“Over the years we’ve invested significantly in our field data team - focusing on producing trusted ratings. While this ensures the accuracy of our Ratings, it doesn’t allow the scale across the thousands of projects that buyers are considering.”
For more information on carbon credit procurement trends, read our "Key Takeaways for 2025" article. We share five, data-backed tips to improve your procurement strategy.
One more thing: Connect to Supply customers also get access to the rest of Sylvera's tools. That means you can easily see project ratings and evaluate an individual project's strengths, procure quality carbon credits, and even monitor project activity (particularly if you’ve invested at the pre-issuance stage.)
Book a free demo of Sylvera to see our platform's procurement and reporting features in action.
Background
The project in question is an agroforestry project in Brazil, covering over 300 hectares. Prior to the project's start in 2015, the area consisted of degraded grassland used for low-productivity extensive cattle ranching, a practice that historically involved burning to stimulate pasture regrowth.
The project's long-term plan was to transition the land into a commercial Eucalyptus plantation with a 30-year crediting period. This strategy initially appeared successful; during the first monitoring period (April 2015 to July 2020), independent auditors verified that the project had removed ~125,000 tCO2e and was compliant with VCS standards.
However, the project subsequently suffered a catastrophic reversal, due to an extreme and prolonged drought that impacted the region between 2019 and 2023. Identified as one of the worst drought events in 40 years, the lack of rainfall caused widespread tree mortality - exacerbated because of the planting of exotic, non-native Eucalyptus trees - that exceeded the project's ability to recover through standard silvicultural interventions.
The project is now effectively stalled. Experts have deemed the planted cultivars unsuitable for the altered climate, and the owners lack the funds to replant with drought-tolerant varieties. A Loss Event Report identified carbon loss (17,000+ tCO2e) surpassed the accumulated credits in the risk buffer pool, leaving the project in a deficit.
However, credits were still retired beyond 2023. Buyers retired them, confident in their climate impact, but those from 2023 and beyond were essentially worthless.
So, could Biomass Atlas have identified the warning signs before this failure?
The challenge: Critical blind spots
Nature-based carbon projects face a fundamental verification problem. Traditional monitoring occurs every 5-7 years through expensive, limited field surveys. When problems emerge, they're discovered too late.
With the project in question, these were:
- Eligibility questions that could have been highlighted at project start
- Inflated removal estimates during the monitoring period that overstated actual carbon sequestration
- Undetected drought losses that rendered 2023 credit retirements essentially worthless
Insights that using Biomass Atlas would have provided
We analyzed the project using Biomass Atlas's 25-year historical dataset and annual monitoring capability. The results reveal what continuous, independent verification would have shown at three critical junctures.
Finding 1: Pre-2015 (Before project start)
Ineligible land included in project boundary
What Biomass Atlas detected:
- Meaningful deforestation (~10% of project area) occurred in the 10 years before project start
- Historical biomass data shows forest clearing across portions of the planned project area
Why this matters: Many methodologies (e.g., VM0047) permit ARR projects being established on only non-forest, or forests that have not been managed for wood products in the past 10 years. This is to avoid perverse incentives and protect mature ecosystems (e.g., discourage clearing of existing forests), and ensure additionality.
The outcome: Under current VM0047 requirements (versus the older AR-ACM0003 used for this project), Biomass Atlas would have identified these parcels as ineligible for crediting. Credits issued from this portion should never have entered the market.
Finding 2: 2015-2020 (First monitoring period)
Removals overstated by approximately 50%
What Biomass Atlas detected:
- Developer claimed 70.34 tCO2e/yr/ha removals; Biomass Atlas measured 36.04 ± 9.36 tCO2e/yr/ha—nearly 50% lower
- Independent data corroborated successful tree planting but revealed credits represented only ~0.5 tCO2e (or 0.65 tCO2e allowing one standard deviation) versus the claimed 1.0 tCO2e
The discrepancy: Independent Biomass Atlas data corroborated successful tree planting but showed substantially fewer removals than claimed. The developer's estimates were nearly double what satellite and field-validated data revealed.
Why this matters: Each verified credit is supposed to represent ~1 tCO2e (minus buffer discounts). Based on Biomass Atlas data, credits from this project likely represented only 0.5 tCO2e (or 0.65 tCO2e allowing one standard deviation).
Finding 3: 2021-2023 (Drought and continued retirements)
Losses went undetected while retirements continued
What Biomass Atlas detected:
- Between 2021 and 2023, widespread tree mortality caused carbon losses of 17,942 tCO2e - exceeding the project's accumulated buffer pool and leaving it in deficit.
- Biomass Atlas identified these losses that could have prevented worthless 2023 retirements.
Why this matters: The majority of credit retirements from this project happened in 2023 and beyond - after the losses could have been detected. Retirees were unaware their credits represented zero climate benefit.
The timeline failure: Traditional verification operates on 5-7 year cycles. By the time the Loss Event Report was filed, credits had already been sold and retired. Biomass Atlas's annual monitoring would have identified losses in real-time, preventing worthless retirements.
The compounding failure: Why each blind spot multiplied the damage
This wasn't a single failure—it was three interconnected failures that compounded:
Stage 1 (Pre-2015): Ineligible land included → Invalid baseline
Stage 2 (2015-2020): Removals overstated by ~50% → Phantom credits issued
Stage 3 (2021-2023): Drought losses undetected → Worthless retirements
At each stage, independent verification with Biomass Atlas would have:
- Caught eligibility issues before the project was registered
- Flagged inflated estimates during the first monitoring period
- Detected losses in real-time before 2023 retirements
Why traditional methods failed
Traditional ARR project monitoring relies on:
- Limited plot sampling covering <15% of project area
- 5-7 year verification cycles with no continuous monitoring
- Allometric equations that introduce 15-30% systematic error
- Developer-provided data with limited independent verification between audits
This approach worked when carbon markets were small and slow-moving. It fails when projects face rapid climate effects (drought, fire, disease), retirements happen faster than verification cycles, and buyers need real-time assurance of credit integrity.
How Biomass Atlas delivers continuous verification
Biomass Atlas provides the verification infrastructure that this project needed:
Historical validation (2000-present)
Verify project eligibility with 25 years of baseline data. Identify ineligible parcels before registration, not after credit issuance.
Annual monitoring
Track biomass changes every year, not every 5-7 years. Detect drought, fire, or harvest events in the same year they occur.
Independent measurement
Every pixel includes uncertainty estimates. Understand confidence levels and avoid inflated removal claims. No dependence on developer-provided estimates.
Biomass Atlas sets a new standard for project integrity
Traditional biomass datasets rely on infrequent field surveys and allometric equations that miss rapid change. Biomass Atlas is built to eradicate this uncertainty.
Over four years, Sylvera invested over $10 million collecting proprietary Multi-Scale Lidar data across 250,000+ hectares on five continents. This approach combines:
Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS)
3D tree modeling at 1-hectare plots. Direct measurement of tree volume—no allometric equations.
UAV Laser Scanning
RIEGL VUX-120 scanning at 100m altitude. Scales TLS to tens of thousands of hectares.
Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS)
Helicopter-based at 160m altitude. Wall-to-wall regional coverage at survey-grade accuracy.
This multi-scale approach provides field-validated reference data that's used to train satellite-based models. The result: errors below 9% at typical project scales (400-7,000 hectares), 25 years of historical validation data, and annual monitoring that detects change events in real-time.
Accurate, defensible carbon stock data for your project
This project demonstrates the potential impact of verification infrastructure lagging behind market needs. From inflated estimates to undetected losses and, ultimately, credits that delivered a fraction of their claimed impact, or none at all.
For project developers, this is the difference between legitimate credits and project failure. For registries, it's the difference between market integrity and reputational damage. For buyers, it's the difference between real climate impact and greenwashing.
Get a quote for Biomass Atlas now
.png)
