Dori Alimentos Ltda - Biomass Based Project - Brazil

Integrity

The monitoring report (2025) indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a barrier test, which supports additionality. However, the same monitoring report lists many corrective action requests, including concerns that emission reductions may not be monitorable/calculable and that emission reductions must be recalculated according to AMS-I.C, which weakens confidence in baseline/quantification integrity. Leakage is reported with a 0% deduction alongside a statement that leakage was quantified (monitoring report, 2025), but the basis for arriving at zero is not evidenced in the extracted record. No reversals are reported, which is consistent with an avoidance project type and lowers permanence risk.

Transparency

The extracted record includes the VVB (RINA Services S.p.A.), monitoring period (2020-08-01 to 2023-12-31), and matching claimed vs verified totals for the latest cycle (47,286) (monitoring/validation documents, 2025). At the same time, the project file shows repeated contradictions across earlier vs later document versions (e.g., ERR totals, safeguards, crediting period), which reduces transparency because users cannot easily reconcile which figures and statements govern. Key MRV elements such as grid emission factor details and usage monitoring method are not found in the extracted record, limiting independent reproducibility.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of high-profile aviation claims (registry extract). Nonetheless, the validation report figures conflict across vintages (22,925 in 2021 vs 47,286 in 2025), and the monitoring report (2025) includes CARs requiring rounding down and recalculation of emission reductions under AMS-I.C—both of which elevate over-crediting/greenwashing risk if not clearly resolved. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity claim frameworks.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is relatively strong: the evidence set includes PDD, monitoring report, validation report, and issuance, with 25 documents used and high extraction confidence (extracted record). However, the monitoring report (2025) lists extensive corrective action requests spanning project description consistency, biomass sourcing clarity, parameter/table issues, and calculation spreadsheet requirements, indicating that the documentation package had material quality-control gaps at the time of review. Several important fields (e.g., baseline reassessment timing, grid EF year/value) are not found in the extracted record, which limits completeness.

Overall

I privilege the more recent documents where contradictions exist, because later monitoring/validation vintages (2025) are more likely to reflect updated project configuration and the latest assurance conclusions. Specifically: (1) for emission reductions, I use 47,286 from the 2025 validation/monitoring cycle over 22,925 from the 2021 validation report, but I downgrade scores because the swing is large and unexplained in the extracted record; (2) for leakage, I use the 2025 monitoring report’s statement that leakage was quantified (with 0% deduction) over the 2018 ‘deemed negligible’ phrasing, but the zero deduction still warrants caution; (3) for safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) and additionality confirmation, I use the 2025 monitoring report’s affirmative statements over earlier monitoring reports that said they were absent, and I penalize transparency/claim safety due to inconsistent disclosure; (4) for crediting period, I use 2016–2026 from the 2025 monitoring report over 2006–2016 from the 2018 monitoring report, and I reduce documentation/transparency because such a fundamental discrepancy should be clearly reconciled.