removal Spain Vintage 2022 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

BOSQUE ALALPARDO

CM-962a63 ↗

2.7 / 10

Integrity

1.3

Transparency

3.4

Claim Safety

3.0

Documentation

4.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline method, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record (PDD/validation/monitoring report).

inferred The monitoring report (2022) indicates no material findings and no corrective actions, but this does not substitute for missing core quantifications.

Transparency

verified A monitoring report (2022), validation report, and PDD are listed as evidence documents, suggesting some public documentation exists.

missing Core MRV outputs and parameters (monitoring period, claimed/verified removals, and monitoring methods) were not stated in the available documents.

Claim Safety

missing CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the available documents, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims.

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline and leakage approaches and verified totals were not found in the extracted record.

Documentation

verified Three key document types are present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report dated 2022-08-25).

missing Extraction confidence is only medium and many critical fields were not captured from the documents, indicating incomplete/unclear documentation in the extracted record.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

For an ARR removal project, the extracted record does not state the additionality test used or whether additionality was confirmed by an independent verifier (PDD and validation report). The baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are also not stated in the available documents (PDD). Leakage is not quantified and no justification is provided (monitoring report), and permanence provisions are unclear because no buffer pool percentage or reversal reporting was found (monitoring report).

Transparency

The evidence set includes a PDD, a validation report, and a monitoring report dated 2022-08-25, which supports basic traceability. However, the monitoring period, the monitoring/usage methods, and the total claimed versus verified removals are not stated in the extracted record (monitoring report). The absence of these core MRV details limits third-party ability to reproduce or sanity-check results.

Claim Safety

Claim risk is elevated because neither total claimed removals nor total verified removals are stated in the extracted record (monitoring report), making it impossible to assess the magnitude and conservativeness of credited outcomes. Baseline and leakage approaches are not stated (PDD/monitoring report), which increases over-crediting uncertainty for ARR. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are also not stated in the available documents, leaving downstream eligibility/labeling claims uncertain.

Documentation

Three core document types are listed (PDD, validation report, monitoring report), and the monitoring report is relatively recent (2022-08-25). No material findings and no corrective actions are reported in the extracted record (monitoring report), which is a positive signal. Still, many critical fields are missing and the minimum extraction confidence is only medium, so documentation quality and extractability appear limited.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The main driver of the low overall score is the breadth of evidence gaps on core carbon-accounting elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence/buffer, monitoring period, and quantified claimed/verified removals) across the PDD, validation report, and monitoring report. Because documentation is above 3.0, the transparency cap gate would not apply; integrity remains below 4.0, which would trigger the post-processing overall cap rule.

Audit Analysis

Based on the extracted record, key integrity elements for a forest removal project (additionality approach, baseline method, leakage treatment, permanence/buffer provisions, and quantified results) are not stated in the available documents. While three core documents are present and no material findings or corrective actions are reported, the lack of quantified monitoring outcomes and core methodological details materially increases over-crediting and claim-risk.

Project Description

The Reforest Project Association has carried out a reforestation in the municipality of Alalpardo (Madrid, Spain) with the aim of recovering a riverside area and increasing its biodiversity, as the municipality is declared a SPA (Special Protection Area for Birds), The species planted were hackberry (Celtis australis), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), poplar (Populus alba), willow (Salix alba) and juniper (Juniperus spp).

Red Flags

No quantified claimed or verified removals were found in the extracted record (no stated ERR figures).
Baseline approach and reassessment timing are not stated in the available documents.
No leakage deduction or leakage justification is stated, despite ARR projects commonly having leakage considerations.
No permanence risk management information was found (no buffer pool percentage and no reversal reporting).
Leakage not addressed in project documentation
Buffer pool size not disclosed in available documents

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish or extract the quantified monitoring results for the stated monitoring period, including total claimed and independently verified removals and any uncertainty/adjustments (monitoring report and verification/validation documentation).
Disclose the baseline approach (including reassessment schedule), leakage assessment with justification and any deduction, and permanence risk management (buffer contribution and reversal monitoring/response) in the PDD and monitoring documentation.

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