10 MW Manjanadka Hydro project, Karnataka, India
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB in the validation report, using an investment test.
missing The validation report recorded many material findings, including several corrective action requests and clarification requests, and no buffer pool or reversal treatment is stated.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period is clearly stated for 2020, and the project is linked to a named VVB, TÜV Rheinland (China) Ltd.
missing Key MRV details are missing or not stated in available documents, including total ERs claimed versus verified, usage monitoring, and any quantified leakage or baseline reassessment.
Claim Safety
verified The project uses a CDM methodology, AMS-I.D Version 17, which provides a recognized accounting framework.
missing The project is marked as CORSIA-eligible, but no CCP status is stated and leakage treatment is not quantified, increasing over-crediting and claim-risk concerns.
Documentation
verified The record includes a validation report and identifies the VVB, with high extraction confidence.
missing Only two evidence documents are reflected in the extracted record, and several core fields are not found in available documents, including buffer pool, verified ER totals, and baseline reassessment.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The validation report confirms additionality through an investment test and says it was verified by the VVB, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. However, the same report lists many material findings, including multiple CARs and CLs, and there is no stated buffer pool or quantified reversal treatment, so permanence and robustness are only moderate.
Transparency
The monitoring period for 2020 is clearly identified, and the project is tied to TÜV Rheinland (China) Ltd, which helps traceability. But the extracted record does not state total ERs claimed versus verified, usage monitoring method, or any baseline reassessment, so the MRV picture remains incomplete.
Claim Safety
The project uses AMS-I.D Version 17 under the CDM, which is a recognized methodology, but the claim-safety picture is weakened by missing leakage quantification and no stated usage-rate evidence. The project is marked CORSIA-eligible, while CCP status is not stated, so dual-market claim risk is not fully resolved.
Documentation
The extracted record is based on a validation report and the extraction confidence is high, which is a positive sign. Even so, only a limited set of documents appears to have been used, and several important fields are not found in available documents, including buffer pool, verified ER totals, and baseline reassessment timing.
Overall
I privileged the validation report for additionality and safeguard-related facts because it is the clearest named source in the extracted record, but I treated missing quantified MRV fields conservatively. The contradictions are important: the record says reversal events are not addressed, while a later source reportedly says none were reported; similarly, leakage is described as not addressed in the validation report but later characterized as negligible. I gave more weight to the validation report because it is explicitly identified and dated, and I reduced confidence because these discrepancies indicate reliability issues in the extracted evidence.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive signs, including VVB-confirmed additionality, FPIC, and a grievance mechanism, but the evidence base is thin and several key safeguards and accounting details are not fully stated. The biggest concerns are the lack of quantified leakage treatment, no buffer pool information, and multiple material findings in the validation report, which reduce confidence in the crediting claims.
Project Description
Status: Registered Type: PA Methodology: AMS-I.D. Project type: Hydro Sub-type: New dam Region: Asia & Pacific Sub-region: Southern Asia Reductions 1st period: 29.655 ktCO2e/yr
Red Flags
- The validation report lists many material findings, including multiple CARs and CLs, which suggests significant issues were identified during validation.
- Leakage treatment is not properly documented: the report says there is no leakage associated with the project activity, but the extracted record also shows leakage justification as not addressed and no quantified deduction.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 93,376 | 0 | 93,376 | |
| Total | 93,376 | 0 | 93,376 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide a complete monitoring and verification package showing verified ER totals, leakage treatment, and any baseline reassessment or justification for not reassessing.
- Disclose permanence and claim-risk controls, including buffer pool treatment if applicable, reversal monitoring, and clear confirmation of CCP status or other market-claim restrictions.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed investment test
No buffer pool stated
Leakage not quantified
Project baseline, reassessment missing
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
CORSIA-eligible; CCP status unstated
Where to buy
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →