Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingCARConservation-Based Forest ManagementUSRegistry: Moved to another programGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Garcia River Forest

Developer: The Conservation Fund

CAR-102 ↗

#1357of 1794 in United States#846of 1012 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 19 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

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 3.7 / 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 Garcia River Forest project has verified additionality and a conservation easement for permanence, but the verification report (2015) reveals a long list of material findings including incorrect carbon equations, calculation errors, and a reported reduction nearly five times the pro-rata expectation. Multiple corrective actions were required, and the project-specific modeled baseline with a 0% leakage deduction (justified only as 'deemed negligible') raises significant over-crediting concerns.

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 59 registry documents (59 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

    Not determined

    The registry data do not say whether these credits are removals or reductions.

  • 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
2005
77,04067,9631,200
2006
77,04050,15019,014
2007
174,109137,57536,534
2008
238,814165,57621,393
2009
189,89890,1749,624
2010
504,413266,74887,557
2011
35,68310,55528
2012
128,411104,2110
2013
212,359212,2590
2014
211,630211,6300
Total1,849,3971,316,841175,350

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 →