Top WCC-STANDARD projects
884 rated projects of the 2,420 tracked in this methodology · average score 5.5/10 · ranked by CarbonMeld's document-based assessment scores across all four dimensions: integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation. Showing the top 50.
What you're looking at
This page ranks projects using WCC-STANDARD 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.
WCC-STANDARD: Woodland Carbon Code
Methodology issuer: Woodland Carbon Code · Official methodology page.
Forestry · CO2 removals
Projects create new woodland in the UK on land that has not been wooded for at least 25 years. The code predicts the carbon the trees will take up with a standard calculator, adjusts it for the baseline and leakage, puts part of it in a shared buffer against losses, and confirms the rest at later on-site checks.
Source for the activity description
Version 3.0 · Active at Woodland Carbon Code · 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: WCC v2.2, WCC v3.0, 1.3 and earlier
What CarbonMeld reads
- Additionality: the project must show it with a test (WCC v2.2 §1.6, p. 10). CarbonMeld reads the test in the documents.
- Leakage: the methodology sets rules for it (WCC v2.2 §3.2, p. 19). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents. A Woodland Carbon Code project of 5 hectares or less may use the Code's default for leakage (Woodland Carbon Code v2.2, «’Standard’ and ‘Small’ sized projects», p3; v3.0, «Approach to leakage», p55). CarbonMeld then applies no leakage gate to a project whose area read is 5 hectares or less.
- Buffer pool: the methodology sets rules for it (WCC v2.2 §2.3, p. 13). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- Permanence and reversals: the methodology sets rules for it (WCC v2.2 §1.1, p. 7). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- CarbonMeld quotes the rules of Woodland Carbon Code on the use of its units, in claim safety.
Figures set against the methodology's own values
- The buffer share is 20% (from Woodland Carbon Code v2.0; Woodland Carbon Code v2.2, §2.3, p. 13). CarbonMeld compares the share only when the documents name version 2.0 or later. CarbonMeld shows the share in the documents next to it.buffer share: 20% · from Woodland Carbon Code v2.0 · source: Woodland Carbon Code v2.2, p. 13
Deductions that can apply
- 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.
- 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.
Set by the methodology or the programme, not assessed by our current method
- No legal requirement for the activity: the methodology sets rules for it (WCC v2.2 §1.6, p. 10). Our current method does not assess it.
- Social safeguards and consent of communities (FPIC): the methodology sets rules for it in some cases (WCC v2.2 §2.4, p. 14). Our current method does not assess it.
Not applicable to this type — never a gap in our current method
- Grid emission factor: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB): the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Usage rate of the devices: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Durability of the storage: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Sustainability of the feedstock: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Tracking of the end use: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
The general rules apply as well. Read the general rules.
- 4 7.4 ▲ +2.3
- 5 7.4 ▲ +1.4
- 6 7.3 ▲ +0.6
- 7 7.3 ▲ +1.4
- 8 7.3 ▲ +1.9
- 9 7.3 ▲ +1.1
- 10 7.3 ▲ +1.7
- 11 7.3 ▲ +1.5
- 12 7.2 ▲ +1.2
- 13 7.2 ▲ +0.8
- 14 7.2 ▲ +1.0
- 15 7.2 ▲ +1.9
- 16 7.1 ▲ +1.0
- 17 7.1 ▲ +1.0
- 18 7.1 ▲ +1.9
- 19 7.1
- 20 7
- 21 7 ▲ +0.8
- 22 6.9 ▲ +1.6
- 23 6.8 ▲ +1.3
- 24 6.8 ▲ +1.2
- 25 6.8 ▲ +1.4
- 26 6.8 ▲ +1.5
- 27 6.8 ▲ +1.6
- 28 6.8
- 29 6.7 ▲ +0.4
- 30 6.7 ▲ +1.0
- 31 6.6 ▲ +1.0
- 32 6.6
- 33 6.6
- 34 6.5 ▲ +0.8
- 35 6.5
- 36 6.5
- 37 6.5
- 38 6.5
- 39 6.4
- 40 6.4 ▲ +2.2
- 41 6.4
- 42 6.4
- 43 6.4
- 44 6.4
- 45 6.4
- 46 6.3 ▲ +0.3
- 47 6.3 ▲ +1.5
- 48 6.2 ▲ +1.1
- 49 6.2
- 50 6.2 ▲ +1.4
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.