Who is reading?
The six answers are the same for everyone. Which order you read them in, and the path through them, is not.
Choosing a carbon registry used to be a question of reputation and fee. It is now a question of credentials, because the buyers have started specifying them. A corporate buyer asks for the CCP label. An airline needs CORSIA-eligible units. A lender wants to know the programme is recognised by somebody other than itself. Registries that hold those credentials can sell into those demands; registries that do not are selling into whatever is left.
Thirteen programmes now hold ICVCM CCP eligibility. Four are approved to supply CORSIA units for the 2027–29 compliance period. Seven more are somewhere inside the ICVCM assessment process. And ICROA, the endorsement several registries still advertise, is winding down during this quarter — so one of the three credentials in common use is in the process of ceasing to exist.
The part worth sitting with is who is not on any of these lists. No Indian-domiciled registry holds CCP eligibility, CORSIA approval, or a place in the ICVCM assessment queue. That is not a slight; it is a structural fact with a date attached, and the date matters — ICVCM's application platform is closed and does not reopen until April 2027. An Indian registry that decided today to seek the credential could not begin the process for another eight months. This track exists to state that plainly, registry by registry, and to keep the comparison current as the lists move.
The six slots
- Trigger — The buyer, not the developer, now picks the registry Settled
- Requirement — 13 CCP-eligible, 4 approved for CORSIA phase 2 Settled
- Instruments — The credential grid, registry by registry Settled
- Readiness — Credentialled is not the same as operating In motion
- Economics — No like-for-like fee comparison exists yet Absent
- Response — Pick for the buyer's credential, not the registry's pitch In motion
Observer
Learning the registry landscape — advisor, investor, journalist, student
-
1TriggerSettled
The buyer, not the developer, now picks the registry
-
2InstrumentsSettled
The credential grid, registry by registry
-
3ReadinessIn motion
Credentialled is not the same as operating
-
4RequirementSettled
13 CCP-eligible, 4 approved for CORSIA phase 2
-
5EconomicsAbsent
No like-for-like fee comparison exists yet
-
6ResponseIn motion
Pick for the buyer's credential, not the registry's pitch
Indian project developer
Developing a project in India and choosing which registry to take it to
-
1InstrumentsSettled
The credential grid, registry by registry
-
2ReadinessIn motion
Credentialled is not the same as operating
-
3EconomicsAbsent
No like-for-like fee comparison exists yet
-
4TriggerSettled
The buyer, not the developer, now picks the registry
-
5RequirementSettled
13 CCP-eligible, 4 approved for CORSIA phase 2
-
6ResponseIn motion
Pick for the buyer's credential, not the registry's pitch
Corporate buyer
Buying credits against a net-zero or CSR commitment and needing to defend the choice
-
1TriggerSettled
The buyer, not the developer, now picks the registry
-
2RequirementSettled
13 CCP-eligible, 4 approved for CORSIA phase 2
-
3InstrumentsSettled
The credential grid, registry by registry
-
4ReadinessIn motion
Credentialled is not the same as operating
-
5ResponseIn motion
Pick for the buyer's credential, not the registry's pitch
-
6EconomicsAbsent
No like-for-like fee comparison exists yet
CORSIA-obligated operator
An airline or aircraft operator needing CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units
-
1RequirementSettled
13 CCP-eligible, 4 approved for CORSIA phase 2
-
2InstrumentsSettled
The credential grid, registry by registry
-
3ReadinessIn motion
Credentialled is not the same as operating
-
4TriggerSettled
The buyer, not the developer, now picks the registry
-
5EconomicsAbsent
No like-for-like fee comparison exists yet
-
6ResponseIn motion
Pick for the buyer's credential, not the registry's pitch
The slots in full
Trigger Settled
Why does this reach me?
Buyer-side credential requirements are published and in force; the registry you pick is now decided by somebody else's procurement rule. Checked 30 Aug 2026.
-
Corporate buyers increasingly specify the ICVCM CCP label rather than a named registry
The CCP label is programme-and-methodology specific, so a registry being CCP-Eligible is necessary but not sufficient — the individual methodology must also be CCP-Approved.
ICVCM — Assessment Status · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
CORSIA narrows sharply between the first and second phases
Several programmes are eligible for the 2024-26 first phase. Only four were recommended for the 2027-29 second phase, so an operator buying forward is choosing from a much shorter list than one buying for current compliance.
ICAO TAB report to Council, August 2025 · checked 2026-08-30 reported
-
ICROA endorsement is ceasing to be a usable credential
ICROA is winding down its activities during Q3 2026. Registries currently advertising ICROA endorsement will be advertising a credential whose issuing body no longer operates.
IETA / ICROA · checked 2026-08-30 reported
Richard’s view
The useful reframe for an Indian developer is that registry choice stopped being yours some time ago. You are not picking a registry you like; you are picking the one your eventual buyer will accept, and that set is now published, dated and short.
Next step Someone else
ICVCM Assessment Status — the current list
The primary table of which programmes hold CCP eligibility and which are still in assessment. Updated by ICVCM; last revised 4 August 2026.
No commercial relationship with ICVCM. Linked because it is the primary source.
Requirement Settled
What would have to be true, in numbers?
The credential thresholds are published and countable. Checked 30 Aug 2026 against the ICVCM table dated 4 Aug 2026.
-
Thirteen programmes hold ICVCM CCP eligibility
ACR, ART TREES, BioCarbon Standard, Cercarbono, Climate Action Reserve, Equitable Earth, Global Carbon Council, Gold Standard, Isometric, Plan Vivo, Puro.earth, Rainbow, and the Verified Carbon Standard.
ICVCM — Assessment Status, table last updated 4 August 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
Seven further programmes are inside the assessment process without a decision
Carbon Standards International, Oncra, Open Carbon Protocol, Ormex, Social Carbon, Wilder Carbon and the Woodland Carbon Code have applications received and, in most cases, a draft assessment report in preparation.
ICVCM — Assessment Status, table last updated 4 August 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
The ICVCM application platform is closed and reopens in April 2027
The submission window is expected to reopen in April 2027 and run to end July 2027. A programme deciding today to pursue CCP eligibility cannot begin for roughly eight months, and a decision would follow the assessment cycle after that.
ICVCM — Program Application Platform update, August 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
Four programmes are approved to supply CORSIA units for 2027-29
ACR, ART, Gold Standard and the Verified Carbon Standard, per the TAB's August 2025 recommendation to the ICAO Council.
ICAO TAB report to Council, August 2025 · checked 2026-08-30 reported
What does not exist
A consolidated, machine-readable list of CORSIA-eligible programmes by compliance period
ICAO publishes the summary as a web table that does not render to automated readers, so the phase-by-phase list has to be reconstructed from TAB reports and individual programme announcements. Every secondary source therefore risks being out of date without knowing it.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Next step Someone else
ICAO — CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units
ICAO's own consolidated summary of approved programmes by compliance period. The authoritative source, though the page is client-rendered and awkward to read.
No commercial relationship with ICAO.
Instruments Settled
What counts as a valid response?
Which credentials each registry holds is published by the issuing bodies and is directly comparable. Checked 30 Aug 2026.
-
Verra (VCS) and Gold Standard hold both CCP eligibility and CORSIA approval for the second phase
They are the only two of the large multi-sector registries active in India to hold both credentials for the forward period.
ICVCM Assessment Status; ICAO TAB August 2025 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
Global Carbon Council holds CCP eligibility and full CORSIA Phase 1 approval
GCC's CCP eligibility decision is dated August 2026. CORSIA Phase 1 approval followed the ICAO Council's 233rd session in October 2024, covering the 2021-23 pilot and 2024-26 first phase.
ICVCM Assessment Status; ICAO Council 233rd session; GCC accreditations page · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
ACR, ART TREES, CAR, Isometric, Puro.earth, Plan Vivo, Cercarbono, BioCarbon Standard, Equitable Earth and Rainbow hold CCP eligibility
Of these, ACR and ART are also approved for CORSIA's second phase. The remainder are CCP-eligible without CORSIA second-phase approval, which matters only if the buyer is an aircraft operator.
ICVCM Assessment Status; ICAO TAB August 2025 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
Carbon Registry India holds none of the three credentials
CR-I does not appear on the ICVCM assessment table in any status — neither eligible nor under assessment — and holds no CORSIA approval or ICROA endorsement.
ICVCM — Assessment Status, table last updated 4 August 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
Universal Carbon Registry holds none of the three credentials
UCR likewise does not appear on the ICVCM assessment table in any status.
ICVCM — Assessment Status, table last updated 4 August 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 verified
What does not exist
Any Indian-domiciled registry on the ICVCM assessment table, in any status
Not one Indian registry is CCP-eligible or in assessment. Combined with the platform being closed until April 2027, no Indian registry can hold the credential before the 2028 assessment cycle at the earliest. An Indian developer whose buyer requires a CCP label must currently use a foreign registry.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Richard’s view
State this as a structural finding, not a criticism of any one registry. The ICVCM process is expensive, slow and built around programmes with issuance history — which is a barrier to entry, not a judgement of quality. The consequence for developers is the same either way.
Next step Someone else
Each registry's own accreditations page
Registries publish their own credential claims. Read them against the ICVCM and ICAO tables rather than instead of them — the issuing body is authoritative, the claimant is not.
No commercial relationship with any registry listed. See the standing disclosure on CR-I below.
Readiness In motion
Can this actually be done today?
Credentials are settled and published; operating throughput is not, and for the Indian registries it is either unpublished or effectively zero. Checked 30 Aug 2026.
-
Carbon Registry India lists four projects and has registered none
Two Listed, two Planned, zero Registered. No credits have been issued in five years of operation. Five VVBs are empanelled, two of them added since April 2026.
Carbon Registry India — public project list · checked 2026-08-28 verified
-
The CCTS offset mechanism registry holds no registered projects
India's domestic compliance-adjacent offset route is live as infrastructure and empty as a market. Cross-referenced on the CCTS track.
Indian Carbon Market portal · checked 2026-08-26 verified
-
ICVCM estimates CCP-eligible programmes account for more than 95% of cumulative VCM issuance
Following the July 2026 batch. Roughly 115 million credits have been approved to carry the CCP label.
ICVCM — CCP-eligible program decisions, July 2026 · checked 2026-08-30 reported
What does not exist
Published issuance and retirement volumes for Carbon Registry India and Universal Carbon Registry
Neither registry publishes issuance or retirement totals in a form that can be read or compared. For CR-I the project list implies zero. For UCR the figure is simply not public, so no comparison with the international registries is possible on the measure that matters most to a buyer.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Turnaround time from listing to registration, for any registry
Registries publish process diagrams, not elapsed times. A developer choosing between registries cannot find out how long each actually takes, which is among the first things they need to know.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Richard’s view
This is the slot that does the work. Every registry markets its credentials and its methodology count; almost none publish what they have actually processed. The gap between the two is where a developer's year goes.
Next step Nobody yet
No comparable issuance data exists
No published source compares registries on issuance, retirement and turnaround on a like-for-like basis. Monitored since 30 August 2026; last checked 30 August 2026. If this remains true it is a candidate for original data collection rather than citation.
Nothing to disclose — no provider is being recommended, because none was found.
Economics Absent
What does it cost, and what is it worth?
Fee schedules are published by most registries but have not been collected on a comparable basis in this pass. Recorded as absent rather than half-filled. Monitored since 30 Aug 2026.
-
Carbon Registry India's fee schedule has not changed since 16 September 2021
The published schedule carries that date and has not been revised in the five years since, through a period in which the rest of the market repriced substantially.
Carbon Registry India — fee schedule · checked 2026-08-28 verified
What does not exist
A comparable fee table across the registries in this track
Registries charge across different axes — account opening, project registration, per-tonne issuance levies, annual maintenance, VVB accreditation — so headline fees are not comparable without normalisation. Nobody publishes the normalised version, which is why developers routinely discover the real cost late.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Credit price ranges achieved by registry
The fee difference between registries is usually trivial next to the price difference the credential unlocks. Without price-by-registry data a developer optimises the small number and ignores the large one.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Next step Nobody yet
Not yet collected
This slot is deliberately empty rather than partially filled. Monitored since 30 August 2026. Normalising the fee schedules across the registries listed here is the next scheduled addition to this track.
Nothing to disclose — no provider recommended.
Response In motion
What are the options, and what are others choosing?
The decision rule is stable; what developers actually choose in India is not well documented. Checked 30 Aug 2026.
-
For a buyer requiring the CCP label, the choice is among thirteen programmes and no Indian one
The practical shortlist for an Indian project is Verra, Gold Standard or Global Carbon Council, all three of which are CCP-eligible and active in the region.
ICVCM — Assessment Status · checked 2026-08-30 verified
-
For an aircraft operator buying into 2027-29, the choice is among four programmes
ACR, ART, Gold Standard and VCS. Global Carbon Council's approval covers the first phase, so it does not by itself solve a second-phase requirement.
ICAO TAB report to Council, August 2025 · checked 2026-08-30 reported
-
A domestic registry remains a rational choice where the buyer is domestic and specifies no credential
The credential question only binds when a buyer or regulator asks it. For a purely domestic voluntary transaction with no CCP or CORSIA requirement, cost and proximity may reasonably decide.
Analysis of the credential requirements above · checked 2026-08-30 verified
What does not exist
Documented registry choices by Indian project developers
There is no published breakdown of which registries Indian projects actually use, so 'what are others choosing' cannot currently be answered with data rather than impression.
Monitored since 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-08-30
Richard’s view
The single most common expensive mistake is choosing a registry before knowing who the buyer will be. The credential requirement is set by the buyer and cannot be retrofitted — a project registered on a programme the buyer does not accept is not easily moved.
Next step Our service
Registry selection review
A scoped review of which registry fits a specific project given its likely buyer, credential requirements, methodology availability and timeline. Fixed scope, priced per project.
This is ours and we are paid for it. Every other routing on this track points elsewhere or at nothing, which is the honest shape — most of this track is not a service question.
Not citable — deliberately withheld
| Claim | Why it is not used |
|---|---|
| The complete list of CORSIA-eligible programmes by compliance period | Reconstructed from TAB reports and programme announcements rather than read from ICAO's consolidated table, which is client-rendered and returned no content. The four second-phase programmes are reported, not verified against the primary table. |
| The full current list of ICROA-endorsed programmes | Not read. ICROA is winding down during Q3 2026 and the endorsement list is of declining relevance, but the wind-down itself is reported rather than verified against an ICROA or IETA primary statement. |
| Universal Carbon Registry issuance, project count and fee schedule | Not established. UCR's public pages were not read in this pass. Its absence from the ICVCM table is verified; nothing else about it is. |
| Fee schedules for any registry other than CR-I | Not collected. Recorded as an absent slot rather than filled with headline figures that are not comparable. |
| That no Indian registry has ever applied to ICVCM | The table shows none present in any status as of 4 Aug 2026. That is not the same as never having applied, and the stronger claim has not been checked. |
Beta — read this before you rely on a figure
What this is. Each track answers the same six questions about one subject and shows the date each answer was last checked. Every claim names the primary document it came from. Where something does not exist yet, that is stated with the date the watch began.
What beta means here. The system that assembles these pages is new. Slots may be drafted by an automated research process before an editor reviews them, and no page is published until a person has read it and signed it off. Some sources cannot be read automatically, and where that is true the page says so rather than reporting an unchanged figure.
Check the source before you act. These pages are a starting point for your own reading, not a substitute for it. Rules, prices, accreditations and eligibility lists change between checks, and a date on this page is the date it was last verified, not a guarantee it is current today. Every claim links to the document it came from. Use that document.
Not advice. Nothing here is legal, financial, compliance or investment advice, and it is not a recommendation to buy, sell or retire any carbon credit or to take any regulatory position. It does not create a client relationship. For a decision that carries money or liability, take professional advice on your own facts.
Interests to declare. Richard N. Bright is CEO of Carbon Registry India, a non-profit standard and an NCCF initiative, and provides paid advisory services. Where a track points a reader towards those, it is disclosed on that slot. Most slots point somewhere else, and some point nowhere, which is the honest answer more often than the field admits.
Corrections. If a figure here is wrong, say so and it will be corrected and dated. That is the fastest way to make this better, and it is welcome.