CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingVCSAgriculture Forestry and Other Land UseParaguayRegistry: RegisteredVM0007

The Paraguay Forest Conservation Project - Reduction of GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Chaco-Pantanal ecosystem

Developer: Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd. (SPO)

Methodology: VM0007 (VCS)

VCS-953 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#264of 296 in Soil carbon#10of 11 in Paraguay#1539of 1615 in Verra (VCS)#26of 27 in VM0007

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 4 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 3.9 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-04medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2018-02-24

evidence: 19/19 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

How this analysis was made

Standard
Verra (VCS) How our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
VM0007 How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 4 Sep 2026 · 19/19 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Paraguay Forest Conservation Project has a VVB-verified additionality assessment and a 10% buffer pool, but is severely undermined by an extensive record of non-conformity reports (16+ NCRs across multiple verification cycles), fundamental calculation errors in carbon stock estimation, and major contradictions in key figures including leakage deduction (0.4% vs 40%) and verified ERR (11,706 vs 63,669 tCO2e). The project-specific baseline and the volume of corrective actions required raise significant concerns about the robustness of the credit claims.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 4 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 19 registry documents (19 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: methodology

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-11-01

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2011
7,60107,601
2012
11,706011,706
2013
13,377013,377
2014
13,758013,758
2015
14,138014,138
2016
14,519014,519
2017
14,899014,899
Total89,998089,998

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2011–2012VM0007 v1.1since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2012–2013VM0007version not stated in the document

    verification report

  3. 2013–2018VM0007version not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report

  • VM0007: Active (Verra / Verified Carbon Standard) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.