Bosque Yungas Argentinas
CT-88
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record
inferred No contradictions were detected, but this provides little assurance given the absence of source documents
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed results were found in the extracted record
missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured
Claim Safety
missing CORSIA/CCP status and key over-crediting risk parameters (baseline and leakage justification) were not found in the extracted record
inferred Labeled as a contribution credit type, but supporting safeguards against misleading claims are not evidenced in the extracted record
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, so the assessment cannot be evidence-based
missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating poor readability/quality of at least one key source
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No validation/verification, baseline method, reassessment timing, leakage deduction/justification, buffer or reversal information, or findings/corrective actions were found in the extracted record. With no evidence documents captured, integrity-relevant claims cannot be corroborated and must be scored conservatively.
Transparency
No VVB identity, monitoring period, MRV methods, or claimed-versus-verified results were found in the extracted record. Because the evidence document list is empty, public traceability and registry completeness cannot be evaluated from the provided materials.
Claim Safety
Key indicators that reduce greenwashing/over-crediting risk—such as baseline approach, leakage justification, and eligibility/approval statuses—were not found in the extracted record. In the absence of substantiating documentation, the safety of downstream claims is uncertain and treated as high risk.
Documentation
The extracted record includes zero documents and indicates low extraction confidence, implying at least one key document was poorly readable. This is a major evidence gap and materially limits confidence in any project attributes.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions, but this is not reassuring because no underlying documents were captured to compare. Given the empty evidence set and low extraction confidence, all dimensions are scored conservatively; note that the documentation score is below 3.0, which would trigger a transparency cap under the stated gate rules.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV results) 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
We are a triple impact company dedicated to providing natural solutions to climate change. We have been planting native trees in Argentina since 1998 and we specialize in restoring degraded areas and enriching native forests. We believe in teamwork and the creation of alliances to generate relevant change and meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. We are currently working in the Yungas ecosystem, in a private establishment called "El Nío", adjacent to the town of El Cajón, Burruyacú district, Tucumán province. The team is made up of committed people, who work in an interdisciplinary way to be able to carry out the project.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring results
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2021 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the PDD, validation/verification reports, and monitoring reports (with dates) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV results can be assessed
- Provide registry screenshots/links and explicit statements on CCP/CORSIA status and safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism) to reduce claim and double-claim risk
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 evidence found
Permanence provisions not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
No baseline method found
No safeguards evidence found
CORSIA/CCP status not evidenced
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 →