Corredor dos Senandes CDM Project

Integrity

Additionality appears reasonably robust because the extracted record indicates the VVB confirmed additionality using an investment test (validation/verification documentation referenced). Baseline setting is project-specific under ACM0002, and the timing of any baseline reassessment was not found in the extracted record, which weakens confidence in baseline continued appropriateness. Leakage is a key weakness: the monitoring report (2021-08-12) indicates leakage was not addressed, while another (2011) source suggests leakage was quantified, creating uncertainty about whether credited ERs include appropriate leakage treatment. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the monitoring report (2021-08-12), which is a positive signal but does not resolve the leakage and baseline gaps.

Transparency

Core MRV descriptors are present: the monitoring period is stated as 2014-07-01 to 2020-12-31 and the VVB is named as Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Limited (monitoring report, 2021-08-12). However, the extracted record does not include a verified total emission reduction figure, and the claimed ER total is internally contradictory, limiting traceability from monitoring to issuance. Several monitoring-related fields (such as usage monitoring method) were not found in the extracted record, reducing replicability of calculations.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of high-profile aviation-related claims (monitoring report, 2021-08-12). Nonetheless, greenwashing/over-crediting risk is elevated because the monitoring report date contains two different claimed ER totals and there is no verified ER total captured in the extracted record. Leakage handling is unclear due to conflicting statements (not addressed vs quantified), and CCP status was not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty for high-integrity claim frameworks.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate-to-good: the evidence list includes a monitoring report (2021-08-12), a validation report (2012-12-27), and financial documentation, with 8 documents used and high extraction confidence. However, coherence across documents is an issue because safeguards are described as present in the validation report but absent in the monitoring report, and leakage treatment is inconsistent across sources. The absence of extracted details on baseline reassessment and several MRV parameters indicates remaining evidence gaps despite the number of documents.

Overall

The main reliability concern is the contradiction in claimed emission reductions: 989,643 versus 78,789, both attributed to the monitoring report dated 2021-08-12. Because both values come from the same document type and date, neither can be confidently privileged; this inconsistency materially reduces confidence and drives down transparency and claim-safety scores. For safeguards, the validation report (2012-12-27) indicates safeguards were mentioned while the monitoring report (2021-08-12) indicates they were not; the more recent monitoring report was privileged for current-state assessment, but the contradiction still signals weak continuity of safeguards reporting. For leakage, the monitoring report (2021-08-12) stating leakage was not addressed was privileged over an older, unclear 2011 source labeled as unknown, but the discrepancy suggests potential methodological or reporting gaps and lowers integrity and claim safety.