Composting Project in Santa Catarina

Integrity

The verification report dated 2024-12-23 confirms additionality through a barrier test and states that Earthood Services Private Limited verified it, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. However, leakage is explicitly not addressed, the buffer pool is not stated, and the report lists several corrective actions, including missing licenses and calculation support files, which weakens confidence in the emissions accounting. No reversal events are reported, which is positive for permanence in an avoidance-style waste project.

Transparency

The project has a named verifier and a clear monitoring period, and the latest verification record reports 4,100 claimed and 4,100 verified ERs. Still, key transparency fields are missing or not stated in available documents, including the usage monitoring method, baseline reassessment timing, and buffer pool coverage. Low extraction confidence further reduces trust in the completeness of the documentation trail.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by the project-specific baseline, the absence of a leakage justification, and the lack of quantified usage or monitoring details. The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which helps reduce dual-market risk, but the record does not provide CCP approval status. Earlier documents in the contradictions list show much larger ER figures, so the reliability of the credited volume is weaker than the latest record alone suggests.

Documentation

The record draws on many extracted documents and includes a recent verification report, which is a positive sign for recency. However, the extraction confidence is low, and the verification report itself says several evidences were not provided to the verification team, including licenses, daily farmer reports, support spreadsheets, integrator spreadsheets, and social carbon evidence. That combination indicates a materially incomplete documentation package.

Overall

I privileged the 2024-12-23 verification report for the latest values because it is the most recent and appears to be the highest-priority assurance document, but I discounted confidence because the contradictions show materially different earlier values for additionality, leakage treatment, safeguards, and ER totals. In particular, I treated the latest report’s statements as controlling where they are explicit, while lowering scores because the record does not resolve why earlier documents reported different ER volumes and safeguard status. The project is not weak enough to trigger the integrity gate, but the unresolved contradictions and missing evidence keep the overall assessment in the low-to-mid range.