Map ExplorerCarbon MRV PoC

Problem & research

Problem exploration and existing solution research

Problem statement

Carbon MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) focuses on quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions or removals for carbon crediting, national inventories, and results-based climate finance. Credibility depends on:

  • Measurement: Consistent baselines, boundaries, and methodologies (e.g. GHG Protocol, IPCC).
  • Reporting: Structured, auditable data that can be shared with registries and programs.
  • Verification: Independent verification by accredited bodies that the reported data is complete and correct.

Who is affected:

  • Project developers and operators: They report data and bear the cost of verification. When systems are fragmented or opaque, they face repeated audits and unclear provenance requirements.
  • Accredited verifiers: They review data and issue opinions; they carry liability. They often lack full visibility into data lineage (e.g. subcontractor data, sensor calibration) and work in manual, document-heavy workflows.
  • Registry operators: They are custodians of credits and claims. Centralized registries become single points of failure and trust; interoperability with other programs is difficult.
  • Buyers and intermediaries: They need to trust that claims are real and not double-counted. Opaque or fragmented systems increase due diligence cost and risk.
  • Programs (e.g. Article 6, voluntary standards): They need consistent, auditable records that can align with UNFCCC and national rules. Fragmented pipelines and incompatible formats make this hard.
  • Communities and civil society: They are affected by project quality and integrity. Lack of transparency and accountability undermines trust in carbon markets.

Current failures:

  • Fragmented data pipelines: Data is collected in many formats and systems; verifiers often lack visibility into full provenance (e.g. subcontractor data, sensor calibration). There is no shared “commitment” to what was measured that can be referenced across systems.
  • Baseline and methodology disputes: Inconsistent or contested baselines and methodologies lead to inflated or inconsistent claims, undermining market trust (see World Bank, UNFCCC material). A tamper-evident binding between “what was measured” and “who verified it under which methodology” is missing.
  • Cost and scale: Scaling credible verification without exploding costs is a bottleneck; manual checks and repeated audits are expensive. Machine-verifiable attestations could reduce redundant work.
  • Double-counting and integrity: Without a shared, tamper-evident view of what was measured and verified, double-counting and misreporting remain risks. Centralized registries do not inherently interoperate; no common commitment layer exists.
  • Centralization of trust: Trust is concentrated in a few registries and platforms. Decentralization—multiple registries, portable attestations, open verification—is not the norm.
  • Privacy vs. accountability: Full reports are often submitted to central systems. A design that minimizes data exposure (only commitments and signed attestations in the shared layer) while preserving accountability is largely absent.

Existing solutions and limitations

1. UNFCCC MRV frameworks

  • What: International frameworks for national reporting and transparency (e.g. biennial reports, NDCs). Include guidance on MRV for mitigation.
  • Strengths: Authoritative; align with Paris Agreement.
  • Limitations: Focused on national/institutional reporting; not designed for real-time or project-level verification at scale; data formats and systems vary by country.

2. Voluntary carbon standards (e.g. Verra VCS, Gold Standard)

  • What: Methodologies and registries for voluntary carbon credits. Define how to measure, report, and verify project-level outcomes.
  • Strengths: Widely used; methodologies and verification procedures are public.
  • Limitations: Centralized registries; verification is often manual and document-based; limited machine-readable, shared provenance of “what was measured and who verified it.”

3. National and program registries

  • What: Government or program-specific registries (e.g. for Article 6, REDD+). Store project and credit data.
  • Strengths: Align with compliance and program rules.
  • Limitations: Fragmented; interoperability and cross-registry reconciliation are hard; no shared commitment layer for integrity.

4. Digital MRV pilots

  • What: Various pilots (e.g. IoT sensors, digital reporting tools, blockchain-based registries) to improve data quality and auditability.
  • Strengths: Show demand for better provenance and automation.
  • Limitations: Often proprietary or single-program; no common attestation format or commitment scheme for cross-program use.

Gap

A shared, tamper-evident record of (1) what was measured (dataset commitment), (2) who verified it (verifier attestation), and (3) under what rules (methodology version) would support:

  • Audit-grade provenance that reviewers can reproduce or challenge without relying on a single central database.
  • Verifier accountability and reduced reliance on opaque manual checks; signatures are falsifiable.
  • Interoperability across registries and programs (e.g. commitment-based reconciliation and double-counting checks).
  • Decentralization: No single party need control the attestation record; multiple registries can coexist.
  • Privacy: Raw data stays offchain; only commitments and attestations are in the shared layer.
  • Openness and transparency: Open formats and specs; anyone can verify attestations and commitments.

This PoC demonstrates a minimal version: dataset commitments, signed attestations, and a simple registry, with a path to onchain anchoring and alignment with CROPS (Censorship Resistance, Open Source and Free, Privacy, Security) and walkaway test (see Design philosophy).

References