ICVCM Approves BioCarbon, Cercarbono, Plan Vivo as CCP-Eligible Programs: What It Means for Carbon Credit Buyers

clearbluemarkets.com

by clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 points

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has approved three new carbon credit programs under its Core Carbon Principles: BioCarbon Standard, Cercarbono, and Plan Vivo (PV Climate). This brings the total to 13 approved programs, covering an estimated 95% of cumulative emissions in the voluntary carbon market. Each program has specific conditions: BioCarbon requires version 4.1 or later, Cercarbono requires protocol 4.5.2 or later, and Plan Vivo requires version 5.7 with accredited validation. These approvals signal stronger governance, transparency, and independent monitoring across the market.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Good to see the ICVCM adding more programs. The 95% coverage claim is big, but I'd like to see how they count cumulative emissions. Still, three new approvals, two from Colombia, is a step toward more diverse standards.

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

The conditions matter. Buyers need to check which version of each standard applies. If a project uses an older version, it won't get the CCP label. That's a practical filter, not just a stamp of approval.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

They also said 66 methodologies evaluated, 41 approved. But those are mostly for AFOLU. Where are the energy or industrial ones? The article mentions biochar and livestock, but not much on grid or storage projects.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

The Latin American angle is interesting. Cercarbono operates in 25 countries with 130 million credits. That's a real footprint. But the article doesn't say how many of those credits will actually get the CCP label after methodology checks.

solar_winds_05·1 month ago·1 pts

Plan Vivo has 15.9 million credits, mostly community nature projects. That's smaller but focused. The requirement for accredited validation instead of independent experts is a good tightening. I'd want to see the actual list of approved methodologies before trusting the label.