What our 70+ page report
actually contains — and how
we produce it.

Satellite-derived confirmation of stated land coordinates. Identification of overlapping designations (protected areas, concessions, conservation easements) via WDPA and national registry cross-check.

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index calculated from Sentinel-2 imagery across the full historical archive. Seasonal variation modelled separately from structural degradation trends. Used to establish vegetation productivity baseline and identify historical clearance events.

Random Forest classifier applied to multi-spectral imagery to produce land cover map at project-relevant categories: dense forest, open forest, scrubland, grassland, cropland, bare land, water. Minimum mapping unit: 0.5 ha. Accuracy assessed via confusion matrix with minimum 85% overall accuracy requirement.

Above-ground biomass (AGB) derived from JAXA PALSAR-2 L-band SAR backscatter, calibrated against national biomass datasets and published allometric equations for the relevant forest type and geography. Below-ground biomass estimated via root:shoot ratio per IPCC Tier 1 or regional equations where available.

Annual deforestation rates calculated for the project area and a 50km reference region for the most recent 10 years, using Hansen et al. forest cover change data. Rates compared to national and subnational benchmarks. Critically: we use project-area-specific rates, not country averages — a methodological distinction that determines additionality validity.

For reforestation and agroforestry projects, soil organic carbon (SOC) estimated from SoilGrids 2.0 (250m) calibrated where available against national soil surveys. SOC change modelling applied per RothC or IPCC Tier 2 approach based on project type.

Assessment of whether the project activity is legally mandated at local, national, or international level. We check: national REDD+ policies and NDC commitments, national forest codes, land use regulations, renewable energy mandates. Critically assessed against the legislation in force at the time of assessment — not historical versions.

Financial model demonstrating that the project cannot proceed without carbon revenue. Inputs: current commodity prices (timber, agriculture) for the specific crop/species and regional market, current land acquisition costs, current local financing rates, country risk premium, and the carbon revenue required to achieve a market-comparable internal rate of return. Sensitivity analysis performed across commodity price and discount rate assumptions.

For project types where financial analysis alone is insufficient (typically for community-based or smallholder projects), assessment of barriers including: land tenure insecurity, lack of technical expertise, absence of carbon market access, political/governance instability. Each barrier documented with current supporting evidence.

Assessment of whether comparable activities — reforestation, agroforestry, cookstove distribution — are occurring without carbon finance in the same geographic and socioeconomic context. Data sources include national land use statistics, NGO programme databases, and local government agricultural records. Used to determine whether the project activity represents a departure from common practice.

Conclusion expressed as a structured risk rating (High / Medium / Low / Insufficient evidence) with full evidence trail. Where additionality is marginal or uncertain, the specific conditions that would need to be satisfied for a stronger case are documented.

Annual carbon sequestration (for reforestation/agroforestry/ARR) or emission avoidance (for cookstoves) calculated per the applicable VCS, Gold Standard, or Plan Vivo methodology. For forestry: growth curves applied per species and climate zone from national or regional yield tables. For cookstoves: emission reduction per stove calculated using fuel consumption surveys and validated combustion efficiency data.

Activity-shifting leakage assessed where the project displaces carbon-emitting activities to outside the project boundary. Leakage belt defined per methodology requirements. Market leakage assessed for timber/agricultural commodity projects using commodity supply elasticity data. Net leakage deduction calculated per methodology — typically 10–40% of gross removals depending on project type and geography.

Non-permanence risk rating calculated per Verra's Non-Permanence Risk Tool (or equivalent for other standards). Factors assessed: project risk, natural risk (fire, disease, climate), and socioeconomic risk. Buffer pool contribution typically 10–30% of net removals. Documented with full risk tool scores.

Annual net credits (tCO₂e) calculated over full project lifetime (typically 20–40 years). Projections presented at: Year 1 (expected), Years 1–5 (cumulative), Years 1–10, full lifetime. Confidence ranges expressed as P10/P50/P90 based on sensitivity analysis of key growth / emission factor assumptions.

For cookstove and biomass projects, the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) is validated against current regional data. We do not use the industry-average assumption of 80%+ that has driven systematic overcrediting. We apply MoFuSS values per Verra's VM0050 (October 2024) or equivalent Gold Standard methodology, supplemented by available national energy surveys and field data.

Assessment of which standard(s) the project can credibly pursue, based on: project type, geographic eligibility criteria, community benefit requirements, credit market preferences, and timeline/cost trade-offs. For projects that could satisfy multiple standards, a comparison is provided.

Detailed assessment of whether the project meets the applicability conditions of the proposed methodology — including land eligibility, ecological parameters, geographic constraints, and legal requirements. Non-conformances are documented with their materiality.

Systematic comparison of project current state against what is required for registration. Gaps identified across: project design, documentation, stakeholder consultation, monitoring plan, and legal basis. Each gap rated by materiality and by the effort required to close it.

Recommended VVB (Validation/Verification Body) from the list of currently accredited VVBs with active capacity in the relevant standard and geography. Indicative VVB cost range and timeline to validation. Key areas of VVB scrutiny identified based on project type.

Assessment against the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) — the emerging institutional benchmark for high-quality credits. Projects aligned with CCPs command premium pricing and are preferred by institutional buyers. CCP alignment mapped against project design.

Assessment of natural risks that could reverse sequestered carbon: wildfire (based on historical fire frequency and projected climate trends), drought (CHIRPS precipitation data, SPEI drought index), pest/disease (species-specific vulnerability, regional outbreak data), storm events (tropical cyclone track data for relevant geographies). Mapped against the Verra non-permanence risk tool scoring criteria.

Assessment of human-driven permanence risks: land tenure security (documented ownership structure, dispute history), local economic pressures (agricultural commodity prices, population density trends), governance stability (INFORM score, World Bank governance indicators). Leakage belt assessment included where applicable.

Residual additionality risk after the main additionality assessment — specifically, the risk that changed conditions (commodity prices, policy changes, improved financing access) could undermine the additionality case during the project lifetime. Scenarios documented.

Risk that the applicable methodology is revised in ways that materially affect credit volumes or eligibility. Relevant pending methodology revisions documented. Impact assessment for the most likely revision scenarios.

Carbon price sensitivity analysis: credit revenue projections at P10/P50/P90 carbon price scenarios using current VCM price data by credit type and standard. Breakeven carbon price calculated.

Annual and cumulative carbon revenue projected over project lifetime at: Bear case (P10 carbon price), Base case (P50 current market price for the applicable credit type), Bull case (P90 forward curve / analyst consensus). Revenue net of estimated royalties, buffer pool contributions, and transaction costs.

Indicative cost estimates for PDD development ($15,000–$30,000 depending on methodology complexity), VVB validation ($15,000–$25,000 for first validation), initial project implementation (land preparation, community engagement, monitoring infrastructure). Based on comparable projects in the region and project type.

Estimated timeline from today to first credit issuance: PDD development, VVB validation, standard registration, first monitoring period, first verification. Typically 18–36 months depending on project type and geography. Critical path identified.

NPV of projected credit revenue less development costs at bear/base/bull scenarios. IRR calculated at base case. Breakeven analysis: minimum credit volume required to recover development costs. Breakeven carbon price at expected credit volume.

Tornado chart showing contribution of each key assumption to NPV variance. Top 5 drivers identified. Scenarios modelled: ±30% carbon price, ±15% credit volume, ±50% development cost, timeline scenarios (12/18/24/36 months to first credit).

Clear recommendation with supporting rationale. Where the recommendation is "go with conditions", the conditions are documented specifically — what needs to be resolved before committing to PDD development.

Specific methodology and standard recommended, with rationale. Alternative pathways documented where more than one is viable. Key decision points and their timing identified.

Summary of what the PDD will need to contain based on the methodology applicability and gap analysis. Estimated PDD development scope and cost. Recommended approach to VVB selection and engagement timing.

Summary of ongoing MRV requirements: monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency, data management requirements, verification periodicity, estimated ongoing MRV cost per year.

Recommended immediate next steps following report delivery, with indicative timelines. Where Feasibility.Earth is able to support the development phase, scope and terms outlined.