Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingCARImproved Forest Management - ARB ComplianceUSRegistry: RegisteredARB-US-FOREST

Van Eck Forest

Developer: Fred M Van Eck Forest Foundation for Purdue University

CAR-1141 ↗

#317of 534 in REDD+#1171of 1794 in United States#772of 1012 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)#133of 250 in ARB-US-FOREST

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 20 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.3 / 10 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

Analysis

The Van Eck Forest project is a California CAR compliance offset for improved forest management with a 25-year crediting period. While it features a quantified 20% leakage deduction, a buffer pool, and no reported carbon-stock reversals, the 2023 verification report identified 15 material findings—including multiple non-conformity reports on duplicate trees, incorrect wood-product classes, and duplicated plots—along with 12 required corrective actions. A direct contradiction within the same verification report (10,031 vs 6,218 tCO₂e) and a buffer-pool discrepancy between monitoring reports (0.2% vs 19.24%) raise serious data-reliability concerns that undermine confidence in the claimed emission reductions.

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 21 registry documents (21 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: project sector

  • 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 Exhausted

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2016
10,43300
2017
3,81500
2018
6,45400
2019
15,74800
2020
9,63000
2021
6,21800
2022
10,03100
Total62,32900

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].

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceCompliance Offset Protocol—U.S. Forest Projects

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 →