ECO avoidance Colombia Vintage 2024 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Doña Juana Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project

ECO-51 ↗

5.6 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

6.0

Claim Safety

4.8

Documentation

7.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB (ICONTEC).

missing Leakage is not consistently treated and key quantification (leakage deduction and baseline reassessment timing) is not found in the extracted record.

Transparency

verified Core project parameters are documented, including methodology (M/MLF-DE_RE01 v2.1), monitoring period, and VVB identity (ICONTEC).

missing The extracted record lacks claimed vs verified ER totals and key calculation inputs (e.g., grid emission factor), reducing MRV transparency.

Claim Safety

verified Safeguards elements are present (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing described), lowering reputational risk.

missing CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, and leakage handling is inconsistent, increasing over-crediting/claims risk.

Documentation

verified Multiple core documents are available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with high extraction confidence.

missing Several critical fields are not found in the extracted record (verified ERs, leakage deduction, baseline reassessment), indicating incomplete extractable evidence for key claims.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Additionality is supported because the extracted record states it was confirmed by the VVB (ICONTEC), as reflected in the validation/verification documentation set. Baseline setting is project-specific (per the project documentation), and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in available documents, which weakens robustness over a 10-year crediting period (2023–2033). Leakage integrity is a concern because the monitoring report (2025-06-20) does not address leakage and no leakage deduction is found in the extracted record.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2025-06-20) clearly states the monitoring period (2024-02-01 to 2024-12-31) and the applicable methodology (M/MLF-DE_RE01 v2.1), and identifies the VVB as ICONTEC. However, the extracted record does not include total emissions reductions claimed or verified for the period, and key calculation inputs like the grid emission factor/year are not found. This limits third-party ability to reproduce results from the extracted dataset.

Claim Safety

Safeguards-related items are comparatively strong in the extracted record: FPIC is indicated as conducted, a grievance mechanism is present, and benefit sharing is described (project documentation set). On the other hand, CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so downstream claims compatibility cannot be confirmed. The inconsistency on leakage treatment between the PDD and monitoring report increases over-crediting risk because it is unclear whether leakage was quantified and deducted in credited results.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is reasonably good with three key document types available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and high extraction confidence, suggesting the underlying files were readable. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is supportive. Still, several critical quantitative fields (verified ER totals, leakage deduction, baseline reassessment timing) are not found in the extracted record, reducing completeness for quality assessment.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: additionality is VVB-confirmed and safeguards elements are present, but MRV completeness in the extracted record is insufficient for high confidence in credited quantities. The key contradiction is on leakage: the PDD (2024-11-20) indicates leakage is quantified, while the monitoring report (2025-06-20) lists leakage as not addressed. For scoring, the monitoring report was privileged because it is more recent and should reflect what was actually applied during monitoring; this inconsistency reduces integrity and claim-safety scores due to data reliability concerns. If documentation score were to fall below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring (gate rule), but that is not triggered here.

Audit Analysis

The project appears to have a credible additionality check confirmed by the VVB and includes basic safeguards elements (FPIC and a grievance mechanism). However, key quantification items for crediting integrity are missing in the extracted record (verified ERs, leakage deduction, and baseline reassessment timing), and there is a document-level inconsistency on whether leakage is treated at all.

Project Description

Since 2007, Biogás Colombia has been a flagship project for circular economy and climate change mitigation in Colombia. Located in Bogotá, we transform the gas generated by the anaerobic decomposition of municipal solid waste at the Doña Juana landfill into solutions that reduce emissions, generate clean energy, and improve air quality in the Colombian capital. Every year, more than 2.2 million tons of solid waste are continuously (24/7) deposited at the Doña Juana landfill. During the anaerobic decomposition of the organic fraction (52%), biogas is generated, a mixture primarily composed of methane (CH₄) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). The gas is extracted through vertical wells connected to a network of pipelines. Specialized equipment monitors pressure and flow to ensure a stable supply of more than 13,500 m³ of biogas per day to the treatment plant. At the plant, the gas passes through four blowers and three flares (each with a capacity of 5,000 Nm³/h) for controlled combustion, effectively preventing the direct release of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Through this process, Biogás Colombia prevents over 800,000 tCO₂e per year , equivalent to removing 400,000 cars from Bogotá’s streets or planting 160 million trees. Our project actively participates in the carbon market, helping companies and organizations meet their climate commitments at both national and international levels. Biogás Colombia is trusted by leading institutions such as Nefco – the Nordic Green Bank, Primax, BIOMAX, Petrobras, PUMA Energy, Chevron, Terpel, and Cemex, who recognize our proven record of impact, transparency, and operational excellence.

Red Flags

Leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents: the PDD indicates leakage is quantified, while the monitoring report does not address leakage.
No verified emissions reductions/avoidance totals were found in the extracted record for the stated monitoring period, limiting confidence in issued-credit accuracy.

Credit Vintages

	Issued	Retired	Available
2018	70,408	70,408	0
2019	517,284	517,284	0
2020	476,120	476,120	0
2021	424,552	424,552	0
2022	362,909	357,236	5,673
2023	248,875	12,807	236,068
2024	644,223	209,253	434,970
Total	2,744,371	2,067,660	676,711

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish or extract the monitoring/verification tables showing total ER claimed and total ER verified for 2024-02-01 to 2024-12-31, including uncertainty and any deductions applied.
Resolve leakage treatment explicitly in the monitoring/verification documentation by stating the leakage sources, quantification approach, and the final leakage deduction applied (or a justified negligible determination).

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