> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-handbook/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-development-process.md). # Methodology Development Process The OCP Methodology tool is for **collaborative, fast and antifragile methodology development and approval.** **Methodology development and approval is completely independent of the OCP Registry and OCP team**. This independence removes the conflict of interest and misaligned incentives of a registry writing and approving methodologies, and issuing carbon credits from those methodologies. Instead of writing methodologies internally, **new methodologies can be proposed by any stakeholder**: project developers, dMRV providers, NGOs, academic groups or anyone else in the market. A **panel of experts & stakeholders** involving academic and industry experts, potential project partners, rating agencies and buyers will work together to iterate on and improve the methodology. A subset of independent, voting experts decide whether a methodology should be published or not. ### Methodology Proposal, Expert Feedback and Approval Process: {% stepper %} {% step %} ### [Proposing a New Methodology](#proposing-a-new-methodology-1) {% endstep %} {% step %} ### [Expert Review](#expert-review-1) {% endstep %} {% step %} ### [Public Commentary](#mthd-public-commentary) {% endstep %} {% step %} ### [Final Feedback and Vote](#final-feedback-and-vote-1) {% endstep %} {% endstepper %}

**The duration of the process varies**, but it usually takes an average of **4-5 rounds** for the expert panel to reach initial consensus to push the methodology out to public commentary, or fully reject. This has **taken 5-7 months** for currently approved methodologies, but is largely driven by the turnaround time by the methodology curator. If approved, it then undergoes a 1 month [public commentary period](/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-development-process.md) before being published. \ \ [**All approved methodologies are publicly available.**](https://pilot.ocp.earth/all-methodologies) Expert's comments and decisions, as well as public commentary and responses are publicly available alongside the published version. We also maintain a list of [methodologies currently under review and upcoming sectors of interest](https://pilot.ocp.earth/upcoming-methodologies). ## OCP Approved Methodologies:

		Cover image
Early Decommissioning of Marginal Oil and Gas Wells in the United States	Industrial Processes, Oil or Gas Well Management	/files/SNtAvw6fR8jHWXDARGCj
Plugging Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells in the United States	Industrial Processes, Oil or Gas Well Management	/files/iUEL7gT1wiWeNgOOvGWc
HFC Destruction from Household Appliances in the US	Waste, Fugitive Gas Destruction / Recovery	/files/a65obRAgezfQpC4SbD7I

### Relevant Definitions *For more terms,* [*see the Glossary*](/ocp-handbook/glossary.md)*.*

Term	Definition
Methodology	The framework document defining project eligibility and other project requirements, as well as the GHG Emission Reduction or Removal quantification calculations for projects that generate carbon credits. /spaces/J74f9z1HD7PVdEYWZTll List of OCP Approved Methodologies.
Approved Methodology	A methodology that meets both OCP Methodology Requirements and the Voting Criteria, as decided by the Voting Experts on the Expert Panel.
Methodology Curator	The person or organization that proposes a specific methodology or methodology version on the OCP and is responsible for integrating comments and feedback into the methodology. They are not included in the final vote on whether a methodology should be approved. The curator could be the author of the methodology, or a group responsible for bringing an open source methodology to the OCP.
Expert Panel	A group of experts assigned to a specific methodology to provide feedback and help improve the methodology. Split into Voting Experts and Contributors.
Voting Experts	Members of the expert panel who can have both commenting and voting rights on a specific methodology. Each expert can indicate when they think the methodology is 'Ready for Public Commentary' and will vote in the final round on whether a methodology should be approved or not. Voting Experts must be completely independent of the OCP and Curator, and have no incentive to either pass or reject a methodology. The OCP will run a methodology-specific conflict of interest check before any new methodology or version update process is kicked off.
Contributors	Non-voting members of the expert panel - can leave and respond to comments, but will not decide when a methodology is ready for public commentary or vote on whether to approve or reject. Contributors either have an incentive to pass or reject the methodology, a conflict of interest with the OCP or Curator, or have indicated a need to stay impartial from methodology approval (e.g. Project Developers, dMRV, Buyers, certain NGOs)
Platform Partner	OCP partner organizations that sit as Contributor on all/most Expert Panels to perform a specific review process. Currently, we have a partnership with kita.earth to provide feedback on reversal risk analysis and Buffer Pool creation.

*** ## Proposing a New Methodology * Delivering high quality carbon credits to the market begins with **robust and well-defined methodologies**. The OCP is designed to allow methodology curators and panel of experts to work collaboratively to develop carbon credit methodologies that are both scientifically sound and accepted by the market. * All methodologies will be slightly different, but **all methodologies must include the key sections and requirements in the** [**OCP Methodology Requirements**](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-methodology-requirements/). If a curator believes a methodology doesn’t require a specific section, they must outline the reasoning to the expert panel. * "***Must***" = requirement * "***Should***" = recommendation * **Best practice in each section will depend on the specific sector**, and is constantly being improved upon by market initiatives, so we recommend looking at the resources highlighted in the [Methodology Requirements](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-methodology-requirements/). * The OCP team will help the methodology curator run a gaps and issues check against the OCP Methodology Requirements upon proposal and before the final vote. The OCP team facilitates the process (coordinating review rounds, managing public consultations, ensuring procedural compliance) but **does not vote on, and cannot override or influence, the outcome of the expert panel decision**. {% content-ref url="/spaces/J74f9z1HD7PVdEYWZTll" %} [OCP Methodology Requirements](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-methodology-requirements/) {% endcontent-ref %} * The OCP now accepts methodologies via an in-platform form (vs. one PDF document), to allow for better readability, expert feedback and the ability to innovate on methodology presentation in the future.

*** ## Expert Review Each methodology is assigned an **Expert Panel** of 8-15 experts representing academia, industry and the voluntary carbon market. This panel is split into **Voting Experts**, **Non-Voting Contributors** and **Platform Partners.** {% tabs %} {% tab title="Voting Experts" icon="box-ballot" %} Members of the **expert panel** who can have both commenting and voting rights on a specific **methodology**. Each expert can indicate when they think the methodology is 'Ready for Public Commentary' and will vote in the final round on whether a **methodology** should be **approved** or not.\ \ Voting Experts must be completely independent of the OCP and Curator, and have no incentive to either pass or reject a methodology. The OCP will run a methodology-specific [conflict of interest](/ocp-handbook/governance/conflict-of-interest.md) check before any new methodology or [version update](/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-updates.md) process is kicked off. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Non-Voting Contributors" icon="comment-plus" %} Non-voting members of the **expert panel** - can leave and respond to comments, but will not decide when a **methodology** is ready for public commentary or vote on whether to **approve** or reject. \ \ Contributors either have an incentive to pass or reject the methodology, a [conflict of interest](/ocp-handbook/governance/conflict-of-interest.md) with the OCP or Curator, or have indicated a need to stay impartial from methodology approval (e.g. Project Developers, dMRV, Buyers, certain NGOs). {% endtab %} {% tab title="Platform Partners" icon="circles-overlap" %} OCP partner organizations that sit as **Contributor** on all/most **Expert Panels** to perform a specific review process. Currently, we have a partnership with [kita.earth](https://oneshot.earth/blog11/) to provide feedback on reversal risk analysis and Buffer Pool creation. {% endtab %} {% endtabs %} Once a methodology curator has submitted a new version of the methodology, the expert panel have **two weeks to read and review the draft version**. They will submit comments in line each methodology section. Experts and the curator can all see and respond to each others comments, and will receive a daily notification if there is new feedback to discuss. Experts must refer to the [OCP Methodology Requirements](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-methodology-requirements/), as well as their own expertise and experience, to ensure high quality methodologies. {% content-ref url="/spaces/J74f9z1HD7PVdEYWZTll" %} [OCP Methodology Requirements](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-methodology-requirements/) {% endcontent-ref %} After the two week feedback round, the curator will finish responding to all comments and work on the next iteration of the methodology. Once they submit the next version, another **two week feedback round** will begin. The goal of the expert panel is to reach consensus on whether the methodology meets the **Voting Criteria**. #### **VOTING CRITERIA** > * Does this methodology employ conservative and accurate calculations, grounded in the latest scientific data, to ensure that the mitigation activity is not overestimated? > * If a project developer complied with this methodology, would each carbon credit produced by the project represent one tonne of CO2e avoided or removed, considering baseline assumptions, additionality evidence, leakage treatment, uncertainty, and monitoring provisions? > * If the answer is no, then what prevents this? After multiple rounds of feedback, the **Voting Experts** will indicate when the methodology is ready for public commentary by toggling the 'Ready for Public Commentary' option in the action panel. This can only be done during a feedback round. Marking 'Ready for Public Commentary' is not indicative of a vote - there is a separate final voting round. If >80% of Voting Experts have marked 'Ready for Public Commentary' at the end of a feedback round, public commentary will commence. {% hint style="warning" %} **DISCLAIMER**: All methodologies are grounded in the latest scientific advancements and carbon market best practices. Both of these are evolving rapidly and will progress and improve as time goes by. On the OCP, we run ad-hoc and annual audits on all methodologies and projects, which includes consultations with industry experts to ensure all work operates with the most up-to-date science and data ([see more here](https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/open-carbon-protocol-knowledge-base/how-we-work/audit-process)). While previous versions will remain publicly available for transparency and the ability to track scientific and market developments, only the most recent version should be used for project development. \ \ The Expert Panel, and other stakeholders, can only operate using knowledge and research available at the time which may lead to uncertainties or knowledge gaps, and this should be considered when assessing rapidly evolving sectors or previous versions of methodologies or projects. {% endhint %} *** ## Public Commentary {% hint style="info" %} [Sign Up for Updates on OCP Public Commentary](https://form.jotform.com/251315142163041). {% endhint %} During Public Commentary, the Methodology will be publicly available on the OCP for anyone to read and submit comments on. All comments and responses will be published alongside the methodology. **Public Commentary runs for 30 days**. [View Open Methodology Public Commentaries](https://pilot.ocp.earth/public-commentary). *** ## Final Feedback and Vote After Public Commentary has concluded, the Methodology Curator will respond to all commentary, and then submit this file along with the **v1.0 Candidate** version for final feedback and voting. During the final feedback round, there is no time limit as the expert panel reviews the v1.0 Candidate and submits feedback, similar to previous rounds. The Curator will be able to update the v1.0 Candidate, and will track changes in the Updates field. Experts will be notified when the methodology has been updated, even if they have already submitted their vote. The Voting Experts will select whether to Approve or Reject the methodology based on the **Voting Criteria**. Experts can also Abstain, which removes their vote from the calculation. Voting Experts can change their vote up until the last Voting Expert submits their vote, which finalizes all votes. Following expert panel approval, the [OCP Advisory Board](/ocp-handbook/governance/ocp-governance-structure/ocp-board.md) retains veto authority: it may withdraw or suspend a methodology that the expert panel has approved, but may not approve a methodology the expert panel has not passed. This authority is binding on OCP and cannot be overridden by OSE management. See the [OCP Board](/ocp-handbook/governance/ocp-governance-structure/ocp-board.md) page for full details on Advisory Board authority. #### **VOTING CRITERIA** > * Does this methodology employ conservative and accurate calculations, grounded in the latest scientific data, to ensure that the mitigation activity is not overestimated? > * If a project developer complied with this methodology, would each carbon credit produced by the project represent one tonne of CO2e avoided or removed, considering baseline assumptions, additionality evidence, leakage treatment, uncertainty, and monitoring provisions?

Once all Voting Experts have submitted their vote, the decision is calculated: * If >=80% of Voting Experts (excluding those who selected to Abstain) vote to 'Approve and Publish', **the methodology will be approved**. * If <80% of Voting Experts (excluding those who selected to Abstain) vote to 'Approve and Publish', **the methodology will not be approved**. Rejected methodologies will not be available to use on the OCP, although some information and the feedback will be available to view as we believe this is critical information for the market. * *Examples:* * *8 Voting Experts: 1 Abstain, 2 Do Not Approve, 5 Approve = 5/7 = 71% = **Not Approved*** * *6 Voting Experts: 1 Abstain, 1 Do Not Approve, 4 Approve = 4/5 = 80% = **Approved*** --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://open-carbon-protocol.gitbook.io/ocp-handbook/methodologies/methodology-development-process.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.