BOSQUE ELÍO
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, buffer/reversal provisions, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record.
inferred Ecosystem restoration typically has non-trivial permanence and leakage considerations, but these are not documented here.
Transparency
missing No VVB identity, monitoring period, or quantified claimed vs verified removals were found in the extracted record.
missing Registry/public disclosure completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured.
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline method, reassessment timing, and any leakage/usage assumptions were not found in the extracted record.
inferred Eligibility/labeling risk (e.g., CORSIA/CCP status) is not stated in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims.
Documentation
missing Zero evidence documents were captured (0 documents used), indicating a major evidence gap.
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues, reducing auditability.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No official documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents used), so additionality testing, baseline selection and reassessment, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool or reversal handling) are not stated. Because this is an ecosystem restoration project, permanence and leakage are typically material, but there is no extracted evidence showing how these risks are managed. With no verification/monitoring content available, integrity cannot be substantiated and is scored very low.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because the extracted record contains no evidence documents and does not provide a VVB name, monitoring period, or any comparison of claimed versus verified removals. Public-data completeness and MRV quality cannot be evaluated from the available extraction. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that missing items are simply absent rather than unreadable.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak by default because the extracted record does not state the baseline method, leakage justification/deduction, or any quantified results that would allow an over-crediting screen. The record also does not state any CCP or CORSIA-related status, leaving uncertainty about how credits might be marketed or used. Given the absence of substantiating documentation, conservative scoring is warranted.
Documentation
Documentation is extremely poor: the extracted record lists no evidence documents and indicates 0 documents used. The minimum extraction confidence is low, implying at least one key source was poorly readable, which further undermines completeness and reliability. Without accessible verification/monitoring reports or a PDD-equivalent, the project is not auditable from the extracted record.
Overall
There are no contradictions listed in the extracted record, but this is because there is effectively no extracted content to compare. With zero documents captured and low extraction confidence, the project cannot be assessed against core quality criteria, so all dimension scores are heavily penalized. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap the transparency score after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, and MRV) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default.
Project Description
Reforestation with native species on degraded land located in Elío, Ciriza, Navarra.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents used), preventing verification of baseline, additionality, leakage, and monitoring.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability of any missing/partial information.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2024 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide and extract the core MITECO project documentation (project design/baseline, monitoring report(s), and any validation/verification report) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and permanence can be evidenced.
- Disclose quantified MRV outputs (monitoring period, claimed vs verified removals), any findings/corrective actions, and safeguards/grievance documentation to enable an auditable quality assessment.
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
No additionality assessment found
Permanence provisions not documented
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not stated
Safeguards/FPIC not documented
Eligibility/status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ 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 →