Governance and Decision Making Policy

1. Scope

This policy outlines how major decisions are taken within Teravent Limited, particularly those relating to changes in technical standards and operating protocols, project registration processes, credit issuance and reversal decisions, and the treatment of confidential information. It establishes the internal governance structure for these matters and clarifies the responsibilities of the relevant leadership bodies. Separate documentation details how appointments are made within Teravent, including Board and committee appointments, and provides a broader overview of Teravent’s governance architecture.

2. Standard Changes

Responsible Body

Standard changes at Teravent fall under the authority of the Executive Committee. This group provides cross-functional oversight, ensuring that proposed modifications reflect Teravent’s strategic direction, regulatory obligations, and scientific integrity.

Decision-Making Process

Proposals to modify Teravent’s Standards may emerge from a wide range of triggers, including shifts in market expectations, updates in regulatory requirements across the UK and internationally, guidance from accreditation bodies, or feedback from stakeholders and project participants. When a team member identifies the need for a change, the matter is first discussed with the relevant line manager. If there is agreement that the issue warrants further consideration, an initial draft proposal is prepared and shared with internal stakeholders for feedback. The individuals involved in this early-stage review depend on the subject matter; for example, changes relating to durability may require scientific review, whereas changes connected to the digital registry may require input from the technology or data teams.

Once internal feedback has been incorporated, the draft is submitted to the Executive Committee. The member of the Committee responsible for the originating division presents the proposal. The Committee may request revisions or clarification before determining whether the proposal is suitable to move forward to external consultation. When approved, the proposal is first shared with Teravent’s external Expert Network for a private consultation phase. Their feedback informs further refinement. Following this, and subject to renewed Executive Committee approval, the updated proposal is released for a public consultation period lasting no less than 30 days.

Consultation responses are analysed by the internal team responsible for the proposed change, and any recommended amendments are brought back to the Executive Committee for final review and approval. Once endorsed, the revised Standard is published along with a summary of the consultation process and an explanation of how stakeholder input influenced the final outcome.

3. Protocol Changes

Responsible Body

Protocol changes are overseen by the Science Senior Leadership Team. This group consists of the Chief Science Officer, sub-team leads within the Science function, and—when necessary—invited representatives from Verification, Technology, Policy, or other specialist teams. The Chief Science Officer serves as the primary representative for scientific decision-making and may escalate matters to the Executive Committee when required.

Decision Making Process

Updates to protocols, including revisions to existing methodologies or the creation of new ones, may be prompted by scientific advancements, shifts in industry practice, policy changes, or feedback from external stakeholders. Existing methodologies are periodically reviewed, and those reviews may independently generate amendment proposals.

A designated lead within the Science team coordinates the drafting process. This may involve other scientists, external consultants, or members of Teravent’s Expert Network, depending on the topic and expertise required. When the draft is sufficiently developed, it is submitted to the Science Senior Leadership Team for initial review. If additional work is needed, revisions are made and resubmitted until the Team is satisfied. The draft then enters a private consultation with selected members of the Expert Network. Feedback is incorporated into the document, and the revised version is presented again to the Science Senior Leadership Team. Once approved, the methodology is opened for public consultation for no less than 30 days.

After the consultation period concludes, the Science team evaluates the responses and formulates recommended changes. These amendments are presented to the Science Senior Leadership Team for final approval. Once endorsed, the updated methodology is published together with a summary of consultation feedback and the rationale behind adjustments.

4. Protocol Suspension

Responsible Body

The suspension or withdrawal of a protocol is the responsibility of the Science Senior Leadership Team.

Decision Making Process

There may be situations in which a protocol must be suspended, such as when new evidence indicates that carbon removal performance has been overstated or when additionality cannot be assured. Concerns may be identified through regular methodology reviews, new scientific literature, or issues raised by stakeholders.

When such an issue emerges, the Science Senior Leadership Team appoints a lead investigator with appropriate expertise. This individual conducts a detailed review with the support of internal scientists, relevant specialists, and external experts where necessary. A report outlining findings and potential actions is produced and submitted to the Science Senior Leadership Team. Within two working days, the Team reviews the report and determines whether suspension or withdrawal is necessary.

If a suspension is warranted, the protocol is immediately marked as suspended and removed from public use. No new project validations may proceed under the protocol during the review period. The protocol may later be updated and reintroduced following the standard methodology review and consultation process.

5. Project Registration

Responsible Body

The Verification Senior Leadership Team is responsible for decisions relating to project registration. The Verification function sits under the Chief Technology Officer, reflecting Teravent’s technology-driven approach to data collection, verification, and monitoring.

Decision Making Process

Project registration begins once a project proponent has formally entered into Teravent’s standard terms and conditions. A suitable Validation and Verification Body (VVB) is appointed through a structured selection process, considering technical expertise, geographic relevance, and availability. The VVB receives methodology-specific training from subject-matter experts within the Climate Science team.

After completing the validation assessment, the VVB submits its findings to Teravent. The Verification team conducts a thorough review of all supporting documents, such as the Project Design Document, and provides comments or requests clarifications where needed. Once the materials have been finalised, the Verification team prepares a recommendation and presents it to the Verification Senior Leadership Team. The Team determines whether the project should be registered, and the decision is communicated to both the VVB and the project proponent. If approved, key project information is published on Teravent’s public registry.

6. Credit Issuance

Responsible Body

Credit issuance decisions are made by the Verification Senior Leadership Team.

Decision-Making Process

Following project registration, the VVB conducts verification assessments at the required intervals, typically annually but sometimes more frequently depending on project characteristics. After receiving the Verification Report, the Verification team analyses all relevant data, including the underlying calculations, and works with the VVB and project proponent to address any gaps or inconsistencies.

Once the report is finalised, the Verification team submits a proposal to the Verification Senior Leadership Team recommending the number of credits to be issued. The Team decides whether the issuance should proceed. When approved, the Registry team carries out the issuance process and updates the Registry so that the credits become publicly visible.

7. Reversal Management

Responsible Body

Reversal and credit revocation decisions fall under the oversight of the Executive Committee.

Decision Making Process

If a potential need for credit revocation or reversal is identified—whether due to calculation errors, monitoring data indicating a reversal event, or new scientific evidence—the matter is initially reviewed within the relevant team, often Verification or Science. The individual who identifies the issue prepares a report in consultation with their line manager and submits it to the appropriate Senior Leadership Team for assessment.

That Leadership Team meets within two working days to consider the matter and develop recommendations. These recommendations are then submitted to the Executive Committee, which provides direction within two working days. If the Executive Committee confirms that revocation or reversal actions are necessary, the relevant internal teams implement the decision. The Registry team manages credit revocations, while the Verification team manages buffer-pool compensation in cases where reversals impact issued credits. Clear and proactive communication with project proponents and credit buyers accompanies every such decision.

8. Confidential Information

Responsible Body

Requests to designate project-related information as confidential are handled by the Verification Senior Leadership Team.

Decision-Making Process

Project proponents may request that certain information be withheld from publication. Teravent considers such requests only when disclosure would breach confidentiality agreements, risk financial or reputational harm, or violate privacy laws. The verification lead reviews the request and assesses the information against Teravent’s definition of confidential content. A recommendation is then submitted to the Verification Senior Leadership Team.

The Team meets promptly to determine whether the request should be accepted in full, accepted in part, or rejected. If confidentiality is approved, the relevant documents are redacted before publication. If the request is rejected, the project proponent is informed and given the opportunity to provide further evidence. Should the decision stand, the proponent may choose to accept publication or withdraw the project entirely.