CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index

Re-assessment pending

Uberlandia landfills I and II

Standard
VCS
Methodology
ACM0001 (CDM)
Registry
VCS-1550 ↗ · Verification overdue
Country
Brazil
Credit type
Waste handling and disposal
Developer
Energas Geracao de Energia Ltda
Worked comparison example (English)

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 6.6 / 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

Analysed on 4 Sep 2026medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends:

evidence: 9/9 registry documents analyzed · 4 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
ACM0001 How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 4 Sep 2026 · 9/9 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Uberlândia Landfills I and II project is a VCS-registered landfill gas capture project with solid additionality (combined test confirmed by TÜV NORD CERT, negative IRR without CDM revenues) and minimal permanence risk inherent to LFG destruction. However, significant contradictions between the PDD, validation report, and monitoring report on lifetime ERR figures, grid emission factors, and crediting period dates introduce data-reliability concerns, and several sustainability and usage-monitoring details are absent from the extracted record.

Red Flags

4 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, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 9 registry documents (9 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.

Enter your email to pay with crypto

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)

    Methodology approved by ICVCMACM0001

    The methodology meets the Core Carbon Principles; this project's credits do not carry the CCP label yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment · ICVCM table read on 4 Nov 2026

    Covers: the methodology (every project using it), not this project's credits

  • 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.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2012
40,09340,0903
Total40,09340,0903

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2012ACM0001 v12.0since replaced by v19.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

    outside the ICVCM CCP-approved range (VCS: 15.0-19.0) · official page · verified on

  • ACM0001: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

Being within an ICVCM-approved version range is information only: it does not mean these credits carry the CCP label, which the registry assigns to each issuance.

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

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

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].

⚑ Contest 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 →

Records with the same name in other registries

Records in another registry with the same name, country and methodology. Each has its own credits, documents and score.

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.