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
ScoredCARImproved Forest ManagementVIRGINIA, USRegistry: Moved to another programGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Virginia Conservation Forestry Program - Clifton Farm

Developer: The Nature Conservancy

CAR-686 ↗

#62of 512 in REDD+#115of 1692 in United States#30of 883 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Moved to another program

The project has moved to another GHG program; any new credits are issued there, not on this registry.

Climate Action Reserve: “Transitioned”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 6.3 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-20medium confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2014-12-31

evidence:20/20registry documents analyzed · 3red flags

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

Analysis

A long-running (100-year) improved forest management project under CAR with a verified combined additionality test, a 20.1% buffer pool, and a quantified 20% leakage deduction. The most recent verification (2015) reports no reversals in the 2014 monitoring period, though a reversal event was recorded in the 2013 cycle. Key gaps include the absence of a stated baseline reassessment date, a project-specific (non-jurisdictional) baseline, and no ex-ante lifetime ERR figure to enable pro-rata delivery checks.

Red Flags

3 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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology under ICVCM assessmentCAR U.S. Forest Protocol

    The Integrity Council has not decided on this methodology yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • 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:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2004
4,1303,294836
2005
8,38300
2006
4,56200
2008
12,72900
2009
10,89700
2010
19,99700
2011
6,56700
2012
6,8735,4831,390
2013
7,0615,6331,428
2014
7,2985,8311,467
Total88,49720,2415,121

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 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 →