Estimated Rating
An Estimated Rating gives the expected Rating range a project is likely to receive (designed to predict a project’s Rating with at least 80% accuracy), based on a subset of material data points benchmarked against Sylvera’s data.

​

What an Estimated Rating does and does not tell you

An Estimated Rating is a signal of how a project performs against the known main quality drivers for its project type, so you can prioritize which projects merit full due diligence.

• Distilling a project down to its main risk drivers and data points is not a replacement for full due diligence, which should still underpin investment decisions.
• An Estimated Rating is not a guarantee of the outcome of that full due diligence process: a project with a high Estimated Rating range can still receive a low Rating, and vice versa.

​

Key Differences to Full Ratings

​

Rating Structure

An Estimated Rating is composed of:

• Final letter rating range — the estimated range AAA (highest) to D (lowest), derived by combining the three core pillar scores through two sequential matrices
• Pillar scores
  • Carbon Accounting score (1–5) — confidence in the accuracy and conservatism of the project’s claimed carbon removals
  • Additionality score (1–5) — strength of evidence that the carbon removals depend on carbon finance and project activities
  • Permanence score (1–5) — assessment of risks that stored carbon could be released back into the atmosphere
  • Safeguarding & Co-benefits score (1–5) — supplementary signal on community and biodiversity co-benefits

​

Final letter rating ranges

Sylvera expresses a project’s quality in Estimated Ratings as a range within an eight-level scale, from AAA (exceptional) to D (lowest quality). The gap within the range reflects the level of uncertainty based on the information available, with a minimum gap of one score level (e.g. A-BBB) and a maximum gap of three score levels (e.g. BB-D). Wherever possible, Sylvera ensures the range doesn’t cross the investment-grade level of BBB, to maximize actionability.

Rating	Quality tier	What it means
AAA	Exceptional	Exceptional quality across all pillars. Very high confidence in claimed carbon removals, a strong additionality case, and very low permanence risk.
AA	High	High quality. Strong performance across all three core pillars with only minor areas of concern.
A	Good	Good quality. Solid performance with some moderate risk factors that limit a top-tier rating.
BBB	Investment grade	Meets the minimum thresholds for Carbon (≥ 6) and Additionality (≥ 6). Moderate quality overall.
BB	Below investment grade	Meaningful concerns in one or more pillars. Buyers should exercise caution.
B	Significant concerns	Multiple material weaknesses across pillars.
C	Poor	Serious deficiencies in carbon integrity, additionality, or permanence.
D	Lowest	A score of 1 on any core pillar, or fundamental project failures.

​

Pillar Scores

Read more about our scoring methodology and project type coverage via our technical documentation.

​

Carbon Accounting

The Estimated Rating Carbon Accounting score takes a holistic view of over-crediting risk, based on how a project has modeled its carbon accounting, its reported values, and inherent uncertainties. Project area-specific geospatial analysis isn’t included in the Estimated Rating. This means the project’s claims, as evaluated in the assessment, may not match what’s actually implemented on the ground. Determining the exact extent of any inaccuracy in carbon quantification requires the detailed on-the-ground analysis included in a Full Rating. For every project type, the Estimated Rating Carbon Accounting framework is made up of two subcomponents: Project reporting
Assesses the thoroughness, transparency, and methods behind a project’s documentation and disclosure. Benchmarking a project’s reported carbon removals and/or reductions against other projects and independent benchmarks can indicate the likelihood of over-crediting risk. Project modeling
Assesses the carbon-related modeling choices a project makes, including which model it uses and what that model accounts for. These choices can influence the accuracy of its carbon accounting, and ultimately, its over-crediting risk.

​

Additionality

Estimated Ratings use regional patterns of additionality risk, and interrogate specific elements of a project’s design, to determine the likelihood that it’s additional. There may be localized or project-specific factors that support additionality; these can only be established through full due diligence, and are included in Full Ratings. Note that the Estimated Rating Additionality score is conceptually equivalent to the Full Rating’s Additionality of Activities score, since Over-crediting Risk — part of the Additionality score within Full Ratings — is instead considered part of Carbon Accounting for Estimated Ratings. For every project type, the Estimated Rating Additionality framework is made up of the same three subcomponents as the Full Rating’s Additionality of Activities score: Financial additionality
How far carbon credit revenue has driven the investment decision behind a project’s activities, assessed through direct financial analysis or proxies such as by-products or known financial barriers to implementation. Policy and regulation
Whether effective policy and regulation exist, at the national or regional level, that support or undermine the case for additionality. This includes incentives or regulation affecting the claimed business-as-usual scenario or the project’s activities. Common practice
Whether there’s evidence that the claimed business-as-usual scenario is common practice, and/or evidence that the project’s activities are not.

​

Permanence

Estimated Ratings use regional measurements and predictions of non-permanence risk from fire, drought, pests, and human activity, alongside the claimed presence of any risk-mitigating or -preventing elements of a project’s design, to determine the Permanence score. There may be localized or project-specific factors that demonstrate more or less risk; these can only be established through full due diligence, and are included in Full Ratings. These non-permanence risk drivers were chosen as the most common and material causes of biological carbon stock loss. Additional factors, such as storms and floods, are considered as part of a Full Rating. The Estimated Rating Permanence framework is made up of the same four subcomponents: Fire risk
The average fire danger level in the project region(s), determined by modeling the historical and future (up to 2100) Fire Weather Index, mitigated by the presence of any claimed fire-specific mitigating or preventing project activities. Drought risk
The average drought severity level in the project region(s), determined by modeling the historical and future (up to 2100) Standardized Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), mitigated by the presence of any claimed drought-specific mitigating or preventing project activities. Pest risk
The presence of any project design factors that would worsen the impact of a pest- or pathogen-driven loss event, mitigated by the presence of any claimed pest-specific mitigating or preventing project activities. Note that this subcomponent isn’t included for Cookstoves, and doesn’t address a project’s location-specific pest risk. Anthropogenic risk
Human-driven risk arising from the project team’s experience in the voluntary carbon market, the engagement model with the local community where relevant, and the national risks present.

​

Safeguarding & Co-benefits

Estimated Ratings use project design choices to estimate co-benefits (benefits to the community and biodiversity beyond carbon), as well as the presence of any public legal risk or adverse media against the project proponent (via ComplyAdvantage) as a proxy for the likely presence of community harm. Note that this doesn’t include “know-your-customer” checks on any project proponent(s); users should conduct such checks themselves on all transaction counterparties. The Safeguarding & Co-Benefits score reflects a higher-level assessment of a project’s alignment with No Net Harm principles, while also considering potential co-benefits. As with Full Ratings, this score isn’t included in the overall Estimated Rating. However, relevant elements of a project’s design are considered in both. For every project type, the Estimated Rating Safeguarding & Co-Benefits framework is made up of the same two subcomponents, evaluated in highly similar ways across ARR, REDD+, IFM, and Cookstoves: Community
The disclosure, evidence, and extent of any benefit-sharing mechanism the project has in place, as well as the presence of any known community harm. This subcomponent highlights the potential for net positive community impact, weighing notable community activities (such as benefit-sharing) against any materialized harms that could counteract them. Assessing whether appropriate safeguarding is in place, and identifying co-benefits in terms of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) contribution, requires detailed analysis of community stakeholders, the community engagement process, specific community-focused activities, employment opportunities, and other social activities. Biodiversity
The elements of project design, across forest management activities and species where relevant, that increase or decrease biodiversity benefits.