2.6 External verification and oversight

Have those conducting the project ensured that independent expert parties can effectively review and validate the project work, approach, and results?

Our principles

• Creation of an independent Scientific Advisory Board or similar oversight body to evaluate project approach and research plans.

• Environmental evaluations must be reviewed by independent third parties, and be made available for review.

• Quantification protocols and processes should be peer reviewed by industry experts and open for public feedback and consultation.

• Audits must be conducted on at least an annual basis by a qualified, impartial third party to confirm work conforms to criteria dictated by our Framework Protocol and results are accurately reported.

• Where they exist and are deemed appropriate, projects should follow established industry standards, such as GHG Protocol Inventory Best Practices and ISO standards.

How we demonstrate these principles

• In early 2022, prior to conducting any research deployments, Running Tide stood up an independent Scientific Advisory Board, convened by Ocean Visions, with whom we are in regular communication around planned research, quantification considerations, and data sharing, amongst other relevant topics. This Board reviewed the plans and protocols for our current research projects prior to their deployment.

• As mentioned above, our assessment of environmental exposures related to current research projects have been independently reviewed by Deloitte, our Scientific Advisory Board, and members of the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI) Climate Change working group, and are publicly available via our website.

• Our Framework Protocol went through an extensive peer-review process in which Running Tide solicited and integrated feedback from leading experts across more than 25 carbon removal, oceanographic, environmental, and climate organizations, and was reviewed by Deloitte for adherence to ISO Standard 14064-2. Virtually all of the publicly available documentation we release, including our Responsible Sourcing Strategy and Research Roadmap, have gone through similarly thorough, though less extensive, reviews.

There is a clear gap in the existing carbon market infrastructure related to effective oversight and auditing. Depending on the project type, such as with ocean-based approaches, auditors and similarly experienced third parties who can provide sufficient assurance and oversight may not yet exist. It is incumbent upon carbon removal practitioners to provide visibility into quantification and carbon accounting approaches, such that external parties can develop the ability to provide effective oversight over the work.