CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingGSOtherViet NamRegistry: RegisteredAM0025

Avoided methane emission through aerobic composting at Vietstar municipal solid waste treatment facility

Developer: South Pole Ltd

Methodology: AM0025 (CDM)

GS-403 ↗ · current registry ID: GS2525

Worked comparison example (English)

#787of 1699 in Industrial#145of 206 in Vietnam#1133of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)#10of 26 in AM0025

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.2 / 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

Scored2026-09-01medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2023-01-05

evidence: 22/24 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

How this analysis was made

Standard
Gold Standard (GS) How our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
AM0025 How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 1 Sep 2026 · 22/24 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Vietstar composting project has a VVB-confirmed investment additionality test and a conservative baseline (delivering ~131% of the pro-rata ex-ante expectation), but suffers from significant documentation gaps: reversal events are unaddressed, no buffer pool percentage is stated, the leakage deduction percentage is missing, and four corrective action requests remain open. The project-specific modeled baseline, a 2008 grid emission factor, and CORSIA eligibility without a stated CCP status introduce moderate over-crediting and dual-channel risk.

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

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score 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 1 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 24 registry documents (22 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; 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)

    Stated in the project documents

    The documents claim CORSIA eligibility, but no registry label confirms it: check vintage and authorization.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry) · documents analysed on 1 Sep 2026

    Covers: what the project documents state — not a registry record

  • 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: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • 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.

Registry labels last checked:2026-11-02

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2013
13,158013,158
2014
37,446037,446
2015
86,494086,494
2016
124,0100124,010
2017
198,8560198,856
2018
324,633126,000198,633
2019
217,4610217,461
2020
326,88692,341234,545
2021
247,49088,115159,375
2022
225,918203,75222,166
2023
3,3123,3120
Total1,805,664513,5201,292,144

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2013–2016AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2016–2017AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2017–2018AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2018–2020AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2020AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2021–2023AM0025 v12.0since replaced by v14.0.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AM0025: Withdrawn (CDM / UNFCCC) · replaced byACM0022 · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records. (+1)

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

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 →

Records with the same name in other registries

Records in another registry with the same name, country and methodology. Each has its own credits, documents and score.

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.