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
ScoredBCRReduced emissions from deforestation & degradationArgentinaRegistry: Under validationGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Proyecto REDD+ Lomas de Nogales

Developer: Lomas de los Nogales SA

BCR-AR-365-14-001 ↗

Under validation

An independent validator is checking the project design, or the registry is reviewing a registration request. The project, or its new phase, is not registered yet.

Any offer to sell its credits is a forward commitment on possible future issuance, not an existing carbon credit. Verify on the registry before paying.

BioCarbon Registry: “Request for Registration Under Review”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 3.5 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-26high confidence

evidence:26/26registry documents analyzed · 5red flags

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

Analysis

The REDD+ Lomas de Nogales project in Argentina is still under review at the BioCarbon Registry and has not been registered. The documentation reveals ten material contradictions across the PDD, monitoring report, and validation report—including conflicting buffer pool percentages, baseline methods, FPIC status, and leakage treatment—alongside four open non-conformities that BioCarbon chose to proceed past despite their impact on report reliability. While the VVB (VERSA) confirmed additionality and a 10% buffer pool is in place, the volume of unresolved findings and data inconsistencies significantly undermines confidence in the project's integrity and claim safety.

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)

    Stated in the project documents

    The documents claim CORSIA eligibility, but no registry label confirms it: check vintage and authorization.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry)

  • 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

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 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 →