# Validation and verification of climate projects: what is the difference

> Validation checks a project before launch; verification checks the actual emission reductions. We cover ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065, the review process, common findings and how to prepare.

Source: https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/en/kb/validation-verification

Validation is an independent review of a project before monitoring begins: does the PDD comply with the methodology, and are the baseline and additionality justified? Verification is a review of results already achieved: has the actual emission reduction for the monitoring period been confirmed? Validation answers the question “was the project designed correctly?”, while verification asks “did it really deliver the claimed effect?”

## Regulatory framework

- **ISO 14064-3:2019** — requirements for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas statements; confirmed by ISO in 2024.
- **ISO 14065:2020** — requirements for the bodies that perform validation and verification.
- **ISO 14064-2:2019** — requirements for the projects themselves, against which the validator checks.
- Program rules (Verra, Gold Standard, the Article 6.4 mechanism) — additional requirements for accreditation and procedures.

The same ISO 14064-3 also applies to corporate reporting — see [Inventory verification under ISO 14064-3](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/en/kb/inventory-verification).

## How validation and verification differ

| Parameter | Validation | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| When | Before project registration | After each monitoring period |
| What is checked | PDD, baseline, additionality, monitoring plan | Monitoring report, actual data |
| Nature | Assessment of whether the forecast is well founded | Confirmation of historical data |
| Result | Validation opinion, registration | Verification opinion, issuance of units |

## How the review works

1. **Planning.** The verifier assesses risks and sets the level of assurance and materiality.
2. **Document review.** PDD, calculations, monitoring report, primary documents.
3. **Site visit.** Inspection of equipment and meters, interviews with staff.
4. **Data sampling.** Recalculating some of the values from the primary documents through to the final tonnes.
5. **Findings.** Requests for corrections and clarifications; the project owner responds and makes the corrections.
6. **Opinion.** Positive, qualified or negative.

## Common findings

- The calculation cannot be reproduced: the spreadsheets contain manual edits without explanation.
- Monitoring data do not match the [monitoring plan](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/en/kb/monitoring-plan) in frequency or source.
- There is no evidence that the meters were calibrated.
- Emission factors were taken from a different version of the source than at validation.
- There is no clear change history: nobody knows who changed the baseline or when.

## Independence of the reviewer

The main requirement for a verifier is the absence of a conflict of interest. An organization cannot review its own project or a project in which it has an interest. This is required by ISO 14065:2020 and program rules, and it is worth keeping in mind as early as when you choose a validation and verification body.

## How it works in the platform

- The MRV contour is still in development and is marked “Soon” in the platform: it does not yet include climate projects, monitoring reports or validation and verification procedures. The platform does not replace an opinion from an accredited body.
- You can already prepare your data for review. In [Data entry](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/data-entry), consumption for each [facility](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/objects) is entered month by month, invoices, certificates of completion and photos of meter readings are attached to the records, and every record shows the methodology applied — making it easier to trace a value from the primary document to tonnes.
- The year's “Change history” shows who changed what and when — an answer to the common finding about unexplained edits. A closed facility year is read-only, and only the administrator can reopen it.
- The administrator creates the annual company report in PDF and DOCX covering all facilities: before creating it, the platform checks data completeness, and any remaining gaps are listed in the report. Read more in the article on [closing the year and the annual report](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/en/kb/year-closing-and-report).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can the same body perform both validation and verification?

This is determined by the program rules: whether the two roles can be combined and whether a different body is required for certain project types. Check the rules of the chosen program and [regulatory documents](https://7g.carbonplatform.asia/en/kb/documents).

### What is the level of assurance?

It is the degree of confidence the verifier has in the opinion: reasonable or limited. The level required to issue carbon units is set by the rules of the specific program.

### How long does verification take?

It depends on the size of the project, the quality of the data and the number of findings. A well-prepared document package and a reproducible calculation shorten it considerably.