Common questions,
answered directly

The primary differences are scientific governance, transparency, and focus. Teravent's Science Advisory Board has real power to refuse methodology applications and revise standards based on new evidence - independent of commercial pressure. We publish all Board decisions, including declined applications and dissenting opinions. Our geographic focus is the Global South, and our team and governance are deliberately structured to reflect that. We also have no commercial interest in credit volume - our revenue model is based on registration fees, not percentage-of-credit economics.

Yes, in some cases. Projects verified under other standards may be eligible for Teravent registration if their methodology corresponds to an approved Teravent methodology and their verification data meets our MRV requirements. Dual-registration applicants must demonstrate that no double-counting of credits would occur. A bridging validation assessment is required. Contact registry@teravent.com to discuss your specific situation.

Teravent currently accepts projects across six carbon removal pathways: afforestation and reforestation (forest carbon), agricultural soil carbon, biochar, ocean alkalinity enhancement, enhanced rock weathering, and direct air capture. Nature-based conservation and avoidance projects are not within scope - Teravent focuses exclusively on measurable net carbon dioxide removal. We publish a list of approved methodologies on the Standards & Protocols page.

The typical timeline from initial application to credit issuance is 6-18 months, depending on project complexity, pathway, and whether a methodology already exists or needs to be developed. A full validation by an approved third-party verifier typically takes 3-6 months. Projects in regions with limited accredited verifier coverage may take longer. We provide a detailed indicative timeline during the eligibility review stage.

Teravent charges a registration fee structured as a fixed application fee plus a per-tonne issuance fee on verified credits. We also offer a subsidised registration pathway for small projects (under 5,000 tCO₂e per year) in Least Developed Countries, supported by our partnership with the Agroforestry Initiatives. Full fee schedules are available on request. We do not charge percentage-of-revenue fees, which we believe create perverse incentives to inflate credit volumes.

Teravent has a tiered response protocol. A first monitoring failure triggers a formal notice and remediation plan with a defined cure period. Continued non-compliance results in credit suspension - no new credits are issued until compliance is restored. In cases of material ongoing failure or evidence of deliberate misreporting, the project may be deregistered and previously issued credits placed under review. All enforcement actions are published publicly.

Teravent uses a permanence buffer pool to manage reversal risk. A percentage of credits from each nature-based project is held in the buffer rather than issued, sized according to pathway-specific and project-specific risk factors. If a reversal event occurs (fire, disease, deforestation), buffer credits are cancelled to compensate. The buffer sizing methodology uses worst-case risk scenarios, and buffer levels are reviewed at each monitoring period.

Teravent operates an independent grievance mechanism accessible to any party - including project-affected communities - who has concerns about a registered project or Teravent's own conduct. Grievances can be submitted via our online portal, by post, or through our local partner organisations in project regions. All grievances receive a written acknowledgement within 10 working days and a formal response within 60 days. The grievance log and outcomes are published annually. See our Grievance Resolution Policy for full details.