Top ART-TREES projects
28 rated projects of the 30 tracked in this methodology · average score 3/10 · ranked by CarbonMeld's document-based assessment scores across all four dimensions: integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation.
What you're looking at
This page ranks projects using ART-TREES by their CarbonMeld document-based assessment scores. The rank compares project assessments; it is not a rating of the methodology itself.
CarbonMeld scores assess integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation using project documents. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence under this framework. How to read CarbonMeld scores.
Project names, codes and registry status come from official registry records. Open a project dossier for its source record.
ART-TREES: The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES)
Methodology issuer: Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) · Official methodology page.
Forestry · Emission reductions and CO2 removals
National governments and large subnational jurisdictions, not single projects, reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation across their whole territory. The standard can also credit removals from reforestation and restoration, and the protection of forests where cover is high and deforestation low.
Source for the activity description
Version 3.0 · Active at Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) · status verified on
Version and status refer to the methodology at its issuer. Individual projects may use different versions; these facts do not establish credit eligibility in other programs.
How CarbonMeld reads projects of this type
Versions of the official text these rules cover: 2.0
What CarbonMeld reads
- Additionality: the methodology itself gives it (TREES 2.0, p. 12). The project needs no test of its own.
- Leakage: the methodology sets rules for it. CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- Buffer pool: the methodology sets rules for it (TREES 2.0, p. 41). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- Permanence and reversals: the methodology sets rules for it. CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
Deductions that can apply
- REDD+ and reforestation: if the documents read do not address leakage, CarbonMeld lowers integrity by 1.5 and shows a red flag.
- REDD+ and reforestation: if the documents read do not state the buffer pool share, CarbonMeld shows a red flag. It lowers no score.
Set by the methodology, not assessed in this analysis
- Social safeguards and consent of communities (FPIC): the methodology sets rules for it. This analysis does not assess it.
Not applicable to this type — never a gap
- Grid emission factor: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- Fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB): the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- Usage rate of the devices: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- No legal requirement for the activity: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- Durability of the storage: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- Sustainability of the feedstock: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
- Tracking of the end use: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. CarbonMeld never counts it as a gap.
The general rules apply as well. Read the general rules.
- 45.7
- 55.7▲+0.3
- 65.5▲+1.8
- 75.5▲+0.2
- 85.5
- 95.5▲+0.6
- 105.4
- 115▲+2.4
- 124
- 131.7
- 141.6
- 151.6
- 161.6
- 171.5
- 181.3
- 191.2
- 201.2
- 211
- 221
- 231
- 240.7
- 250.6
- 260.5
- 270.5
- 280.4
Rank is by document-based assessment score only. The registry status shown next to each project is a separate fact: inclusion in this ranking is not a statement of current validity or credit eligibility — projects suspended, withdrawn or terminated by their registry can still appear, with their status labelled. Read the methodology.