Science and Research Network (SRN)
Connecting leading researchers to ICVCM’s mission – supporting evidence-based work on high-integrity carbon markets through the CCPs
The Integrity Council’s Science and Research Network (SRN) links independent science and research organisations with priority topics from the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) related assessments and Continuous Improvement Work Programs (CIWPs).
The goal is to bring rigorous, practical research into view so the carbon market can continue to evolve with high integrity.
Many science and research organisations are already developing innovative approaches to explore and identify emerging best practice in carbon markets. The Science and Research Network provides a structured pathway for those initiatives to contribute those insights to where they can make the greatest difference in the real world.
Key Sections
What is the Science and Research Network?
The Science and Research Network (SRN) enables the Integrity Council to turn priority questions from assessments and Continuous Improvement Work Programs into practical research. This is achieved through:
A public topic list
The Integrity Council publishes priority research gaps that have been identified during assessments and in Continuous Improvement Work Programs. Topics are framed and tagged for easy navigation and updated regularly to provide an evolving list of opportunities for engagement.
Institutional partnerships
On a case by case basis, there may be opportunities for science and research organisations to partner with the ICVCM Executive Secretariat to enable deeper coordination on key research topics. These partnerships are non‑exclusive, non‑funded and non-remunerated, with each partner using their own in-kind support to bring their expertise to support the collective endeavour of effective high-integrity carbon markets deploying scaled private climate finance. Learn more about formal partnerships.
How the Science and Research Network works
Research undertaken on topics listed on the Science and Research Network webpages is by default unpaid, meaning the Integrity Council does not remunerate research projects under this network. The Integrity Council retains discretion over whether and how to reflect, use or engage with findings from the work of research organisations under the network.
There is no obligation on the ICVCM to use any of the findings in any of its rules, frameworks or guidance, but the purpose of the network is to enable research organisations to provide information that is needed for rule evolution. The ICVCM will screen research outputs submitted to it for relevance, focus, actionability, adherence to the relevant ICVCM guidance and academic rigor with preference for peer-reviewed and formally published research.
Applicants are welcome to reference the list of topics in their own fundraising efforts. However, they must not imply endorsement by, or fundraise on behalf of, the ICVCM and may not imply or indicate in any way any obligation of ICVCM to implement any research outputs produced by the relevant science and research organisation.
Organizations should refer to the ICVCM Logo Use policy and may not use the ICVCM logo without a formal logo use agreement being in place with ICVCM.
Research topics
The following research topics and gaps have been identified over the course of the Integrity Council’s work. Each entry includes a short description, relevant tags (such as sectors, activity types, and additional context), and links to source materials, including Governing Board observations and Continuous Improvement Work Program output reports.
| Topic | Context | Integrity criteria | Relevant activity types or methodologies | Reference to Board Observation or CIWP Report with active URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approaches to definitions of avoidable and unavoidable reversals | Currently, carbon crediting programs use related but distinct definitions of each reversal type. While similar, the lack of a common definition allows for different interpretations of the minimum standard required of carbon crediting programs under integrity requirements. CIWP 5 on Permanence recognized that no definition will encompass all possible reversal scenarios and that this definition could change the way pooled buffer reserves are currently managed. Because of this, the CIWP recommended defining the terms in a way that minimises moral hazard and excludes non-credible definitions but allows for flexibility on the part of carbon crediting programs to customise the definition based on their pooled buffer reserve policies. The CIWP recommended to further benchmark current market practice, consider incorporating elements of existing definitions across programs, and seek to converge on a minimum threshold for definitions. | Permanence | ARR, CDR, IFM, REDD+ | CIWP Report: Permanence |
| Pilot stress-testing for pooled buffer reserves | Though several carbon crediting programs conduct stress testing of their pooled buffer reserve, it is not a current requirement to achieve CCP-Approval for the relevant program. CIWP 5 on Permanence agreed that requiring regular stress-testing against transparent and objective criteria would be beneficial to the market’s development. The CIWP determined that with respect to the frequency of stress testing, it was agreed that at a minimum, they should be conducted every five years, which is aligned to the validation and verification cycle for enrolled projects. Several CIWP members noted that stress-testing should be conducted by an independent party; however, the consensus recommendation is that the decision on who conducts a stress test should be determined after the parameters (of the stress-testing itself) are finalised. | Permanence | ARR, CDR, IFM, REDD+ | CIWP Report: Permanence |
| Permanence risk categorization and data sources used in project-level risk assessments | In the CCP Assessment Framework, the ICVCM does not provide specific guidance around what the project-level risk assessment must entail, and each carbon crediting program has developed their own tools and approaches, which differ materially. Not all programs address the same categories of risk or use similar parameters or datasets to evaluate categories of risk. CIWP 5 onPermanence recommended standardising the types of risk assessed, the acceptable data sources used to assess these risks, and the frequency of updating this assessment. | Permanence | ARR, CDR, IFM, REDD+ | CIWP Report: Permanence |
| Feasibility of industry-wide pooled buffer reserves to address non-permanence risk | If managed by a third party and with advances and allowance for innovation in digital monitoring, the CIWP 5 on Permanence felt that an industry-wide pooled buffer reserve could increase the monitoring and compensation periods associated with a carbon credit. An industry-wide pooled buffer reserve would serve the entire market rather than individual carbon crediting programs. The CIWP noted that the use of an industry-wide pooled buffer reserve could also mitigate some of the portfolio-level risks associated with program-level buffers (e.g., geographic or natural hazard concentration risks) by broadening the number and diversity of credits in the buffer. | Permanence | ARR, CDR, IFM, REDD+ | CIWP Report: Permanence |
| Liability allocation and role of insurance in addressing non-permanence risk | CIWP 5 on Permanence concluded that with advances and allowance for innovation and digital monitoring, insurance as a mechanism could provide for more flexibility in the length of the monitoring and compensation period tied to each credit. The CIWP recognized that carbon credit insurance is a nascent offering and further innovation or changes to liability allocation may be required to allow for underwriting policies that are 40+ years. | Permanence | ARR, CDR, IFM, REDD+ | CIWP Report: Permanence |
| Empirical testing of the accuracy of remote sensing approaches for ARR activities | It was noted by the Governing Board during assessment of the ARR categoty that empirical testing showing the accuracy of remote sensing approaches is limited and that remote sensing data can sometimes become overloaded (and become unreliable and inaccurate), especially when full canopy cover is achieved. The Board noted that future improvements in technology might solve this potential challenge. | Robust quantification | ARR, IFM, REDD+ | Board observations: ARR Part I, IFM |
| Auditor oversight for selection of alometric equations in ARR activities | Methodologies in the ARR category require that alometric equations must have been published and must follow the methodology's specified prioritization: equations specific to the forest type/tree species within the same ecoregion as the mitigation activity (used if available), and then only if not available, global equations specific to the forest type/tree species. The ICVCM Governing Board recommended to consider the auditing approach and requirements in place to address concerns related to a project proponent's optionality within a methodology, related to alometric equations. The selected alometric equations by a project proponent must be relevant and appropriate. | Robust quantification, Robust validation and verification | ARR, IFM, REDD+ | Board observations: ARR Part I, IFM |
| Appropriate application and use of MoFuSS modeling for cookstove project quantification | In cookstove projects, the values calculated for the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) are known to be highly variable and have long been subject to scrutiny. Reflecting this, definitions and calculation approaches of fNRB have undergone revisions over time and projects have had to adapt to evolving expectations. The ICVCM assessment process carefully considered the different viewpoints on fNRB and identified the need for alignment towards a consistent, sector-wide approach that can support high integrity going forward. The Governing Board concluded that values obtained from the “Modeling fuelwood savings scenarios” (MoFuSS) tool from 20 June 2024 onwards and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) default value for fNRB meet the Assessment Framework. What is needed now is guidance to appropriate apply the MoFuSS modeling tool. | Robust quantification | Cookstoves | Board Observations: Cookstoves and Biodigesters |
| Certainty for wood to charcoal conversion factor in cookstove activities | In cookstove projects, given the variability that can arise from making charcoal out of wood, the conversion factors have considerable uncertainty. Further research to establish greater confidence and/or to establish a standardized protocol to control all revelant variables that can effect the conversion rate of wood to charcoal was indentified as beneficial. | Robust quantification | Biodigesters, Cookstoves | Board Observations: Cookstoves and Biodigesters |
| Permanence for displaced (and un-havested) non-renewable biomass fuel | ICVCM's assessment of cookstove methodologies found that at present there is no reliable way to systematically and comprehensively identify non-renewable biomass that is not consumed by cookstoves or biodigesters (e.g., specific areas of forest where wood is gathered) and assess material risk of permanence related to that non-renewable biomass, so it is not currently feasible to implement appropriate measures to address them. The Governing Board recognised that further research and evaluation would be required to precisely identify material reversal risks related to non-renewable biomass and the ICVCM will be attentive to new emerging methods that can manage and account for them. | Permanence | Biodigesters, Cookstoves | Board Observations: Cookstoves and Biodigesters |
| Development of additionality requirements and guidance related to parallel sources of finance such as government or development bank support | During the assessment of cookstvoe methodologies, differences between rural and urban carbon credit projects were discussed at length by the ICVCM Governing Board. Rural projects tend to serve households who typically do not pay for either their fuel or their stove. Projects developed in these settings are, therefore, likely additional absent other funding sources. The additionality of projects where households already pay for their fuel and/or their stove are more complex, especially when in receipt of parallel revenue streams. The ICVCM assessment process noted that methodologies that use CDM Tools 1, 2 and 21 do not always have further evidential requirements to confirm the requirements of the ICVCM Assessment Framework. Evidence requirements could be added to support these CDM tools. | Additionality | Biodigesters, Cookstoves | Board Observations: Cookstoves and Biodigesters |
| Empirical testing of dynamic baseline approaches to forest projects | Initial research shows support for dynamic baseline approaches to increase the accuracy, reliability, and conservativeness of forest project quantification (Haya et al., 2023; Sanders-Demott et al., 2025; Coffield et al., 2022; Andam et al., 2008; Ferraro & Hannover, 2014). During the assessment of the IFM cateogiry, the Governing Board noted that there is still limited research providing empirical testing in this area. | Robust quantification | ARR, IFM, REDD+ | Board Observations: IFM |
| Use and oversight of default carbon fraction values in biomass estimation | Some ARR methodologies allow the use of a conservative global default value for the carbon fraction of dry biomass (from 2006 IPCC Guidelines and 2019 Refinement) in the absence of regional data. The ICVCM notes that this value is an average that may be redefined in the future. The Governing Board suggested that oversight is needed when using more specific data to ensure appropriateness. Further work may be required to determine when local data should replace global defaults. | Robust quantification | ARR | Board Observations: ARR Part I |
| Standard definition of large-scale monoculture plantations | Governing Board observations highlight that additionality risks are elevated for large-scale commercial ARR projects, especially those involving monocultures or non-native species. A key gap is the absence of a consistent, cross-program definition of "large-scale monoculture," which hampers objective, uniform additionality assessment. The lack of definitional clarity also affects oversight, benchmarking, and safeguard application. | Additionality | ARR | Board Observations: ARR Part I |
| Safeguarding against biodiversity and water risks of non-native monoculture plantations | The Governing Board emphasized the importance of robust environmental and social safeguards for ARR, especially in large-scale commercial plantations using non-native species in high-biodiversity areas. While not explicitly stated, such systems are known to carry high risks for biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water stress, and local ecosystem disruption, particularly when involving fast-growing, water-intensive species. Oversight mechanisms are viewed as critical to mitigating these risks. | Sustainable development benefits and safeguards | ARR | Board Observations: ARR Part I |
| Apporaches to address leakage for forest projects, including harmonized definitions for types of leakage | In the course of assessing methodologies in the IFM category, the Governing Board noted that leakage estimation is technically complicated and subject to significant uncertainty and variability, depending on variables such as type of IFM practices, type of forest and national market context. There is no clear scientific consensus on the best way to account for leakage, or indeed the most appropriate value that can be expected for IFM mitigation activities. Different IFM methodologies prescribe different rules and approaches for estimating leakage, leading to a range of possible outcomes and values. ICVCM’s assessment noted that the methodologies assessed have different approaches to capture the potential for higher leakage deductions that have been shown in the literature. There is no harmonized definition across programs for the various leakage types that may occur (e.g., negative, market, activity-shifting, carbon, international etc.), which may impact alignment and clarity across the carbon market. Research could be conducted to harmonize leakage definitions and approaches across programs. | Robust quantification | ARR, IFM, REDD+ | Board Observations: IFM |
| Oxidation factor in landfill gas utilaztion and flaring (LFG) activities | Oxidation factors used in current and historical methodologies for landfill gas project methodologies are applied in different ways. There is no clear scientific consensus on the best oxidation factor to be used in most landfill gas mitigation activities. Since the publication of the IPCC Guidelines on National Inventories in 2000, the value of 10 per cent has been used in national inventory calculations and adopted by several carbon crediting methodologies. More recent literature indicates that oxidation factors may be underestimated under current methodologies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19244486/). | Robust quantification | LFG | Board Observations: LFG |
| Renewable energy project additionality demonstration | Methodological experts note there can be activity-to-activity variance (so that even within a given group of potential activities that are largely competitive without carbon revenue, some activities might be additional). The relevant Multi-Stakeholder Working Group noted the potential relevance of the levelized cost of electricity and the penetration rate of each renewable energy technology type, within the context of the project's development as key determinants of a projects additionality. | Additionality | Renewable energy | Board Observations: Renewable Energy |
| Determining and modeling deforestation drivers | Modeling deforestation drivers can help to predict the baseline scenario's emissions more effectively and can also inform the additionality decision to be more accurate. The assessment process of the REDD+ category considered the effect of uncertainty in predicting future deforestation in jurisdictions using historical averages. Because the baseline is an average of past observed deforestation, it may either fall above or below future observed deforestation. | Additionality | REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
| Improving leakage estimation methods in subnational REDD+ | The Governing Board noted ongoing concerns around how REDD+ methodologies estimate and discount for leakage, particularly the assumption that certain land types (e.g., protected areas) are not subject to leakage. ICVCM encourages further research and analysis into the empirical basis of these assumptions and how leakage baselines are determined. | Robust quantification | REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
| Identification of early signs of declining deforestation rates (not associated with carbon payments) | The ICVCM assessment process considered that baseline-setting through historical averages would be conservative under an increasing deforestation rate. Conversely, under a declining deforestation rate (where the decline is happening in the absence of expectations of carbon payments), historical averages could be expected to lead to systematic over-crediting. In this case, the presence of biased residuals, i.e. the difference between modelled and observed deforestation levels, would lead to an overestimation of emission reductions. Early signs of declining deforestation rates could be national policies or regional programs to end deforestation or timber companies committing to better practices. If deforestation rates decline or early signs of their decline exist, the project's additionality could be legitimately questioned, potentially raising the question like whether crediting periods should be shortened to reflect the rate of possible deforestation rate change. | Robust quantification | REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
| Options for third-party scrutiny and ground-truthing of forest modelling results | The assessment process noted that over time, as mitigation projects are nested within jurisdictional programs, the exploitation of imperfect risk allocation (i.e., that some project developers would have information that identified areas were actually less risky than the allocated risk determinations designated them to be) might cause a distributional issue but that it would not result in over-crediting for the REDD+ jurisdictional program (as over-crediting in one area would result in under-crediting in another). The assessment process also noted that, in line with UNFCCC decisions and the Paris Agreement, countries are expected to implement REDD+ at the national level, aiming towards halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. Structured methods for third-party scrutiny and ground-truthing of the risk-allocation deforestation modelling would build confidence in this methodological approach. | Robust quantification | ARR, REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
| Replenishment of the buffer reserve following a reversal that exceeds the initial buffer pool contribution required by the program or methodology | The CCP Assessment Framework requires that where a reversal exceeds the total contribution to the pooled buffer reserve made by the relevant Jurisdictional REDD+ Program proponent prior to the reversal, the participating Jurisdictional REDD+ Program proponent is required to replenish the pooled buffer reserve prior to generating any further credits. The assessment process considered how to assess whether the replenishment was to a level that is proportionate to the reversal risk. Alternatively, the assessment could consider whether projects are required to replenish equivalent to the actual amount of reversal that occurred (beyond their buffer pool contribution), not just the risk of that reversal's occurence. | Permanence | ARR, REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
| Causal allocation in reduced deforestation that has occurred to REDD activities (instead of non-carbon credit activities influence) | The assessment process noted that additionality under jurisdictional REDD+ departs from the traditional project-based approach. Additionality under jurisdictional REDD+ rests on the assumption that deforestation drivers are best tackled through actions like enforcement, enacting laws/regulations, and putting in place incentives at a scale that national authorities can provide. Carbon payments are then required to make protecting and restoring forests more economically attractive when compared to the activities that drive deforestation. The assessment process also noted that in the presence of unplanned/illegal deforestation, additionality testing approaches such as regulatory and financial tests are either not applicable or are of unclear relevance when the government is the program proponent. The assessment process also noted that the relevant carbon crediting programs met requirements related to the submission of implementation plans that identify new and/or enhanced activities and that these must be validated and verified. The causal effects of these activities to prevent deforestation, must be supported and evidence of the causal effects of REDD activities verified to confirm that the project was in fact additional. | Additionality | ARR, REDD+ | Board Observations: REDD |
How to get involved
There are two ways you can engage with the SRN. Firstly, by independently reviewing and undertaking research, and secondly, in partnership with the ICVCM.
The Integrity Council welcomes interest from science and research organisations including: universities, research centres, networks and particularly from organisations operating in, headquartered in, or active in African, Asian, and Latin American countries.
Submitting research outputs
1) Review topics
Review the list above. The list will be updated regularly as ICVCM continues its work on assessment of programs and methodologies and as work on continuous improvement progresses. Please sign up below for a dedicated newsletter to get updates when new topics are shared.
2) Submit research outputs
Submit any outputs produced by your organization to info@icvcm.org. Please use the email subject “SRN Contribution”, and refer to the topic(s) from the list you that your outputs (e.g., paper, brief, dataset, tool) focus on.
The Integrity Council will acknowledge submitted research and it will be screened internally for alignment with relevant guidance, academic rigor and relevance to ICVCM work, with preference to peer-reviewed and formally published research.
The Integrity Council retains discretion over how any outputs are used. Outputs may be used inform further assessment decisions, refinements of the Assessment Framework and Continuous Improvement Work Programs. Where directly relevant, such contributions will be duly referenced and acknowledged by the ICVCM.
Working in partnership
1) Submit an expression of interest
The Integrity Council may, but is not required to, agree non‑exclusive, non‑funded partnership arrangements for the Science and Research Network. A list of current partnerships is provided below.
If your organization would like to pursue a partnership, please submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) form below. The ICVCM will review the EOI and share any further requests for information and guidance on partnerships. Please note that by default any contributions are unpaid.
Once submitted, the ICVCM team will get in touch.
2) ICVCM Due Diligence
As follow-up, your organization may be asked to provide information on alignment with partnership policies and frameworks.
For such partnerships, the Integrity Council retains discretion over how any outputs are used. Where directly relevant, contributions by science and research organizations will be duly referenced and acknowledged by the ICVCM.
Current partnerships
SHIFT‑CM (Science for High‑Integrity Frameworks to Transform Carbon Markets)
A collaborative research initiative led by The Nature Conservancy and Yale University. Under the SRN, this formal agreement focuses on nature‑based solutions and empirically grounded research to strengthen integrity in methodologies and market practice.
Further SRN partnerships will be listed here as they are formalised.
Partnership Expression of Interest Form
What researchers can expect
Research Alignment
Alignment of research programs and projects with continuous improvement work towards integrity in the carbon market.
Priority Topic Visibility
Visibility on priority topics where rigorous research can move the market forward.
Presentation Opportunities
You may be invited to present findings in webinars, panels or expert forums hosted by the Integrity Council.
Proposal References
You are encouraged to reference SRN topics in proposals to substantiate the market relevance of your work.
Grant Proposal Protocol
If research organisations intend to refer to the topics identified in the Integrity Council’s calls for research to support grant proposals, they are requested to inform the Integrity Council and adhere to the ICVCM Logo Use Policy.
SRN Newsletter signup
Get SRN updates – including new topics, publication highlights and event invitations – through the Integrity Council’s SRN newsletter.
SRN Newsletter SignUp
"*" indicates required fields
