Balsas Renewable Energy Project
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB in the verification report, and the project used a barrier test rather than relying only on self-assertion.
missing The verification report lists six corrective action requests, and permanence is not well evidenced because reversal events are marked as not addressed and no buffer pool share is stated.
Transparency
verified The record includes a named verifier, a defined monitoring period, and both monitoring and verification documents in the evidence set.
missing Several core MRV fields are missing, including the verified usage rate and the monitoring method for usage, and the extraction confidence is only medium.
Claim Safety
verified Leakage was explicitly quantified with a 0% deduction in the verification report, which is better than an unqualified assumption.
missing The baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized or recently reassessed, and the FNRB value is inconsistent across documents, with the monitoring report far below the PDD figure.
Documentation
verified The evidence set spans multiple official documents, including the PDD, monitoring report, verification report, stakeholder consultation, and issuance record.
missing The verification report required six corrective actions, and the crediting period dates differ between the PDD and monitoring report, which reduces documentation reliability.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report confirms additionality through a barrier test and states that leakage was quantified with a 0% deduction. On the negative side, the report also lists six corrective action requests, and permanence is weakly documented because reversal events are marked as not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is available.
Transparency
Transparency is helped by the presence of a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and multiple official source documents. Still, key MRV details are missing in the extracted record, including the verified usage rate and the usage monitoring method, and the extraction confidence is only medium, which limits trust in completeness.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is moderate because the project has a quantified leakage treatment and a VVB-reviewed verification record. However, the baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized, and the FNRB value is inconsistent across documents: the monitoring report shows 0.8683 while the PDD shows 84.5, so I privileged the more recent monitoring report but discounted confidence because of the contradiction.
Documentation
Documentation breadth is decent because the evidence set includes the PDD, monitoring report, verification report, stakeholder consultation, and issuance record, with 12 documents used overall. The score is held back by six corrective actions in the verification report, medium extraction confidence, and a date inconsistency in the crediting period between the PDD and monitoring report, which suggests the record is not fully clean.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, quantified leakage treatment, and no reported reversal events. However, the record also shows multiple corrective actions, a project-specific baseline, and important data gaps around permanence and usage monitoring, which keep confidence moderate rather than strong.
Project Description
Developer: Sustainable Carbon - Projetos Ambientais LTDA Type: Biomass, or Liquid Biofuel - Heat Size: Microscale Methodology: AMS-I.E. Switch from Non-Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications by the User Crediting period: 2011-12-01 → 2021-11-30 Estimated annual credits: 5688 tCO2e SDGs: Goal 15: Life On Land, Goal 13: Climate Action, Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being
Red Flags
- Six corrective action requests were raised in the verification report, indicating notable documentation or implementation issues.
- Key monitoring details are missing or inconsistent, including the usage rate and permanence treatment, and the FNRB value differs sharply between the monitoring report and the PDD.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 433 | 424 | 9 | |
| 2012 | 6,704 | 6,581 | 123 | |
| 2013 | 7,010 | 7,010 | 0 | |
| 2014 | 5,229 | 5,228 | 1 | |
| Total | 19,376 | 19,243 | 133 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a clear, reconciled MRV package that resolves the FNRB and crediting-period contradictions and states the verified usage rate and monitoring method.
- Provide explicit permanence treatment, including buffer pool allocation or other reversal safeguards, and close out or explain the six corrective action requests in the verification report.
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 barrier test
No buffer pool stated
Leakage quantified at 0%
Project baseline, reassessment unclear
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
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 →