ACAP Albania Vjosë-Nartë A/R project
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the PDD describes an investment-based additionality test.
verified Leakage is treated with a quantified deduction of 0%, and the project sets aside a 10% buffer pool with no reversal events reported.
Transparency
verified The project is registered under VCS and the PDD identifies the verifier as AENOR INTERNACIONAL S.A.U.
missing The monitoring period, verified and claimed ERR totals, and usage monitoring method are not stated in the extracted record, limiting public MRV transparency.
Claim Safety
verified A quantified leakage treatment and buffer pool reduce over-crediting and permanence risk somewhat.
missing The baseline is project-specific rather than jurisdictional or standardized, and CORSIA eligibility is not stated, leaving claim-safety uncertainty.
Documentation
verified The record includes a PDD, a named VVB, a crediting period, and several safeguard indicators such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism.
missing Extraction confidence is low and only one document is clearly identified, while several core fields are missing or not stated.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The PDD states that additionality was verified by the VVB and that the project used an investment test, which supports the integrity case. Leakage is addressed with a quantified deduction of 0%, and the project includes a 10% buffer pool with no reversal events reported. That said, the baseline is project-based and the record does not show a baseline reassessment date, so the overall integrity case is solid but not especially strong.
Transparency
Transparency is limited because the extracted record does not state the monitoring period, the total claimed or verified emission reductions, or the usage monitoring method. The project is registered under VCS and the verifier is named as AENOR INTERNACIONAL S.A.U., which helps, but the MRV trail is incomplete in the available documents. Because extraction confidence is low, the documentation quality also constrains transparency.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is moderate rather than strong. The quantified leakage treatment and buffer pool help, but the baseline remains project-specific and the record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status. The contradictions around additionality, leakage justification, and test type also raise some over-crediting and claim-reliability concerns.
Documentation
The available record includes a PDD, a long crediting period, and safeguard references such as FPIC, benefit sharing, and a grievance mechanism. However, the extraction confidence is low, only one document is clearly identified in the evidence list, and several key fields are missing or not stated. That combination points to a documentation set that is usable but incomplete.
Overall
I privileged the 2022 PDD values over the older contradictory entry because it is the more recent and apparently more complete document, but the contradictions still reduce confidence. Specifically, I treated additionality as confirmed, leakage as quantified, and reversal events as none reported, while noting that older or conflicting entries suggest weaker underlying consistency. The low extraction confidence and missing monitoring data keep the overall score in the middle range rather than higher.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, a quantified leakage treatment, and a 10% buffer pool. However, the record is thin on monitoring and verification detail, and the low extraction confidence plus document contradictions reduce confidence in the claims. Overall, this looks like a moderately credible VCS project, but not one with strong evidence quality or low claim risk.
Project Description
Proponent: Carbon Sink Group s.r.l. Protocol categories: Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use Protocols: AR-ACM0003 Estimated annual GHG reductions: 30 tCO2e Region: Europe Registration date: 2022-10-13
Red Flags
- Key monitoring and verification fields are not stated in the extracted record, including the monitoring period and verified issuance figures.
- The documents conflict on additionality, test type, leakage rationale, and reversal treatment, which weakens reliability.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a complete monitoring report with the monitoring period, verified issuance totals, and the usage monitoring method.
- Resolve the document contradictions by providing a clear audit trail showing which additionality and leakage statements are authoritative and why.
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
buffer pool present, no reversals reported
quantified leakage treatment
project baseline, reassessment not stated
FPIC and grievance mechanism documented
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
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 →