HCS Removal Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Benson Farms

TC-1988 ↗

1.9 / 10

Integrity

1.8

Transparency

1.4

Claim Safety

1.9

Documentation

2.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality is not demonstrated in the extracted verification report; no test type or VVB confirmation is stated.

missing Baseline method, leakage deduction, buffer pool, and reversal history are not found in the available record.

Transparency

missing The extracted record does not provide claimed versus verified ERR totals, so over-crediting cannot be checked.

inferred The monitoring period is stated for 2024 and the VVB is named as Control Union Malaysia, but the underlying MRV details are largely missing.

Claim Safety

missing Without a stated baseline method or leakage justification, the risk of overstated climate claims remains high.

inferred CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

missing Only two document sources were used, and the extracted record is missing many core fields needed for a robust review.

inferred Extraction confidence is medium, which is better than low, but the documentation still lacks key quantitative and methodological details.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report names Control Union Malaysia and covers the 2024 monitoring period, but it does not state any additionality test, VVB-confirmed additionality, baseline method, leakage deduction, buffer pool, or reversal events. With no material findings reported, there is no direct evidence of non-compliance, but the absence of core methodological details makes the integrity case weak.

Transparency

Transparency is limited because the extracted record does not include claimed versus verified emission removal totals, usage monitoring details, or any quantified leakage or baseline parameters. The report does identify the monitoring period and the verifier, which helps somewhat, but the MRV picture remains incomplete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is poor because the record does not state how the baseline was set, whether leakage was addressed, or whether any permanence safeguards exist. Since CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are also not stated, the project’s public climate claims cannot be assessed with confidence from the available documents.

Documentation

Documentation quality is weak to moderate: two document sources were used, the monitoring period is current, and the verifier is named, but most of the key fields are missing from the extracted record. Extraction confidence is medium rather than low, yet the absence of core quantitative and methodological information still leaves major evidence gaps.

Audit Analysis

The project’s verification report is too sparse to support a strong quality assessment. Key elements such as additionality, baseline design, leakage treatment, and permanence safeguards are not stated in the extracted record, which creates substantial uncertainty and weakens confidence in the claimed removals.

Project Description

Credits issued: 170

Red Flags

No additionality test or VVB-confirmed additionality is stated in the extracted verification record.
Baseline method, leakage treatment, buffer pool, and reversal information are all not found in the available documents.

Credit Vintages

		Issued	Retired	Available
2024		170	0	170
Total		170	0	170

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish the full verification and validation evidence for additionality, baseline setting, leakage treatment, and permanence safeguards, including any buffer pool or reversal provisions.
Disclose verified versus claimed removal totals, registry status, and any CORSIA or CCP eligibility information so over-crediting and double-claim risk can be checked.

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