Skip to content

METHODOLOGY_SCORING_RUBRIC.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
219 lines (173 loc) · 6.71 KB

METHODOLOGY_SCORING_RUBRIC.md

File metadata and controls

219 lines (173 loc) · 6.71 KB
Raw

Methodology Scoring Rubric

Overview

All carbon projects registered on CarbonLedger must achieve a minimum score of 70 out of 100 on the methodology assessment. Projects scoring below 70 are automatically rejected during registration.

Scoring Framework

Projects are evaluated across five key dimensions:

1. Additionality (0-30 points)

The project must demonstrate that carbon removal/avoidance would not have occurred without the carbon credit financing.

Excellent (25-30):

  • Clear financial additionality demonstrated with third-party validation
  • Technology or approach is innovative and not widely adopted
  • Strong counterfactual analysis showing no alternative revenue streams
  • Independent audit of additionality claims

Good (20-24):

  • Demonstrated financial barriers partially overcome by carbon revenue
  • Some innovation but with established precedents
  • Basic counterfactual analysis provided
  • Internal verification of additionality

Fair (15-19):

  • Minimal additionality; project likely viable without carbon revenue
  • Conventional approach with limited innovation
  • Weak or no counterfactual analysis
  • Reliance on common practice baselines

Poor (0-14):

  • No demonstrable additionality
  • Business-as-usual activities
  • Cannot pass regulatory additionality standards (e.g., CDM, VCS)

2. Quantification & Monitoring (0-25 points)

Rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification of carbon impacts.

Excellent (22-25):

  • High-precision quantification using multiple independent methods
  • Continuous monitoring with real-time data feeds
  • Satellite/GIS verification with Planet Labs or similar
  • Uncertainty quantification < 10%
  • Third-party verification (e.g., Verra, Gold Standard)

Good (17-21):

  • Robust quantification using established methodologies
  • Periodic monitoring with field sampling
  • Satellite imagery verification
  • Uncertainty quantification 10-20%
  • Independent third-party verification

Fair (12-16):

  • Standard quantification using published methodologies
  • Annual or biennial monitoring
  • Basic satellite data usage
  • Uncertainty quantification 20-30%
  • Limited verification history

Poor (0-11):

  • Ad-hoc or inconsistent quantification
  • No systematic monitoring
  • No satellite verification
  • Uncertainty > 30%
  • Self-reported claims only

3. Permanence & Risk Management (0-20 points)

Strategies to ensure long-term carbon storage and manage reversal risks.

Excellent (17-20):

  • 100+ year permanence or equivalent buffer pool contributions
  • Comprehensive risk mitigation (fire, disease, climate change)
  • Buffer reserve ≥ 20% of total credits issued
  • Insurance or financial mechanisms for reversals
  • Regular risk assessments with adaptive management

Good (14-16):

  • 50+ year permanence or significant buffer pool
  • Documented risk mitigation strategies
  • Buffer reserve 10-20%
  • Planned insurance/financial mechanisms
  • Periodic risk assessments

Fair (10-13):

  • 10-50 year permanence with buffer pool
  • Basic risk mitigation identified
  • Buffer reserve 5-10%
  • Ad-hoc risk management
  • Limited assessment frequency

Poor (0-9):

  • Temporary storage only (< 10 years)
  • No documented risk mitigation
  • No buffer pool
  • No insurance or financial backing
  • No formal risk assessment

4. Leakage & Co-Benefits (0-15 points)

Addressing potential displacement of emissions and delivering additional benefits.

Excellent (13-15):

  • Comprehensive leakage analysis with mitigation
  • Quantified and verified beyond-carbon co-benefits
  • UN SDG alignment with 5+ goals
  • Strong community engagement and benefit-sharing
  • Positive biodiversity impact

Good (10-12):

  • Documented leakage assessment
  • Verified co-benefits in 2-3 areas
  • UN SDG alignment with 3-4 goals
  • Community consultation documented
  • Neutral or positive biodiversity impact

Fair (7-9):

  • Basic leakage considerations
  • Noted co-benefits without full verification
  • UN SDG alignment with 1-2 goals
  • Limited community engagement
  • Mixed biodiversity impact

Poor (0-6):

  • No leakage analysis
  • No verified co-benefits
  • No SDG alignment
  • No community engagement
  • Negative biodiversity impact

5. Governance & Transparency (0-10 points)

Project governance, stakeholder engagement, and data transparency.

Excellent (9-10):

  • Independent governance board with stakeholders
  • 100% transparent data (on-chain + public documentation)
  • Regular independent audits
  • Clear grievance mechanisms
  • Full supply chain traceability

Good (7-8):

  • Multi-stakeholder governance structure
  • Public documentation of all claims
  • Annual independent audits
  • Documented grievance process
  • Good supply chain visibility

Fair (5-6):

  • Basic governance structure
  • Selective data disclosure
  • Biennial audits
  • Informal grievance handling
  • Limited supply chain visibility

Poor (0-4):

  • No formal governance
  • Opaque data and claims
  • No independent audits
  • No grievance mechanism
  • Opaque supply chain

Scoring Methodology

Total Score Calculation

Total Score = Additionality + Quantification + Permanence + Leakage + Governance

Thresholds

  • 90-100: Exceptional (Premium tier pricing)
  • 80-89: Strong (Standard tier)
  • 70-79: Acceptable (Entry tier) ← Minimum threshold for registration
  • <70: Rejected

Registration Process

  1. Developer submits project with self-assessment score
  2. Oracle satellite monitoring verifies key quantifications
  3. Independent verifier validates full assessment
  4. On-chain registration requires score ≥ 70
  5. Score stored immutably with project record
  6. Annual reassessment required, score updates on-chain

Implementation on CarbonLedger

Smart Contract Enforcement

  • carbon_registry::register_project() validates methodology_score >= 70
  • Rejection with clear error if threshold not met
  • Score stored in CarbonProject struct permanently

Oracle Verification

  • Satellite monitoring (Planet Labs / Google Earth Engine) validates quantification
  • Oracle submits methodology_score with each monitoring period
  • On-chain warning event if score drops below 70 after registration

Frontend Display

  • Score prominently displayed on project detail page
  • Color-coded badge: Green (≥80), Yellow (70-79), Red (<70)
  • Full rubric available in project documentation

Appeals & Reassessment

Projects may appeal scoring decisions with:

  1. Additional documentation/evidence
  2. Third-party expert review
  3. On-chain vote by staked verifiers
  4. Updated score after 90-day period

Reassessment triggers:

  • Annual review (automatic)
  • Significant project modifications
  • Monitoring data indicating score degradation
  • Stakeholder petition with 500+ signed verifications

Version History

  • v1.0 (April 2026): Initial rubric based on VCS, Gold Standard, and CDM methodologies