The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market has approved its first carbon capture and storage methodology for the CCP label and, in parallel, published Board Observations on how engineered carbon removal methodologies should treat additionality, permanence and robust quantification. The Governing Board decided on 17 September 2026 that Verra’s VM0049 Carbon Capture and Storage, version 1.0 applied under the Verified Carbon Standard, meets the relevant criteria for CCP-approval, according to the decision document. The observations paper on the Carbon Dioxide Removals category, dated September 2026, is explicitly non-binding, the ICVCM stated. For buyers, the pairing matters: credits under the methodology can now carry the market’s integrity label, while the Board is publicly signalling where it expects future CDR methodologies to do better.
What the Board Approved
Decision M51_VCS_VM0049-v1.0_2026 records that the Governing Board considered the Evaluation Report and the recommendation of the Standards Oversight Committee before concluding that the category meets the relevant criteria and requirements for CCP-approval.
Two caveats in the decision deserve attention. The approval is not an assessment of any identical or substantially similar methodology used in a compliance system. And an assessment is described as an opinion, not a statement of fact or a recommendation, wholly dependent on documentation supplied by the applicant crediting program.
Guidance, Not Rules
The observations are labelled Part III of the Board’s notes on the CDR category. They do not impact or form any part of the Assessment Framework, the Assessment Procedure or any decision, and the document states that no reliance may be placed on them. The ICVCM says it may publish observations for other categories and revise them as further assessments progress.
Scope is narrow by design. VM0049, in version 1.02, is the only methodology to which these observations relate. Other methodologies in the CDR category remain under assessment, and the observations are without prejudice to those ongoing processes.
A Category Built for Hard-to-Abate Sectors
The CDR category covers engineered technologies that capture carbon dioxide from a source, such as a power plant or directly from the air, and store it in a stable form, such as an underground reservoir or a product. The Board contrasts these with natural removals such as afforestation and reforestation, and notes that biochar, enhanced rock weathering and ocean alkalinity enhancement are categorised separately because they cover discrete activity types.
The rationale for the category is industrial. Engineered removals, the document says, have yet to reach significant maturity and scale and will require significant investment to get there. They are widely considered essential to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors such as cement and steel production, which combine high energy intensity with inherent process emissions.
Permanence Depends on the Storage Type
Under the Assessment Framework, mitigation activity types with a material reversal risk must meet defined monitoring and compensation requirements. CDR activities must go further: they must address identified risks with measures appropriate to that risk, rather than relying on monitoring and compensation alone.
The Board draws a clear line between storage types. Geochemical storage and mineralisation generally carry low reversal risk. Storage in underground reservoirs or aquifers requires proof of the integrity of the storage approach, ongoing monitoring of the storage and contributions to a buffer pool in the event of a reversal. For VM0049, the measures in module VMD0058 were assessed as appropriate to the level of risk and in line with the relevant Framework requirements.
A Warning on Storage Regulation
The most forward-looking passage concerns law, not engineering. The Board notes that CDR may involve novel storage technologies, that some countries may not yet have national regulations governing subsurface CO2 storage, and that the regulatory landscape for this technology type is likely to evolve.
That creates a structural tension. The Assessment Framework requires CCP-eligible programs to ensure project proponents comply with national and local laws, yet the document cautions that, given the pace of development in the sector, regulation may not keep up. Where the law is absent or immature, the burden of proof shifts onto methodology design and program oversight.
What Buyers and Developers Should Watch
For buyers, the practical consequence is twofold. VM0049 credits can now carry the CCP label, which simplifies procurement screening, but due diligence should still test which storage type a project uses and how its host jurisdiction regulates subsurface storage. The label certifies the methodology, not the geology of each site.
For developers, the observations read as a preview of assessment priorities: additionality, permanence and robust quantification are the three axes on which the next CDR methodologies will be judged. Two markers from here: the outcome of the other CDR methodologies still under assessment, and any revision of the observations as those decisions land.
