Digital Rice Emission Avoidance Methodology (DREAM) 

While transitioning to sustainable practices (like Alternate Wetting and Drying) offers massive climate mitigation potential, historical carbon methodologies have struggled to balance scientific precision with the realities of reaching the millions of fragmented smallholder farmers who produce the vast majority of the world's rice. 

To solve this, Gold Standard is introducing the Digital Rice Emission Avoidance Methodology (DREAM). This methodology pioneers a highly scalable, tech-forward framework that democratizes access to carbon finance while maintaining uncompromising environmental integrity. 

To accommodate highly diverse implementation environments, DREAM introduces a bifurcated verification pathway: 

• Track 1 : Unlocks the market for aggregated smallholders by replacing expensive physical laboratory equipment with open-source Satellite Digital MRV (dMRV) and conservative IPCC defaults to verify field aeration from space, dramatically lowering transaction costs. 
• Track 2 : Provides a rigorous pathway for large-scale agricultural estates utilizing direct, site-specific physical measurement (e.g., IoT water sensors and closed static gas flux chambers). 

Crucially, DREAM is built upon programmatic safeguards. This includes a mandatory digital "Flowering Lock" to protect regional crop yields, dynamic weather adjustments to prevent over-crediting during natural droughts, and strict labor safeguards to ensure climate action does not unfairly burden vulnerable farming communities. 

Gold Standard welcomes feedback until 22 May 2026.

We welcome stakeholder feedback on the overall usability, clarity, and scientific robustness of the documents. Specific questions from Gold Standard to stakeholders include: 

1. Appropriateness of Issuance Caps: "For activities relying primarily on digital monitoring and default factors (Track 1), issuance is capped at 60,000 tCO2e per vintage across the entire project boundary. Is this threshold set at a level that encourages a transition to more precise direct measurement at scale without hindering the growth of smallholder aggregation programs?" 
2. Environmental Integrity of Dynamic Baselines: "The methodology employs a mandatory Dynamic Weather Factor (Wfactor) to adjust baseline emissions ex-post based on seasonal rainfall anomalies. To what extent does this mechanism ensure that issued credits accurately reflect human-managed interventions rather than natural climatic fluctuations?" 
3. Effectiveness of Programmatic Food Security Safeguards: "DREAM includes a programmatic 'Flowering Lock' that overrides aeration signals during the crop's reproductive phase, effectively zeroing out credits during this 20-day window to prevent yield-reducing water stress. Is this automated override an appropriate approach to mitigating potential trade-offs between carbon mitigation and regional food security?" 
4. Scalability of the Dual-Track Verification System: "The methodology distinguishes between Track 1 (Satellite-based dMRV) for small-scale projects and Track 2 (Direct Physical Measurement) for large-scale activities. In your view, does this tiered approach provide an equitable balance between reducing transaction costs for smallholders and ensuring high-precision data for larger estates?" 
5. Clarity of Reductions vs. Removals Stacking: "Mitigation outcomes are separated into Verified Emission Reductions (e.g., methane avoidance) and Verified Removals (e.g., Biochar or Soil Organic Carbon), requiring the concurrent use of distinct standalone methodologies for removals. How does this separation of assets affect the clarity of project reporting and the administrative burden for participants?"