Inefficiency of Conventional MRV Process 

Current GHG measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems today are mostly analog and manual processes. This requires in person visits to audit sites, which is inefficient and costly. Occasional (e.g., annual) visits mean project proponents are limited in their ability to monetize climate assets or trade in climate markets.

Credibility of MRV Results

Current MRV practices, and also new efforts to digitize data from climate actions, lack security and trust, reducing utility due to a lack of confidence. Existing digital equipment in facilities are limited, e.g., do not prevent data manipulation. Current MRV practices for data analytics and QA/QC are limited, e.g. basic visual inspection and spreadsheet calculations.

Utility of MRV Data and Information to Scale Climate Actions

Investors, sellers, buyers and other stakeholders are limited from participating in carbon markets and carbon finance without secure, immutable, reliable source data, available in near real-time via DLT to climate registries (NDC registry, carbon credit registry) and in accordance with linked MRV methodologies.

Cohesiveness of MRV System

Many different types climate actions with different data and MRV methodologies, that are not comparable and do not “add-up” with confidence as “one version of the truth” everyone agrees with. This leads to lack of confidence and limits ability to scale NDC climate actions towards efficient and effective transformational change.