Reforestation site with young tree cover

Methodology

VM0047: Verra's afforestation, reforestation and revegetation methodology

What changed with VM0047, why the dynamic baseline matters, and how it shifts the evidence a project has to produce.

VM0047 is Verra's methodology for Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) projects under the Verified Carbon Standard, notable for introducing a dynamic performance benchmark in place of a static project-defined baseline.

What is VM0047?

VM0047 is Verra's methodology for Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation projects under the Verified Carbon Standard. It sets out how an ARR project establishes its baseline, quantifies carbon removals, and monitors outcomes over the crediting period. Its most significant departure from earlier ARR methodologies is the use of a dynamic performance benchmark rather than a baseline that the project defines once at the outset and holds fixed.

For project developers the practical consequence is a shift in where the evidence burden falls: less argument about a projected counterfactual, more dependence on measured, comparable observation over time.

What is a dynamic performance benchmark?

A dynamic performance benchmark measures the project against comparable land that is not part of the project, observed over the same period, rather than against a scenario projected at the start. The comparison area stands in for what would have happened without the project. Because both are observed rather than modelled forward, the baseline updates as conditions change — including conditions nobody could have forecast when the project was designed.

  • The counterfactual is observed, not projected, which removes a large category of audit dispute.
  • The baseline moves with regional conditions such as weather cycles or wider land-use change.
  • Crediting reflects performance relative to comparable land, not relative to an assumption.
  • The project must sustain the comparison across the crediting period, not just establish it once.

How does VM0047 change what evidence a project needs?

VM0047 increases the weight on consistent, comparable, spatially explicit measurement over time. A static baseline concentrates the analytical work at the design stage; a dynamic benchmark spreads it across the whole crediting period, because the comparison has to be maintained and defended at every verification. That favours projects whose monitoring produces a continuous, structured record rather than a series of independently assembled reports.

Where the evidence burden sits under each baseline approach.
AspectStatic baselineDynamic benchmark
CounterfactualProjected at designObserved on comparable land
Main analytical effortFront-loaded at PDD stageSustained across crediting period
Sensitivity to conditionsFixed once setUpdates with observed change
Key evidence typeDesign assumptions and modellingConsistent, comparable measurement
Audit exposureBaseline assumptions challengedComparability and data continuity challenged

This is precisely the shape of problem digital MRV addresses: keeping a structured, spatially explicit record that stays comparable to itself over years.

What role does remote sensing play in VM0047?

Remote sensing supports the comparison at the heart of the methodology, because measuring a project area and a comparable area on the same basis over the same period is exactly what satellite observation does well. Ground measurement remains necessary — satellite data cannot establish species, planting date, participant identity, or survival at tree level. The two are complementary: satellite observation provides comparable coverage over time, and ground data provides the identity and detail an auditor asks for.

FloraScope covers the satellite side and FloraTrace the ground side, which is why we treat them as one evidence base rather than two tools.

Which projects can use VM0047?

VM0047 applies to afforestation, reforestation and revegetation activities — establishing tree cover on land that qualifies under the methodology's eligibility conditions. It does not cover avoided deforestation, which falls under REDD+ methodologies, or improved management of existing forest, which falls under IFM. Eligibility turns on prior land use and historical cover over a defined lookback period, tested against historical imagery rather than a site visit.

Where a project sits across these categories is a question worth settling early — see the carbon project development pipeline for where methodology selection falls relative to land acquisition.

Frequently asked questions

What does ARR stand for?

ARR stands for Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation. It covers carbon project activities that establish tree or vegetation cover on land that qualifies under the relevant methodology's eligibility conditions, as distinct from avoiding deforestation (REDD+) or improving management of existing forest (IFM).

How is VM0047 different from earlier ARR methodologies?

The central difference is the baseline. Earlier ARR methodologies generally used a static baseline defined by the project at the outset. VM0047 introduces a dynamic performance benchmark, where the project is compared against observed outcomes on comparable land over the same period, so the counterfactual is measured rather than projected.

Does VM0047 require remote sensing?

Remote sensing is central to how the methodology's comparison is made in practice, because measuring project and comparison areas on a consistent basis over time is what satellite observation does well. It does not replace ground measurement, which remains necessary for species, planting records, participant identity and survival.

Can Flora Carbon AI support a VM0047 project?

Yes. Flora Carbon AI's tooling covers both halves of what VM0047 leans on — FloraScope for satellite land screening, land-use mapping and change detection, and FloraTrace for ground-level tree tagging and plot tracking — alongside FloraGPT for methodology selection and PDD drafting support.

Next step

Talk to the team building this.