COMPOSTING OF ORGANIC WASTE PROJECT IN GUANGXI

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was assessed via an investment test and confirmed by the VVB (Applus+), which supports additionality robustness. The monitoring report (dated 2024-02-07) reports no material findings, but it also lists corrective actions related to insufficient documentation, monitoring plan/methodology conformity, and calculation assumptions that could affect credited volumes. Leakage is a key gap: the monitoring documentation does not address leakage and no leakage deduction is reported in the extracted record, weakening integrity for an organic waste diversion/composting activity where upstream/downstream effects can be relevant. Baseline setting is project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in available documents.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated (2020-01-06 to 2022-12-31) and the monitoring report provides a verified total of 1,417,023 tCO2e, which supports traceability of issued outcomes. The VVB is identified (Applus+), and the methodology is specified (ACM0022 v03.0). However, the extracted record does not include the total emission reductions claimed, preventing a direct claimed-versus-verified comparison. Leakage treatment details (deduction percentage and justification) are also missing, limiting the ability to independently assess conservativeness.

Claim Safety

Because the project reports verified ERs for the monitoring period (monitoring report dated 2024-02-07), claims can be anchored to ex-post results rather than purely ex-ante projections. That said, leakage is not addressed and no deduction is reported in the extracted record, which increases over-crediting risk for public claims. In addition, CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so buyers cannot easily assess whether the credits may be used across multiple claim channels or meet higher-integrity labels. The presence of corrective actions tied to calculations and evidence sufficiency further elevates claim risk until clearly resolved.

Documentation

The extracted record references a reasonably complete set of core documents (PDD, validation report, monitoring report, issuance) and indicates 13 documents were used with high extraction confidence, supporting document completeness. The monitoring report is recent (2024-02-07) relative to the monitoring period and crediting period start, which helps recency. However, the corrective actions listed indicate that, at least at the time of assessment, documentation and evidence were not fully sufficient and that calculation/application issues could affect ER quantities. Some important fields remain absent from the extracted record (e.g., claimed ERs, leakage deduction, baseline reassessment timing), reducing documentation strength.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so scores are not reduced for inter-document inconsistencies. The project benefits from VVB-confirmed additionality and a clearly defined monitoring period with a large verified ER total, supporting moderate confidence. The main drivers pulling the overall score down are the absence of leakage treatment in the extracted record and the presence of corrective actions that explicitly relate to monitoring/methodology conformity and calculation assumptions affecting credited volumes. Note: if documentation were to score below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0 post-scoring.