“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.
ARR methodologies have always required developers to demonstrate that their project is generating real carbon outcomes. But newer methodologies such as VM0047 have raised the bar significantly, with specific, stringent proof needed for validation, such as showing how vegetation is growing faster inside the project boundary than it would have without the intervention.
That's a fundamentally difficult thing to prove at scale. And the traditional approach (manual field campaigns, NDVI proxies, consultant-led analysis) isn’t fit for purpose.
Field campaigns cover 5–15% of a project area.
NDVI saturates in dense canopy and doesn't track real biomass change.
Consultant-led analysis is expensive, slow to replicate, and hard to audit.
The result is that developers either spend months producing analysis that may not satisfy the verifier, or they produce it quickly using proxies that undermine the credibility of the project.
Neither outcome is acceptable when credit issuance - and so commercial revenue - depend on the quality (and speed) of the evidence provided.
What methodologies require
VM0047 is Verra's newest and most stringent methodology for ARR. At its core, it requires developers to demonstrate a performance benchmark: that biomass is accumulating faster inside the project area than in a set of comparable control plots outside it.
This sounds straightforward. In practice, it involves:
- Site eligibility screening — confirming the land qualifies under the methodology before committing to design
- Donor pool mapping — identifying a pool of candidate control plots in the surrounding area that are comparable to the project area
- Stocking index calculation — establishing initial vegetation levels as a reference point
- Stratification — dividing the project area into zones with similar ecological characteristics, for more accurate baseline estimation
- Biomass baseline establishment — quantifying carbon stock across the full project area at inception
- Control plot matching — selecting and matching control plots to project plots on the basis of comparable starting conditions
- Ongoing performance tracking — demonstrating, at each verification event, that growth inside the project is outpacing growth outside it
Each of these steps requires accurate data at scale. Not a handful of field plots, but wall-to-wall coverage of the project area and its surroundings. And each step needs to be consistent, reproducible, and traceable, because the verifier will scrutinise all of it.
How Earth Analytics changes things for meeting methodology requirements
Sylvera’s Earth Analytics, calibrated against ground-truth LiDAR rather than generic allometric models, solves the coverage problem that makes VM0047 compliance challenging for many developers.
Instead of extrapolating from a sample of field plots to an entire project area, developers can work with wall-to-wall biomass estimates at 30-metre resolution. Instead of relying on NDVI as a proxy for vegetation growth, they can track actual above-ground biomass change over time.
And instead of commissioning bespoke consultant analysis for every project, they can query a consistent, field-calibrated dataset via API, in hours, not months.
The practical impact at each stage:
Site screening and plot selection.
Before committing to a project area, developers can query biomass and canopy height data for hundreds of candidate plots simultaneously. This makes it possible to filter for sites with the right starting conditions, avoid areas with existing high carbon stock that would complicate baseline establishment, and identify the strongest opportunities before anyone sets foot on site. What used to require weeks of desk and field research can be done in hours.
Donor pool mapping and control plot matching.
VM0047 requires developers to identify control plots in the surrounding area that are comparable to the project in terms of land cover, vegetation structure, and trajectory. With wall-to-wall biomass data covering both the project area and a 100km surrounding zone, this matching process becomes systematic rather than manual, and the comparisons are based on actual biomass data, not inferred from satellite proxies.
Biomass baseline establishment.
The 10-year historical biomass time-series available from inception means that developers can establish a credible, pre-project baseline without waiting for field campaigns. Annual data back to the year 2000 covers the historical baseline period that most methodologies require, at the spatial resolution needed to stratify the project area properly.
Stratification and stocking index.
Consistent spatial biomass data makes stratification more defensible — the zones reflect actual variation in carbon density across the project area, rather than being defined by the limits of a field campaign.
Performance benchmarking at verification.
At each verification event, the performance benchmark comparison — growth inside versus outside the project area — can be run against the same dataset used at inception. This consistency matters: if the methodology, data source, or spatial resolution changes between verification events, the comparison becomes harder to defend.
What this means for revenue and time to issuance
Every stage of the VM0047 workflow that is delayed by data gaps, consultant bottlenecks, or verifier pushback is time that credits are not being issued — and revenue is not being generated.
Developers who can demonstrate methodology compliance with analysis that is pre-aligned to registry requirements and backed by field-calibrated data, spend less time in back-and-forth with verifiers. They produce outputs that VVBs can review rather than interrogate. And they arrive at each subsequent verification event with a consistent evidence base, not a new approach built from scratch.
The reduction in consultant costs is significant too. A full VM0047 inception package built on Earth Analytics costs a fraction of what a traditional consultant-led approach would charge for equivalent coverage and rigour. And because the underlying data is reused across projects, the per-project cost falls as portfolio size grows.
In Practice: How a developer uses Earth Analytics to build a VM0047 project
An ARR developer has a pipeline of degraded land opportunities in Africa. They have local partnerships and land agreements in place, but no fast, cost-effective way to assess which could be viable under VM0047, build a defensible baseline, and set up the performance benchmark needed for verification.
Rather than dispatching field teams across dozens of potential plots, they apply Earth Analytics to compare them simultaneously. Within a day they have biomass density, canopy height, and 20 years of historical trajectory for every site, so they can focus field visits only where the opportunity was strongest.
From there, Earth Analytics produces the full VM0047 inception package: donor pool mapping, control plot matching, stratification, and a 10-year pre-project biomass baseline, all built on actual biomass data rather, and structured to match Verra's documentation requirements. The VVB review is straightforward, outputs are traceable and audit-ready from the start.
From site identification to registry submission, this process takes roughly half the time of traditional approaches. Geospatial and baseline costs come in at a fraction of their previous consultant-led project. And the benchmark framework is now in place for every subsequent verification event.
Beyond VM0047: How Earth Analytics can be used for all forestry carbon methodologies
VM0047 is the clearest current example of an ARR methodology that demands geospatial biomass data at scale. But the underlying capability of accurate, time-series, wall-to-wall carbon stock data applies across the methodology landscape, beyond VM0047 and ARR.
For REDD+ projects, the same data supports baseline carbon stock estimation across the project area, and ongoing monitoring of forest cover and degradation between verification events.
For IFM methodologies, biomass data supports harvest intensity determination, common practice modelling, and the disturbance modelling required for ex-post reporting.
The principle is the same in each case: replace manual, inconsistent, partial-coverage analysis with systematic, reproducible, wall-to-wall data that meets what methodologies and verifiers actually require.
What investors and offtakers should look for
For investors evaluating early-stage ARR projects, this is one of the most important tests of project quality.
A project can have strong additionality arguments, credible permanence safeguards, and well-designed monitoring protocols, and still run into problems at verification if the biomass data underlying the performance benchmark doesn't hold up.
The questions worth asking:
- What data source was used for the biomass baseline? What percentage of the project area does it cover?
- How was the control plot pool identified and matched? What data underlies that matching?
- Has the performance benchmark methodology been reviewed by the registry or a VVB before the first verification event?
- Is the data source consistent across verification periods, or will the comparison have to be rebuilt each cycle?
Projects that can answer these questions with an independent, field-calibrated, wall-to-wall dataset are in a fundamentally stronger position than those relying on consultant estimates or NDVI proxies.
How Sylvera helps meet methodology requirements.
Earth Analytics takes Sylvera’s industry-leading carbon stock data and produces the specific methodology outputs that developers need, aligned to VM0047, REDD+, IFM, and other standards - without developers having to build the datasets themselves.
For developers, this is the difference between having “good data” and having the independent, comprehensive data your verifier will accept.
And for investors and offtakers, it means the due diligence question “is this project's methodology compliance defensible?” has a clearer answer.
Interested in seeing how Earth Analytics and Biomass Atlas support VM0047 compliance in practice? Discuss your project with us here.
Join the discussion
VM0047 raises the bar for how biomass and carbon stock are measured. But meeting that bar doesn't have to mean slower timelines or higher costs.
On 15 April, we bring together a registry, a project developer, and an investor to explore what high-integrity ARR development looks like in practice — and how satellite-derived biomass data is changing what's possible at every stage of the project lifecycle.
.png)
