C-nery, Wetenschapsstraat 23, Sint Gillis (2026)

01/09/2026

A certification methodology may fit a carbon project on paper. But has it been used for similar projects before?

Registered projects can provide valuable context. They show where a methodology has been applied, which activities were certified and how projects were designed and implemented.

The comparison still needs care. A project in the same country is not automatically a relevant benchmark. Its activities, methodology, standard, scale, status and local context all matter.

Similar projects should therefore be treated as evidence, not proof. They can strengthen confidence and help identify questions, risks and assumptions, but they cannot guarantee eligibility, credit issuance or commercial success.

Our platform includes relevant projects in the methodology comparison, connecting certification requirements with real-world precedent.

For EthioTrees, we explored relevant Gold Standard projects in Ethiopia, including S**o, Humbo, and Duguna Fango and Damot Weyde.

📥 Discover the comparison in our case study:

https://www.c-nery.com/product/case-study-download?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=early_carbon_project_decisions&utm_content=part_07_similar_projects

24/08/2026

Projected carbon generation is not always the same as the number of credits available to sell or claim.

For many nature-based carbon projects, part of the credits is placed in a shared buffer. This reserve helps cover potential reversals, such as carbon being released again because of fire, disease or other project risks.

The contribution affects the project’s net credit volume and potential revenue. Its calculation can also differ between certification routes. Some approaches use a fixed contribution, while others consider project-specific risks, mitigation measures and longevity.

Our platform includes this information in the methodology comparison, helping teams understand how different certification routes may affect the early business case.

In our case study, we compare the buffer approaches under Verra VM0047 and Plan Vivo PM001 for EthioTrees.

📥 Download the case study:

https://www.c-nery.com/product/case-study-download?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=early_carbon_project_decisions&utm_content=part_06_buffer_contributions

21/08/2026

What does an in-depth carbon project training actually look like?

Carbon projects bring different worlds together: climate impact, certification, markets, long-term implementation and finance.

During our two-day training, we connect these perspectives and turn them into practical insights you can use to assess or develop real projects.

Expect theory, exercises, examples and space for your own questions and cases.

Swipe through to discover what we will cover and what you will take away.

📅 7 & 8 October 2026
📍 Brussels, MeetDistrict Madou

Choose one module or combine both. No prior experience required.

Find the full programme via
https://www.c-nery.com/learn/carbonprojectdevelopmentmastery?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_c-nery

20/08/2026

The EU ETS reform proposal also has major implications beyond European carbon removal projects.

Two international carbon-credit channels need to be distinguished.

𝟭. 𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗦𝗜𝗔 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
Today, the EU ETS mainly covers intra-European aviation, alongside certain links with the UK and Switzerland.
The Commission is not proposing an immediate extension of the EU ETS to all international departing flights.
Instead, from 2029, the ETS scope would be extended more selectively to flights to destinations within approximately 5,000 kilometres of the EU, subject to a later review.
CORSIA would therefore remain important, particularly for international flights outside the expanded EU ETS scope.
For the supply side, the principal constraint is not only the number of carbon credits issued.
Credits must also meet CORSIA eligibility requirements and obtain the required host-country authorization and corresponding adjustment.
A project can therefore generate credits without those credits being compliance-ready.

𝟮. 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨’𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟰𝟬 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁
Separately, the proposal foresees the possible centralized purchase of up to 260 million high-quality international credits between 2036 and 2040.
These credits would be linked to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and subject to rules that still need to be developed.
This could make the EU one of the world’s largest institutional carbon-credit buyers.
But it also creates a major supply challenge.
Projects will need to navigate:
→ methodology eligibility
→ Article 6 authorization
→ corresponding adjustments
→ environmental-integrity criteria
→ host-country policy
→ delivery timelines
→ EU procurement requirements

The opportunity is significant.

So is the risk of developing supply that ultimately does not qualify.

For international project developers, early screening is no longer optional. It is becoming a core part of project strategy.

17/08/2026

A carbon revenue projection may look simple: expected carbon credits multiplied by the price per credit.

But the outcome depends on several assumptions, including estimated carbon units per hectare, project area, credit price and the crediting period.

The methodology can also influence what may be counted, how uncertainty is handled and when credits may be issued.

Revenue alone does not determine whether a project is viable. Development, certification, monitoring and implementation costs matter too, as does the timing of expenses and income.

Early projections are therefore not promises. They are scenarios that help project teams test assumptions, understand what drives the result and identify where more information is needed.

Our platform structures these revenue assumptions alongside methodology and feasibility insights.

📥 Discover how this was applied to EthioTrees in our case study:
https://www.c-nery.com/product/case-study-download?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=early_carbon_project_decisions&utm_content=part_05_revenue_projections

13/08/2026

The EU ETS reform will not change the carbon removal market overnight.

The timeline matters.

𝟭𝟳 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
The European Commission published its legislative proposal.

𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲–𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟳
The proposal must be negotiated by the European Parliament and the Council. European policymakers are aiming for an agreement in 2027, but the final design may still change.

𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟴
The proposed Industrial Decarbonisation Bank would begin supporting industrial decarbonisation and permanent removal technologies.

𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟭
Phase 5 of the EU ETS begins. The Commission’s central purchasing mechanism for CRCF-certified BioCCS and DACCS removals could start operating.

𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟯
The Commission must assess whether sufficient high-quality, high-integrity and cost-effective international credits are available.

𝗘𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟰
The Commission must evaluate domestic removal procurement, market supply, prices and the potential future role of nature-based removals.

𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟲–𝟮𝟬𝟰𝟬
Up to 260 million international carbon credits could be purchased, subject to the review and additional integrity rules.
From a project-development perspective, 2031 is close.
Large removal projects may require several years for:
→ site and feedstock assessment
→ methodology selection
→ permits
→ infrastructure and transport
→ storage agreements
→ certification
→ financing
→ contracting
→ construction and commissioning

Even smaller projects need time to establish baselines, monitoring systems, landowner agreements and credible carbon and financial models.

The policy applies later.

The project pipeline needs to start earlier.

The next few years will determine which projects are ready when compliance demand arrives—and which ones remain ideas on paper.

11/08/2026

Several certification methodologies may be eligible for a carbon project. But that does not mean they are equally suitable.

The right fit also depends on the project’s priorities, such as social co-benefits, marketability, administrative burden, biodiversity, carbon potential, revenue and certification costs.

For EthioTrees, social co-benefits were a key priority. Plan Vivo PM001 and Gold Standard 403 can both support this objective, but they approach community participation, benefit sharing, stakeholder engagement and reporting differently.

Our platform makes these priorities explicit and includes them in the methodology comparison. This helps project teams understand the trade-offs before committing to one certification route.

Because the best methodology depends on how your project defines success.

📥 Discover the complete EthioTrees comparison in our case study:
https://www.c-nery.com/product/case-study-download?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=early_carbon_project_decisions&utm_content=part_04_project_priorities

06/08/2026

The EU ETS reform proposal sends a strong signal for carbon removal.

But not all removal pathways receive the same signal.

In the initial phase, the proposed central purchasing mechanism would focus on domestic, CRCF-certified:
→ Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage — DACCS
→ Biogenic Carbon Capture and Storage — BioCCS or BECCS

Both pathways require permanent geological storage.

Other project types are not part of the initial ETS procurement mechanism.

That currently includes:
→ biochar
→ soil carbon
→ agroforestry
→ afforestation and reforestation
→ peatland and wetland restoration
→ other nature-based and carbon-farming activities

This does not mean these projects have no role in the European carbon market.

Many can still be developed under voluntary carbon standards, insetting programmes, national frameworks and, once the relevant methodologies are operational, the CRCF.

But the immediate compliance demand signal is clearly different.

The Commission is expected to review the purchasing mechanism, supply and pricing conditions and the potential role of nature-based removals by the end of 2034.

For project owners, this creates three different strategic questions:
1. Is the project already in scope for the initial ETS mechanism?
2. Could it become eligible following a later review?
3. Which voluntary, insetting or CRCF-aligned route can create value before then?

Project type alone will not answer these questions.

Feedstock, additionality, carbon accounting, storage durability, land-use impacts, certification methodology, location and monitoring approach will all matter.

That is why early methodology and feasibility assessment are becoming increasingly important.

The future market may be large.
But eligibility will never be automatic.

03/08/2026

Early carbon project ideas rarely come with every answer.
Missing information does not need to prevent an initial assessment. But it is important to understand which gaps could influence methodology eligibility, carbon potential, project costs, revenue, risks or the go/no-go decision.

For every important gap, ask:
What information is missing?
Why does it matter?
What could it change?

Our platform highlights where further clarification is needed and provides advice on what to investigate next. This helps teams prioritise the information they need now, the assumptions they can validate later and the uncertainties that could change the decision.

In our case study, we show how available project information becomes methodology, feasibility and business-case insights.

📥 Download the case study:
https://www.c-nery.com/product/case-study-download?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=early_carbon_project_decisions&utm_content=part_03_missing_information

31/07/2026

One of the most important elements of the EU ETS reform proposal is the mechanism through which permanent carbon removals could enter the system.

But there is an important nuance.

The proposal foresees the auctioning of 𝟮𝟱𝟬 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗨 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟭 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟮𝟬𝟰𝟬, with a further contingency reserve of 10 million allowances.

The revenues would then be used by the European Commission to purchase CRCF-certified permanent removals.

In other words:

250 million allowances are the proposed financing mechanism.

They are not necessarily equal to 250 million tonnes of purchased removals.

The actual volume of removals will depend on several factors:

→ the future EUA price
→ the procurement price of the eligible removals
→ the availability of projects
→ the speed at which supply can scale
→ the purchasing and tendering rules that still need to be developed

In the initial model, the removal units would not simply be traded directly between project developers and ETS operators. The Commission would act as a central intermediary and purchaser.

This creates more control over quality, but it also means that project developers will need to understand a new type of buyer.

Winning access to this market may require more than generating a carbon credit.

Projects will need to demonstrate eligibility, durability, reliable delivery, competitive pricing and a credible development and financing plan.

For the supply side, the question is therefore not only:
“Can this project remove carbon?”

It is also:
“Can this project become procurement-ready for a European compliance buyer?”

C-nery

01/09/2026

24/08/2026

21/08/2026

20/08/2026

17/08/2026

13/08/2026

11/08/2026

06/08/2026

03/08/2026

31/07/2026

Adresse

Site Web

Notifications

Raccourcis

Partager

Type

Demande de retrait de la fiche