Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits

The methodology evaluates carbon credits across seven quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, institutional arrangements of the crediting program, environmental and social impacts, and host country ambition. It employs a standardized scoring system (1-5) using point systems and 'inverse weighing' to ensure that a low score in one critical criterion cannot be offset by high scores in others. The guide focuses on ex-post credits and provides detailed indicators for assessing additionality, vulnerability in collapsed markets, and the alignment of credits with the Paris Agreement's Article 6 and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

• The methodology assesses carbon credit quality through seven overarching objectives: robust GHG emission impact, avoiding double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating net zero transition, institutional arrangements, environmental and social impacts, and host country ambition.
• To prevent a high score in one area from masking a critical failure in another, the methodology uses 'inverse weighing,' where the distance from a maximum score of 5 is weighed over-proportionally using a power function with an exponent of 1.3.
• Additionality is evaluated based on four sub-criteria: eligibility regarding legal requirements, the timing of the decision to proceed, financial attractiveness, and non-financial barriers.
• The methodology only assesses ex-post credits, as ex-ante crediting—where credits are issued for expected future reductions—introduces significant integrity risks if the activity is discontinued or underperforms.
• In 'collapsed markets' where supply exceeds demand (currently identified as the Clean Development Mechanism or CDM), the methodology assesses 'vulnerability,' which is the risk that a project will discontinue GHG abatement if carbon credit revenues are lost.
• To avoid double counting, the methodology distinguishes between double issuance (multiple credits for one reduction), double use (one credit used for multiple claims), and double claiming (reductions claimed by both the host country's NDC and the credit user).
• For credits used under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the methodology requires 'corresponding adjustments' to ensure the host country does not claim the same emission reduction toward its NDC that is being transferred to a buyer.
• Non-permanence risks are categorized by activity type; for example, terrestrial carbon reservoirs (afforestation/reforestation) face material risks, while the destruction of non-CO2 gases (like HFC-23) has no reversal risk because the process cannot be physically undone.
• The methodology evaluates the transition to net zero by scoring technologies; negative emission technologies (e.g., DACCS) and zero-emission renewables (e.g., wind, solar) receive the highest score of 5, while fossil fuel-based power with CCS is scored lower (2) due to lock-in risks.
• Environmental and social impacts are assessed using a 'do-no-harm' approach, evaluating the robustness of program safeguards and the project's contribution to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) using a seven-point ordinal scale from -3 (cancelling) to +3 (indivisible).
• Host country ambition is evaluated for Article 6 credits by assessing the stringency of the current NDC, the existence of a Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), and the country's commitment to a net zero emissions target.

APA

Schneider, L., Fallasch, F., De León, F., Rambharos, M., Wissner, N., Colbert-Sangree, T., Progscha, S., Schallert, B., Holler, J., Kizzier, K., Petsonk, A., Hanafi, A., Barata, P., Ogata, C., Stuart, W., & Jones, D. (2022). Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/620/9okv1wuk47_MethodologyForAssessingTheQualityOfCarbonCredits_v2.0.pdf

Chicago

Schneider, Lambert, Felix Fallasch, Felipe De León, Mandy Rambharos, Nora Wissner, Tani Colbert-Sangree, Sophie Progscha, et al. Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits. WWF International, 2022. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/620/9okv1wuk47_MethodologyForAssessingTheQualityOfCarbonCredits_v2.0.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Schneider |first1=Lambert |last2=Fallasch |first2=Felix |last3=De León |first3=Felipe |last4=Rambharos |first4=Mandy |last5=Wissner |first5=Nora |last6=Colbert-Sangree |first6=Tani |last7=Progscha |first7=Sophie |last8=Schallert |first8=Brad |last9=Holler |first9=John |display-authors=etal |title=Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits |publisher=WWF International |date=21 March 2022 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/620/9okv1wuk47_MethodologyForAssessingTheQualityOfCarbonCredits_v2.0.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{schneider2022methodology, author = {Schneider, Lambert and Fallasch, Felix and De León, Felipe and Rambharos, Mandy and Wissner, Nora and Colbert-Sangree, Tani and Progscha, Sophie and Schallert, Brad and Holler, John and Kizzier, Kelley and Petsonk, Annie and Hanafi, Alex and Barata, Pedro and Ogata, Chista and Stuart, Walter and Jones, Darcy}, title = {{Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2022}, month = mar, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/620/9okv1wuk47_MethodologyForAssessingTheQualityOfCarbonCredits_v2.0.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }