Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingARTForest CarbonCIRegistry: Registered

Cote d'Ivoire Tai National Park Area Emission Reductions Program

Developer: Côte d'Ivoire (Government of Côte d'Ivoire / SEP-REDD+)

ART-130 ↗

#194of 534 in REDD+#4of 7 in Côte d'Ivoire#8of 30 in ART TREES

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 22 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.4 / 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 Taï National Park REDD program under the ART/FCPF framework has a strong structural design with a 23% buffer pool, jurisdictional baseline, and no reported reversals. However, significant data-quality issues surfaced during verification (eight major corrective action requests), the additionality test is not explicitly documented in the available documents, and a material discrepancy exists between the issuance figure (210,000 tCO₂eq) and the verified figure (17,834,349 tCO₂eq) that remains unexplained. The project is active and operational, but the combination of unresolved data gaps and the open minor corrective action tempers confidence in the credit quality.

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 9 registry documents (9 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

    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:2026-10-11

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2022
205,451205,4510
2023
295,454154,007141,447
Total500,905359,458141,447

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 ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1

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 →