| The foundation on which our governance approach and principles are built. An established practice in natural resource management that ensures an activity evolves to match the best current available understanding of Earth systems.
|
Science and research: Is the project based on foundational science? Has the project identified key research questions and developed plans to address them? | Our system must be built on the foundation of best available science. Research is focused on questions that will reduce scientific uncertainty, with the end goal of identifying solutions that can effectively mitigate climate change. Research will be conducted with scientific integrity. Research plans are documented and publicly available to advance collective knowledge. Research is iterative and follows a staged progression towards scale, starting with laboratory and/or small scale controlled pilot experiments.
|
Environmental and ecological: Has the project effectively considered the potential environmental and ecological impacts of planned activities, both positive and negative? | Environmental risk is mitigated wherever possible through the design of the system deployed (i.e., “mitigation through system design”). Proactive environmental risk assessments must be conducted prior to planned deployments. Processes must be implemented for ongoing monitoring, assessment, and data collection of potential risks identified. Monitoring plans must be shared and reviewed by an independent Scientific Advisory Board or similar impartial expert body prior to planned deployments. Methods for the accurate assessment of ecological impacts are informed by ongoing research and continuously refined based on best available science.
|
Legal and regulatory: Does the project have clear permission to operate and an understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks that impact the proposed activities? | Clear permitting or permission to operate must be secured from relevant jurisdictions prior to planned deployments. Any potential conflicts with other ocean users must be evaluated and effectively managed. Where possible, Running Tide will advocate for regulation to enable the responsible implementation of positive interventions. The precautionary principle is considered in relation to our responsibility to act and the declining baseline state of the ocean.
|
Technical: Do those conducting the project activity possess the technical capacity to understand project impacts, and effectively monitor and measure results? | We must demonstrate a level of technical expertise required to fully characterize the potential impacts of our intervention prior to deployment. The quantification tools we use must enable comprehensive monitoring of risks specific to the system deployed, both during and after deployments. We must maintain the technical capability to fully understand the impacts of our work and refine the system based on the data collected. Measurement and monitoring instruments and models used in conducting research and/or evaluating results must be described as it relates to their role in quantification, and independently validated where appropriate. Technology systems must be tested, documented, and verified with sample data prior to being used in planned research projects. Where possible, subject matter expertise relevant to each component of the system deployed should be developed and resourced in-house. Where this expertise does not exist, collaboration with external researchers and subject matter experts is required.
|
Social, community, and equity: Have those conducting the project worked with all relevant local and community stakeholders to educate, engage, and garner feedback on plans and research? | Where possible, we target our work to benefit communities among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and where the greatest socioeconomic, mitigation, and adaptation benefits can be realized. Communities impacted by our work, including coastal and indigenous communities, must be meaningfully engaged prior to conducting research, and longer term engagement strategies must be developed. Running Tide must provide mechanisms for ongoing feedback and grievance resolution with affected communities. Assessments of potential community impacts must be conducted and monitored over the life of a project. Where possible, these assessments should include quantitative metrics.
|
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? | 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.
|
Information sharing and transparency: Has the project demonstrated the necessary level of transparency around processes, plans, and results such that reviewers and the public can effectively evaluate them? | Data sharing builds trust, encourages action, and furthers our collective knowledge towards the goal of mitigating climate change. To further collective knowledge, Running Tide commits to sharing our research results, and ensuring that data and outcomes are transparent and available for the public and decision makers. Deployment-specific documentation will be public or available upon request. Supplier attestations are required for raw material sources, as well as records of material source locations and transportation details.
|
