Where do Gold Standard methodologies live?
Quantification methodologies sit in Gold Standard's 400 series, which contains 84 entries. The series is large because it spans every sector Gold Standard certifies, from cookstoves to shipping retrofits to contrail prevention. Only a minority concern land: 2 cover forestry and blue carbon, 11 cover soil carbon, and 7 cover agriculture and livestock.
The full series is catalogued below, grouped by sector, with the land-relevant groups first. Document 427, the maintained list of eligible impact quantification methodologies, is the register of what is currently accepted, including methodologies adopted from the Clean Development Mechanism.
Why does the status column matter?
Gold Standard keeps retired and under-revision methodologies published on its site alongside current ones. Of the 84 entries in the 400 series, 67 are active, 12 are retired and 5 are under revision. Finding a document on the site is therefore not evidence that it may be used.
- Active — currently usable, subject to the applicability conditions in the document itself.
- Under revision — published but being rewritten; do not design a project around one without asking Gold Standard first.
- Retired — withdrawn. Usually superseded by a newer document, as 406 was by 437 for rice cultivation.
This is a straightforward trap for anyone researching by search engine, because a retired methodology looks exactly like a current one when it arrives as a search result. The status of every entry is marked in the table below, and document 427 is the authoritative eligibility register if there is any doubt.
Which methodologies apply to forestry and blue carbon?
Two, and they are cleanly separated. Document 403 is the afforestation and reforestation methodology, at version 2.1 of 16 May 2024, and it is what an A/R activity uses to quantify its removals. Document 443, issued 22 August 2024, covers sustainable management of mangroves and is the blue carbon route.
The split mirrors the activity requirements: a forestry project follows 203 and quantifies under 403, while a mangrove project follows 204 and quantifies under 443. Getting the pairing right early matters, because the two ask for different evidence from the field.
Why is soil organic carbon structured differently?
Soil carbon does not have a single methodology. Document 402 is a framework methodology setting out the general approach, and specific practices are covered by numbered activity modules that plug into it — zero tillage, cover crops, managed pasture, biostimulants, and others. Document 402.7 sets what a soil carbon model must satisfy to be used at all.
| Document | Role |
|---|---|
| 402 Soil Organic Carbon Framework Methodology | The general quantification approach for soil carbon |
| 402.7 Soil Organic Carbon Model Requirements | What a model must satisfy before it may be used |
| 402.4 Zero Tillage module | Quantifies gains from a specific practice change |
| 402.6 Cover Crops module | Quantifies gains from a specific practice change |
The modular design is sensible for soil, where the science differs sharply by practice and moves quickly. It also means a project has to confirm that a module exists for the practice it intends to change, rather than assuming the framework alone is enough.
What about agriculture and livestock?
Document 437 covers methane reduction through adjusted water management in rice cultivation — alternate wetting and drying — which is directly relevant in India. Document 438 covers methane reduction from enteric fermentation in beef cattle through feed supplements.
Both are emission-reduction methodologies rather than removals, which is a different claim from tree planting: they avoid methane that would otherwise have been released, rather than taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Buyers increasingly distinguish the two, so it is worth being precise about which a project produces.
What applies whichever methodology you use?
Document 447, Requirements for Additionality Demonstration, applies across activity types and sets how any Gold Standard activity shows its outcome would not have happened anyway. Additionality is the claim most often challenged by buyers and auditors, and it is a design decision rather than a reporting one.
As with Verra, the underlying evidence burden is similar across methodologies: a defined boundary, a defensible baseline, additionality, monitoring traceable to places and dates, and independent verification. See digital MRV in India and the carbon project development pipeline.