Preface

This Standard is a framework rules document; Annexes A through I set out the activity modules and special rules. Pending publication of the Annexes, this Standard shall not enter the issuance procedure for any project. The development, revision and repeal of the Annexes follow the procedures set out in Chapter 9 of this Standard.

This Standard was drafted by the WAAS Agricultural Carbon Certification Methodology Committee and is released following public consultation, technical review, independent scientific peer review, adoption by vote of the Committee, and approval by the Platform Board. This version, Draft 0.2, has been revised from Draft 0.1 following professional review and is now open for public consultation.

Chapter 1 General Provisions

This Chapter sets out the purpose, scope of application, normative principles and measurement conventions of this Standard, and forms the common basis for all activity modules.

1.1 Purpose

This Standard establishes the rules, procedures and technical requirements for the issuance of WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits by the World Academy of Agricultural Sciences Global Agricultural Carbon Certification Platform (the "WAAS Platform").

WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits are measured on the basis of one unit corresponding to one tonne of verified agricultural emission reduction or carbon removal (tCO₂e), serving the global green transition of agriculture, carbon neutrality development goals, and the climate financing needs of agricultural operators.

As a public certification infrastructure established by a non-profit international academic institution, the WAAS Platform upholds academic neutrality and an inclusive orientation. Distinct from commercial carbon certification platforms, its rule design prioritizes responsiveness to the long-term nature of agricultural projects, ecological complexity, and the participability of smallholders and agricultural operators in developing countries.

1.2 Scope of Application

This Standard applies to the certification of the following six categories of agricultural emission reduction and carbon removal activities:

(a) Agricultural soil carbon sequestration: achieving a net increase in soil organic carbon stocks through conservation tillage, cover crops, organic matter incorporation, crop rotation and nutrient management optimization.

(b) Paddy field greenhouse gas mitigation: reducing CH₄ emissions from flooded rice paddies through alternate wetting and drying irrigation, water-saving irrigation, variety optimization and straw management adjustments, while concurrently accounting for related changes in N₂O and fossil-source CO₂.

(c) Agroforestry carbon sequestration: introducing or maintaining woody plants within an agricultural management unit to form tree-crop or tree-grass spatial configurations, achieving a net increase in woody biomass and soil carbon.

(d) Agricultural waste biochar: converting sustainably sourced agricultural biomass into biochar through pyrolysis and applying it to soil or incorporating it into verifiable long-term carbon pools, achieving durable sequestration of refractory carbon.

(e) Sustainable crop-livestock mitigation: reducing CH₄ and N₂O emissions from crop and livestock production through precision fertilization, feed management improvements, optimized livestock manure management, and ruminant methane suppression.

(f) Climate-smart smallholder agricultural projects in developing countries: within the framework of the above activity types, simplified quantification and monitoring rules apply to smallholder groups characterized by small operational scale, sensitivity to measurement costs and limited organizational capacity, with aggregation mechanisms enabling certifiable scale.

Agricultural activities outside the above scope may only be included after separate assessment by the WAAS Methodology Committee and the development of dedicated methodologies.

1.3 Normative Principles

The issuance and registration of WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits follow these core principles:

Real and measurable. Emission reductions or removals must be based on independently verified measured data, validated biogeochemical models, or auditable conservative default values; reliance on untested presumptions or extrapolations is prohibited.

Long-term storage. Removal credits must demonstrate the durability of the carbon pool over the relevant time scale; mitigation credits must ensure the persistence of the mitigation effect throughout the crediting period. Durability requirements vary by activity type and must be defined in the dedicated methodologies.

Avoidance of double counting. The same emission reduction or removal may not be claimed by the WAAS Platform and other carbon credit systems, national greenhouse gas inventories, or multiple claims by the same entity. The blockchain registry establishes anti-double-counting mechanisms at the serial number level and at the retirement stage respectively.

Conservativeness. Where quantification uncertainty exists, parameters, model configurations or discount methods biased toward underestimation of credits shall be adopted, ensuring that issued credits do not exceed the reasonable estimate of actual climate benefits.

Consistency. The accounting basis for emission reductions and removals shall be comparable with international accounting frameworks such as the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the GHG Protocol, avoiding systematic biases for the same activity across accounting systems.

Transparency. Methodology parameters, default values, model configurations, verification conclusions and issuance records shall be open to the public, except where confidentiality is protected by law, and are subject to peer review and public scrutiny.

1.4 Measurement and Accounting Conventions

(a) Unit of measurement. Measured in tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂e); one credit unit corresponds to 1 tCO₂e.

(b) Global warming potential. The GWP100 values from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) shall be uniformly adopted (CH₄ fossil source 29.8, CH₄ non-fossil source 27.0, N₂O 273). Each methodology shall state the GWP version adopted in its version note; adoption of another version requires justification by the Methodology Committee and public disclosure.

(c) Net climate benefit basis. Project net climate benefit = baseline emissions/removals − project scenario emissions/removals − leakage − uncertainty discount − pre-issuance deduction − reserve contribution. The issuable quantity may not exceed the conservative estimate of net climate benefit.

(d) Inventory alignment. Project accounting may not duplicate claims for the same emission/removal quantity already reported in the national greenhouse gas inventory; authorization and corresponding adjustments at the national level are handled in accordance with Article 8.5.

Chapter 2 Terms and Definitions

The following terms and definitions apply to this Standard and its Annexes.

Chapter 3 Certification Scope and Methodology Architecture

This Chapter sets out the three-tier architecture of the methodology system, project eligibility conditions, baseline and additionality demonstration rules, and the basic relationship between the crediting period and the durability commitment period.

3.1 Modular Structure of Methodologies

The WAAS methodology system adopts a three-tier architecture of "framework rules — activity modules — quantification tools".

Framework rules prescribe the qualification conditions, baseline setting, additionality demonstration, leakage accounting, durability management and MRV general provisions common to all methodologies; activity modules set out specific applicability conditions, carbon pool boundaries and emission source inventories for the six activity categories listed in Article 1.2;

quantification tools provide standardized toolkits for model selection, sampling design, default values and uncertainty treatment.

This architecture draws on the modular design experience of international mainstream systems while retaining WAAS's specificity as an agriculture-dedicated certification platform: unlike Puro.earth, whose methodologies are all focused on carbon removal activities, WAAS must systematically address the inherent biological reversal risks and inter-annual variability of agricultural carbon pools;

unlike Verra and Gold Standard, which cover forestry, energy and other sectors, all WAAS methodology tools take the agricultural management unit as the basic spatial unit of analysis.

In reversal risk management, WAAS draws on Puro.earth's practice of applying "pre-issuance deduction" to biochar — decay models based on parameters such as the H/Corg ratio, pyrolysis conditions and soil temperature (Woolf et al., 2021) — and establishes a reserve mechanism for the biological reversal risks of soil and agroforestry carbon pools.

For removal pathways with very low reversal risk, such as geological storage (if included in future), no buffer reserve may be required following assessment by the Methodology Committee, but relevant international safety standards for geological storage must be observed.

3.2 Eligibility Conditions

3.2.1 Land eligibility. Land within the project boundary must not have been deforested or converted wetland within 10 years prior to the project start date (except in limited exceptional cases explicitly provided in the methodology module). The project must demonstrate clear, undisputed legal or customary rights to the carbon credits and their underlying emission reductions/removals.

3.2.2 Activity eligibility. Project activities must fall within one of the types listed in Article 1.2 and differ substantially from practices already commonly implemented prior to the project start. Methodology modules may prescribe positive or negative lists for specific activities, but such lists must be based on public scientific assessment reports.

3.2.3 Safeguards. Projects must comply with the WAAS Environmental and Social Safeguards rules, including but not limited to: retaining buffer zones around water bodies, protecting existing native woody vegetation within the project boundary, avoiding substantial harm to food security or local livelihoods caused by project activities, and ensuring that biomass feedstock sources do not involve food-fuel competition or forest degradation.

These safeguard rules must be published prior to the first credit issuance under this Standard and developed with reference to existing international safeguard frameworks such as the EU CRCF "do no significant harm (DNSH)" screening criteria.

3.3 Baselines and Additionality

3.3.1 Baseline setting. Baselines shall adopt the dynamic baseline method, reflecting inter-annual variation in external factors such as climate conditions, market prices and policy environments, rather than a single historical average as the fixed benchmark for the entire crediting period.

For paddy methane mitigation, the baseline must incorporate the effect of actual weather conditions on emissions; for soil carbon sequestration, the baseline must reflect the natural evolution trend of the soil carbon pool under the "without project intervention" scenario.

3.3.2 Additionality demonstration. Projects must demonstrate that their activities exceed common practice or regulatory requirements through any one of the following pathways:

Pathway A: Standard additionality test. Demonstrate that the project activity faces at least one substantive barrier (investment, technological, institutional or common practice barrier), and that carbon credit revenue is necessary to overcome that barrier.

Pathway B: Activity penetration rate test. Applicable to projects with expected average annual issuance below 60,000 tCO₂e: demonstrate that the practice adopted has an adoption rate below 5% among similar agricultural operators in the project region.

Pathway C: Positive list. For activities determined by the WAAS Methodology Committee to face systemic additionality barriers in specific regions or operator categories, inclusion in the positive list exempts projects from item-by-item additionality demonstration, though other eligibility conditions must still be met.

The design of Pathways B and C specifically accommodates the objective constraints of smallholder projects: the annual emission reduction/removal of a single smallholder is often insufficient to support the cost of complete additionality demonstration, and aggregated projects should not bear disproportionate demonstration burdens due to the scale of individual components.

3.3.3 Leakage accounting. Methodologies must identify and account for three types of leakage: (a) activity shifting leakage — project activities cause equivalent emission or carbon-destroying activities to shift outside the project boundary; (b) market leakage — the project changes product supply or price signals, indirectly inducing emission changes;

(c) life-cycle leakage — upstream emissions from the production and transport of project inputs (machinery, fertilizer, irrigation energy, etc.).

Leakage quantities shall in principle be fully deducted from net climate benefit; methodologies may prescribe conservative default deduction factors for specific cases, which must be based on public scientific assessment.

3.3.4 Activity boundaries and module overlap. The same emission reduction/removal may only be issued under one activity module.

Where an activity simultaneously falls within the applicability conditions of multiple modules (e.g., conservation tillage involving both soil carbon sequestration and crop-livestock mitigation; manure feedstock involving both manure management and biochar), the following rules apply: (a) dominant function principle — the module is determined by the activity's primary climate function;

(b) carbon flow tracking principle — transfers of biomass and nutrients between modules must be tracked throughout the life cycle to prevent the same carbon quantity from being claimed under two modules; (c) split accounting principle — where separation is genuinely difficult, the methodology shall prescribe a splitting methodology and state it in the project design document.

3.4 Crediting Period and Durability Commitment Period

The crediting period commences upon completion of design validation, may not exceed 10 years per period, and may be renewed; renewal requires revalidation of the continued validity of the baseline and continued satisfaction of additionality.

The durability commitment period does not terminate upon expiry or renewal of the crediting period: the project developer bears responsibility for carbon pool losses during the commitment period and is subject to the reserve or retroactive adjustment mechanisms set out in Article 4.2.

Chapter 4 Durability and Reversal Risk Management

This Chapter sets out the durability classification of credits, differentiated mechanisms for reversal risk, and conservative treatment requirements for quantification uncertainty.

4.1 Durability Classification

WAAS distinguishes the climate benefits underlying credits into two durability categories, labelled at issuance:

Category R (Removal). Corresponds to activities based substantively on net increase in carbon pools: agricultural soil carbon sequestration, agroforestry carbon sequestration, and biochar carbon storage. Removal credits must prescribe a minimum durability commitment period in the methodology.

The commitment period for soil carbon sequestration and agroforestry carbon sequestration is in principle not less than 20 years (exceeding the EU CRCF minimum storage period of not less than 5 years for carbon farming activities) and may be adjusted by activity module.

The minimum evaluation time scale for biochar carbon storage is 100 years, with methodologies encouraged to declare longer durability where reliable scientific basis exists (Puro.earth raised its biochar durability classification to CORC200+ in its 2025 methodology update; this Standard will follow when scientific evidence is sufficient).

Category M (Mitigation). Corresponds to activities based substantively on avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas emissions: paddy methane mitigation and sustainable crop-livestock mitigation. The durability of mitigation credits centers on the persistence and ex-post consistency of mitigation effects within the crediting period; the carbon pool reversal buffer mechanism does not apply, but continuous monitoring and verification are required within the crediting period.

4.2 Differentiated Treatment of Reversal Risk

WAAS does not adopt a unified buffer pool across methodologies, but applies differentiated mechanisms according to the reversal risk characteristics of activity types.

Biochar. Removals are subject to conservative deduction prior to issuance based on the biochar's H/Corg ratio, pyrolysis conditions, soil temperature and application method, using a peer-reviewed decay model (Woolf et al., 2021); only the net removal after deduction may enter the issuance procedure. Deduction ratios and model parameters are set out in the WAAS Biochar Activity Module.

Soil carbon sequestration and agroforestry carbon sequestration. The WAAS Agricultural Durability Reserve is established. Projects must deposit a ratio prescribed by the methodology (recommended range 10%–20%, determined by the Methodology Committee according to activity type and regional risk characteristics) from each period's issuance into the reserve account. The reserve covers non-permanent carbon losses attributable to project activities.

Release conditions, loss determination procedures and management rules for the reserve are set out separately in the WAAS Durability and Reversal Management Rules. A key distinction from commercial platforms is that reserve assets are not used for trading or collateral, serving only environmental integrity functions.

Paddy methane mitigation and sustainable crop-livestock mitigation. No carbon pool reversal reserve applies. However, if project activities are interrupted or reversed within the crediting period and such interruption substantially negates the mitigation effect underlying issued credits in subsequent monitoring, the Platform may initiate retroactive adjustment procedures under the WAAS Credit Cancellation Rules.

4.3 Conservative Treatment of Uncertainty

Quantification uncertainty must be quantified and conservatively treated prior to issuance. For soil organic carbon, the confidence interval of stratified carbon stock estimates at the 90% confidence level may not exceed ±10% of the mean; where this threshold is exceeded, denser sampling, model calibration or conservative discounts on credit quantities must be adopted.

Methodologies may prescribe uncertainty treatment hierarchies suitable for specific activity types: direct measurement takes priority, followed by locally calibrated biogeochemical models, with conservative default values applicable only to the smallholder simplified pathway and subject to the applicability conditions prescribed by the methodology.

Chapter 5 Third-Party Independent Verification

This Chapter sets out the qualification conditions for third-party verification bodies, validation and verification procedures, and publication requirements for verification reports.

5.1 Verification Body Qualifications

Validation and verification reports underlying credits issued by the WAAS Platform must be issued by third-party verification bodies accredited by WAAS. Verification bodies must satisfy the following conditions:

(a) holding ISO 14065:2020 or ISO/IEC 17029:2019 accreditation, or accreditation by WAAS under publicly available, transparent equivalent standards, with the accrediting body preferably belonging to an institution that is a signatory to the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Multilateral Recognition Arrangement;

(b) maintaining independence in activities related to the specific project, with no conflicts of interest that could affect verification conclusions;

(c) possessing professional competence covering the project region, activity type and quantification methods, including verification personnel with experience in agricultural greenhouse gas accounting, soil sampling and model application.

The WAAS Platform itself does not engage in verification; the selection of verification bodies is at the project developer's discretion, but they must be registered on the Platform and subject to its qualification supervision and peer review.

5.2 Validation and Verification Procedures

Design validation. Projects must complete design validation prior to first issuance, with the verification body independently assessing the project design document and methodology applicability, baseline setting, additionality demonstration, and monitoring plan.

Performance verification. After the end of each monitoring period, the verification body verifies the project's actual emission reductions/removals, including data integrity checks, model/sampling audits, reasonableness review of uncertainty assessments, and confirmation of safeguards compliance.

Verification frequency. The verification interval for removal projects may not exceed 5 years, with at least four performance verifications within the durability commitment period; the verification interval for mitigation projects is determined by the methodology module, in principle not exceeding 3 years.

Aggregated smallholder projects may adopt sampling verification schemes approved by the Platform under the simplified conditions prescribed by the methodology, but the basic requirement of independent third-party verification may not be waived.

5.3 Verification Reports and Publication

Validation and verification reports issued by verification bodies must be submitted to the WAAS Platform; except for confidential information protected by law, the core conclusions and quantitative basis of reports are open to the public in the Platform's public registry.

Chapter 6 Issuance and Registration of Carbon Credits

This Chapter sets out the conditions for issuance of agricultural carbon credits, issuance unit and serial number rules, blockchain registry architecture, and trading and holding rules.

6.1 Issuance Conditions

WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits may be issued only when all of the following conditions are met:

(a) the project has completed design validation and is within a valid crediting period;

(b) the verification body has issued a performance verification report with an unqualified opinion;

(c) pre-issuance deductions (such as biochar decay deduction) and reserve contributions (where applicable) prescribed by the methodology have been executed;

(d) the project's account status in the WAAS registry is normal, with no unresolved double-counting objections or compliance disputes.

6.2 Issuance Units and Serial Numbers

Each unit of WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credit corresponds to 1 tonne of verified CO₂e and is assigned a globally unique serial number. Serial numbers embed methodology module identifiers, project identifiers, monitoring period, durability category (R or M), and issuance batch codes, ensuring traceability to the source project and specific quantification batch in subsequent transfer, trading and retirement stages.

6.3 Blockchain Registry

The WAAS registry adopts a blockchain architecture to record the full life cycle of credit issuance, transfer, holding and retirement. Each credit unit exists on-chain as a unique digital credential, with its metadata linked to off-chain verification data through hash anchoring.

On-chain sequencing. Credit issuance is registered on-chain as a minting event, with the minted quantity strictly equal to the verified issuable quantity after deductions/reserves. Prior to minting, the verification report summary and quantitative data fingerprint underlying issuance must first be anchored on-chain.

Metadata binding. Each on-chain credential is bound to its off-chain registry serial number, methodology module, monitoring period, durability category, reserve contribution ratio (where applicable), and project geographic and operator category information. This binding relationship is the sole basis for proving the "same unit" in subsequent retirement and cross-system interfacing.

Permissions and control. Minting, transfer and retirement permissions are managed by the WAAS registry administrator under Platform rules. Project developers, holders and retirement requestors operate the system within their respective permission scopes, with on-chain records immutably preserving the complete operational history.

6.4 Trading and Holding

WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits may be transferred between accounts within the Platform registry. Transfers do not alter the credit's methodology attributes, durability category or serial number identity. The Platform does not operate a public trading market, does not set prices, and does not provide matching or market-making services; the trading function is limited to ownership registration, with prices and trading terms agreed by the parties outside the Platform.

Chapter 7 Retirement, Claims and Prevention of Double Counting

This Chapter sets out retirement as the sole means of credit use, and anti-double-counting rules at the serial number, retirement, claim and national levels.

7.1 Retirement as the Sole Means of Credit Use

Climate benefit claims for WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits are realized solely through retirement. Unretired credits may not be used for carbon neutrality claims, ESG disclosure, CBAM compliance or other forms of climate benefit claims. Retirement requests must specify the beneficiary, purpose of use, corresponding emissions period, and geographic or organizational boundary information.

When executed on-chain, the corresponding credential is permanently destroyed or marked as non-transferable, with the off-chain registry updated synchronously, ensuring that credits corresponding to the same serial number cannot be transferred or retired again.

7.2 Anti-Double-Counting Rules

The WAAS Platform establishes anti-double-counting mechanisms at three levels:

Serial number level. Each credit unit's unique serial number runs through the entire issuance, transfer and retirement process; the same serial number may not be minted twice within the Platform, nor correspond to credit units already issued in other registry systems.

Retirement level. Blockchain retirement operations and off-chain registry retirement are completed synchronously. If a credit has been tokenized or mapped to an external on-chain system in any form, the WAAS retirement procedure requires irreversible destruction of the underlying credential and synchronous invalidation of the external mapping, to prevent double claims where "retired on-chain but still claimable off-chain".

Claim level. Project developers and credit holders must submit a declaration upon retirement, confirming that the emission reduction/removal underlying the credit has not been and will not be used for: another retirement by the same entity in the WAAS Platform or other carbon credit systems;

emission reductions already counted in the host country's greenhouse gas inventory (unless the competent authority of that country explicitly waives creditization claims for that quantity in writing and notifies WAAS); or duplicate climate claims by the same beneficiary.

National level. Credits involving cross-border use claims are handled in accordance with Article 8.5 regarding authorization and corresponding adjustment; the registry records the authorization status and corresponding adjustment status of each issuance, serving as credentials for international mutual recognition and verification.

Chapter 8 Interface with International Carbon Markets and Compliance Frameworks

This Chapter sets out this Standard's benchmarking relationship with Verra, Gold Standard, Puro.earth and ICVCM, the interface path with the EU CBAM and CRCF, use boundaries under corporate disclosure frameworks, Paris Agreement Article 6 linkage arrangements, and climate financing orientation for developing countries.

8.1 Benchmarking Declaration

This Standard was developed with reference to the core rules of Verra VCS, Gold Standard and Puro.earth, including but not limited to: the structure of dynamic baselines and additionality demonstration, the ISO accreditation framework for third-party verification, differentiated treatment of permanence and reversal risk, full life cycle tracking in registries, and the principle of retirement as the sole means of use.

WAAS also supports external integrity assessment of this Standard and its methodologies by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) under the Core Carbon Principles (CCP). WAAS does not claim complete equivalence or automatic mutual recognition with any of the above systems; any mutual recognition or interface requires case-by-case assessment and technical comparison, based on written agreement.

8.2 Interface with the EU CBAM and Carbon Farming Framework

Since 1 January 2026, the EU CBAM has ended its transitional period and entered the definitive regime. As amended by the Simplification Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2025/2083), CBAM exempts single importers with annual net import mass not exceeding 50 tonnes of cement, iron and steel, aluminium and fertilizer goods (electricity and hydrogen are not subject to this threshold), exempting approximately 90% of importers while over 99% of embedded emissions remain covered.

CBAM's covered goods list comprises cement, electricity, fertilizer, iron and steel, aluminium and hydrogen; agricultural primary products are currently not on the list.

The linkage between agricultural emission reductions/removals and CBAM is mainly reflected in: (a) significantly increased requirements for embedded emission accounting and traceability in CBAM-covered goods supply chains (such as fertilizer inputs, agricultural product processing and distribution);

(b) CBAM allows importers to claim deductions for carbon prices already paid in the country of origin, but such deductions are limited to carbon prices (taxes, allowance costs, etc.), and voluntary market carbon credits do not constitute a CBAM deduction item.

The interface path for WAAS Agricultural Carbon Credits does not presuppose automatic applicability, but follows these principles:

(a) for agricultural emission reductions/removals arising in CBAM-covered goods supply chains that conform to WAAS methodologies, the Platform may provide verified quantitative data and retirement proof for use by importers or supply chain participants as supporting evidence under the CBAM compliance framework, but final acceptability depends on CBAM implementing regulations and the determination of competent EU authorities;

(b) WAAS will maintain technical benchmarking with the methodology requirements of the EU Carbon Farming Certification Framework (CRCF), adopting mutually comparable quantitative indicators and monitoring principles in modules such as soil carbon, agroforestry and biochar, laying the technical foundation for future mutual recognition when conditions mature;

(c) WAAS does not represent credit issuance as substitute performance of CBAM financial obligations, nor guarantees acceptance of any specific credit unit by CBAM competent authorities.

8.3 Technical Benchmarking with the EU CRCF

The EU Regulation on the certification of permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products (CRCF, Regulation (EU) 2024/3012, published 6 December 2024) establishes a voluntary certification framework applicable to activities within the EU, requiring activities to satisfy four QU.A.L.ITY criteria: quantification, additionality, long-term storage and sustainability.

CRCF's storage period requirements are: permanent carbon removals not less than 200 years, durable product carbon storage not less than 35 years, carbon farming activities not less than 5 years. Certified units from carbon farming and product storage are temporary units, lapsing upon expiry of the monitoring period unless renewed or proven to achieve permanent storage.

Technical benchmarking arrangements between this Standard and CRCF are as follows: (a) quantitative indicators for soil carbon sequestration, agroforestry carbon sequestration and biochar modules (carbon pool boundaries, baseline methods, uncertainty thresholds) are designed on a mutually comparable basis;

(b) the durability commitment period of not less than 20 years under this Standard exceeds CRCF's minimum 5-year storage period for carbon farming, and the 100-year minimum evaluation scale for biochar falls between CRCF's durable products (35 years) and permanent removals (200 years), reserving space for future mutual recognition when conditions mature;

(c) WAAS will continuously track the development of CRCF certification methodologies (authorised acts) and publish difference analyses in the Methodology Committee's annual benchmarking report.

8.4 Corporate ESG Disclosure and the Voluntary Carbon Market

For retired WAAS credit units, serial numbers, retirement dates, beneficiaries and durability category information are searchable in the Platform's public registry. Users may submit these as supporting evidence for verified emission reduction/removal activities under disclosure frameworks such as the GHG Protocol, CDP and SBTi, and should design their climate claims with reference to the VCMI Claims Code of Practice.

Users should note that under the SBTi current framework, carbon credits may not be counted toward progress on science-based targets; retired credits may be disclosed as contributions to "beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM)", or used to neutralize residual emissions after a company achieves its net-zero target.

The rule boundaries of each framework regarding offsets and neutralization are to be observed by users themselves; the WAAS Platform does not participate in the final determination of user claim compliance.

8.5 Paris Agreement Article 6 and Domestic Compliance Linkage

If the host country has incorporated the relevant emission reductions/removals into its national greenhouse gas inventory or NDC fulfillment, and the project developer intends to use credits for international purposes, the project developer should obtain written authorization from the competent authority of the host country;

only emission reductions/removals that have been authorized and have completed corresponding adjustment may be excluded from double counting in international transfer and claims.

The WAAS Platform will record the authorization status and corresponding adjustment status of each issuance in the registry, serving as credentials for cross-border verification and system mutual recognition. Credits without authorization or without completed corresponding adjustment may only be used for domestic voluntary purposes that do not involve national inventory claims, and this must be stated truthfully in the retirement claim.

8.6 Compliance and Climate Financing for Developing Countries

The WAAS Platform's inclusive orientation is reflected at the interface level as: aggregated smallholder projects apply simplified verification and registration fee structures; the Platform provides eligible projects with public methodology tools and training materials to lower participation thresholds;

cooperation with multilateral climate funds, development finance institutions and agricultural cooperative networks is conducted on a non-exclusive basis, and credit issuance does not restrict projects' access to other public climate funds.

Chapter 9 Governance and Methodology Development Procedures

This Chapter sets out the composition of and conflict-of-interest disclosure for the Methodology Committee, methodology development and revision procedures, appeals and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the standard review cycle.

9.1 Methodology Committee

WAAS establishes an Agricultural Carbon Certification Methodology Committee, responsible for the development, revision and repeal of methodology modules.

The Committee comprises independent experts in agricultural science, soil science, atmospheric chemistry, carbon accounting, development economics and law; members may not hold management positions in carbon developers, verification bodies or trading platforms that have commercial interest relationships with WAAS.

Committee member lists, conflict-of-interest declarations and annual compliance status must be disclosed in the Platform's public registry, subject to public supervision.

9.2 Methodology Development and Revision Procedures

Methodology proposals must undergo: public solicitation and stakeholder consultation (not less than 60 days) → technical review by the Methodology Committee → independent scientific peer review → Committee vote for adoption → Platform Board approval for release. Revision procedures follow the same process; urgent technical errata may be released first by the Committee Chair with stated reasons, and ratified at the next full Committee meeting.

9.3 Appeals and Dispute Resolution

Parties with objections to issuance decisions, retirement validity or double-counting determinations may appeal to the WAAS Certification Appeals Committee. Appeals procedures follow the principles of openness, written form and clear time limits. For disputes involving scientific judgment, the Appeals Committee may consult independent expert opinions; for disputes involving methodology interpretation, the Methodology Committee issues interpretive opinions.

9.4 Standard Review

This Standard is reviewed every 3 years; in the event of major scientific advances, significant changes in international rules, or revision requirements proposed by pilot evaluations, the Methodology Committee may request early review. Review conclusions and revision recommendations should form a public report.

Chapter 10 Transitional and Pilot Arrangements

This Chapter sets out the pilot period arrangements following approval and release of this Standard, rules for the application of the Standard to pilot projects, and trigger mechanisms for standard revision.

10.1 Pilot Period

Following approval and release, this Standard enters a pilot period of not less than 12 months. During the pilot period, WAAS prioritizes limited-scale complete closed-loop testing in three directions: paddy methane mitigation, agricultural soil carbon sequestration, and aggregated smallholder projects, covering the full process of methodology application, verification, issuance, on-chain registration and retirement.

10.2 Application of the Standard to Pilot Projects

Pilot projects must comply with all substantive requirements of this Standard. The Methodology Committee may, with publicly stated reasons and adoption by open Committee vote, make time-limited temporary adjustments to pilot projects' monitoring frequency, reserve ratios or verification sampling schemes; lists and reasons for temporary adjustments must be made public on the Platform and filed with the Board.

Temporary adjustments may not waive the requirements of independent third-party verification, anti-double-counting and retirement uniqueness.

10.3 Trigger Mechanism for Standard Revision

After the end of the pilot period, the Platform must conduct an independent evaluation of pilot experience and form a public report on the following matters: credit output and uncertainty distribution of each methodology module, verification cost structure (particularly in aggregated smallholder scenarios), practical issues in retirement and claims, and technical obstacles in interfacing with external systems. Evaluation conclusions form the basis for the first formal revision of this Standard.

Annexes (to be published separately)

Annex A: WAAS Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration Activity Module (in development)

Annex B: WAAS Paddy Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Activity Module (in development)

Annex C: WAAS Agroforestry Carbon Sequestration Activity Module (in development)

Annex D: WAAS Agricultural Waste Biochar Activity Module (in development)

Annex E: WAAS Sustainable Crop-Livestock Mitigation Activity Module (in development)

Annex F: WAAS Simplified Rules for Climate-Smart Smallholder Agricultural Projects in Developing Countries (in development)

Annex G: WAAS Durability and Reversal Management Rules (in development)

Annex H: WAAS Registry and Blockchain Technical Specifications (in development)

Annex I: WAAS Verification Body Accreditation and Supervision Rules (in development)

Annex J: Drafting Notes (Informative)

This draft adopts a "framework rules — activity modules — quantification tools" hierarchy in its methodology architecture, so as to set targeted technical requirements for six markedly different categories of agricultural activities while maintaining a unified environmental integrity baseline.

The durability and reversal management chapter distinguishes among pre-issuance deduction for biochar, the reserve mechanism for soil carbon sequestration, and retroactive adjustment for mitigation activities, aiming to avoid mechanically applying buffer logic suited to pool-type removals to mitigation activities, while not abandoning systematic management of agricultural biological reversal risks.

The substantive content of smallholder provisions remains to be elaborated in Annex F; the draft establishes the baseline of "simplified but not exempt from independent verification and anti-double-counting" only in Articles 3.3.2, 5.2 and 8.6. The interface chapter deliberately avoids over-promising on CBAM acceptability, preserving rule space in technical consultations with competent EU authorities.

Version 0.2 revision notes: this revision completes three main tasks — (1) factual calibration, updating statements on external systems such as CBAM, CRCF, Puro.earth and SBTi to the November 2026 time point, and supplementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2083, Regulation (EU) 2024/3012, ICVCM CCP and Paris Agreement Article 6 linkage provisions;

(2) completion of essential elements, adding terms and definitions, measurement and accounting conventions, leakage accounting, activity boundaries and module overlap, crediting period and commitment period, and standard review provisions; (3) procedural closure, setting clear procedures and timelines for pilot temporary adjustments, Committee conflict-of-interest disclosure, and "to be prescribed separately" matters.

Parameters belonging to WAAS's own policy choices (1 unit = 1 tonne, reserve ratio 10%–20%, uncertainty threshold ±10%, 20-year commitment period, 60,000 tCO₂e and 5% penetration rate thresholds, etc.) are retained in this revision, with final values to be determined by the Methodology Committee after public consultation.