Sylvera has two types of Full Ratings:

​

What a Rating does and does not tell you

A Sylvera Rating tells you Sylvera’s independent assessment of the quality of a project’s carbon credits at the time of assessment. It reflects the strength of the evidence for the claims made — that the removals are or will be real, additional, and durable.

• Ratings reflect conditions at the time of assessment. Carbon project risks — particularly permanence risks such as fire and drought — can change materially over time. Check whether a rating has been updated before relying on it for a new procurement decision.
• Sylvera’s Ratings do not deal with the risk of market value loss due to changes in regulation, liquidity and/or other market considerations.
• Please note: whilst our Ratings may make reference to the entities involved in the project and their track record(s), our processes do not include performing know-your-customer checks on the proponent(s). We strongly advise any buyer to always conduct enhanced KYC checks on all transaction counterparties prior to purchasing carbon credits.

​

Rating Structure

A Full Rating is composed of:

• Final letter rating — the overall quality grade from AAA (highest) to D (lowest), derived by combining the three core pillar scores through two sequential matrices
• Pillar scores
  • Carbon Accounting score (1–10) — 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
  • 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

Sylvera expresses the quality of the project as a single letter grade on an eight-level scale, from AAA (exceptional) to D (lowest quality). The scale is designed to be immediately legible: a higher rating means greater confidence that the carbon removals claimed are real, additional, and durable.

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 Sylvera recommended minimum thresholds for Carbon and Additionality Pillars. 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.

​

Interpreting quality

​

AAA / AA / A — High confidence

Projects rated A or above have demonstrated strong performance across all three core pillars. At AAA, Sylvera has very high confidence that the credits represent genuine, additional, and durable carbon removal. AA projects perform strongly but may have minor residual concerns in one area. A projects are good quality but carry moderate risk factors — for example, slightly elevated permanence risk or a credible but not fully compelling additionality case — that prevent a top-tier rating.

​

BBB — Investment grade threshold

BBB is the most important threshold on the scale. A BBB-rated project meets Sylvera’s minimum requirements for both Carbon Accounting and Additionality, and has demonstrated adequate permanence protection. Buyers and investors who set a minimum quality bar for procurement commonly use BBB as that floor.

​

BB / B — Below investment grade

Projects rated BB or B have meaningful to significant weaknesses in one or more pillars. These weaknesses are material enough that buyers cannot rely on the credits meeting a high standard of carbon integrity without additional scrutiny. A BB rating signals caution; a B rating signals serious concern.

​

C / D — Poor and lowest quality

C-rated projects have serious deficiencies in at least one core pillar — for example, evidence of systematic over-crediting, a very weak additionality case, or substantial unmitigated permanence risk. A D rating is triggered automatically when any core pillar receives a score of 1, reflecting a fundamental failure that cannot be offset by performance elsewhere.

​

Pillar Scores

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

​

Carbon Accounting

Our Carbon Accounting score verifies whether a project is accurately reporting on its activities, and whether that reporting translates to its overall avoidance or removal of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), measured in CO2 equivalent (CO2e). It runs from 1 to 10 and while the structure across frameworks may be different, approaches scoring in two ways: Project reporting, which independently benchmarks the values a project has reported, and Carbon modeling risks, which evaluates the modeling choices the project has made. Carbon modeling risks was previously assessed as Over-crediting Risk within the Additionality score, and Project reporting was previously known as the Carbon score. Project reporting Project reporting verifies whether a project is accurately reporting on its activities, and whether that reporting translates to its overall avoidance or removal of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), measured in CO2 equivalent (CO2e). These activities include protecting forests from deforestation and planting trees. We verify them by comparing data provided by project developers against our own measurements. For REDD+, IFM, and ARR projects, we verify carbon stock changes using Sylvera’s proprietary biomass time series data. This is built from geospatial and machine learning analysis of multispectral, RADAR, and spaceborne LIDAR earth observation data, and quantifies changes in above-ground woody biomass over time (see our Biomass Data section for more information). To assess Project reporting, we analyze both the project area and the leakage area, where relevant. We also provide outlook commentary describing forest area changes in the project since its last verification report. Carbon modeling risks Carbon modeling risks analyzes the assumptions made in a project’s design to determine the credibility of its claimed carbon impact. It assesses the specificity and conservativeness of the approach and models used to translate the measured avoidance or removal of CO2 into claimable credits, taking into account factors such as baseline approach, leakage, and project eligibility criteria.

Score	What it means
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

​

Additionality

Additionality refers to the causal relationship between a project’s activities and the climate benefits it claims. A project is considered additional if its activities would not have occurred without revenue from voluntary carbon credits. The Additionality score is made up of three subcomponents, together known as Additionality of Activities: Financial additionality, Policy and regulation, and Common practice. This structure applies across all Rating Frameworks and project types, though the data, focus, and analysis techniques used vary by project type 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.

The risk that a project is over-crediting on the carbon avoidance or removal it delivers is no longer assessed here. It now forms part of the Carbon Accounting score instead.

Score	What it means
5	Indicates very high confidence that a project is additional.
4	Indicates high confidence that the project is additional.
3	Indicates the project is likely additional.
2	Indicates uncertainty about the project’s impact claim but overall still believe it may be additional
1	Indicates we found a serious red flag questioning the project’s claims of additionality.

​

Permanence

Permanence scores represent the degree of confidence that carbon avoidance or removal will persist for an atmospherically relevant timeline. To assess this, we evaluate the likelihood and severity of natural and human causes of forest loss, to determine the project’s risk of carbon stock loss. Renewables and landfill methane projects don’t store CO2 that could later be released. Because there’s no reversal risk, permanence isn’t considered a material risk factor for these project types, and they receive high Permanence scores (5 out of 5).

Score	What it means
5	Indicates a very high permanence, the project carbon credits are very likely to be valid beyond the claimed period.
4	Indicates high permanence, the project carbon credits are likely to be valid for the claimed period.
3	Indicates low permanence, the project carbon credits are unlikely to be valid for the claimed period.
2	Indicates low permanence, the project carbon credits are unlikely to be valid for the claimed period.
1	Indicates a very low permanence, the project carbon credits are highly unlikely to be valid for the claimed period.

​

Safeguarding & Co-benefits

The Safeguarding & Co-Benefits score captures a project’s additional impacts on biodiversity and local communities, including the safeguards in place to protect them. It’s excluded from the overall Rating, since a Rating’s primary function is to assess the likelihood that claimed GHGs have been avoided or removed. Keeping the two separate also prevents a high Safeguarding & Co-Benefits score from inflating the Rating for a project that’s underperforming on GHG avoidance or removal. Community and environmental safeguards are measures designed to ensure carbon credit activities don’t harm local people, biodiversity, or ecosystems, and ideally deliver positive co-benefits. They protect the rights, livelihoods, and cultural heritage of communities, prevent negative social impacts such as displacement or loss of access to resources, and help maintain ecosystem integrity by avoiding practices that damage habitats or deplete biodiversity. Safeguards matter because they build trust with stakeholders, reduce reputational and legal risk for buyers and developers, and increase the likelihood that emissions reductions are sustainable and equitable over the long term. Strong safeguards can also enhance a project’s overall value by demonstrating alignment with high-integrity standards and contributing to broader sustainable development goals. [TODO missing safeguards I think]

Score	What it means
5	Indicates exceptional progression of targeted SDGs, as well as extraordinary species richness and high quality activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.
4	Indicates strong progression of targeted SDGs, as well as high species richness and quality activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.
3	Indicates average progression of targeted SDGs, as well as average species richness and adequate activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.
2	Indicates narrow progression of targeted SDGs, or low species richness and limited activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.
1	Indicates very limited progression of targeted SDGs, as well as very low species richness and deficient activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

​

Handling Missing Data

Sylvera is updating its frameworks to assess projects as robustly as possible, independent of a project’s data disclosure status. When data typically needed to fully evaluate a project is missing or incorrect, we rate the project through alternative pathways. The Rating either uses independently generated information as a proxy to estimate the project’s quality, or assigns probable scores inferred from the score distribution of a comparable sample of analyzed projects. We assign a confidence level to each affected pillar, representing the uncertainty caused by missing data. This confidence level assumes that the risk associated with missing information can be quantified using percentile estimates derived from a representative sample. Regardless of how much project data is available, the Rating uses the same scoring approach. Our frameworks assess carbon credits based on the best information available, taking into account the risk and probable impact of any missing information. When new data becomes available and meets our criteria for rigorous analysis, we reassess the project and update both the pillar score and the confidence level.