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
ScoredVCSAgriculture Forestry and Other Land UseZambiaRegistry: Issuance requestedVM0009

Luangwa Community Forests Project

Developer: BioCarbon Partners

VCS-1775 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#17of 303 in Soil carbon#2of 39 in Zambia#84of 1612 in Verra (VCS)#3of 9 in VM0009

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 7.2 / 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%.

Scored2026-10-12medium confidenceLatest verified period ends: 2023-12-31

evidence:39/41registry documents read · 0red flags

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

Analysis

Luangwa Community Forests Project (Zambia) avoids deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) (REDD (Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation)) under VM0009; registry status Issuance requested (VCS), 12,067,435 credits issued (vintages 2015–2023). The documents name SCS Global Services (SCS) as validation body and AENOR INTERNACIONAL S.A.U (2019-01-01 – 2019-12-31, 2020-01-01 – 2020-12-31, 2021-01-01 – 2021-12-31, 2022-01-01 – 2022-12-31, 2023-01-01 – 2023-12-31) as verification body. Project area: 2,137,405 ha. The verification report for the period (01-January-2020 – 31-December-2020) verifies 1,593,835 tCO2e.

Red Flags

No red flags detected.

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, score factors, detailed analysis, and 41 registry documents (39 read).

€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)

    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: methodology

  • 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:2026-10-11

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2015
444,249435,3558,894
2016
880,170805,41974,751
2017
1,089,501864,247225,254
2018
1,220,967860,619360,348
2019
1,355,2381,355,2380
2020
1,458,3591,458,3590
2021
1,765,0371,765,0370
2022
1,385,4141,385,4140
2023
2,468,5002,468,5000
Total12,067,43511,398,188669,247

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2015–2018VM0009 v3.0last published version

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2015–2023VM0009 v3.0last published version

    issuance document

    official page · verified on

  3. 2019VM0009 v3.0last published version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2020VM0009 v3.0last published version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2021VM0009 v3.0last published version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2022VM0009the documents for this period state different versions (v1.1, v3.0)

    monitoring report + verification report

  7. 2023VM0009 v3.0last published version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • VM0009: Withdrawn (Verra / Verified Carbon Standard) · 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. (+66)

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 ProvenanceVM0009
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 →