The Gold Standard’s TPDDTEC methodology for clean cooking projects (versions 2–3.1) received conditional CCP approval, building on the earlier approval of version four in March. Projects must meet new requirements, including updated baseline emissions assessments and the exclusion of credits beyond technical lifespan, to qualify for the CCP label.
CAR’s methodologies for adipic acid production, a key source of industrial nitrous oxide, also gained CCP approval. The China protocol was approved unconditionally, while the U.S. version includes a production cap tied to Title V permit limits to mitigate market leakage. Although supporting industrial emission reductions via abatement technology and setting a precedent for CCP-aligned treatment of avoided emissions, the approvals do not translate to immediate credit supply expansion.
The ERS registry (focused on afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) projects) was approved at the program level following structural updates, which include enhanced baseline settings, leakage controls, and safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. While this marks ERS’s entry into the CCP ecosystem, individual methodologies must still undergo assessment, meaning ERS credits are not yet CCP-eligible.
Despite the latest ICVCM approvals, few, if any, of the credits under the newly endorsed methodologies are expected to qualify for the CCP label. According to Veyt data, 33.5 million credits in circulation are under the approved methodologies – 21.5 million from Gold Standard’s cookstove projects*, 12 million from CAR’s U.S. adipic acid methodology and none under CAR’s China version to date (see Figure 1). However, none of these credits presently meet the updated CCP criteria. A key limiting factor is the treatment of retroactive labelling. Gold Standard permits CCP labelling only for unissued credits and only within two years of the end of the monitoring period. This differs from Verra’s reconciliation mechanism, for example, which allows previously issued credits to be made CCP-compliant through cancellation and reissuance—see our analysis on this here. As a result, none of the cookstove credits currently in circulation, including those generated under TPDDTEC version four (approved by ICVCM in March), are eligible for CCP labelling.
As of the most recent market assessment, the volume of CCP-labelled credits in circulation remains unchanged from March. A total of approximately 33.8 million credits currently carry the CCP label, accounting for only 4% of the 817 million total credits in circulation. These CCP-labelled credits are primarily associated with two methodologies: AM0023, which represents around 22 million credits, and ACM0001, which accounts for 8.6 million – see Figure 2.
By contrast, a significantly larger share -354 million credits, or 43% of the total market- is now considered non-eligible for CCP labelling. This segment is dominated by credits generated under ACM0002, which alone represents 30% of all circulating credits, followed by Gold Standard’s TPDDTEC methodologies (versions 1-4), which together account for approximately 4%. While the majority of TPDDTEC credits – about 90%, or 29 million – were issued in the post-2020 period and therefore fall within the post-Paris era, the likelihood of these credits being used under CORSIA Phase I remains limited. The limitations stem from the administrative requirements for eligibility, including the need to obtain corresponding adjustments, insurance coverage, and formal letters of authorisation from host countries – see our analysis on this here. These conditions introduce barriers that reduce the likelihood of large-scale uptake, particularly for already-issued credits. As a result, these volumes are at risk of becoming part of a structurally oversupplied segment with limited near-term demand.
Beyond the confirmed non-eligible pool, another 24% of credits in circulation stem from methodologies that were not submitted for ICVCM assessment. This includes the inactive Verra’s VMR0006 methodology used for cookstove projects, as well as Verra’s REDD methodologies such as VM0007, VM0009, and VM0015. These credits remain outside the ICVCM’s formal evaluation process and therefore have no immediate pathway to CCP eligibility.
A further 10%, or 87 million credits, originates from projects lacking clearly defined methodologies, combining multiple methodologies, or issued under compliance schemes outside the voluntary carbon market’s standard frameworks, such as the ARB offset protocols administered by ACR and CAR.
The remaining 17% of credits, approximately 145 million, are tied to project types currently under ICVCM review. These include methodologies related to HFC refrigerants, afforestation and reforestation, improved forest management, water purification, and rice cultivation. Veyt continues to adjust its estimates of real market supply based on updates from the ICVCM assessment pipeline.
*The numbers listed here include cookstove projects and cookstove projects accompanied by safe water supply projects. As the ICVCM’s approval of TPDDTEC v2-v3.1 is limited to cookstoves only, the credits in circulation figures shown here are bigger than the actual figures that might be eligible for the CCP-label.
Specialising in data, analysis, and insights for all significant low-carbon markets and renewable energy.
