These FAQs refer to the draft Gold Standard methodology and public consultation on: Sustainable Transformation through Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (STARR)

• Tracks & Modules
• Baseline Approaches
• Monitoring & Quantification
• Transition and Grandfathering
• Permanence, Buffer, and Risk Management
• Eligibility & Requirements

These FAQs are related to a draft methodology that is under development. Answers are subject to change as the methodology itself is finalised. If you have any questions related to your current activity, please contact help@goldstandard.org

Tracks & Modules

If we applied M2 & M5 (stacked module), will the Real case and regular VPA need to separate into two modules if we use the same track (e.g. track 1)?

A single VPA Type shall correspond to a single Compliance Track and Activity Module. VPAs shall not mix Tracks.

For a large-scale project (more than 10,000 ha) with small-holders (1–3 ha), can this still apply track 3?

Table 4 restricts Track 3 to smallholder/small-scale applications for Modules 2–5.

Could you please clarify the definition of small holder?

“Smallholder project” is defined through the applicable Activity Requirements and the Smallholder Aggregation sub-module is described in Section 1.2.3.6.

If a project has both commercial forestry and sustainable agroforestry, would the project follow different tracks according to the module? Follow-up: does this mean that a project can't have these two activities together, or does it mean that the developer would need to select one module but can still develop both commercial forestry and sustainable agroforestry?

Only one core module is allowed per activity. Multiple modules are generally not allowed except M5 stacking.

If a project has both commercial forestry and sustainable agroforestry, would the project follow different tracks according to the module? Follow-up: does this mean that a project can't have these two activities together, or does it mean that the developer would need to select one module but can still develop both commercial forestry and sustainable agroforestry?

As per the draft methodology, the two modules cannot be stacked within the same project. However, we will provide further details on how to register a project with multiple management plans.

Can multiple modules be applied in a single project activity? How can they be stacked together?

Multiple modules are generally not allowed within a single project activity, except for Module 5 (Revegetation). Module 5 may be stacked with any one of Modules 1–4, but other modules cannot be stacked together. This restriction is intended to maintain a seamless and easy-to-apply baseline approach, simplify monitoring, and avoid confusion between the objectives and accounting rules of different modules and tracks within the same activity. Gold Standard is open to stakeholder feedback if developers believe more flexible stacking arrangements should be considered in the final methodology.

If a project includes selective harvesting of bamboo for commercial purposes, should it be classified under Module 5 or Module 1?

The classification of bamboo activities depends on whether the bamboo plantation would meet the applicable forest definition after establishment. If the bamboo system qualifies as forest land after plantation, it would likely fall under Module 1 (Commercial Forestry). If it does not meet the forest definition, it could instead fall under Module 5 (Revegetation). The determining factor is therefore whether the resulting land use qualifies as forest under the methodology criteria.

Baseline Approaches

For long-term projects, how should we estimate the DAF in the future, beyond the current defined periods?

Downward Adjustment Factor (DAF) is applied in accordance with Tool 5 – Downward Adjustment Factor Determination (GS4GG PAA MT400-05). See 7.4 of STARR Methodology. The Absolute DAF Floor of 1.25% applies for Land Use and Forestry (LUF) activities.

Can the DAF value be used worldwide or need to be adjusted to site-specific?

The Absolute DAF Floor of 1.25% applies for Land Use and Forestry (LUF) activities globally. If the Host Country has a specific Sectoral DAF defined in Tool 5 – Downward Adjustment Factor Determination that is higher than 1.25%, the higher value shall apply.

What sources are approved by GS for establishing regional dynamic curves? Is there a database provided under the scope of GS where the project developer is supposed to subscribe?

Gold Standard has not yet approved any regional dynamic curves for use under the methodology. Future Gold Standard-approved datasets may eventually become available, but developers would need to wait until such approvals are formally issued. In the meantime, project developers may rely on curves already recognized by host-country national authorities where permitted by the methodology.

According to section 2.1.1, Table 5, Baseline Validity Period - The fixed period of 10 years during which the baseline removals are calculated based on parameters set at the start of the period. What happens to a project that has already been validated? Is year 0 for the BVP January 1, 2026, or the project start date?

The baseline validity period is not reset to 1 January 2026. For already validated projects, “Year 0” remains the project-specific baseline start date (typically the project start or crediting period start date). The 10-year BVP continues to run from that original start date unless formal re-baselining is triggered under transition rules.

How should the comparison between the project area and the reference area be carried out in the SEMDB if my project area has different soil texture units? Should a stratification process be conducted?

SEMDB is derived from a "Synthetic Control" group - a specific cohort of non-project pixels that are biophysically and socio economically identical to the project area. Please refer to Annex 1. Soil Carbon/Texture is a covariate type for consideration. Stratification is explained in the STARR methodology under 15.6. Soil type is a biophysical condition that may be used for stratification.

Under Track 2, should the transition from Phase 1 (Establishment) to Phase 2 (Minimum Canopy Closure) be assessed at the level of the entire VPA, individual planting parcels, strata, or other sub-units? Specifically, if some portions of the VPA exceed the threshold of >1.5 m tree height or >10% canopy closure while others do not, may the dynamic comparison approach be activated only for the eligible areas while maintaining a zero baseline for the remaining areas?

 Under Track 2, the transition from Phase 1 (Establishment) to Phase 2 (Minimum Canopy Closure) should be assessed at the stratified/biophysically homogeneous sub-unit level (i.e., strata or comparable management/biophysical units within the VPA), not solely at the aggregated VPA level.

If only part of the VPA meets the >1.5 m height or >10% canopy closure threshold, then those eligible strata can shift to the dynamic comparison approach, while the remaining areas continue under the zero baseline until they meet the criteria.

For projects converting active cropland or degraded agricultural land into restorative forestry, could Gold Standard clarify whether agricultural baselines with historically stable or degrading biomass trends may conservatively justify ΔCregional,y values close to zero, where no evidence of spontaneous woody regeneration exists?
 Yes, if the land has a stable or declining biomass trend and no evidence of spontaneous woody regeneration, then a ΔCregional,y value close to zero is not only allowed but often the most conservative and appropriate baseline under STARR.

Could Gold Standard clarify how government restoration or NDC targets should be translated into BRgov,y where such targets are aspirational, partially funded, non-land-specific, or not operationally implemented?
 BRgov,y reflects implemented and attributable government action, not policy ambition, and must be adjusted to exclude non-operational or non-specific elements of NDC or restoration targets.

Regarding the Track 2 NFI fallback requirement of “the same administrative district or zone,” which territorial unit should be applied in Italy and Romania? In the European context, should the unit be strictly administrative (e.g., NUTS region, province, administrative region), or may ecological units (e.g., eco-zones or biogeographic regions) also be used?
 For Track 2 NFI fallback, the “same administrative district or zone” should be interpreted as the smallest relevant administrative unit used for national forest inventory stratification, not a broad ecological region.

Ecological units (e.g., biogeographic regions, ecozones) cannot replace administrative units unless the national NFI itself uses ecological stratification as its primary reporting unit.

Are there currently any Regional Dynamic Curves approved or recognized by Gold Standard or national authorities in Italy and Romania for eco-zones and land classes applicable to Module 2 – Restorative Forestry activities?
 Gold Standard has not yet approved any regional dynamic curves for use under the methodology. Future Gold Standard-approved datasets may eventually become available, but developers would need to wait until such approvals are formally issued. In the meantime, project developers may rely on curves already recognized by host-country national authorities were permitted by the methodology.

Under Track 2 (Regional Dynamic Aggregates), where the baseline is derived from Regional Dynamic Curves or aggregated NFI data, how shall the “Reference Area Boundary” be operationally defined and documented?
 Track 2 uses regionalized, externally derived datasets (e.g., Regional Dynamic Curves, aggregated NFI stock-change data). Therefore, the Reference Area Boundary is the smallest administrative or statistical unit used in the underlying dataset from which the baseline is derived.

Monitoring & Quantification

How exactly is the tree census approach to be applied where 5 million trees to be implemented with smallholder aggregation?

Conduct a Digital Census of surviving trees. To ensure integrity, the census shall be supported by a Digital MRV System (e.g., mobile app) capable of logging unique Tree IDs and GPS coordinates. The methodology allows farmers to participate by counting trees via digital apps rather than establishing complex permanent forestry plots.

STARR method confirmed the mandatory to use allometric equation based on the hierarchy. But in the case of ecosystem growth model usage - which previously aligned to A/R and LUF method, is the ecosystem growth model still applicable?

The STARR framework does not explicitly prohibit ecosystem growth models. Such models are still applicable but only as a lower-tier option after demonstrating that allometric equations are not appropriate.

Under Section 15.3, may the required Digital MRV System consist of multiple integrated components (e.g., mobile applications, cloud databases, GIS layers, QA/QC modules, and carbon calculation engines), provided that the overall system is integrated, auditable, and exportable for VVB and Gold Standard review, or is a single unified platform required?
 Yes, this would be acceptable.

For Module 2 – Restorative Forestry activities applying Track 2, which monitoring approaches for Activity Removals are required or permitted under the methodology?
 Method A: Stratified Random Sampling

For Module 2 – Restorative Forestry activities applying Track 2, which methodology or quantification approach shall be used to assess and quantify activity-shifting leakage?

Method B: Yield Maintenance Test

Why is there a new SOC approach in the STAR methodology?

The new methodology moves away from relying primarily on conservative IPCC Tier 1 default values and instead requires in-situ measurement of SOC in order to improve confidence in measured SOC enhancements and reduce uncertainty associated with generic default factors.

Will Gold Standard consider diversified SOC tracks similar to the biomass tracks?

The draft methodology currently does not include separate SOC tracks by module or project type. However, we invite stakeholder feedback on which differentiated approaches in some scenarios may be appropriate.

What will the monitoring requirements for SOC be in the draft STARR methodology?

The current expectation is that SOC monitoring requirements would remain broadly similar to the existing SOC Framework Methodology with respect to sampling design, sampling intensity, and laboratory testing requirements.

Transition and Grandfathering

How will projects transition from v 2.1. to STARR?

Alongside the final version of the STARR methodology, Gold Standard will publish Validation & Verification guidelines that outline the transition approach and applicable grandfathering provisions. Our objective is to ensure that existing GS projects can smoothly transition to a Paris Aligned methodology mid-crediting period, whilst maintaining continuity for project planning and delivery schedules.

Similar provisions have already been developed for published Paris-aligned methodologies: 

PAA VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR METHODOLOGIES UPDATE

If there are existing registered projects with A/R methodology with 20% buffer, what is the process for buffer allocation from 20% to 10% if it falls under the scope of social permanence?

We are working on a guidance that would include grandfathering requirements for existing activities that transition to STARR methodology.

What should existing projects do when transitioning from a 30-year to a 40-year crediting period?

Projects currently validated with a fixed 30-year crediting period will be required to transition to the new minimum 40-year crediting period under the STAR methodology. Projects nearing the end of their current crediting period may first use Gold Standard’s existing procedures for extending crediting periods from 30 to 50 years. Projects with longer remaining durations may instead align the transition during a future verification or renewal cycle through the “gap validation” pathway. Extending the crediting period also requires developers to continue satisfying all long-term security and permanence obligations for the extended duration. Additional transition guidance is expected to be issued, and stakeholder feedback is being sought on how the transition requirements should operate in practice.

Can projects already apply the consultation draft for preliminary review?

Yes, project developers are encouraged to submit their new projects for preliminary review using the draft version of the methodology. The final version must be applied prior to validation.

Permanence, Buffer, and Risk Management

For how long shall issued GS-VERs remain under Gold Standard control for the purpose of managing reversal risks and buffer-related liabilities?
Buffer units will remain under GS control indefinitely. GS buffer units are not returned to the developer.

Eligibility & Requirements

Is revegetation allowed for Mangroves where Mangroves have not been found in the last 10 years in the area?

At present the STARR methodology is not applicable to mangroves. Any specific changes would be reflected in the revision of the mangrove methodology.

Can Module 2 (Restorative Forestry) apply to afforestation/reforestation activities established on land that is not formally classified as “forest” under national cadastral or land registry systems, provided that all STARR eligibility criteria are met and a binding legal instrument prohibits commercial timber harvesting for the entire crediting period?

Applicability depends on forest / non-forest status, not cadastral or legal land classification. Please refer to the definition of Forest.

For Module 2 – Non-Commercial Restoration activities, which legal instruments are considered acceptable as a “binding legal instrument” to prohibit commercial timber harvesting throughout the entire crediting period? Specifically, are corporate resolutions, contractual covenants, registered restrictions, PDD commitments, or conservation easements considered 

Instruments such as conservation easements or statutory designations would be considered acceptable, if it is deemed legally binging in the host country. We would welcome further suggestions to be submitted as part of the public consultation.

Can the STAR methodology be applied to forest lands affected by a natural disaster within the last 10 years?

The methodology contains an eligibility clause requiring that there must have been no deforestation within the previous 10 years before the project start date. This rule also applies where the deforestation event was caused by natural disturbances or disasters. Such cases raise elevated reversal risk concerns because forestry activities must comply with the Risks & Capacities Guidelines and demonstrate permanence. However, exceptional situations may still be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and developers are encouraged to contact the Secretariat directly for assessment.

Does the requirement to designate 10% of the project area as an HCV zone apply to Module 1, Module 2, or all modules?

The methodology specifically mandates the HCV requirement only for Module 1. However, the HCV approach may also be voluntarily applied across other modules. The requirement is for a minimum 10% HCV area, although a developer may choose to apply HCV management across the full project area if desired.

How does the HCV requirement impact existing projects?

Existing projects that already have designated HCV areas are encouraged to continue maintaining them. However, outside Module 1, the methodology does not strictly mandate the requirement.

Is the HCV area eligible for crediting?

Yes. HCV-designated areas remain fully eligible for crediting under the methodology, consistent with previous versions.

Should the HCV area follow the same MRV/baseline track as the rest of the project?

Yes. Under the current draft methodology, the HCV area must follow the same track as the rest of the project. For example, if the project uses Track 1, the HCV area must also use Track 1. We invite stakeholder input on this topic

For any remaining questions, please contact us at help@goldstandard.org.