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
ScoredBCRAgriculture Forestry and Other Land UseMalasiaRegistry: Rejected by the registryAR-ACM0003

MY_JASAWIBAWA_00/24

Developer: Carbon Vault Sdn Bhd

BCR-MY-319-14-001 ↗

#175of 187 in Soil carbon#36of 36 in Malaysia#33of 38 in BioCarbon Registry (BCR)#59of 59 in AR-ACM0003

Red flagRejected by the registry

The registry rejected the project or one of its requests (registration, crediting-period renewal): it did not meet the standard's rules. No new credits can be issued under this status.

No new credits are issued under this status. Verify any resale claim against the registry directly before paying.

BioCarbon Registry: “Rejected”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 0.8 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-26medium confidence

evidence:3/3registry documents analyzed · 6red flags

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

Analysis

This Malaysian afforestation/reforestation project (BioCarbon Registry, soil-carbon sector) was formally rejected by the registry, and the available documentation is thin: no verification body is named, no monitoring data exists, and the buffer pool — a critical permanence instrument for an AFOLU project — is not quantified. The PDD describes a combined additionality test and a project-specific baseline, but the absence of a VVB report, verified emissions reductions, and a stated leakage deduction leaves the 21.95 MtCO₂e lifetime claim entirely unvalidated.

Red Flags

6 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)

    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

    Carbon removal

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

    Source: methodology

  • 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

Issuance data not yet available — check back soon.

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 ProvenanceBCR0001: Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions (GHG Removal Activities), Version 3.2; AR-ACM0003. A/R Large-scale Consolidated Methodology. Afforestation and reforestation of lands except wetlands. Version 3.0
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 →