Ecosystem Restoration Spain Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

ACTUACIÓN PARA LA RECUPERACIÓN EN SOTO DE BAYONA

CT-717 ↗

1.8 / 10

Integrity

0.5

Transparency

2.5

Claim Safety

2.0

Documentation

3.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing No additionality test or VVB confirmation found in the monitoring report (not stated in available documents).

inferred ✗ No baseline method, leakage deduction, or buffer percentage documented; reversal events not reported (monitoring report).

Transparency

missing Only one evidence document used (a monitoring report dated 2025-03-03); registry listed as 'other'.

inferred ✓ No material findings or corrective actions reported in the verification record, but those fields may reflect limited extraction rather than full transparency.

Claim Safety

missing Baseline approach and leakage justification not stated, so over‑crediting risk cannot be ruled out (not found in extracted record).

inferred Yellow risk on double‑claim because CORSIA/CCP eligibility is not stated; dual‑channel risk unresolved.

Documentation

missing Only a single monitoring report was extracted (n_docs_used=1) and many key fields are not stated.

inferred Medium extraction confidence reduces certainty but is not as damaging as low confidence.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The available monitoring report (dated 2025-03-03) contains no documented additionality test or VVB confirmation, and the record does not state a baseline method, leakage deduction, or buffer pool percentage. No reversal events are reported in the extracted record, but that absence appears to be a documentation gap rather than clear evidence of permanence protections. Given these missing core facts, integrity is low.

Transparency

Transparency is weak: only one evidence document was used (a monitoring report) and the registry is listed as 'other'. Key MRV figures (claimed vs verified reductions, monitoring period, VVB name) are not present in the extracted record. While no material findings were recorded in the extracted fields, the many nulls indicate insufficient public or extracted disclosure.

Claim Safety

There is a high risk of over‑claiming because baseline methodology, leakage treatment and any non‑forest reference levels are not documented in the available file. CORSIA/CCP status is also not stated, leaving unresolved the possibility of double claims. The lack of quantified ERR or usage monitoring increases claim uncertainty.

Documentation

Documentation score reflects that a single monitoring report (project name shown as BOSQUE LA TORRECILLA) was available with medium extraction confidence and no supplementary documents listed. The document date is recent (2025-03-03), which is positive, but the narrow evidence base and many missing fields lower confidence.

Overall

The dataset contains no contradictions. I privileged the explicit content of the monitoring report and treated all null or not‑stated fields as evidence gaps. Because the verification/assessment of core items (additionality, baseline, leakage, buffer) is absent from the extracted documents, the project scores low across integrity, transparency and claim safety. Improving disclosure of the baseline method, VVB verification statement, leakage justification and buffer/reversal arrangements would substantially raise the scores.

Audit Analysis

Documentation is minimal (single monitoring report) and key quality elements are not reported. There is no evidence available on additionality, baseline method, leakage treatment or permanence safeguards, creating high uncertainty and low confidence in environmental integrity.

Project Description

The aim of this project is the recovery, through reforestation with native species, of the Soto de Bayona area, in the municipality of Titulcia, province of Madrid, with a total area of approximately 9.50 hectares. To this end, species such as Tamarix gallica, Colutea hispánica, Prunus amygdalus, Populus nigra, Fraxinus angustifolia, Celtis autralis, Salix sp, Morus sp, Pinus halapensis, Pinus pinea and Ulmus sp will be planted.

Red Flags

No additionality assessment or VVB confirmation found in available documents
Baseline method, leakage deduction and buffer treatment are not stated in the extracted record
Leakage not addressed in project documentation
Buffer pool size not disclosed in available documents

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the project baseline methodology and the most recent baseline reassessment report (including quantified ERR figures).
Publish VVB verification statements that confirm additionality, leakage deduction, buffer treatment and any reversal history, and disclose registry and CCP/CORSIA eligibility status.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.