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
Re-assessment pendingCARImproved Forest Management - ARB ComplianceUSRegistry: RegisteredARB-US-FOREST

SIG Carbon - Northeast Wilderness Trust - Alder Stream Preserve

Developer: Northeast Wilderness Trust

CAR-1162 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#93of 534 in REDD+#209of 1794 in United States#74of 1012 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)#28of 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 6.1 / 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%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-20medium confidence

evidence:17/17registry documents analyzed · 3red flags

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

Analysis

A CAR-standard improved forest management project in Maine with a 19.2% buffer pool, no reported reversals, and a 20% quantified leakage deduction. The project shows solid permanence and leakage treatment, but additionality verification is not explicitly confirmed, the baseline is project-specific and modeled, and an internal inconsistency in the verification report's verified ERR figures raises a data-reliability concern.

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

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 17 registry documents (17 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:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2017
2,61600
2018
1,29401,294
2019
1,34901,349
2020
1,30901,309
2021
1,44001,440
2022
1,48201,482
2023
1,53901,539
Total11,02908,413

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 ProvenanceU.S. Forest Projects, November 14, 2014
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 →