CCP-approved ARR methodologies: Equitable Earth M001 joins the list
The list of CCP-approved ARR methodologies grew on 3 November 2026. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) announced that Equitable Earth's M001 Methodology for Terrestrial Forest Restoration v1.3 meets its Core Carbon Principles (CCP) Assessment Framework. M001 joins a short list of afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR) methodologies whose credits can carry the CCP label. The first on that list was Verra's VM0047, in December 2024.
M001's conditions go beyond carbon. It requires native species and rules out commercial harvesting. It also requires projects to engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities and to provide livelihood benefits. Each condition has to be shown with evidence from the ground.
What the Integrity Council decided on 3 November
The same announcement covered two methodologies:
Verra VM0052 Accelerated Retirement of Coal-Fired Power Plants Using a Just Transition v1.1. This covers early retirement of grid-connected coal plants paired with renewable electricity. It is outside the scope of this article.
Equitable Earth M001, Methodology for Terrestrial Forest Restoration v1.3. This is in the ARR category. The ICVCM says it is the programme's first methodology to receive CCP Approval.
According to the ICVCM announcement, the assessment found that M001 meets the framework's requirements on additionality and permanence. It also met the requirement the Integrity Council calls "robust quantification". These sit among the ten Core Carbon Principles, which also cover "Sustainable development benefits and safeguards".
The same announcement gives the running totals: 13 carbon-crediting programmes approved as CCP-Eligible since March 2024, and 47 methodologies approved since May 2024. It also cites an estimated 120.7 million credits approved to use the CCP label, a figure the ICVCM attributes to MSCI, accessed 22 October 2026 (ICVCM).
Two trade outlets reported the decision independently: Carbon Herald on 4 November and Ecobiz Asia on 5 November. Equitable Earth's own M001 page shows v1.3 as the current version, with the core document dated 2 October 2026.
CCP-approved ARR methodologies: the list today
The ICVCM keeps a category page for ARR methodologies. When we checked it on 5 November 2026, it had not yet been updated for this decision: it listed five CCP-approved entries and still showed M001 at v1.2 under internal assessment. Adding the 3 November approval gives this picture.
Programme | Methodology | Versions | Where the approval is published |
|---|---|---|---|
Verified Carbon Standard (Verra) | VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation | v1.0 and v1.1 | |
ACR | Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Lands | v1.0 to v1.2, with conditions | |
Isometric | ISM Reforestation | v1.1 | |
Isometric | ISM Mangrove Restoration | v1.0 | |
Equitable Earth | M001 Methodology for Terrestrial Forest Restoration | v1.3 |
The ACR approval has a limit worth knowing. The ICVCM's July 2025 notice says the methodology meets the additionality requirements only for "natural forest establishment and restoration". Several other ARR methodologies, including Gold Standard's A/R methodology v2.1, were still shown as under assessment on the ICVCM's ARR page on 5 November 2026.
What M001 asks of a restoration project
The ICVCM and both trade reports summarise M001 in the same terms. As the ICVCM announcement puts it, the methodology:
requires native species;
promotes "habitat recovery for native and threatened biodiversity";
prohibits commercial timber production and harvesting;
requires projects to actively engage Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and to provide livelihood benefits.
Carbon Herald adds that M001 covers the restoration of degraded forest landscapes and assisted natural regeneration.
One caution before going further. This article works from the ICVCM's summary and the two trade reports. The full M001 v1.3 document is published on Equitable Earth's site, alongside supporting protocols such as a "Protocol for Field Calibration". Its monitoring sections set what a project must record and how. Read them before you design a single survey.
Turning those requirements into field evidence
Each of the four requirements is a claim a verifier will want to trace back to something that happened on a specific day, at a specific place. The mapping below is our suggestion of the records that can support each one. It is not an M001 requirement.
Native species: name what went into the ground
A planting survey can ask which species were planted at each site, from a list the project developer sets. Photos of seedlings can go through AI plant identification. On CitizenClimate, each match comes back with its names and a confidence score. The IUCN conservation status is stored with it too (Protocol). Photos taken offline are saved and identified when the phone reconnects. The platform does not treat AI output as ground truth: an ecologist can check and override any identification (biodiversity monitoring).
Habitat recovery: repeat the same biodiversity survey
Recovery is a change over time, so the same survey has to be repeated at the same places. CitizenClimate's biodiversity dashboard reports species totals and diversity indices such as Shannon-Wiener, Simpson's and Pielou's evenness, and flags species the IUCN lists as Vulnerable or worse. Its own FAQ is clear that the current dashboard shows cumulative metrics and "does not yet provide time-series views" (biodiversity monitoring). For change over time, export the raw records as CSV or JSON and compare monitoring periods in your own analysis.
No harvesting: record incidents where they happen
A ban on commercial harvesting needs a way to notice and record cutting. Community members who walk the site can file an incident survey with a photo and a GPS point, and the app records when it was made. In CitizenClimate, surveys that require a location will not start without a GPS fix. Offline records keep their original timestamp, and the sync date is stored separately (Protocol). Submissions can never be deleted; a faulty record is archived with a reason from a fixed list, so the trail stays complete.
Community benefit: keep the social record as long as the carbon record
Engagement and livelihood benefits are shown with household surveys repeated over the project period, plus a way for people to raise problems. CitizenClimate's survey builder includes templates for all 17 SDGs (field data collection app). Its grievance mechanism tracks each case from "Pending" to "Under Review" to "Resolved". Grievances cannot be deleted, and the person's name is not shown to the project developer or to other members (Protocol).
What changes on the ground
For project developers. A CCP-approved ARR methodology gives buyers a reason to look at a project, but the approval is about the methodology, not about any one project. Each project still goes through validation and verification under the programme's rules. If you are choosing between methodologies, the table above is the short list. Then read each methodology's monitoring sections side by side, because the field burden differs.
For VVBs. M001's non-carbon conditions turn into evidence questions. Were the species planted native? Has habitat recovered over the monitoring periods? Has any harvesting happened? Did communities take part and benefit? A dated, located record with the photos its survey asked for is easier to sample and trace than a spreadsheet compiled months later. Direct read access for verifiers helps too: CitizenClimate's VVB role is read-only and sees all project data and grievances (Protocol).
For communities. A methodology that requires engagement and livelihood benefits makes community work part of the evidence, not an add-on. The people who plant and patrol the site are also the ones best placed to record what is happening on it. In CitizenClimate, members earn points for their submissions and, where a project offers them, local currency rewards set per project and per survey.
Where community-led dMRV fits, and what it does not do
Community-based monitoring suits the parts of a restoration project that satellites cannot see well: which species went into the ground and whether they survived, and who was consulted when something went wrong. Satellite and modelled carbon estimates are a separate layer that each methodology defines for itself.
Be clear about the limits. Whether a project meets M001 or any other methodology is for the programme and an independent verifier to decide. CitizenClimate's data is structured to align with the monitoring requirements of Verra VCS, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo, Puro.earth and Carbon Standards International. CitizenClimate is not certified, accredited or endorsed by any standard body, and it does not issue credits. Our Verra alignment page sets out how surveys can be configured for VCS projects. Equitable Earth is not among the standards on our alignment pages, and nothing here implies a relationship with it or with the ICVCM.
Frequently asked questions
Which ARR methodologies are CCP-approved?
As of 5 November 2026: Verra VM0047 v1.0 and v1.1, ACR Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Lands v1.0 to v1.2 (with conditions), Isometric ISM Reforestation v1.1, Isometric ISM Mangrove Restoration v1.0, and Equitable Earth M001 v1.3, approved on 3 November 2026. Check the ICVCM's ARR page for later decisions, because more ARR methodologies are still under assessment.
What does CCP approval of a methodology mean?
It means the Integrity Council found the methodology meets its CCP Assessment Framework. For M001, the ICVCM pointed to additionality and permanence, and to "robust quantification" of the carbon benefit. Credits from a CCP-Eligible programme that use an approved methodology can then carry the CCP label. It is not a rating of any single project, which still needs validation and verification.
Does Equitable Earth M001 allow timber harvesting?
No. According to the ICVCM's summary, M001 prohibits commercial timber production and harvesting. It also requires native species and supports habitat recovery. Projects that plan a timber or mixed-use model will need to look at a different methodology, and should read each methodology's applicability conditions in full before deciding.
Can community-collected data be used as evidence under M001?
M001's full monitoring rules sit in the methodology document on Equitable Earth's site, and they decide what counts. In general, community records are easier to use as evidence when each one is dated and located and cannot be deleted. It also helps when the verifier can read them directly. Confirm the specific requirements with the programme and your VVB.
Start collecting evidence your verifier can trace
If you are planning a restoration project under any of the CCP-approved ARR methodologies, set up your monitoring surveys before planting starts, so the baseline is on record from day one. Download the free app and build your first survey.
Comments