CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSOtherBrazilRegistry: RegisteredACM0001

Ecoparque Maceió Landfill Gas Project

Developer: ORIZON VALORIZACAO DE RESIDUOS S.A

GS-4405 ↗ · current registry ID: GS12199

Worked comparison example (English)

#333of 655 in Methane#259of 477 in Brazil#1141of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)#142of 279 in ACM0001

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 2 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

Scored2026-09-02medium confidence

evidence: 14/21 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 CarbonMeld reads projects of this standard
Methodology
ACM0001 How CarbonMeld reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 2 Sep 2026 · 14/21 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Ecoparque Maceió Landfill Gas Project is a Gold Standard methane-capture project with a solid additionality assessment (combined test, VVB-verified) and a measured project-specific baseline reassessed in 2025. However, multiple internal contradictions in the monitoring report (ERR figures, grid emission factor, baseline characterisation) and a weak leakage justification (0% deduction with no consistent rationale across documents) create meaningful uncertainty about data reliability. The project over-delivers relative to pro-rata expectations, but the 18 corrective action requests across verification documents signal procedural and documentation gaps that temper confidence.

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 2 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 21 registry documents (14 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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 4 Oct 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks credits of this project with the Integrity Council's Core Carbon Principles label: check that the units offered carry it.

    Source: registry label · read on 4 Oct 2026

    Covers: credits of this project that carry the label on the registry — not every unit or lot

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: registry label · read on 4 Oct 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:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2023
3,22903,229
2024
219,06230,007189,055
2025
248,4305,000243,430
Total470,72135,007435,714

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2023–2025ACM0001 v19.0current version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

    in the ICVCM CCP-approved range (GS: 15.0-19.0) · official page · verified on

  • ACM0001: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

Being within an ICVCM-approved version range is information only: it does not mean these credits carry the CCP label, which the registry assigns to each issuance.

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

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 →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.