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 pendingCDMN2OBrazilRegistry: Registered

Fosfertil Piaçaguera NAP 2 Nitrous Oxide Abatement Project

Developer: Ultrafertil S/A

CDM-1784 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#626of 689 in Methane#455of 498 in Brazil#5238of 5732 in CDM (UNFCCC)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 29 Aug 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 3.1 / 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

Scored2026-08-29medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2012-07-02

evidence: 18/18 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

Analysis

This CDM N2O abatement project in Brazil was verified by DNV with a confirmed additionality test, but the record is severely undermined by 17 material findings spanning calculation errors, missing uncertainty analysis, and incomplete monitoring documentation. Two monitoring reports present contradictory emission reduction figures (100,057 vs 207,960 tCO2e) and conflicting leakage justifications, raising serious data-reliability concerns. The project's crediting period expired in November 2015, and no buffer pool or permanence mechanism is documented.

Red Flags

4 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

On this page: the analysis of 29 Aug 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 18 registry documents (18 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

Transactions in the CDM registry are discontinued as of 31 December 2026 (UNFCCC, checked 6 October 2026). This page keeps the project's record and our analysis.

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish CORSIA eligibility per project.

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: project sector

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

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.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2010
92,148092,148
2011
204,7840204,784
2012
111,6540111,654
2013
298,2180298,218
Total706,8040706,804

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2008–2009AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2009AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2009–2010AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2010AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2010–2011AM0028 v4.1since replaced by v6.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2010–2011AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2011–2012AM0028 v4.1since replaced by v6.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  8. 2011–2012AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  • AM0028: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on
  • AM0034: Withdrawn (CDM / UNFCCC) · replaced byACM0019 · 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

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 ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1
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 →