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-PRESERVATION — Preservation Protocol
About this methodology
Owners of forested land in and around cities and towns of the United States protect tree stands at risk of clearing for development, and record a commitment that keeps the trees for a project duration of 40 or 100 years. The protocol credits only the carbon in trees that had no protection before the project and were under threat of removal. It does not credit the emissions that the development itself would have caused.
- Issued by
- City Forest Credits (CFC) · issuer's site
- Version
- 14 · source ·
- Status
- Active at City Forest Credits · source ·
- Climate outcome
- Emission reductions
- 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
Leakage: the methodology sets rules for it in some cases (Tree Preservation v14.40 §11.4, p. 19). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents. The Tree Planting Protocol and the Afforestation and Reforestation Protocol have no leakage term.CM-F-CITY-FOREST-CREDITS-LEAKAGE
- 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
- Integrity deduction −1.5
Forest, wetland, peat, grassland and soil carbon: if the documents read do not address leakage, CarbonMeld lowers integrity by 1.5 and shows a red flag. Outside REDD+ and reforestation, the gate applies only where the methodology requires a leakage assessment. At the listing stage, the gate does not apply when the programme's listing form has no section on leakage.CM-G-LEAKAGE-NOT-ADDRESSED
since engine 72 Link - 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
The general rules apply as well. Read the general rules.
History and transitions
All 21 versions
-
v14.40dated 10 Aug 2026source
-
v14.100dated 10 Aug 2026source
-
v13.40source
-
v13.100source
-
v12.40dated 22 Feb 2023source
-
v12.100dated 22 Feb 2023source
-
v11.40source
-
v11.100source
-
v10.40source
-
v10.100source
-
v9.40source
-
v9.100source
-
v8.40source
-
v7.40source
-
v7.100source
-
v6.40source
-
v6.100source
-
v5.40source
-
v5.100source
-
v4source
-
v3source
Top projects using CFC-PRESERVATION
This page ranks projects using CFC-PRESERVATION by their CarbonMeld document-based assessment scores. The rank compares project assessments; it is not a rating of the methodology itself.
36 rated projects in this methodology · average score 6.6/10 · ranked by CarbonMeld's document-based assessment scores across all four dimensions: integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation.
36 analysed project pages, A–Z →
- 4 7.5 ▲ +0.7
- 5 7.5 ▲ +1.2
- 6 7.3 ▲ +0.6
- 7 7.2 ▲ +1.6
- 8 7.2 ▲ +0.9
- 9 7.1
- 10 7 ▲ +1.0
- 11 6.9 ▲ +0.8
- 12 6.9 ▲ +0.3
- 13 6.9 ▲ +0.2
- 14 6.7 ▲ +1.0
- 15 6.6 ▲ +0.3
- 16 6.6 ▲ +1.7
- 17 6.4
- 18 6.4 ▲ +0.3
- 19 6.4 ▼ -0.4
- 20 6.4 ▼ -0.4
- 21 6.4
- 22 6.4 ▲ +0.2
- 23 6.4 ▲ +0.3
- 24 6.4 ▲ +0.6
- 25 6.3 ▼ -0.1
- 26 6.3 ▲ +0.9
- 27 6.3 ▲ +0.3
- 28 6 ▼ -0.4
- 29 6 ▲ +0.8
- 30 6 ▲ +0.2
- 31 5.9 ▲ +1.0
- 32 5.9 ▼ -0.3
- 33 5.7 ▲ +0.7
- 34 5.5 ▲ +0.2
- 35 5.4 ▼ -0.2
- 36 5.2 ▼ -0.8