Projects have reportedly stumbled over gaps in field sampling integrity, model calibration, and data transparency, leading the validation and verification body (VVB) to withhold its approval.

Now, these incidents are not isolated ones. It signals a systemic tightening by VVBs worldwide, who now serve as the backbone of market credibility. VVBs, the independent third-party entities accredited under standards are responsible for verifying and validating that projects deliver what they claim. While we do not doubt their importance and their capability of adding the seal of credibility to a project, a lot of projects in the past have treated this as a mere check box activity. 

Until recently, that gate was too easy to pass through. Projects were often validated on the basis of modelled estimates and desk reviews, with limited on field scrutiny. However, 2025 marks a clear turning point as the credibility crisis of 2023-2024, triggered by media investigations (read, The Guardian & Reuters) and investor scepticism, has pushed VVBs to redefine what constitutes rigour.

Now, leading organisations such as DNV, TÜV Süd, CarbonCheck and Earthood, and emerging regional auditors in India and Latin America are embedding ground-truth sampling, continuous monitoring using remote sensors, independent laboratory isotopic verification, and full methodological reproducibility. Every tonne of claimed Carbon Dioxide removal now goes through (and rightfully so) a detailed and transparent assessment.

Beyond procedural tightening, the technical foundation of verification and validation (VVB) has advanced considerably, which can be considered one reason behind the tightening of verification. Contemporary VVB assessments increasingly depend on high-resolution geospatial datasets, flux-based carbon accounting, and machine learning-assisted anomaly detection to validate field and remote measurements. For example, LiDAR-based biomass estimation and multispectral NDVI analyses now underpin quantitative assessments of aboveground carbon stocks. At the same time, eddy covariance towers provide precise measurements of carbon flux dynamics across landscapes, while gamma spectrometry and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) enable accurate tracing of mineral and carbon isotopic pathways within carbon dioxide removal (CDR) systems.

Machine learning models are increasingly applied to detect anomalies in MRV data and to model soil and biomass carbon fluxes. For land-based projects such as Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) or Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), verification bodies (VVBs) now triangulate evidence from satellite-derived vegetation indices, chronosequenced soil cores, and laboratory-calibrated mineral dissolution curves to confirm sequestration claims. This shift from qualitative reporting towards quantifiable, instrument-based validation requires that project developers maintain comprehensive calibration records, document error margins, and employ version-controlled MRV datasets. In effect, projects face tightened scrutiny and end up disqualified. 

A senior auditor in an Indian VVB  says - “We are not here to penalise innovation,”, “But scientific claims require scientific proof. If a developer says one hectare of basalt dust can remove ten tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, we need isotopic evidence, soil chemistry logs, and repeatable MRV datasets, not PowerPoint assumptions.”

This rigour indeed has a positive effect. Be it developers building real-time MRV frameworks, employing tech-based soil carbon probes, and adopting high tech audit trails for transparency or simply adhering to norms and good practices, a subtle shift is seen everywhere. True these measures increase cost and maybe even complexity, they also build long-term resilience. Buyers, particularly corporates under ESG scrutiny, need credible VVB-certified credits. Importantly, stricter verification does not merely protect credibility; it enables scalability. By filtering out weak or unverifiable projects early, VVBs are paving the way for scientifically sound and investment-ready initiatives. It also aligns the VCM with Article 6.4 compliance requirements under the Paris Agreement, where quantifiable, auditable, and permanent emission reductions are essential for international credit transfers.Stricter VVBs therefore mean fewer inflated claims, greater buyer confidence, and smoother progress towards regulatory alignment. The carbon market does not need leniency; it needs legitimacy and VVBs, through growing technical rigour and uncompromising standards, are precisely ensuring  that.

Here is to verification ceasing to be just a checkbox