ICVCM Releases First CCP Methodology Assessments: What Qualifies

Market Snapshot

CCP Assessment Process: 147 Methodologies, Comprehensive Results

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) conducted a sweeping assessment process that began in H2 2024 and continued through 2025, reviewing 147 methodologies in total. Results: ~38 methodologies qualified for CCP labels, 22 did not meet criteria, and 51 remain in assessment. As of January 2025, over 40 million CCP-labeled credits had been issued.

The CCP label confirms that a methodology meets criteria for additionality, permanence, measurement/verification, and sustainable development contribution. Labels are issued at the methodology level, not the credit level — all credits issued under a qualifying methodology carry the CCP designation.

Which Methodologies Received CCP

Among the ~38 approved methodologies, Gold Standard's cookstove and rice methane reduction methodologies, Verra's afforestation/reforestation (ARR) methodology (VM0047), ACR's methane capture and degraded land afforestation methodologies, and Isometric's reforestation protocol stand out. These categories offer strong baseline evidence and measurable emission reductions.

Common features of approved methodologies: conservative baseline approaches, independent verification requirements, and permanence mechanisms (buffer pool or insurance). Gold Standard's SDG verification component was evaluated favourably.

Rejected Methodologies and Market Impact

Twenty-two methodologies did not meet CCP criteria. These include renewable energy certificate methodologies and legacy REDD+ methodologies. Rejection rationale: insufficient additionality evidence, baseline-setting weaknesses, and measurement uncertainties.

The critical finding: roughly 40% of historical credit supply came from rejected methodologies. The market impact was swift and pronounced — renewable energy credit listings declined by more than 40%. Existing credits issued under rejected methodologies do not carry the CCP label, and pricing for these credits began diverging from CCP-labeled equivalents immediately.

Price Tiering Deepens

CCP-labeled credits established clear pricing premiums through 2025. Removal credits now carry a 381% premium over reduction credits (up from 245% in 2023). Vintage premium surged to 217% (up from 53% in 2023). High-quality ARR (BBB+) credits rose from USD 14 in January 2025 to USD 24 by September.

CCP-approved landfill gas credits saw +300% transaction growth and prices rose 35% from H1 to H2 2024 — concrete evidence that the CCP label reshapes supply and demand dynamics.

Broad pricing tiers:

• High-quality (A-AAA): avg USD 14.80/ton
• Low-quality (CCC-B): avg USD 3.50/ton
• REDD+ projects: avg USD 2.70/ton

This tiering is concrete evidence that the market prices integrity signals.

Supply Side: CCP Approval and Rejection Reshape the Market

The ~38 approved methodologies produced over 40 million CCP-labeled credits. However, the finding that ~40% of historical supply came from rejected methodologies triggered a structural rebalancing.

The outstanding (unretired) credit stock stands at approximately 1 billion tCO2e, of which more than two-thirds is pre-2022 vintage. A large portion of older REDD+ and renewable energy credits falls outside CCP scope.

The 51 methodologies still in assessment will further define CCP coverage. Their outcomes — expected through 2026 — could either expand the high-integrity supply pool or increase the weight of rejected categories. Credit originators operating under non-CCP methodologies must decide: transition to CCP-eligible methodologies (costly and slow), accept lower pricing, or target buyer segments that do not require CCP (a diminishing pool).

Market Structure Implications: Two-Tier VCM

The CCP label is effectively creating a bifurcated market. The implications for different participants:

For corporate buyers: CCP provides a defensible quality standard for procurement. Companies facing greenwashing scrutiny (particularly under the EU Green Claims Directive) will increasingly mandate CCP as a minimum. Procurement policies citing CCP as a requirement will accelerate the premium.

For project developers: CCP-eligible projects command better economics. Developers with non-CCP projects face margin compression. The incentive structure now favors higher-integrity project design from inception — exactly what ICVCM intended.

For traders and intermediaries: Inventory management becomes more complex. CCP-labeled and unlabeled credits are not fungible. Bid-offer spreads for CCP credits are tighter (reflecting deeper liquidity from institutional buyers), while unlabeled credits show wider spreads and thinner liquidity.

For registries: Verra and Gold Standard face competitive pressure to ensure their flagship methodologies achieve CCP status. A registry whose major methodologies fail CCP risks losing market share to competitors.

The unretired credit stock of ~1 billion tCO2e is predominantly pre-2022 vintage, and CCP coverage within this older stock remains low. The 51 methodologies still under assessment (results expected Q2-Q3 2026) will determine whether CCP coverage of active supply expands further.

Registry Competition: Verra's Market Share Erodes

The CCP assessment transformed competitive dynamics between registries. Verra's share of new issuances declined from 39% to 28% over two years. ACR became the dominant quarterly registry in Q2 2025 at 33%; BioCarbon Standard reached a record 21.2% share; Gold Standard held 25% in Q2 2025.

Gold Standard achieved CCP labels on 100% of its submitted methodologies — reflecting its stringent standards' alignment with the CCP framework. Verra faces pressure to revise methodologies that did not receive CCP labels; its ongoing VM0007 revision explicitly targets CCP compatibility.

Implications for Corporate Buyers

The CCP label provides a clear quality signal for corporate buyers. SBTi's forthcoming BVCM guidance is expected to reference the CCP label. ICAO CORSIA is also evaluating CCP as an eligibility criterion.

Major corporate buyers (Microsoft, Google, Swiss Re, Nestle) are already signaling portfolio shifts toward CCP-compliant credits. This shift will support the CCP premium in the near term but suppress demand for non-CCP credits over the medium term.

Propagation of CCP requirements through supply chains is also likely. Companies making "carbon neutral" claims under the EU Green Claims Directive are expected to reference CCP as quality evidence.

Signals / What to Watch

• Ongoing assessments (Q2-Q3 2026): 51 methodologies remain in assessment. Results will further define the market's quality structure.
• Removal premium sustainability: The 381% removal-vs-reduction premium and 217% vintage premium — will they hold through 2026?
• CORSIA CCP eligibility decision: ICAO adopting CCP as an eligibility criterion would create structural demand-side impact. CORSIA-eligible credits constituted 33.3% of Q3 2025 issuances.
• Verra market share trajectory: With share down to 28%, the rise of ACR and BioCarbon Standard warrants monitoring.
• SBTi BVCM guidance CCP reference: Whether the guidance mandates or recommends CCP will determine corporate demand direction.

Sources: ICVCM CCP Assessment Results (2025), World Bank State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2025, Ecosystem Marketplace SOVCM 2025, Sylvera Q2/Q3 2025 Reports, Verra Registry data, Gold Standard Impact Registry.