prove that they are incorporated into the final product in order to issue RCCs. Projects that carbonate cement directly are exempt, since manufacture of concrete is already considered a permanent end use. To assess the reversal risk, Project Developers shall assess:

• the expected end use of carbonated products, including the building/structure type and geographic location, and

• the type of carbonate produced and its specific risk of reversal under different heat and pH conditions.

Risk of reversal

Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Carbonation risk evaluation to evaluate the risk of carbon storage reversal, based on social, economic, natural, and delivery risks.

Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score to each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The Riverse Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.

The Project Developer, Riverse Certification team, or the third-party auditor may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.

Each reversal risk with a high or very risk score is subject to:

• risk mitigation plan, developed by the Project Developer, that details the long-term strategies and investments for preventing, monitoring, reporting and compensating carbon removal reversal, or

• additional contributions to the buffer pool, at a rate of 3% of verified removal Riverse Carbon Credits for each high or very high risk

No double counting

Project Developers shall sign the Riverse MRV & Registry Terms & Conditions, committing to follow the requirements outlined in the Riverse Standard Rules, including not double using or double issuing carbon credits.

The following double counting risks have been identified for mineral carbonation projects. Project Developers shall follow the outlined requirements for each risk. See the Appendix for more examples on double claiming.

Double counting risk	Explanation	Requirement
Double issuance of carbon credits with downstream material users	Users of low-carbon concrete may seek to issue carbon credits in building methodologies in regulated or voluntary carbon markets	Identify all direct downstream users/buyers/actors in their supply chain. Provide the company/ organization name, name of an individual contact person at the company/organization, and their contact information (email address at minimum). Provide signed agreements and/or sales contract clauses stating carbon credits have already been issued, and users will not claim/issue carbon benefits in the product.
Double claiming of removals or reductions with EPDs	Reporting removals and/or reductions in EPDs means the carbon benefit may be claimed by downstream users throughout the supply chain, who may issue credits or claim other environmental labels for the carbon benefit already counted and sold elsewhere	Provide the product’s EPD including actual GWP values with carbon benefits, as required by norms/standard, and a clause specifying when users must exclude carbon benefits in calculations using values from the EPD. For ex-ante projects that don't yet have an EPD, a signed statement may be provided to validate the project. Credits shall only be issued ex-post upon providing the EPD as described above. See the Appendix for more detailed guidance and examples.
Double issuance of carbon credits with upstream CO2 capture projects (e.g. DACCS projects)	Carbon capture projects are well incorporated in carbon markets (e.g. BECCS, DACCS), and Project Developers must agree on which entity is issued credits/how to repartition credits or carbon finance	Identify all CO2 providers in their supply chain. Provide the company/ organization name, name of an individual contact person at the company/organization, and their contact information (email address at minimum). Provide signed agreements and/or sales contract clauses stating carbon credits have already been issued, and CO2 providers will not claim/issue the same carbon benefits in the carbonated material.
Double claiming of removals or reductions with ETS	CO2 used for carbonation may be captured from heavy emitting industry sites that are covered by an ETS. If the sites capture carbon emissions, they can claim the benefit in the ETS, or participate in the carbon credit issuing project, but not both.	Provide the product's official ETS reporting documents, showing that reductions that were issued carbon credits under the present methodology are not included in ETS reporting. For ex-ante projects that don't yet have an updated ETS reporting document, a signed statement may be provided to validate the project. Credits shall only be issued ex-post upon providing the ETS reporting document as described above. See the Appendix for more detailed guidance and examples.

Co-benefits

Project Developers shall prove that their project provides at least 2 co-benefits from the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework (and no more than 4).

Common co-benefits of projects certified under this methodology, and their sources of proof, are detailed in Table 1. Project Developers may suggest and prove other co-benefits not mentioned here.

SDG 13 on Climate Action by default is not considered a co-benefit here, since it is implicitly accounted for in the issuance of carbon credits. If the project delivers climate benefits that are not accounted for in the GHG reduction quantifications, then they may be considered as co-benefits.

Table 1 Summary of common co-benefits provided by projects certified under this methodology. Co-benefits are organized under the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) framework.

UN SDG	Example	Proof	Indicators
SDG 12.2 Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources	The project’s will be measured by the , according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's methodology, and compared to the circularity of the baseline product.	Types of inputs used and waste status	% circularity, % improvement from baseline
SDG 9.4 Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable	Increase strength, durability and lifetime of concrete, extending infrastructure lifespan.	Internal testing, R&D results	% extended lifespan
SDG 8.4 Improve global resource efficiency in consumption and production	Reusing alkaline waste materials in the carbonation process diverts them from other waste treatment methods.	Invoices and operations records	tonnes of waste material used
SDG 6.3 Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials	Projects that carbonate and reuse cement wastewater contribute to improved and useful wastewater treatment and water quality	Invoices and operations records	m3 of wastewater used

Substitution

The carbonated material shall fulfill the same function and meet the same quality and performance standards as the baseline material it replaces. Project Developers shall prove this using representative test results from pilot testing, R&D laboratories, or full-scale operations.

Project Developers shall justify that use of their carbonated product results in concrete (or other final product) with the same quality and performance as the baseline material, considering:

• durability

• service lifetime

• compressive strength (where relevant)

• use-phase carbonation (where relevant)

• other performance characteristics related to non-concrete end uses.

If the expected use-phase carbonation in the baseline scenario is larger than the project scenario, this shall be accounted for in the baseline GHG quantification. Inversely, if the project is expected to lead to larger use-phase removals, this shall be conservatively excluded from quantification. It may be considered a co-benefit.

Environmental and social do no harm

Project Developers shall prove that the project does not contribute to substantial environmental and social harms. Projects must follow all national, local and European (if located in Europe) environmental regulations.

In addition to completing the Riverse Carbonation risk evaluation below, Project Developers must prove the following elements:

For fossil CO₂ use, Project Developers shall prove that the CO₂ was not generated or emitted for the sole purpose of carbon storage, and that it was captured from an existing CO₂ emission source.

For biogenic CO₂ use, Project Developers shall prove that the original biomass used meets the EU's RED III Article 29 sustainability criteria for biomass (even if the project is not located in the EU). This includes the following, summarized here for informative purposes only:

• If the biomass is proven to be waste, no further sustainability requirements apply (see positive list in the BiCRS Biomass feedstock module).

• If the biomass is not waste, Project Developers shall prove that it did not come from:

  • Primary or old-growth forests

  • Highly biodiverse forests or other wooded land designated as such by competent authorities.

  • Protected areas for rare or endangered ecosystems/species (unless proven that biomass production does not interfere with conservation goals).

  • Highly biodiverse grasslands

  • Heathland, wetlands, or peatlands

  • Recently deforested, converted or degraded ecosystems (within past 20 years)

• Forestry biomass shall follow the requirements listed above, and

  • Respect international, national and regional legal requirements

  • Promote forest regeneration by avoiding large clear-cuts or extraction of stumps/roots

  • Protect biodiversity and soil quality

  • Come from sustainably managed forests

ESDNH risk evaluation

Project Developers shall fill in the Riverse Carbonation risk evaluation, to evaluate the identified environmental and social risks of projects. The identified risks include:

• Heavy metal leaching from stored alkaline feedstock

• Dust and particulate generation from alkaline feedstock storage and handling

• Water use in the carbonation process

• Fugitive CO₂ leaks during the carbonation process

• Hazardous waste generation from the use of chemical additives

• Leaching pollutants from carbonated products during the use phase

• Demand for fossil CO₂ as a valuable product increases fossil fuel output

• Environmental impacts from opening a new mine or quarry to obtain alkaline feedstock

Project Developers shall assign a likelihood and severity score of each risk, and provide an explanation of their choices. The VVB and Riverse’s Certification team shall evaluate the assessment and may recommend changes to the assigned scores.

All risks with a high or very high risk score are subject to a Risk Mitigation Plan, which outlines how Project Developers will mitigate, monitor, report, and if necessary, compensate for any environmental and/or social harms.

Additional proof may be required for certain high risk environmental and social problems.

The Project Developer, the Riverse Certification team, or the VVB may suggest additional risks to be considered for a specific project.

Note that the life-cycle GHG reduction calculations account for the climate change impacts of most environmental risks. Nonetheless, Project Developers shall transparently describe any identified GHG emission risks in the risk evaluation template.

All risk assessments must also address the Minimum ESDNH risks defined in the Riverse Standard Rules.

Leakage

Carbonation of materials must not contribute to activity shifting leakage. The following leakage risks are already covered by other requirements in this methodology:

• Displacement of baseline carbonation: a small amount of atmospheric carbon removal via carbonation may be modeled in the Baseline Scenario where relevant, effectively deducted from the project's carbon storage.

• Increased emissions during use: leakage emissions from use of carbonated products downstream of the project are mitigated by the Substitution requirement, where project materials must have the same performance as baseline/replaced products.

• Upstream and downstream emissions: considered in the life-cycle based GHG quantifications.

Any material sources of leakage that cannot be mitigated shall be conservatively included in the GHG calculations.

Targets alignment

Projects that issue avoidance RCCs on the basis of cement reduction must prove that they lead to at least a 73% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the baseline scenario. This is aligned with the European Union’s 2040 Climate target and described in the Riverse Standard Rules.

The scope of the reduction is concrete production impacts for the given concrete mix design. This is assessed at the project-level for determining the baseline scenario, and shall be proven by following the GHG quantification section.

This eligibility criteria may be disregarded for projects that only issue RCC on the basis of carbon storage from carbonation.