Verra approved the first carbon credits under its new digital monitoring, reporting, and verification (DMRV) pilot. This move signals a major shift in how carbon credits are issued. Instead of waiting for annual verification cycles, projects can now receive high-frequency issuances, including monthly or bi-monthly approvals. As a result, the carbon market may become faster, more transparent, and more data-driven.
The first credits under this pilot came from the Foumbouni-Mitsamiouli solar farm project (Verra Project 3788) in the Union of Comoros.
Foumbouni-Mitsamiouli Solar Project Leads Verra’s Digital Carbon Shift
In addition, the project integrates 1 MW/2 MWh of battery storage. This storage system allows the solar plants to operate in hybrid mode and islanding mode. In simple terms, the plants can stabilize the grid and export clean power even when grid conditions fluctuate.
This development marked a turning point for the island’s energy system. Before the solar farms came online, the national utility SONELEC relied almost entirely on diesel-fired power plants. Electricity access remained below 60%, and supply was often unreliable. Diesel imports were costly and exposed the country to fuel price volatility.
Now, each plant generates around 12.7 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity per year. On average, the bundled project reduces 9,384 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Beyond emissions cuts, the project strengthens national energy security and creates local employment opportunities.
Most importantly, it replaces fossil fuel-based electricity with renewable solar power. For a country that depended heavily on diesel generation, this shift is significant.
Fully Digital Verification Sets a New Standard for Carbon Credit Integrity
SustainCERT acted as the validation and verification body (VVB). It conducted a fully digital verification process. Project developers submitted monitoring data electronically, and the verification process took place entirely online. This marked the first successful digital verification under Verra’s DMRV pilot.
Verra Project Hub Powers a New Digital Era
Verra launched the DMRV pilot as part of a broader plan to digitize its entire project cycle. The organization aims to improve efficiency, reliability, speed, and transparency across the voluntary carbon market.
At the center of this transformation is the Verra Project Hub. This online platform serves as a comprehensive tool for creating and managing projects under Verra’s standards programs. It allows project proponents to submit validation, monitoring, and verification documents digitally. It also integrates directly with the Verra Registry, enabling faster issuance once approvals are granted.
The platform simplifies several steps in the project lifecycle. For example:
- It enables the digital submission of monitoring data.
- It automates calculations of emission reductions and removals using built-in engines aligned with approved methodologies.
- It allows VVBs to access project records and submit verification reports directly.
- It tracks milestones, deliverables, and reviews progress in real time.
As a result, stakeholders can collaborate more efficiently. Communication between project developers, VVBs, and Verra becomes smoother. At the same time, the system enhances transparency because documentation and data are centrally managed and traceable.
Verra is also digitalizing its most widely used methodologies. Templates collect all required project information in a structured format. A built-in calculation engine then computes emission reductions or removals for a given crediting period. This reduces human error and improves consistency across projects.
Digital Project Submission Tool for QC
In parallel, the Digital Project Submission Tool strengthens quality control. It checks data consistency and completeness using automated validation logic. If data is missing or incorrect, the system flags it immediately. Corrections can be made quickly, and all changes are logged for traceability. This improves auditability and builds trust among credit buyers.
Safeguards and Phased Credit Issuance
Under the DMRV pilot, Verra introduced a phased issuance structure to manage risks.
If a DMRV-based verification request for a high-frequency issuance installment is approved, the project proponent may request 80% of the approved credits. Verra withholds the remaining 20% as a safeguard during the pilot phase.
After one year of high-frequency issuances, the project must undergo a full traditional verification. This broader review covers additional elements such as safeguards, stakeholder engagement, and other non-digitized parameters. If Verra approves this non-DMRV-based verification request, the proponent can request issuance of the remaining 20%.
This structure balances innovation with risk management. It allows projects to benefit from faster cash flow while maintaining environmental integrity.
Verra is currently piloting this digital process for other project types as well. These include carbon capture and storage (CCS) activities and clean cookstove projects. If successful, the DMRV approach could expand across multiple sectors.
LATEST:
- Verra Greenlights Record 3 Million Soil Carbon Credits From Mexico Grasslands
- Why South Africa’s Verra-Certified Grassland Carbon Credits Matter for Voluntary Markets
Carbon Market Supply and Demand Shift in 2025
While Verra pushes digital innovation, the broader carbon market also experienced notable changes in 2025.
As of December 31, 2025, more than 10,200 projects were registered across 18 major carbon credit registries tracked by MSCI. During the year, these projects issued 294 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). Since the Paris Agreement was signed in late 2016, cumulative issuances have surpassed 2.6 billion credits.
Also, according to Sylvera, new issuances declined to roughly 270 million tonnes in 2025. This marked the lowest annual issuance level since 2020.
On the supply side, renewable energy credits saw the sharpest drop. For years, market participants debated their additionality. Many buyers increasingly viewed grid-connected renewable projects as having limited incremental climate impact, especially in markets where renewables are already competitive. As confidence weakened, fewer new renewable credits entered the market.
Nature-based projects still dominate overall volumes. Forestry and land-use projects remain the largest sources of issued and retired credits. However, even within this segment, the mix is evolving. Buyers now focus more on quality, permanence, and robust monitoring systems.
On the demand side, retirements fell slightly in 2025. Yet this does not necessarily signal declining corporate interest. The number of buyers remained relatively stable. What changed was purchasing behavior.
Companies became more selective. They scrutinized methodologies, co-benefits, and verification standards more closely. In many cases, they shifted toward higher-integrity credits, even if volumes were lower. At the same time, price sensitivity increased in some segments.
Therefore, the market is not shrinking. Instead, it is maturing. Buyers demand stronger transparency, clearer impact, and better data.
Digitalization Could Restore Confidence
In this context, Verra’s DMRV initiative arrives at a critical moment. As the voluntary carbon market faces scrutiny over quality and additionality, digital monitoring and automated calculations can improve credibility.
High-frequency issuance also benefits project developers. Faster approvals improve cash flow and reduce administrative delays. Meanwhile, automated systems reduce manual paperwork and the risk of calculation errors.
For buyers, digital verification enhances confidence. Real-time data submission and traceable logs create a clearer audit trail. Over time, this may help rebuild trust in segments where credibility has weakened.
Ultimately, the Foumbouni-Mitsamiouli solar project represents more than just a renewable energy investment. It marks the beginning of a new digital chapter for carbon markets. If Verra successfully scales DMRV across sectors, the VCM could become more transparent, efficient, and resilient in the years ahead.
- READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?
The post Verra’s First DMRV Solar Project Pushes Carbon Credits into the Digital Era 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