Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingCARForestry - MXMXRegistry: RegisteredCAR-MX-FOREST

Restauración Forestal Santiago Nacaltepec

Developer: CANOPIA CARBON S.A.P.I. DE C.V

CAR-1927 ↗

#441of 505 in Mexico#785of 1013 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)#276of 297 in CAR-MX-FOREST

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 20 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.2 / 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

A 4,682-hectare forest restoration project in Oaxaca under Mexico's CAR standard with VVB-confirmed additionality, but the verification report (July 2026) lists 16 material findings including incomplete remeasurement evidence, missing project documents, and pest infestations. A significant discrepancy between two verification reports (22,058 vs. 148,344 tCO₂e) and a clearly erroneous crediting period date undermine data reliability. CORSIA eligibility combined with the CAR registry raises a dual-channel risk that is not resolved in the available documents.

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 45 registry documents (45 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)

    Eligible — first phase 2024–2026

    Airlines can use these credits for their international CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology approved for some versionsCAR Mexico Forest Protocol

    The Integrity Council approved some versions of this protocol and not others: check which version the project uses before claiming CCP quality.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • 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
2023
11,432011,432
2024
22,559022,559
2025
22,177022,177
2026
3,02903,029
Total59,197059,197

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 ProvenanceProtocolo de la Reserva Forestal para México

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 →