avoidance China Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Cooking With Gas

CE-sichuan-china

5.7 / 10

Integrity

5.4

Transparency

6.2

Claim Safety

4.8

Documentation

6.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a barrier test.

missing Leakage is not addressed in the monitoring report (2019) and baseline reassessment timing is not stated in available documents.

Transparency

verified The monitoring report (2019) provides a clear monitoring period (2018-01-01 to 2018-12-31) and identifies the VVB (CTI).

missing Key quantification inputs (e.g., grid emission factor, leakage deduction) are not found in the extracted record, limiting MRV traceability.

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk is elevated by unclear leakage handling and missing baseline parameters in the extracted record.

inferred CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims.

Documentation

verified Multiple core documents were used (monitoring report, validation report, plus one additional source) with high extraction confidence.

missing One evidence source is labeled as unknown and a key contradiction exists, reducing confidence in completeness/consistency.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Additionality appears reasonably supported because the validation/verification record indicates a barrier test and that additionality was confirmed by the VVB. Baseline setting is weaker because the extracted record indicates a project-specific baseline approach and does not state when (or whether) the baseline was last reassessed. Leakage is a key integrity gap: the monitoring report (2019) indicates leakage was not addressed, and no leakage deduction is found in the extracted record.

Transparency

The monitoring report (dated 2019-09-04) clearly states the monitoring period (2018-01-01 to 2018-12-31) and names the VVB as Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd (CTI). The project reports both claimed and verified ERs (876,123 claimed vs 822,520 verified), which supports transparency on outcomes, but the extracted record does not provide key calculation inputs such as the grid emission factor or any leakage deduction. Usage monitoring is described as annual surveys, but no verified usage rate is found in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by missing or inconsistent climate-accounting elements: leakage is shown as not addressed in the monitoring report (2019), and baseline parameters like the grid emission factor are not found in the extracted record. The difference between claimed and verified ERs (876,123 vs 822,520) suggests adjustments occurred, but without extracted detail this increases perceived over-crediting risk. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility are not stated in available documents, so buyers cannot easily rely on these labels for low-greenwashing claims.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate: three documents were used (monitoring report, validation report, and one additional source labeled unknown) and extraction confidence is high. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which supports procedural completeness. However, the presence of an unknown source document and a substantive contradiction on leakage treatment reduce confidence in the record’s internal consistency.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range: safeguards are comparatively well evidenced (FPIC and a grievance mechanism are indicated), and additionality is VVB-confirmed via a barrier test. The main weakness is accounting reliability around leakage and baseline inputs, which affects both integrity and claim safety. On the contradiction: the monitoring report (2019-09-04) states leakage was not addressed, while an earlier, unidentified document (2018-09-07) indicates leakage was quantified; the monitoring report is privileged because it is a known document type, more recent, and directly tied to the monitored period, but the inconsistency itself warrants a downward adjustment for reliability.

Audit Analysis

This Gold Standard biogas programme shows some integrity strengths, notably VVB-confirmed additionality and documented social safeguards (FPIC and a grievance mechanism). However, key climate-accounting elements are weakly evidenced in the extracted record, especially leakage treatment and baseline parameters, and there is a material inconsistency on whether leakage was quantified.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: “The project exclusively targets low-income rural households in China’s Sichuan province, who are unable to participate in an ongoing public biogas promotion program without additional financial and technical support. These families exist on an average daily per capita income of slightly higher than one US dollar. The carbon revenues

Red Flags

Leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents (one record says leakage was not addressed, another indicates it was quantified).
Baseline is project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record.
A sizable gap exists between claimed and verified ERs (876,123 claimed vs 822,520 verified) without an extracted explanation.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the specific leakage assessment for the monitored period, including whether leakage was quantified and any applied deduction, and reconcile the discrepancy across documents.
Disclose key baseline parameters (e.g., grid emission factor and its vintage) and document when the baseline was last reassessed under the applied methodology versions.

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