CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingVCSEnergy industries (renewable/non-renewable sources)BrazilRegistry: RegisteredAMS-I.E

Bom Jesus Ceramic Fuel Switching Project

VCS-202 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#931of 1734 in Industrial#302of 498 in Brazil#1070of 1609 in Verra (VCS)#65of 106 in AMS-I.E

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.8 / 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

Scored2026-09-01medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2021-12-31

evidence:31/33registry documents analyzed · 3red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The Bom Jesus Ceramic Fuel Switching Project is a long-running VCS fuel-switching project (operational since 2007) with VVB-confirmed additionality and no material findings, but it is undermined by a 0% leakage deduction, a project-specific baseline, unaddressed permanence risk, and a large volume of corrective actions flagging data-quality and scope inconsistencies. The self-reported monitoring method and multiple cross-document contradictions further erode confidence in the claimed emission reductions.

Red Flags

3 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

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 33 registry documents (31 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — 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

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMAMS-I.E

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project sector

  • 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

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.

Registry labels last checked:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2007
12,67712,61364
2008
12,44612,4460
2009
12,27512,2750
2010
13,90613,9060
2011
14,02514,0250
2012
15,3414,92710,414
2013
20,99511,4239,572
2014
12,6118,0324,579
2015
9,9294,9584,971
2016
8,6284,3094,319
2017
7,7662,5445,222
2018
8,25608,256
2019
6,80406,804
2020
6,24906,249
2021
5,12305,123
Total167,031101,45865,573

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2007–2009AMS-I.E v1.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2009–2010AMS-I.E v1.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2010–2012AMS-I.E v1.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2012–2016AMS-I.E v1.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2017–2021AMS-I.E v7.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report + issuance document

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-I.E: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

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].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceAMS-I.E
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 →