On December 12, Verra mentioned in its press release that The United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has approved using the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program during the first phase (2024–2026) of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).
This decision marks a significant milestone for the emerging CORSIA carbon market. Subsequently, airlines with a vital new source of carbon credits can meet their aviation emissions mitigation mandates.
Additionally, ICAO released an updated Eligible Emissions Units document, outlining specific VCS credit categories and vintages approved for use in CORSIA’s initial phase.
Aviation’s Carbon Footprint Set to Soar by 2050
Air travel has become a major contributor to global carbon emissions. Climate experts predict it will be one of those toughest sectors to decarbonize in the coming decades. North America is expected to remain the top emitter, while Asia’s aviation market, driven by China and India, is projected to grow the fastest. The Asia-Pacific region overall is likely to reduce its gap with North America, solidifying its position as the second-largest emitter.
Statista has presented Bloomberg BNEF data showcasing aviation-related carbon emissions which are set for a sharp rise across all regions over the next 30 years. In 2019, North America generated an estimated 293 million metric tons of CO₂ from aviation, but it can exceed 440 million metric tons by 2050. The Asia-Pacific region trailed at 230 million metric tons in 2019 but is forecasted to reach 418 million metric tons by 2050.
- Globally, aviation emissions could reach nearly 2 billion metric tons by mid-century—almost 2X the pre-pandemic levels of 2019 and nearly 4X the emissions recorded in the 1990s.
Addressing this steep rise will require bold, innovative strategies to decarbonize air travel and mitigate its impact on climate change.
CORSIA’s First Phase: Expanded VCS Eligibility
With this approval, the number of Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) that may become eligible for CORSIA labels will get a significant boost. While most VCUs are covered under this decision, ICAO has excluded specific project types and methodologies.
What’s Included?
Here’s what remains eligible for Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) projects in REDD+ countries:
- Small-scale projects: Those generating less than 7,000 tCO2e of reductions and removals annually.
- Projects using specific methodologies: These include VM0012, VM0017, VM0021, VM0022, VM0024, VM0026 (and VMD0040), VM0032, VM0033, VM0036, VM0041, and VM0042.
- “Nested” projects: Projects integrated into jurisdictional REDD+ accounting under Scenario 2a or Scenario 3 of Verra’s Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Framework.
Additionally, Verra’s new REDD methodology (VM0048) has been made eligible for CORSIA’s first phase under these guidelines.
What’s Excluded?
Verra has raised concerns about certain exclusions in CORSIA’s first phase (2024–2026) eligibility rules, highlighting inconsistencies in how they’ve been applied across crediting programs. The organization is actively working with ICAO to address these issues in future eligibility decisions.
So, the key exclusions that are under review are:
1. Cookstove Methodologies
Credits from methodologies AMS-II.G. and VMR006 were excluded from the VCS Program but remain eligible under other programs using similar methods. Verra questions this inconsistency and urges ICAO to reassess these exclusions.
2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Methodologies under sectoral scope 16, which includes CCS projects, have been excluded. While ICAO is still evaluating if carbon dioxide removal (CDR) activities meet CORSIA requirements, Verra emphasizes that CCS extends beyond CDR and plays a critical role in limiting global warming. Verra believes CCS projects meet CORSIA criteria and should be fully eligible, particularly in countries with ICAO-approved greenhouse gas programs covering these activities.
3. Certain AFOLU Projects
AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses) projects not “nested” into jurisdictional REDD+ frameworks were excluded despite using advanced methodologies. Verra argues for stronger recognition of these projects’ high-quality accounting, particularly under methodologies like:
- VM0045 Methodology for Improved Forest Management Using Dynamic Matched Baselines from National Forest Inventories
- VCS Methodology VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation,
- VCS Methodology VM0048 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.
Furthermore, Verra stresses the importance of fair and consistent eligibility criteria for CORSIA. By addressing these exclusions, ICAO can ensure better access to high-quality carbon credits and support impactful climate action in the aviation sector.
Mandy Rambharos, CEO, Verra noted,
Source: ICAO
Article 6 Authorization and Updates for CORSIA
Verified Carbon Units (VCUs) from 2021 onward must have an “Article 6 Authorized – International Mitigation Purposes” label to qualify for use under CORSIA. This requirement aligns with the Paris Agreement’s mitigation framework. Verra’s Article 6 Label Guidance provides detailed information on these labels, and an updated version, reflecting decisions from COP29, will be released early next year.
Moving on, Verra is also finalizing additional assurance requirements. This will ensure there is no double claiming of mitigation outcomes for VCUs with vintages from 2021. These requirements will soon be published to guide project proponents in meeting the necessary standards.
Next Steps for Verra
Verra plans to release a new CORSIA Label Guidance document in the coming weeks. This document will provide details on several key updates, including:
- The VCS Program’s revised CORSIA eligibility.
- New labels differentiating between the pilot phase (2021–2023) and the first phase (2024–2026).
- Instructions for project proponents to request CORSIA labels for VCUs generated by their projects.
Additionally, the press release highlighted that the Verra Registry has already been updated to show these changes. This means VCUs with CORSIA labels from the pilot phase will be automatically updated to display the new label designations, ensuring consistency with the latest eligibility decisions. These steps aim to streamline the process and enhance clarity for stakeholders as CORSIA’s first phase progresses.
This approach offers more flexibility to airlines to meet CORSIA requirements and supports the global aviation industry’s efforts to carbon neutrality. Moreover, the expanded eligibility is expected to create more demand for VCUs while supporting credible emissions reduction efforts worldwide.
LATEST: Verra Unveils Guidance for ICVCM CCP Label on Carbon Credits
In another scenario, on December 13, Verra published a detailed guide to help project proponents apply the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label to Verified Carbon Units (VCUs).
Verra mentioned,
The release of ICVCM CCP Label Guidance, v1.0 follows the ICVCM’s recent approvals of the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program (May 2024), VCS Methodology VM0048 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (November 2024), and VCS Methodology VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (December 2024).
Automatic Labeling for Approved Projects
When the ICVCM approves a methodology, projects using it automatically receive the CCP label on their issued VCUs provided they meet all additional criteria. However, there are situations where projects may need to manually request the CCP label.
This includes cases where VCUs were not automatically labeled but still qualify for the label, or when a project updates its methodology to an ICVCM-approved version for past verification periods. To facilitate this process, Verra will launch a digital form for CCP label requests in 2025, accompanied by detailed instructions to guide users through the application process.
Updating to ICVCM-Approved Methodologies
Verra has released two guidance documents to streamline methodology updates:
- Methodology Change and Requantification Procedure, v4.0 allows projects to update their methodology or version for past verification periods.
- Procedure to Change Methodology through a Project Description Deviation, v4.0 helps projects transition to a different methodology or version for current and future monitoring periods.
With these updates, Verra aims to make it easier for projects to meet ICVCM standards, ensuring high-quality carbon credits while supporting global climate action. The new guidance provides the tools needed for projects to align with evolving standards in the voluntary carbon market.
The post Boosting Aviation Carbon Credits: ICAO Greenlights Verra’s VCS Program for CORSIA Carbon Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits