Afforestation Project in Tongliao, Inner Mongolia

Integrity

The project has a stronger-than-average integrity profile because the VVB confirmed additionality and the project uses a combined additionality test under the Gold Standard afforestation/reforestation methodology. A 20% buffer pool is in place and no reversal or loss events are reported, which supports permanence. That said, the verification report records seven clarification requests, four corrective action requests, and one prior FAR that were closed, which indicates some implementation or documentation issues.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring period is clearly stated and the VVB is identified as Carbon Check (India) Private Limited. However, the extracted record does not state claimed or verified ER totals, and usage monitoring is not described. The low extraction confidence also suggests at least one key document was difficult to read, which weakens confidence in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate but not strong. The project is an afforestation activity with a project baseline and a stated leakage deduction of 0%, and leakage is described as negligible, which helps reduce over-crediting concerns. On the other hand, CORSIA eligibility is true while CCP status is not mentioned, so dual-market claim risk is not fully resolved from the available record.

Documentation

Documentation quality is limited by low extraction confidence and the fact that only one evidence document is listed in the extracted record. The validation report is recent, but the record still contains multiple closed CARs and CLs, suggesting the documentation required substantial follow-up. The contradictions on benefit sharing, leakage treatment, reversal handling, and the crediting period further reduce reliability.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project with some solid integrity signals, especially VVB-confirmed additionality, a buffer pool, and no reported reversals. I privileged the 2025-03-24 validation report over older material where contradictions existed, because it is the more recent document, but I still discounted the score because the record itself flags inconsistencies on benefit sharing, leakage, reversal treatment, and the crediting period. The low extraction confidence and missing ER totals keep transparency and documentation from scoring higher.