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 pendingCDMBiomass EnergyBrazilRegistry: RegisteredAM0015

Coruripe Bagasse Cogeneration Project (CBCP)

Developer: S.A. Usina Coruripe de Açúcar e Álcool

CDM-0185 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#578of 874 in Biomass#359of 498 in Brazil#4368of 5732 in CDM (UNFCCC)#24of 26 in AM0015

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 21 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.5 / 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

Scored2026-09-21medium confidence

evidence: 8/8 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

Analysis

The Coruripe Bagasse Cogeneration Project is a CDM biomass energy project validated by DNV in 2005 with a combined additionality test confirmed by the VVB, but the available record contains only the validation report and PDD with no monitoring or verification reports. A contradiction in the baseline method (project-specific vs. jurisdictional) within the same validation report, a 0% leakage deduction with minimal justification, and a grid emission factor from 2003 introduce material uncertainty. The absence of any verified emissions data and the low extraction confidence limit the ability to confirm that claimed credits were actually delivered.

Red Flags

4 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 21 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 8 registry documents (8 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

Transactions in the CDM registry are discontinued as of 31 December 2026 (UNFCCC, checked 6 October 2026). This page keeps the project's record and our analysis.

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish CORSIA eligibility per project.

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: project sector

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

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.

Credit Vintages

No issuances recorded on the registry.

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 ProvenanceAM0015
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 →