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 pendingVCSAgriculture Forestry and Other Land UseBrazilRegistry: RegisteredVM0007

The Purus Project

Developer: CarbonCo

VCS-963 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#44of 303 in Soil carbon#111of 498 in Brazil#484of 1609 in Verra (VCS)#8of 27 in VM0007

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 4 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.7 / 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

Scored2026-09-04medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2020-12-31

evidence:65/65registry documents analyzed · 5red flags

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

Analysis

The Purus Project is a long-running (since 2011) VCS deforestation-avoidance project in Brazil with confirmed additionality, a 10% buffer pool, and a quantified 18% leakage deduction. However, ongoing land-tenure disputes with the Guita family, INCRA-driven deforestation in the leakage belt, and 45 essential findings (21 NCRs, 24 CLs) across verification cycles indicate persistent operational and social risks. The project delivered 328% of its pro-rata ex-ante expectation for the 2018–2020 monitoring period, suggesting a conservative baseline, but contradictions in reported ERR figures and missing FNRB/usage-rate data temper confidence in the credit volume.

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

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 65 registry documents (65 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

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:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2011
78,73878,7380
2012
84,31784,3170
2013
60,56260,5620
2014
60,38760,3870
2015
90,92190,9210
2016
98,88298,8820
2017
105,177104,756421
2018
77,34277,3420
2019
99,84899,8480
2020
105,177105,1770
Total861,351860,930421

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2011–2012VM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2013VM0007the documents for this period state different versions (v1.3, v1.4)

    monitoring report + verification report

  3. 2014VM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2015VM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2016VM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2017VM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2018–2020VM0007version not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report + verification report

  8. Period not statedVM0007 v1.3since replaced by v1.8

    issuance document

    official page · verified on

  • VM0007: Active (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.

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 ProvenanceVM0007
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 →