Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingACRForest CarbonNEW YORK, USRegistry: RegisteredACR-IFM-US

Anew - Hartwood Forestry Project

Developer: Anew Carbon Development, LLC

ACR-687 ↗

#241of 537 in REDD+#761of 1795 in United States#400of 978 in American Carbon Registry (ACR)#106of 194 in ACR-IFM-US

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 12 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.0 / 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 Hartwood Forestry Project is a 20-year improved forest management project in New York with a VVB-verified combined additionality test, a conservative 40% leakage deduction, and an 18% buffer pool. However, the project-specific baseline, absence of FPIC, unaddressed reversal events, and a contradiction in leakage justification between the PDD and validation report moderate confidence in the credit's integrity. The first monitoring period shows over-delivery relative to the pro-rata expectation, which is reassuring for 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

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 4 registry documents (4 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)

    In scope, not yet eligible

    The registry flags units as in scope for CORSIA; eligibility still needs host-country authorization.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks these credits with the Core Carbon Principles label of the Integrity Council.

    Source: registry label

  • 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: registry label

  • 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
2021
10,51410,5140
2022
30,7494,70226,047
Total41,26315,21626,047

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].

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceImproved Forest Management Methodology for Quantifying GHG Removals and Emission Reductions through Increased Forest Carbon Sequestration on Non‐Federal U.S. Forestlands

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 →