Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingCARImproved Forest ManagementUSRegistry: RegisteredCAR-US-FOREST

Finite Carbon - NEFF

Developer: New England Forestry Foundation

CAR-672 ↗

#42of 532 in REDD+#91of 1789 in United States#19of 1012 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)#3of 39 in CAR-US-FOREST

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 6.7 / 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

Finite Carbon – NEFF is a long-tenure (100-year) improved forest management project under CAR's Forest Project Protocol v3.2, with a 17.2% buffer pool, a 20% quantified leakage deduction, and VVB-confirmed combined additionality. The project shows no reversal events and no material findings, but relies on a project-specific modeled baseline and exhibits unresolved discrepancies in reported ERR figures across verification reports. Overall a solid but not exceptional AFOLU credit with moderate data-reliability concerns.

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

On this page: the analysis of 19 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 20 registry documents (20 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)

    Methodology under ICVCM assessmentCAR U.S. Forest Protocol

    The Integrity Council has not decided on this methodology yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project sector

  • 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
2007
46,15500
2008
3,81600
2009
3,81600
2010
3,81600
2011
3,81600
2012
3,81600
2013
3,81600
2014
9,80309,803
2015
2,49502,495
2016
2,49502,495
2017
2,49502,495
2018
2,49502,495
2019
2,49502,495
Total91,329022,278

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 ProvenanceForest Project Protocol Version 3.2

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 →