Is a certain type of carbon credit likely to be high-quality? CCQI's free, interactive scoring tool can help you find out. To get started, first select from the "type of mitigation project" field. Then, respond to the rest of the prompts to generate scores derived from the methodology. For each quality objective, access more detailed scores by clicking on the score card.

What the Scores Mean

Scores are illustrated on an interval basis from 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest score. The scores have the following meaning:

5	Very high confidence or likelihood that the assessment subject meets the criterion or quality objective.
4	High confidence or likelihood that the assessment subject meets the criterion or quality objective.
3	Moderate confidence or likelihood that the assessment subject meets the criterion or quality objective.
2	Low confidence or likelihood that the assessment subject meets the criterion or quality objective.
1	Very low confidence or likelihood that the assessment subject meets the criterion or quality objective.

"NA" (not assessed) means that a quality objective or criterion has not been assessed. "NR" (not relevant) means that the quality objective or criterion is not relevant for the type of carbon credit under consideration. Please also note our FAQ and the Site Terms and Private Policy in relation to these scores.

How to Use CCQI's Scores

CCQI's scoring tool and methodology support users in understanding carbon credit quality by examining different components of a carbon credit type. While CCQI does not score individual projects, it provides insight into the quality risks of different carbon credit types.

Different actors across the carbon market can use CCQI's resources to play their part in enhancing the quality of carbon credits in the market:

• Carbon credit buyers can use our scores as part of their due diligence in understanding the potential risks associated with different types of carbon credits.
• Carbon crediting programs can use our methodology and detailed assessments to identify gaps or shortcomings and improve their program rules and methodologies.
• Project developers can use our findings to design their projects in ways that avoid specific risks and to choose carbon crediting programs and quantification methodologies that may provide for higher levels of quality assurance.
• Carbon credit retailers can use our resources to supplement their due diligence efforts or to provide clients independent supplemental information on their carbon credits.

What Scores Are Available

At this stage, scores are only available for carbon credits from the following project types:

• Avoided planned deforestation
• Avoided unplanned deforestation
• Commercial afforestation
• Efficient cookstoves
• Establishment of natural forests
• Household biodigesters
• Improved forest management
• Industrial biodigesters fed with livestock manure
• Landfill gas utilization
• Leak repair in natural gas transmission and distribution systems
• Recovery of associated gas from oil fields
• Solar photovoltaic power
• Wind power (onshore)

The project types are currently assessed across five different carbon crediting programs—the American Carbon Registry (ACR), Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), Gold Standard (GS), and the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) operated by Verra—each with their own rules and methodologies.

In addition, two complementary standards have been assessed: the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and the Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard (SD VISta), both operated by Verra.

To understand how these scores are calculated, please refer to the Methodology. The detailed evaluation findings for each score can be accessed here.

Interested in seeing more scores? Have suggestions? Let us know at [email protected]