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
ScoredACRForest CarbonNEW JERSEY, USRegistry: RegisteredGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Hudson Farm Forestry Project

Developer: Anew Carbon Development, LLC

ACR-386 ↗

#289of 518 in REDD+#1018of 1689 in United States#536of 957 in American Carbon Registry (ACR)

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.5 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-12high confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2022-06-29

evidence:13/13registry documents analyzed · 5red flags

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

Analysis

The Hudson Farm IFM project has a conservative 40% leakage deduction and an 18% buffer pool with no reversal events, but the verification record is marred by 29 material findings including multiple non-conformities for double-counting of baseline carbon, incorrect cell references, and a missing financial feasibility assessment. The ERR figure was corrected downward by 62% after audit, and the monitoring report was initially submitted as an unsigned draft. These systemic calculation and documentation errors significantly undermine confidence in the project's integrity despite the presence of standard permanence and leakage safeguards.

Red Flags

5 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

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

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

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    In scope, not yet eligible

    The registry flags units as in scope for CORSIA; eligibility still needs host-country authorization.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks these credits with the Core Carbon Principles label of the Integrity Council.

    Source: registry label

  • Removal or reduction

    Carbon removal

    Takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere — the only type that can neutralise residual emissions in an SBTi net-zero claim.

    Source: registry label

  • 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:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2018
74,77474,610164
2019
52,40952,4090
2020
52,52030,02722,493
2021
38,08818,00020,088
2022
11,8732,3449,529
Total229,664177,39052,274

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 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 →