FAQ

Introduction

What is the voluntary carbon market?

The voluntary carbon market enables the purchase of carbon credits on a voluntary basis. Companies use these markets to offset their emissions in alignment with sustainability goals rather than compliance with mandatory regulations.

What are carbon credits?

Project-based carbon credits represent the reduction or removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. These credits can be traded or sold, allowing entities to offset their emissions.

Who issues a carbon credit?

A carbon credit is issued by a carbon crediting program or “standard”. Carbon crediting programs perform three basic functions: (1) develop and approve methodologies for issuance of carbon credits; (2) review projects and credits against these methodologies, with oversight from third-party auditors (VVBs); and (3) operate registry systems that issue credits and track how they are used.

Why do companies buy carbon credits?

Companies buy carbon credits for several reasons, including aligning with global sustainability standards, enhancing their market image, and pre-empting future regulatory changes that might impose stricter emission constraints.

What is offsetting?

Offsetting is when a company retires a carbon credit to compensate for its operational emissions.

How effective is carbon credit trading as a tool to fight climate change?

Carbon trading assigns a monetary value to the cost of emitting carbon and the cost of reducing carbon emissions, creating a financial motivation for reductions and investments. International carbon trading can stimulate politicians and businesses to prioritise the lowest cost emissions reductions first, wherever they may be, maximizing efficiency in addressing climate change. In contrast, without carbon trading, companies are very limited in the scope of their emissions reductions activities as they can only address climate change specifically within their own operations, even if the costs of doing so are prohibitive.

What is the climate change mitigation hierarchy and how does offsetting fit in it?

The mitigation hierarchy outlines steps to address greenhouse gas emissions: (1) avoid emissions through energy efficiency and conservation, (2) reduce emissions by changing business practices, (3) substitute high-carbon energy sources with low-carbon where possible, and (4) offset remaining emissions. Carbon offsetting acts as a supplementary mechanism within broader climate change mitigation strategies. A 2023 study by Ecosystem Marketplace found that companies purchasing carbon credits are more likely to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions year-on-year than non-buyers[1].

How can individuals participate in voluntary carbon markets?

Individuals can buy carbon credits to offset their personal emissions, such as those from travel, home energy use, or other activities. Various platforms offer individuals the opportunity to contribute to projects directly, but we recommend the Gold Standard marketplace: https://marketplace.goldstandard.org/collections/projects/products/tasc-improved-cookstoves-rural-zambia

What does the term “carbon neutral” mean?

Carbon neutrality signifies that an entity has balanced its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing an equivalent amount of carbon credits and using them to offset the emissions for a particular period. It can apply to the emissions of a company, department, product, event, or any entity.

What does Net Zero mean? How does it differ from carbon neutrality?

Net Zero, as defined by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), refers to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities to as close to zero as possible. Beyond achieving deep decarbonization, any remaining GHG emissions are balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon removal. According to SBTi, to claim Net Zero, a company must set science-based targets aligned with limiting warming to 1.5°C, reduce its emissions by at least 90-95%, and neutralize the impact of any residual emissions.

In contrast, carbon neutrality permits the use of carbon credits as offsets for some or all operational emissions. Carbon neutrality may be achieved by offsetting any amount of carbon emissions with an equivalent amount of carbon offsets, without necessarily reducing emissions first, however in practice it is usually achieved through a combination of operational emissions reductions, other environmental commodities (like renewable energy procurement) and carbon offsetting.

What are co-benefits, and why are they important in carbon credit projects?

Co-benefits such as biodiversity enhancement and local community development increase the overall value of carbon credit projects, making them more appealing and impactful. Often co-benefits are measured by reference to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, improved cookstove projects like those implemented by TASC are frequently validated as contributing toward SDGs like (1) No Poverty, (3) Good Health and (5) Gender Equality. This is because improved cookstove programs create social impacts that are or equal or perhaps even greater impact than the climate benefit of reducing wood fuel consumption.

What are retirement and cancellation of carbon credits?

Retirement refers to the use of a carbon credit to offset emissions, effectively removing it from the market. Cancellation ensures a credit cannot be reused or resold but is neither to be used as an offset.

What is the difference between emissions removals, emissions reductions and avoided emissions?

• Emissions reductions – refer to actions that decrease the amount of greenhouse gases released from a specific source compared to a baseline scenario, such as upgrading to more energy-efficient technologies.
• Avoided emissions – involve activities that prevent emissions from occurring that would have otherwise happened under a business-as-usual scenario, like preserving a forest that was scheduled for logging.
• Emissions removals – describe processes that actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequester them, such as through afforestation or carbon capture and storage technologies.

Are removals, reductions and avoidance of equal importance or are certain projects better than others?

The effectiveness of emissions removals, reductions, and avoided emissions may be compared on measures of environmental integrity, implementation, and cost. Emissions reductions are endorsed for their immediacy, however there can be challenges with implementation costs for the change in activity and the measurement and reporting.

Avoided emissions offer tremendous scalability – think of the impact of saving a rainforest or closing a coal-fired power plant – however there have been big challenges measuring the additionality, establishing a credible baseline, and accounting for potential leakage—emissions moving from one area to another.

Finally, emissions removals offer an attractive vision of an advanced society that has mastered the carbon cycle, finding natural and man-made techniques to sequester as many GHG emissions as we create. If we drill down in more detail, removals should be divided into nature-based removals – like afforestation or biochar projects – and technical removals projects like carbon capture and storage. Nature-based projects, like their counterparts in the category of avoided emissions, can offer phenomenal scalability and co-benefits, however implementation costs and payback periods are often unattractive to commercial lenders. The most forward-looking solutions – technical removals – are celebrated by technologists and futurists however in practice they are constrained by technological limits, astronomical costs, and questions about their long-term viability.

If we take a critical look at all the approaches, we can see that no single approach suffices on its own. In the short run it is most cost effective and practical to focus on reducing emissions and avoiding emissions. In the long run some removal projects must be financed because there is no evidence that advanced civilisation can continue without the creation (and removal) of some greenhouse gas emissions.

How do developers secure funding for carbon credit projects?

Funding can be secured through a variety of sources, including private investors, public grants, and pre-sales of carbon credits. Developers often need to present robust project plans and validation reports to attract financing.

Market

How do voluntary carbon markets differ from compliance carbon markets?

In contrast to compliance carbon markets, which operate under government mandates requiring emissions reductions, voluntary markets are not legally enforced. Examples include the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the California Cap-and-Trade Program, which both aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting emission limits and allowing trading of emission allowances.

What is a cap-and-trade system and how does it compare to project-based carbon credit trading?

Cap-and-trade systems set a total cap (or limit) on total emissions and companies operating within the cap buy or sell permits to emit GHG emissions. The limited supply of permits creates a financial incentive to reduce emissions, as companies with lower emissions can profit by selling their extra permits to higher emitters. The largest cap-and-trade market is the EU ETS.

Cap-and-trade systems and project-based carbon credit trading (like those traded in the VCM) are distinct mechanisms and effective in different contexts. Cap-and-trade systems set a firm limit on overall emissions, providing clear targets, and promoting broad compliance through the trading of allowances. This method is efficient for large heavy industries with predictable emissions patterns. In contrast, project-based credits encourage specific reductions or removals from targeting initiatives, such as reforestation or renewable energy projects. They are more appropriate as a mitigation tool for companies that have a more flexible global footprint and the ability to shift production easily from one country to another.

How is the price of carbon credits determined?

Pricing in the voluntary carbon market is influenced by several factors, including the quality of the offset, supply and demand, project type, location, the varying costs of implementing projects, and the perceived value of their co-benefits.

What are the most common standards for verifying carbon credits?

The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard (GS), and the Clean Development Mechanism are the largest and longest established standards, though the latter is now on hiatus while the United Nations prepares its successor. Other established standards include the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), American Carbon Registry (ACR), Plan Vivo, Global Carbon Council (GCC) and Architecture for REDD Transactions (ART-TREES).

What are the criteria for a project to qualify for carbon credits?

Carbon credits must be developed under an existing methodology and program, or a methodology must be developed specific for the project type in question. Credits must also represent emission reductions that are additional, quantifiable, permanent, and verifiable. Projects must also ensure no negative externalities, such as social displacement or environmental damage, undermining their credibility. An example is large hydropower projects which, while once popular under the CDM, are no longer eligible under prevailing standards due to fears that these projects lead to the displacement of local communities and unintended local environmental impacts such as habitat and wildlife destruction.

How is additionality determined in carbon credit projects?

Additionality requires proof that the emissions reductions achieved by the project would not have occurred without the financial incentives provided by the sale of carbon credits, often evidenced by overcoming significant barriers.

What are the risks associated with buying carbon credits?

The primary risks include the potential for investing in projects that fail to deliver the expected environmental impact, the possibility of fraud in credit issuance, and market volatility. Due diligence and selecting credits verified by stringent standards are essential to mitigate these risks.

How do registries and verifiers ensure the quality of carbon credits?

Registries provide a permanent electronic record of the creation (or “issuance”), trade and use of carbon credits to provide stakeholders with transparent access to information and to prevent double counting. Validation and verification bodies (VVBs) ensure the projects comply with carbon credit methodologies and program rules to ensure genuine environmental impact.

What role do brokers and consultants play in the voluntary carbon markets?

They offer expertise in navigating the market, often pairing services related to the procurement of other environmental commodities – such as renewable energy, green gas, or compliance carbon credits – with support in voluntary carbon markets. Consultants will usually assist a company to calculate its carbon footprint and offer other sustainability services in addition to selling carbon credits to help their clients achieve targets.

Project Cycle

What are the steps for creating a carbon credit?

• Select a peer reviewed methodology from a carbon crediting program, also known as a Standard.
• Open an account with the program and submit all required documents, including a draft project description that is open for a 30-day public commenting period.^[2]
• After the comment period, complete a project design document that is reviewed by a certified third-party auditor to determine whether the project meets the rules and requirements of the Standard.
• The third-party auditor’s assessment is reviewed by the Standard’s technical review committee.
• If approved, the project developer submits their carbon credit project for registration and then monitors and measures emissions reductions or removals for an initial monitoring period.
• The project is then verified by an independent, third-party that submits a report to the technical review committee.
• Once verification is approved by the Standard, the project submits a request for an issuance of credits.
• Once issued, each credit is assigned a unique serial number and tracked in a secure, public registry.

What types of projects generate carbon credits?

Projects that generate carbon credits include household energy efficiency programs like improved cookstoves or water filters, renewable energy installations, forest conservation, methane capture from landfills, and agricultural programs that sequester carbon.

What is a carbon credit methodology and what is its purpose?

A carbon credit methodology establishes guidelines for measuring and validating greenhouse gas reductions or removals from a particular project. Its purpose is to ensure accuracy and consistency in quantifying the environmental benefits of a particular type of activity. For example, The Gold Standard “TPDDTEC” methodology is indeed designed for decentralised energy efficiency projects, like those which replace traditional biomass cooking stoves with cleaner and more efficient alternatives in developing countries.

How are baselines calculated for carbon credit projects?

Baselines are calculated by establishing a scenario that measures or estimates emissions in the absence of the project. This involves historical data analysis, consideration of regional developmental trends, and measuring or modelling similar activities in the project area. The baseline must be conservative and well-documented to ensure credibility.

How do developers ensure the additionality of a carbon credit project?

Additionality in carbon credit projects is measured by demonstrating that the carbon reduction would not have occurred without the financial incentive provided by the carbon credits. This involves a counterfactual analysis where project developers must prove that their project’s emissions reductions are above and beyond what would have happened under a “business as usual” scenario. This often requires showing that the project is not mandated by law, is not financially viable without the sale of carbon credits, and represents a real, measurable, and verifiable change in emissions compared to a baseline scenario.

How is leakage accounted for in carbon credit projects, and what techniques are employed to mitigate it?

Leakage refers to the unintended increase in GHG emissions outside the project boundary as a direct result of the project activities. It is accounted for by conducting thorough assessments of potential off-site impacts and implementing buffer zones or similar measures. It may be mitigated by adjusting the baseline or using percentage deductions from the total carbon credits generated to compensate for leakage.

How are permanence and risk of reversal addressed in the project design of carbon sequestration initiatives?

Permanence and risk of reversal are addressed by designing projects with legal and financial mechanisms to protect the crediting/project area. Many standards require the establishment of risk mitigation buffers, where a portion of carbon credits is set aside to address potential losses from events like wildfires or economic shifts that might release sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere.

What role does project validation play in the carbon market?

Validation is where a VVB assesses the project design document, including the baseline scenario, the monitoring plan, and the projected emission reductions. This assessment ensures the project meets all the program and methodology criteria for generating carbon credits from the specified project activity. Validation is required to register the project with the carbon credit standard or program.

What is involved in the monitoring and reporting phase of a carbon credit project?

Once a project is operational, ongoing monitoring and reporting are required to track the actual emission reductions achieved. This involves collecting data according to the prescribed protocol in the project design document and ensuring that activities adhere to defined parameters. The data must be accurate and robust, as it forms the basis for issuing carbon credits.

How are carbon credits verified after a project is implemented?

After the monitoring period, a project undergoes verification where the VVB reviews the reported data to confirm that the emission reductions recorded in the monitoring report are real, measurable, and aligned with the PDD and validation reports. Verification is required to proceed with an issuance request.

What challenges can arise during the carbon credit project lifecycle?

Challenges in the project lifecycle can include changes in regulatory frameworks, technological or logistical issues, unforeseen environmental impacts, and shifts in economic or political conditions that may affect project viability. Additionally, ensuring continuous stakeholder engagement and managing community expectations can be complex but essential for sustained project success.

When is a carbon credit project closed or terminated?

Project closure will occur when a project reaches the end of its crediting period or fails to comply with its validation or verification criteria continuously. A project may also be terminated early if it is no longer viable or fails to meet its financial objectives.

What is a crediting period?

A crediting period is the duration during which a project can generate carbon credits, typically ranging from several years to a decade. The length is determined by the methodology. Some are fixed and non-renewable. Others are renewable for one or more periods of even length – i.e., three five-year periods. At each renewal period the project design and validation will be reviewed to assess whether it is fit to continue as it is or whether the implementation should be updated for the new period.

Governance

What are GHG emissions scopes?

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are categorized into three scopes by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for clarity and consistency in reporting and management. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as company vehicles and facilities. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the reporting company. Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain, including both upstream and downstream activities, such as the production of purchased materials, business travel, and the use of sold products.

What is the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM)?

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) aims to ensure the integrity of voluntary carbon markets by setting robust quality standards. Last year it launched the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), which are designed to enhance the credibility and environmental integrity of carbon credits. The ICVCM’s next steps involve finalizing and implementing the Core Carbon Principles, expanding the accreditation of carbon credit projects and programs under these principles.

The ICVCM is governed by a diverse board comprising stakeholders from public, private, and non-profit sectors. It features an Executive Secretariat for day-to-day operations and Expert Panels that develop and oversee the application of standards like the Core Carbon Principles, ensuring rigorous, transparent governance.

What is the Voluntary Carbon Markets Initiative (VCMI)?

The Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative (VCMI) aims to ensure that claims made by businesses about their use of carbon credits are credible. Governed by a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee and supported by a Secretariat, the VCMI offers the “Claims Code of Practice,” a set of guidelines designed to help businesses make credible, transparent claims about their carbon market participation. This code ensures that corporate claims about carbon offsetting align with broader climate commitments and contribute authentically to global carbon neutrality targets.

The VCMI’s “Claims Code of Practice” includes a tiered framework guiding companies on making responsible carbon market claims. It outlines three tiers—Bronze, Silver, and Gold—each with increasing levels of ambition and rigor in carbon management and offsetting practices.

What is the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)?

The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) is a nonprofit business organization established in 1999. It advocates for the development of effective market-based trading systems for GHG emissions to address climate change cost-effectively. IETA’s role is to provide a platform for businesses to collaborate on market-based climate solutions, influence policy, and disseminate information on emissions trading. Its efforts aim to support the establishment and integration of carbon markets globally, enhancing environmental integrity and economic efficiency.

What is the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)?

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a partnership between Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI), and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). It mobilizes private sector action on climate change by helping companies set science-based greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. These targets align with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement—keeping global warming below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Participants in the SBTi span a wide range of sectors and include major global companies like Apple, Walmart, and BMW. The initiative is governed by a team within the partnership organizations, with guidance from a Technical Advisory Group, ensuring that targets are robust, verifiable, and consistent with current scientific knowledge. Its aims are to drive ambitious corporate climate action which in turn significantly contributes to global emission reduction efforts.

SBTi has historically prevented participant companies from using carbon credits to offset emissions towards their emissions reductions targets, however a recent change in policy has opened the possibility of SBTi members to use offsets toward their Scope 3 emissions targets.[3]

[1] https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/publications/2023-em-all-in-on-climate-report/

[2] Project developers can also hold a public stakeholder meeting to collect and record comments about the project and complete a “do no harm assessment”.

[3] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/comment-why-sbtis-proposal-include-carbon-credits-is-right-side-climate-history-2024-04-24/

What are the problems with traditional biomass cooking?

Over 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) is emitted each year by burning wood fuels for cooking [1]. That figure is approximately 2% of global emissions and comparable to the carbon footprint of the United Kingdom. The carbon footprint of traditional biomass cooking comprises emissions from the woodfuel supply chain, fuel combustion, deforestation, and forest degradation. Wood fuel harvesting and charcoal processing are primary drivers of regional forest degradation across the African continent [2]. Burning wood fuel also creates black carbon (BC) emissions, which are short-lived (8-10 days) but influence regional precipitation and temperature changes.

Household air pollution (HAP) from cooking causes over 4 million premature deaths each year from conditions including lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart disease. HAP exposure is responsible for 45% of pneumonia deaths in under-fives and it is a leading cause of blindness and low birth weight globally. It is worth noting that there is broad scientific consensus that the breadth of negative health outcomes and the number of ill-health episodes caused by inefficient cooking have likely been underestimated due to insufficient data.

In developing countries, women usually take responsibility for cooking. Their health, and that of their children, is disproportionately impacted by HAP. Inefficient cookstoves require more fuel to be collected and more time in attendance while food is cooked. The aggregate time spent in fuelwood collection and cooking is around 5 hours per day. Injury and violence are commonly overlooked risks of frequently arduous trips to collect firewood.

Traditional biomass cooking is a problem for public health, gender inequality, our climate, and the local environment. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where TASC’s work is focussed, the total cost of traditional open-fire cooking is over $330 billion a year: $186 billion on gender, $96 billion on health, and $47 billion on climate and environment [3]. Replacing traditional biomass cookstoves will improve women’s health, allow them greater economic and social freedoms, and reduce CO₂ emissions.

What does TASC do?

TASC distributes ICS across SSA and monitors reductions in wood fuel use amongst recipient households. We register our projects with reputable international carbon standards to receive verified carbon credits.

Why do you distribute cookstoves?

We distribute ICS to address two acute needs: to reduce the environmental, social and economic impacts of open fire cooking; and to meet the demand for high-quality carbon credits to meet regulated or voluntary emissions reduction targets.

What is an improved cooking solution? Is it the same as a clean cookstove?

ICS include a range of interventions or appliances designed to improve fuel efficiency and emissions performance in cooking. Most are improved cooking stoves; however the category also includes products like thermal insulation sleeves.

According to the World Bank Group (WBG) and World Health Organisation (WHO), a clean cooking solution, or clean cookstove, is an advanced ICS that lowers particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions to near zero [4]. Clean cookstoves do not burn wood or charcoal but instead use feedstocks like processed briquettes, biomass pellets, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), methanol, or even electricity. The name ‘clean cookstove’ is often used to describe all manner of ICS, which can be confusing.

Which cookstoves do you distribute?

TASC distributes portable rocket stoves supplied by Burn Manufacturing of Kenya and RocketWorks of South Africa. We purchase different models depending on which country we are operating in and whether the target communities are predominantly wood or charcoal fuel users.

How do rocket stoves work?

The central feature of a rocket stove is an ‘L-shaped’ chamber that is designed to moderate airflow into the fire and maximise fuel combustion. Rocket stoves are open at the point at which wood is fed in, allowing lots of oxygen to be drawn into the unit. As the fire starts, rising hot air moves up through the chamber, drawing more air behind it. The insulated combustion chamber only has space for a small amount of fuel to burn at any given time, ensuring almost complete combustion prior to the flames reaching the cooking surface.

Why do you distribute rocket stoves?

Improved cookstoves vary widely in terms of the fuel feedstock, construction materials, methods of production, and performance. Some carbon projects distribute ‘basic’ artisan cookstoves or make permanent alterations to ‘legacy’ coal or biomass cookstoves. ‘Basic’ and ‘legacy’ cookstoves achieve minor efficiency gains and negligible reductions in local air pollution. These products are not quality tested, prone to malfunction or degradation, and are relatively expensive considering their overall impact.

We distribute the specific models of rocket stoves because they:

• achieve the highest fuel efficiencies for biomass stoves (over 50% improvement on traditional stoves)
• achieve, on average, 60 percent HAP reduction [4], which is the highest combustion efficiency for biomass stoves
• are manufactured in special purpose factories to maximise durability and consistency
• are reported to last from 7-10 years
• are financially viable for use in carbon credit projects; and
• allow people to cook traditional meals using fuel that is readily available in their community.

Why don’t you distribute LPG or electric stoves?

LPG and electric stoves are difficult to distribute for two reasons:

• There isn’t suitable fuel supply in remote rural communities, and;
• The products are too expensive to distribute under current carbon credit methodologies.

However, we are monitoring methodological updates to determine when it would be feasible to implement LPG and Electric cooking projects. LPG and electric stoves can improve HAP reductions from 60% to over 90%.

What are the traditional cooking solutions that you are replacing?

Most families in our project areas use ‘3-stone’ fires, where pots are balanced on rocks, or ‘Os’, which are a circular metal pot stand. 3-stones are most common amongst rural, wood fuel users. In peri-urban and urban areas we find basic charcoal stoves called ‘Mbalula’, which resemble an old washing machine drum, or a metal bin with holes drilled through the sides.

Which areas does TASC work in?

We are currently active in South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

What is the level of need in these countries?

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), approximately 729 million people, or 73% of the regional population, have no access to any ICS [1, 3].

• 88% of rural Zambian households have no access to electricity and just 2% have an electric cooker. In total, over 83% of households cook with biomass; 46% burn wood on 3-stone fires, and over 36% use Mbalula, mainly with charcoal [5].
• 95% of rural Zimbabwean households rely on firewood or charcoal for daily cooking. 66% of urban households are connected to the grid but unreliable supply forces many to employ charcoal stoves as the primary mode of cooking [6, 7]. ICS are beyond the reach of most household budgets, due to the upfront cost.
• South Africa has high rates of electrification and most of the population does not rely on biomass fuel. Nevertheless, disparate rural communities live a world apart from the urban centres and receive little to no social support from the national government. Thus, we have identified communities where SA citizens and economic migrants face the same issues as in Zambia and Zimbabwe.

All the areas in which we operate suffer from high annual increases in deforestation, combined with high proportions of woodfuel use. The link between woodfuel consumption and deforestation is highly localised and, charcoal supply in particular, is considered a primary cause of deforestation [8].

How does TASC distribute the cookstoves?

Distribution starts with sensitization, which is the dissemination of information about the proposed project to local communities. The objectives of pre distribution sensitization meetings are to maximize the adoption of the new stove and eliminate the use of traditional stoves. Sensitization meetings are arranged through local tribal authorities, which helps ensure the project is promoted in a culturally appropriate fashion. Attendees receive a presentation on the benefits of the efficient stove, how to cook with it, and how to obtain one. Afterward, the names and addresses of those who would like a stove are collected. Only one cookstove is allowed per household.

Several days later, our team will return to each village to distribute the stoves. They use a mobile application to collect data on the recipients, including full name, social security number, proof of identity, address, family size, GPS location etc. The recipients also sign an End User Agreement. The agreement confirms that they understand that TASC retains the rights to monitor the stove usage and the ownership of any carbon credits that may be obtained by doing so.

Why do you give the cookstoves away for free?

We give stoves away in exchange for the exclusive right to monitor them and sell carbon credits associated with their performance. We find this is the most efficient method of distribution. Demanding any cash payment – upfront, financed, or concessionary –dramatically reduces uptake because our target beneficiaries cannot afford it. Contrary to popular belief, we do not find beneficiaries to be less willing to look after stoves that they didn’t pay for. Our experience is supported by academic research [9].

How do you measure the performance of the cookstoves?

The primary measurement of cookstoves’ performance is reduction in fuel use and, consequently, the reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions. This is how the issuance of carbon credits is determined. CO₂e savings are calculated by following methodologies by the Gold Standard or the Verified Carbon Standard. The Gold Standard provides guidance on how other project impacts – health and gender – can be extrapolated from the data on stove usage.

Each year, the project scenario is compared with the baseline scenario to calculate the average fuel savings per unit (stove/household). Both scenarios are determined by a conducting a habit survey and a kitchen performance test (KPT) to understand how households cook before and after the introduction of new stove, and to calculate fuel usage.

The habit survey is used in both baseline and project scenario to determine household cooking habits, stove usage, and household demographics. The KPT is used to directly measure fuel consumption over a 24-hour period. The KPT is performed over 4 consecutive weekdays. Project field officers randomly select households from the database and visit them every 24 hours to weigh a stockpile of fuel and measure the change from day to day. The field officers instruct the participant households to consume fuel using all cooking technologies that they would normally use. If secondary biomass stoves are used, their emissions are included in the results.

All field testing and surveys measure real cooking habits and fuel use in a statistical sample of participant households, chosen using a randomised selection technique. The habit survey sample size is determined by using the “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities” document. Projects over 1000 devices are required to have a minimum sample size of 100 surveys but we oversample to 120 to account for possible anomalies and/or survey errors. For KPTs, the following guidelines apply. A statistically valid sample can be used to determine parameter values, as per the relevant requirements for sampling in the latest version of the CDM Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities. 90% confidence interval and a 10% margin of error requirement shall be achieved for the sampled parameters unless mentioned otherwise in the methodology. In any case, for proportion parameter values, a minimum sample size of 30, or the whole group size if this is lower than 30, must always be applied.

As we are following the 90/10 approach with a covariance of 0.4, we are required to do a minimum of 45 samples. However, it is suggested to oversample to at least 60 tests to provide the ability to remove outliers and exclude any tests where experimental errors have occurred.

After sampling, fuel savings per device are calculated by comparing the project scenario against the baseline scenario. Fuel savings are multiplied by CO₂ and non-CO₂ emission factors as well as the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) and divided by 365 to calculate the total tonnes of CO₂e reduced per device per day. This value is multiplied by the total number of technology days – the sum of days all devices have been active in the monitoring period – resulting in the gross emission reductions (in tCO₂e) for the monitoring period.

TASC takes several steps to ensure project success, including:

• our own proprietary cloud-hosted database for collecting records of stove distribution, including contact information, GPS locations, archived stove purchase agreements, financial accounts and distribution records, all of which is used for spot checking and cross referencing by a third-party auditor.
• In-house monitoring (beyond verification or compliance monitoring) and community engagement is conducted throughout the project lifespan to identify where and when stoves may be underused and inform where additional training is required to maintain a high usage of stoves.

What is thermal efficiency? Why is it different to fuel reduction?

Thermal efficiency (TE) describes the fraction of heat energy that is put to work. In this case, it is the fraction of heat transferred to the cooking pot. The TE of our ICS is approximately 40%, while TE of an open fire is approximately 10%. That means 90% of the heat energy is lost in an open fire. We can estimate overall fuel savings by calculating the percentage difference between the old and new TE, as follows:

(1-(TE_old/TE_new))*100

(1-(10/40))*100 = 75%

The higher TE of the ICS means that ~75% less fuel is needed than cooking the same meal on an open fire. It should be noted that this fuel saving estimation is only done for ex-ante purposes and actual fuel savings in the implemented project is calculated by doing field consumption tests (i.e. KPTs) in the baseline and project scenarios.

References

[1] Bailis et al. 2015. The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Clim Change 5, 266–272 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2491

[2] Hosonuma et al. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044009. Available online: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009

[3] Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). 2020. The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. Available online: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/937141600195758792/pdf/The-State-of-Access-to-Modern-Energy-Cooking-Services.pdf

[4] Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). 2015. The State of The Global Clean and Improved Cooking Sector. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?sequence=1

[5] Luzi et al. 2019. Zambia – Beyond Connections: Energy Access Diagnostic Report Based on the Multi-Tier Framework (English). Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) Washington, D.C. World Bank Group. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/477041572269756712/Zambia-Beyond-Connections-Energy-Access-Diagnostic-Report-Based-on-the-Multi-Tier-Framework

[6] Johnstone, Kevin. 2020. Stoking Finance for Affordable Cookstoves: Experience from Malawi and Zimbabwe. International Institute for Environment and Development. Available online: https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G04472.pdf

[7] Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency. 2017. Inter-censal demographic survey. Available online: http://www.zimstat.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/publications/Population/population/ICDS_2017.pdf

[8] van Dijk et al. 2019. Assessing the land-energy nexus in Southern Africa: An integrated assessment and scenario approach. In: EGU General Assembly 2019, 7-9 April 2019, Vienna, Austria. Available online: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16860/1/20190409.PalazzoVanDijkEGU.pdf

[9] Bensch, Gunther; Peters, Jörg (2012) : A Recipe for Success? Randomized Free Distribution of Improved Cooking Stoves in Senegal, Ruhr Economic Papers, No. 325, ISBN 978-3-86788-374-0, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), Essen,

http://dx.doi.org/10.4419/86788374

What are the risks associated with an unsafe water supply?

Contaminated water and poor sanitation are linked to transmission of diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid and polio. Absent, inadequate, or inappropriately managed water and sanitation services expose individuals to preventable health risks. Inadequate management of urban, industrial and agricultural wastewater means the drinking-water of hundreds of millions of people is dangerously contaminated or chemically polluted. Natural presence of chemicals, particularly in groundwater, can also be of health significance, including arsenic and fluoride, while other chemicals, such as lead, may be elevated in drinking-water because of leaching from water supply components in contact with drinking-water.

Globally, about 1 million people are estimated to die each year from diarrhoea because of unsafe drinking-water, sanitation and hand hygiene. Yet diarrhoea is largely preventable, and the deaths of 397 000 children aged under 5 years could be avoided each year if these risk factors were addressed. Where water is not readily available, people may decide handwashing is not a priority, thereby adding to the likelihood of diarrhoea and other diseases.

Diarrhoea is the most widely known disease linked to contaminated food and water but there are other hazards. In 2021, over 251 million people worldwide required preventative treatment for schistosomiasis – an acute and chronic disease caused by parasitic worms contracted through exposure to infested water.

In many parts of the world, insects that live or breed in water carry and transmit diseases such as dengue fever. Some of these insects, known as vectors, breed in clean, rather than dirty water, and household drinking water containers can serve as breeding grounds. Simple interventions such as covering water storage containers or daily filtration can reduce vector breeding and may also reduce faecal contamination of water at the household level.

Why does TASC distribute ceramic water filters?

We distribute ceramic water filters to address two acute needs: to reduce the risks associated with unsafe water use; and, to meet the demand for high-quality carbon credits to meet regulated or voluntary emissions reduction targets.

Which water filters do you distribute? How do they work?

TASC financed the distribution of SPOUTS Purifaaya ceramic water filters in Uganda. SPOUTS have been manufacturing and distributing water filters, in Africa, since 2012. The ceramic water filter sits in a 20-litre plastic container which is perfect for households of up to 8 people. It provides up to 5 years of safe drinking water with replacement filters available.

How are these filters certified as fit for purpose?

Purifaaya water filters have been used in 5 registered Gold Standard VPAs (Verified Project Activity) for clean water dating back to 2017. In addition, SPOUTS has a 1-star rating water filter rating from the World Health Organisation (which is the level given to filters that filter Bacterial water borne diseases), SPOUTS has certification from the relevant water authorities in Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Nigeria. Furthermore, the Purifaaya filters have undergone and passed testing in Uganda for bottled water grade water purity.

How long do these filters last?

These filters are replaced after a 4-year period. The easy-to-use filter system requires cleaning once every 2-3 weeks and basic care instructions are provided.

Where were these filters distributed?

TASC funded filters were distributed in the Western region of Uganda in the Toro Kingdom, specifically in the Kamwenge and Kyenjojo districts.

How does the distribution process work for TASC projects?

Distribution starts with sensitization, which is the dissemination of information about the proposed project to local communities. The objectives of sensitization are to maximize the adoption of the new ceramic filters. Sensitization meetings are arranged through the local kingdom authority and village leaders, which helps ensure the project is promoted in a culturally appropriate fashion. Attendees receive a presentation on the risks of unsafe drinking water, the benefits of using ceramic filters and how to effectively use and clean the filters. At this point, the names and addresses of those who would like a filter are collected.

After the presentation and training, the filters are distributed. A mobile application is used to collect data on the recipients, including full name, social security number, proof of identity, address, family size, GPS location etc. The recipients also sign an End User Agreement which confirms that they understand that the project developer retains the rights to monitor the filter usage and the ownership of any carbon credits that may be obtained by doing so.

What is the level of need in Uganda?

According to the United Nations and World Health Organisation’s Joint Monitoring Programme, 19 percent of the Ugandan population relies on unimproved or surface water for their daily household needs. In a population of 45 million this means that 8 million people are drinking from streams, ponds, unprotected hand dug wells and other unsafe water sources. In addition, a further 32 percent has limited access where the water source is likely to be safe but it takes the average person 30 minutes or more to retrieve it because of travelling distance, queueing or both.

This means that over 21 million people in Uganda are living without basic access to clean drinking water. The vast majority of people rely on water boiling to purify their water and prevent water borne diseases like diarrhoea, typhoid and cholera.

Further afield and according to UNICEF, Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) ranks lowest in access to at least basic drinking water services. Over 226 million people in ESA (47 per cent) have no access to at least basic drinking water services. The highest burden is in countries like Ethiopia (61 million), Uganda (27 million) and Tanzania (24 million). Water supply in institutions (schools and heath care facilities) is not any better. Over 78 million (42 per cent) school-age children have no access to drinking water services in schools.

Why are the filters given away for free?

The ceramic filters are given away for free in exchange for the exclusive right to monitor their usage and sell carbon credits associated with their performance. We find this is the most efficient method of distribution. Demanding any cash payment – upfront, financed, or concessionary –dramatically reduces uptake because our target beneficiaries cannot afford it. As these filters directly reduces their risk of illness, we do not find beneficiaries to be less willing to look after filters that they didn’t pay for.

How are emissions reductions calculated from the use of water filters?

According to restrictions outlined in the Gold Standard methodology used for this project, a household is limited to a total daily water use of 5.5 litres per person. However, field consumption tests are completed to determine the volume of water per capita that is used from the filter. This figure is used in conjunction with data on the energy requirements for boiling water, thermal efficiency of traditional fires, and the net calorific value of wood fuel in order to estimate the daily wood use per household and the GHG emissions thereof if they were to boil the water in order to make it potable.

This conservative daily wood use estimation, and its associated emissions from combustion are set as the baseline scenario before the distribution and use of ceramic water filters. As a result of the use of these filters, emission reductions can be calculated from the prevention of the use of wood fuel for boiling and purifying household water.

How does TASC avoid the risk of overcrediting?

The first step to successful monitoring, reporting and verifying (MRV) project CO₂e emissions reductions is a complete record of filter distribution. All records must be accessible for spot checking and cross referencing by a third-party auditor. Contact information or GPS locations allows a project auditor to easily contact and visit end users. An auditor must also be able to cross reference pertinent project documentation, including archived filter purchase agreements, financial accounts and distribution records. A custom-built, cloud-hosted database for all data collection and monitoring ensures thorough and real time traceability of each filter.

The second step is the analysis of usage after distribution of the new ceramic filters, and confirmation that wood fuel is not being used for purifying water through boiling. The project scenario relies upon monitoring and usage surveys. The former investigates changes in how much filters are used, how much water they are used for, and seasonal variations in either. The results of a monitoring survey can lead to increases or decreases in the volume of carbon credits that can be issued for each project filter.

Ongoing monitoring visits to households take place at least once a year, with telephone calls being made twice a year to confirm usage and maintenance over the project lifetime.

References

WHO fact sheet – Drinking Water. March 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water

UNICEF -Water and Environment. https://www.unicef.org/esa/water-and-environment

Overview

TASC’s Grassland Restoration and Stewardship in South Africa (GRASS) Project helps livestock farmers regenerate South Africa’s rangelands through adaptive, holistic land management – while generating a new, meaningful revenue stream from carbon credits.

PI2 (Project Instance 2) is the commercial farming arm of the GRASS project. Farms participating in PI2 are privately owned, commercial farming operations. Farmers receive:

• Training in Regenerative Land Management through the Healing Hooves course
• Guidance on developing annual, adaptive grazing plans tailored to their specific farm
• Ongoing mentorship and support from a dedicated Hub Leader and Mentors
• Access to a community of practice with other participating farmers
• Ecological monitoring to track rangeland health over time and inform grazing planning
• Access to carbon revenue through the Verra-verified carbon credits
• Improved market access and product certification opportunities

This FAQ answers the most common questions about how the project works – from joining, to day-to-day management, to receiving carbon revenue.

Please feel free to contact our team for more information:

Private Farming Sales Manager:
William Moolman
+27 (0) 81 830 3127
[email protected]

Technical, Financial & Carbon Queries:
[email protected]

Official project documents, VVB audit reports and Verra project review documents are available at: https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/2931.

Getting Started

1.1 What is GRASS PI2 and who is it for?

GRASS PI2 is designed for commercial livestock farmers in South Africa who own privately titled, fenced farming land and are interested in improving their rangeland health through regenerative grazing management. The project is open to farmers across South Africa, within the project boundary.

PI2 is distinct from PI1 (the communal farming arm of GRASS). In PI2, individual farm owners sign a Carbon Agreement directly with TASC and manage their own land accordingly.

1.1 How do I join the project?

Participation is entirely voluntary. The typical onboarding journey is:

• Complete a farm eligibility assessment with the TASC technical team.
• Sign the Carbon Agreement with TASC
• Go through TASC’s Due Diligence process
• Attend a Healing Hooves Regenerative Land Management course (or have already attended one)
• Prepare your first annual Grazing Plan with Hub Leader support

Your start date is recorded as the later of: the effective date of your signed Carbon Agreement, or the date you attended the Healing Hooves course.

1.2 Is my farm eligible to participate?

A formal farm eligibility assessment is conducted before onboarding. This includes mapping eligible land cover, reviewing land management history, and deriving long-term climate data. Farms with land claims cannot participate until the claim is resolved.

To participate in PI2, your farm must meet the following eligibility criteria:

• Privately owned and titled (title deed), with clearly demarcated boundaries.
• Located within the GRASS project boundary in South Africa
• The farm must not be subject to any unresolved land claims
• The land cover must include eligible rangeland classes as defined under the VM0042 Methodology and the South Afircan Land Cover Classification (native grasslands and/or savannahs)
• The farmer must not be using the same land in another carbon project or emissions trading scheme
• The farm must be a minimum of 1,300 hectares.
• Have an annual long-term rainfall minimum of > 300 mm.
• No land clearing or conversion from forested land in the last 10 years.

If you are unsure if your farm is eligible, please contact us at [email protected].

1.3 What is the Healing Hooves course and is it compulsory?

The Healing Hooves Regenerative Land Management course is a foundational requirement for all PI2 farmers. It introduces the principles of Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing, holistic land management, and how to build and use an annual grazing plan.

After the course, farmers are required to prepare a grazing chart based on planned AMP grazing principles. Hub Leaders are on hand to assist with this. The planning, implementing, monitoring, and replanning cycle is at the core of the GRASS approach and improves year-on-year with practice.

Farmers who have already attended an accredited Healing Hooves course prior to signing the Carbon Agreement may have that attendance count as their course requirement.

Operational

2.1 Who are our partners?

TASC partners with carefully selected Implementation Partners (IPs) to ensure strong on-the-ground support. Partners are assessed against four criteria: goal alignment with rangeland restoration; meaningful presence in the landscape; trust built with farming communities over at least three years; and willingness to collaborate.

Organization name: Healing Hooves

Role in the project: Training and Technical Partner
Contact person: Roland Kroon
Title: Accredited Savory Master Field Professional
Email: [email protected]

Organization name: TruQuest

Role in the project: Technical Partner
Contact person: Rolf Pretorius
Title: CEO
Email: [email protected]

Organization name: Great Karoo Wilderness

Role in the project: Implementation Partner
Contact person: Ulrich Schutte
Title: Project Manager
Email: [email protected]

Organization name: OVK

Role in the project: Implementation Partner
Contact person: Jacques le Roux
Title: General Manager: Fibre (Wool and Mohair)
Email: [email protected]

2.2 Who is my Hub Leader and what do they do?

Each participating farmer is assigned a dedicated Hub Leader. Hub Leaders are trained in Regenerative Land Management and Ecological Outcomes Verification (EOV) and operate under the mentorship of experienced regenerative farmers. They also receive ongoing training in the carbon reporting requirements.

Your Hub Leader supports you with:

• Planning your annual grazing chart
• Regular check-ins (physical visits or calls) to assist with technical challenges
• Logging and recording management activities
• Conducting and interpreting EOV monitoring results
• Connecting you with your regional Hub group and the broader community of practice

2.3 How is the Land Management Plan and grazing administration managed?

The Land Management Plan (grazing chart) is prepared by the Farmer once a year – ideally before the growing season. Your actual management activities are then recorded throughout the year on AgriWebb. While initial setup requires effort, the plan becomes more streamlined with practice and is highly effective in the longer term.

For farms with multiple herds, a separate open season / closed season plan is recommended for each herd. Your Hub Leader will guide you through this setup. AgriWebb can also be used to do the Grazing Plan.

AgriWebb is not intended to replace the annual planning phase, but will reduce the administrative effort of recording actual activity, feeding that data directly into the plan.

Recording the grazing data (numbers and types of animals, days in camp, etc.) accurately is extremely important for the carbon calculations.

2.4 How is the GRASS PI2 project team structured?

TASC is responsible for overall project design, carbon accounting, monitoring and reporting and verification. The Carbon Portfolio Manager has overall responsibility for the carbon project. Hub Leaders (from TASC or partner organisations) support farmers directly. The TASC team structure can be viewed at: https://tasc.je/our-people/.

Technical

3.1 What land management activities are required under PI2?

PI2 farmers implement Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing management with a Holistic Management Framework based on ecological principles. The core activities include:

• Developing and following an annual adaptive grazing plan
• Implementing planned rest periods for grazing camps (to allow grass recovery)
• Managing livestock movements and stocking rates in response to veld condition
• Improved fire management on the farm

These practices improve soil health, increase grass cover and diversity, build resilience to drought and extreme weather, and over time lead to measurable increases in soil organic carbon.

3.2 How does soil carbon improvements translate into carbon credits?

The GRASS project is a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and removal project registered under Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), using methodology VM0042. Under the principle of Additionality, only carbon sequestered as a direct result of the project activities – i.e., additional to what would have occurred anyway – can be credited and sold.

The improved grazing and fire management practices directly contribute to increases in soil organic carbon stocks. These improvements are measured in metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalents per hectare (tCO₂e/ha). One carbon credit equals one tCO₂e of verified carbon stored in the soil.

3.3 How is soil carbon measured and modelled?

Soil carbon sequestration is modelled using a peer-reviewed, Verra-approved biogeochemical process-based model (SNAPGRAZE). The model projects the long-term effects of changed management on soil carbon, which are divided into annual increments to enable annual credit issuances. The model is calibrated to the local climate and is validated against peer-reviewed literature.

Physical soil samples are taken at a depth of 30 cm (where soil depth allows) and analysed in accredited laboratories. These real-world measurements are used to:

• Establish the farm’s baseline soil organic carbon at the start of the project
• Re-calibrate (“true-up”) the model every five years to ensure accuracy

All sampling and analysis protocols follow the requirements of VM0042 and are detailed in the Project Description available on the Verra Registry.

3.4 Does seasonality affect carbon measurements?

Carbon sequestration follows a seasonal rhythm: it is most active during the growing season when grasses are photosynthesising. In the dormant (winter) season, the main emission reduction contribution comes from improved fire management.

The ‘Brown Date’ in the Land Management Plan indicates when soil temperature drops below the threshold for further grass growth (although cool-season grasses continue growing past this date). Because the carbon model works on a long-term basis it factors in seasonal variation, such as droughts.

3.5 What is Ecological Outcomes Verification (EOV)?

EOV is an ecological health monitoring system that runs alongside the carbon calculations. EOV tracks the leading biological indicators of a healthy, functioning rangeland ecosystem. It serves as an important management feedback tool for farmers – showing what is improving, what needs attention, and how different management decisions are affecting the land.

EOV tracks four ecosystem processes:

• Water cycle (soil water infiltration and retention)
• Mineral cycle (nutrient cycling and organic matter)
• Energy flow (plant productivity and biomass)
• Community dynamics (grass species diversity and cover)

The EOV assessment schedule is:

• Annual short-term assessments (conducted in the growing season)
• Comprehensive long-term assessments every 5 years

EOV monitoring for PI2 is carried out by the trained TASC Technical Team in partnership with TruQuest. Farmers are invited to participate in the monitoring visits, and results are discussed with them by a technical field team member.

3.6 What are Veld Condition Assessments (VCAs)?

EOVs complement the more detailed VCAs. The VCAs provide a broader assessment of overall veld (rangeland) condition, including grass species composition, plant density, bare ground cover, and signs of degradation or recovery. VCAs are conducted every three years. Together with EOV and soil sampling, they form a comprehensive picture of how the farm’s ecosystem is responding to regenerative management.

Summary: PI2 Monitoring Schedule
Annual: EOV assessments + grazing plan review
Every 3 years: Veld Condition Assessments (VCAs)
Every 5 years: Soil sampling (total organic carbon, texture, bulk density)

Financial

4.1 How do carbon markets work?

There are two main carbon markets that are relevant to GRASS PI2:

Voluntary Market: Buyers – typically corporations seeking to reduce or offset their carbon footprint – purchase credits voluntarily. Credits are usually sold under an Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA). Price is influenced by supply and demand, credit type (reductions vs. removals), contract terms, credit quality, and additional benefits (biodiversity, community). Voluntary market prices for soil carbon credits have ranged between $8 and $25 per credit.

South African Compliance Market: Large industrial emitters are taxed on their carbon footprint under the Carbon Tax Act. They can offset a percentage of their tax liability by purchasing South African-generated carbon credits. Credits in this market are sold at a discount of 15–25% to the prevailing carbon tax rate, which increases annually.

TASC models anticipated revenue on a worst-case scenario basis, treating the compliance market as the floor price. TASC has existing buyers in South Africa and actively seeks the best available price in either market.

To read more about the SA Carbon Tax Act: https://www.gov.za/documents/acts/carbon-tax-act-15-2019-english-afrikaans-23-may-2019

4.2 What is entailed in the sale of carbon credits, and what does TASC do?

Once credits are issued by Verra, TASC sells them – in either the voluntary or compliance market – on behalf of the project. TASC aims for the highest available price in the interest of all stakeholders. Following each sale:

• TASC provides each farmer with a statement showing total sale proceeds, the Annual Subscription Fee deduction, and the net proceeds
• The farmer’s revenue share percentage (starting at 60%) is applied to the net proceeds
• An annual revenue share and planning meeting (typically in September) is held at which TASC reports on the sale, current market position, and each farmer’s personalised Profit & Loss statement

4.3 How much carbon revenue can I expect, and how is it calculated?

Carbon revenue is farm-specific and depends on:

• The size of the eligible rangeland area on your farm
• Your farm’s baseline soil organic carbon and land management history
• The level and consistency of regenerative management practices adopted
• How well your management practices are recorded
• Your farm’s climate and soil type

The Annual Subscription Fee (the project’s cost recovery mechanism) is calculated by multiplying the number of eligible hectares by ZAR 33.81. This rate is reviewed every ten years (applicable through to end of 2033, subject to adjustments as per the Carbon Agreement).

The farmer’s revenue share starts at 60% of net proceeds (after deduction of the Subscription Fee) for the first 10 credit issuances, and increases to 65% thereafter.

An annual revenue share and reflection meeting is held (typically in September) at which TASC reports to participating farmers on credit sales, market conditions, monitoring outcomes, and each farmer’s personalised P&L statement.

4.4 What financial assistance is available to farmers?

TASC recognises that upfront capital investment – for example, mobile fencing units or waterpoint infrastructure – can be a barrier to implementing regenerative management. Capital assistance is therefore available under Clause 8 of the Carbon Agreement.

Key points about capital assistance:

• TASC considers each request on a case-by-case basis and is under no obligation to approve it
• Capital must be used solely for implementing the farmer’s Regenerative Land Management Plan
• The capital amount (plus TASC’s risk-adjusted cost of capital) is recovered via an adjustment to the farmer’s revenue percentage before revenues are distributed

To apply for capital assistance, submit your proposed Regenerative Land Management Plan to your Hub Leader, including: a clear statement of what assistance is needed and why; itemised infrastructure requirements with at least two quotes per line item; and approval from your Hub Leader or a senior Regenerative Mentor (e.g. Healing Hooves).

TASC will make direct payments to the approved supplier upon approval of the request.

4.5 Will I be personally liable to repay the Subscription Fee or capital assistance?

No. Clause 7.6 of the Carbon Agreement specifies that any negative Net Proceeds balance (i.e., where credit sale proceeds are insufficient to cover the Subscription Fee) will be carried forward and deducted from future proceeds. Any remaining negative balance still outstanding 18 months after the termination of the Agreement will be written off entirely.

Clause 13.2 further confirms that neither party has a financial claim against the other following termination if either party defaults on their material obligations – including any debt relating to Subscription Fees or capital assistance.

The funding underpinning GRASS PI2 has been structured on a limited recourse basis precisely to enable this protection for farmers. In exchange, TASC applies rigorous due diligence and eligibility screening to ensure all participating farmers are genuinely committed to regenerative principles.

4.6 When can I expect to start receiving carbon revenue?

Revenue is paid once credits have been verified, issued by Verra, and sold. The soil carbon improvements – and therefore the credits issued and revenue generated – are directly linked to the management activities you implement on your farm and record in your Land Management Plan and AgriWebb. The more consistently and thoroughly regenerative management is applied and your animal movements recorded, the more carbon can be sequestered and the more accurately we can model the carbon credits that are generated.

A detailed overview of the carbon credit lifecycle – from project implementation through to credit issuance – is shown in Appendix 1. Note that the first monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) cycle may look slightly different to the steady-state annual schedule.

4.7 Are there other financial or market benefits beyond carbon revenue?

Yes. Beyond the carbon revenue stream, PI2 farmers benefit from:

• Technical training and support
• Improved farm productivity over time as rangeland health recovers – better grass cover, more palatable species, and greater drought resilience
• Access to product certification and improved marketability, particularly in supply chains (such as wool and mohair) with environmental credibility requirements
• Participation in a community of practice that enables knowledge-sharing and peer support across the farming community
• Ecological monitoring results that provide data-driven insights to inform management decisions

Legal and Contractual

5.1 Why does the Carbon Agreement last 30 years?

A core principle of carbon credit standards is permanence: the carbon sequestered must remain stored for the long term (practically defined as 100 years or more under Verra’s standards). A 30-year agreement, with the option to renew, gives TASC and the project’s funders confidence that regenerative management will be sustained long enough to credibly demonstrate permanent carbon storage.

A shorter contract period would increase the ‘non-permanence risk’ of the project – the possibility that sequestered carbon could be re-emitted through a return to degrading management practices. The non-permanence risk is assessed annually and determines the amount of credits stored in the Buffer Pool.

This risk would reduce the integrity and saleable value of every credit generated. The 30-year term therefore protects both the quality of credits sold and the long-term revenue potential for farmers.

5.2 Why are financial statements required as part of Due Diligence?

TASC’s corporate governance framework requires thorough due diligence on all contracting parties. This is part of TASC’s Risk Management Framework and reflects compliance obligations under international standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT). This requirement is standard across all parties contracting with TASC, regardless of scale.

5.3 What happens if there is a land claim on my farm?

Farms that are subject to an existing or pending land claim are not eligible to participate in GRASS PI2 until the claim has been fully resolved. This is assessed as part of the Due Diligence questionnaire (Question 22). TASC’s policy is designed to protect both the farmer and the integrity of the project.

5.4 In what ways can the Carbon Agreement be terminated?

The Carbon Agreement (Clause 12) can be terminated in the following circumstances:

• By mutual agreement of both parties
• If required third-party consents have not been obtained within 3 months of signature (Clause 2.4)
• If the land is compulsorily acquired by an authority (Clause 5.7)
• If the land is sold or otherwise disposed of by the owner (Clause 5.8)
• If either party defaults on their material obligations under the Agreement (Clause 13.2)
• By written notice from TASC if, acting reasonably, TASC determines that due to a change in market conditions (including a collapse in demand for VCUs), the project is no longer commercially viable (Clause 12.1.5) – this would require both the voluntary and compliance markets to cease operating with no options to sell credits.

Important: Following termination, Clause 7 (payments) continues to apply for any credits issued in respect of the period up to the Termination Date. Confidentiality obligations, indemnity, and other key clauses (15–26) also survive termination.

5.5 What happens if I sell my farm during the agreement period?

The Carbon Agreement can be terminated if the land is sold or otherwise disposed of (Clause 5.8). However, it is also possible for the agreement to be transferred to a new owner with the consent of all parties. This should be discussed with TASC before any property transaction is finalised.

5.6 What happens if I am not able to fulfil my obligations under the agreement?

If circumstances on your farm change and you are unable to meet your management obligations, you should contact your Hub Leader or TASC as early as possible. As noted above, any negative balance in Net Proceeds is carried forward and ultimately written off if unrecovered at termination – there is no personal liability. TASC’s approach is to work with farmers collaboratively rather than punitively.

Appendix 1: The Carbon Credit Lifecycle

The diagram below illustrates the journey from farm implementation through to carbon revenue. The first monitoring cycle may look slightly different to the steady-state annual cycle described below.

The full cycle repeats for every subsequent credit issuance.

Key point
Carbon revenue received in any given year relates to management activities from the previous year – there is a natural lag between farm management, verification, and payment. Consistent, well-documented management is the most important factor in maximising carbon credits generated.