Ecosystem Restoration Spain Vintage 2024 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Co2 Carbon reforestación Arcos de la Frontera

CM-26fe64 ↗

3.2 / 10

Integrity

1.3

Transparency

4.2

Claim Safety

3.6

Documentation

5.4

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool) are not stated in the extracted record across the PDD/validation/monitoring documents.

inferred The monitoring report (2024-09-19) reports no material findings and no corrective actions, but this does not substitute for missing quantified accounting parameters.

Transparency

verified Core document set is present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report dated 2024-09-19).

missing Monitoring period and verified vs claimed removals are not stated in the extracted record, limiting MRV transparency.

Claim Safety

verified The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, reducing one pathway for high-risk claims.

missing Over-crediting risk is elevated because baseline method, leakage approach, and verified removals are not stated in the extracted record.

Documentation

verified Three key document types are available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with medium extraction confidence.

missing Several critical fields are missing or not evidenced (crediting/monitoring periods, accounting methodology/version, safeguards), indicating incomplete extractable documentation.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Across the PDD, validation report, and the monitoring report (2024-09-19), the extracted record does not state the additionality test used or whether additionality was confirmed by the validator. The baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are also not found in the extracted record, making it hard to judge whether credited removals are conservative. Leakage is not evidenced (no deduction percentage and no justification found), and permanence risk management is unclear because no buffer pool contribution or reversal information is found in the extracted record.

Transparency

The project has a basic public-facing documentation trail in the extracted record (PDD, validation report, and a monitoring report dated 2024-09-19), which supports some transparency. However, the monitoring period is not stated, and neither claimed nor verified total removals are found in the extracted record, preventing cross-checks between monitoring and verification outcomes. The validator name is provided, but the MRV quantification details needed to replicate results are not evidenced here.

Claim Safety

CORSIA eligibility is explicitly marked as false, which reduces the risk of high-impact aviation claims. Nonetheless, the extracted record does not provide the baseline method, leakage treatment, or verified removals totals, which increases the risk that credits could be used for claims that overstate climate benefit. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, so buyers cannot easily benchmark the project against ICVCM expectations.

Documentation

The evidence set includes a PDD, validation report, and a monitoring report (2024-09-19), and the minimum extraction confidence is medium, suggesting the documents were at least partially readable. Even so, many critical quantitative and procedural elements are not found in the extracted record (methodology/version, monitoring period, crediting period, claimed/verified totals, leakage and permanence provisions). Safeguards are not evidenced: FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing are all not indicated in the extracted record.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so scores are driven primarily by evidence gaps rather than internal inconsistencies. Given the absence of stated additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, permanence provisions, and verified removal totals, integrity and claim safety are constrained despite the presence of core documents. Note: if documentation were to fall below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall score would be capped at 6.0 under the gate rule.

Audit Analysis

The project has some basic documentation (PDD, validation report, and a 2024 monitoring report), but key carbon-accounting elements are not stated in the extracted record. Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence risk management are not evidenced with quantified parameters, which increases over-crediting risk. CORSIA is explicitly not applicable, which slightly reduces downstream double-claim risk, but CCP status is not stated.

Project Description

CO2 CARBON S.A with N.I.F. A-70824412, with registered office at Industrial Cañada Ancha Nave 28-30, 0 - 11150 in Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain is a company which has been created to plant cedar forests and fight against climate change. This exemplary project adopts a holistic approach, implementing forest management and restoration practices that increase carbon storage in a forest. Through replanting of Cedros forests, we will generate certificates of future emission reductions , consolidating its impact in the fight against climate change. Our objective through these Cedar forests is to obtain benefits such as erosion control, as well as the generation, conservation and erosion, as well as soil generation, conservation and recovery. Contributing to the capture of carbon sequestration and assimilation of various pollutants. Protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and life forms. Favouring and enabling plant pollination and biological pest control.  CO2 Carbon S.A. is formed by two partners with more than 35 years of experience in agriculture world and now undertaking and developing the world of forestry forests with Cedar plantations to achieve the objective of our new project.

Red Flags

Baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are not stated in the extracted record, limiting confidence in credited removals.
No leakage deduction or leakage justification is found in the extracted record for an ARR/reforestation activity.
No permanence risk management details (buffer pool contribution or reversal monitoring outcomes) are found in the extracted record.
Safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) are not evidenced in the extracted record.
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: 2024 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish (or extract clearly) the carbon accounting methodology and version, baseline approach, monitoring period, and the claimed vs verified removal totals for the latest issuance/monitoring cycle.
Document permanence risk management (e.g., buffer pool contribution, reversal monitoring and response procedures) and provide a quantified leakage assessment with justification (even if concluded negligible).

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