Integrity shown
Additionality: the methodology itself gives it (Tree Planting v10 §4, p. 14). The project needs no test of its own.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-ADDITIONALITY
CFC-AR — Afforestation and Reforestation Protocol
About this methodology
Cities, towns, non-profit groups and landowners plant trees in and around urban areas of the United States, as scattered trees or as new canopy, for a 26-year project duration. The protocol forecasts the carbon the trees will store by the end of that duration and issues forward credits in stages, each after a check of tree survival or canopy; final measurement confirms them. Trees planted for harvest cannot take part. The protocol was formerly called the Tree Planting Protocol.
- Issued by
- City Forest Credits (CFC) · issuer's site
- Version
- 12 · source ·
- Status
- Active at City Forest Credits · source ·
- Climate outcome
- CO2 removals
- Activity
- Forestry
- Official page
- cityforestcredits.org ·
How our current method reads projects of this type
Versions of the official text these rules cover: Tree Preservation Protocol V12.40 (40 years), Tree Planting Protocol V5, Tree Planting Protocol V10, Afforestation and Reforestation Protocol v12, Tree Preservation Protocol v14 – 40 years (v14.40), Tree Preservation Protocol v14 – 100 years (v14.100), Tree Preservation Protocol V12.100 (100 years)
What CarbonMeld reads
- shown
Buffer pool: the methodology sets rules for it in some cases (Tree Preservation v14.40 §7.3, p. 21). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-BUFFER
- shown
Permanence and reversals: the methodology sets rules for it in some cases (Tree Planting v10 §2.2, p. 12). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-PERMANENCE-REVERSAL
Deductions that can apply
- shown
Forest, wetland, peat, grassland and soil carbon: if the documents read do not state the buffer pool share, CarbonMeld shows a red flag. It lowers no score. Outside REDD+ and reforestation, the flag applies only where the methodology requires a buffer. At the listing stage, there is no flag when the programme's listing form has no section on the buffer pool.CM-G-BUFFER-NOT-DISCLOSED
since engine 72 Link
Set by the methodology or the programme, not assessed by our current method
- not assessed
No legal requirement for the activity: the methodology sets rules for it (Tree Preservation v14.40 §1.4, p. 10). Our current method does not assess it.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-REGULATORY-SURPLUS
- not assessed
Our current method does not check how realistic the baseline scenario of the project is. An example is the rate of deforestation that the project compares with.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-BASELINE-REALISM
Not applicable to this type — never a gap in our current method
The criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Grid emission factorCM-N-GRID-EF
- Fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB)CM-N-FNRB
- Usage rate of the devicesCM-N-USAGE
- Durability of the storageCM-N-DURABILITY-MEASUREMENT
- Sustainability of the feedstockCM-N-FEEDSTOCK-SUSTAINABILITY
- Tracking of the end useCM-N-END-USE-TRACKING
- Social safeguards and consent of communities (FPIC)CM-N-SAFEGUARDS-FPIC
- LeakageCM-N-LEAKAGE
The general rules apply as well. Read the general rules.
History and transitions
Top projects using CFC-AR
This page ranks projects using CFC-AR by their CarbonMeld document-based assessment scores. The rank compares project assessments; it is not a rating of the methodology itself.
22 rated projects in this methodology · average score 6.2/10 · ranked by CarbonMeld's document-based assessment scores across all four dimensions: integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation.
22 analysed project pages, A–Z →
- 4 7.1 ▲ +0.8
- 5 7.1 ▲ +0.6
- 6 7.1 ▲ +1.2
- 7 6.9 ▲ +0.9
- 8 6.8 ▲ +0.9
- 9 6.7 ▲ +1.9
- 10 6.7 ▲ +0.9
- 11 6.7 ▲ +1.9
- 12 6.6 ▲ +0.6
- 13 6.2 ▲ +0.5
- 14 6 ▼ -0.7
- 15 6 ▲ +0.6
- 16 5.4 ▲ +0.1
- 17 5.2 ▼ -0.7
- 18 5.2 ▲ +0.2
- 19 5.1 ▼ -0.2
- 20 4.8 ▲ +0.3
- 21 4.6 ▼ -0.6
- 22 4.4 ▲ +0.3