Regenerative Agriculture Canada Vintage 2023, 2024 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Eastwood Farms Ltd

CM-ae622b ↗

3.9 / 10

Integrity

3.2

Transparency

4.1

Claim Safety

4.0

Documentation

4.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The verification report names Control Union Malaysia and reports no material findings or corrective actions.

missing No additionality test, leakage deduction, buffer pool percentage, or reversal history is stated in the available record.

Transparency

verified The monitoring period and crediting period are both stated, and the verification report date is recent.

missing Total claimed versus verified emission reductions are not found in the extracted documents, and usage monitoring details are also missing.

Claim Safety

verified The project is CCP approved, which is a positive signal for claim quality.

missing The baseline is described only as project-based, with no reassessment timing, FNRB value, or leakage justification available.

Documentation

verified Five documents were used, including a PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, with high extraction confidence.

missing Several core fields are not stated in available documents, including safeguards, grievance mechanism, and additionality evidence.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report dated 2024-04-06 states that Control Union Malaysia found no material findings and no corrective actions were required, which is a modest positive. But the extracted record does not state any additionality test, VVB-confirmed additionality, leakage deduction, buffer pool percentage, or reversal events, so the core robustness of the crediting claim remains weakly evidenced. The baseline is only described as project-based, which is less robust than a clearly documented standardized or recently reassessed baseline.

Transparency

Transparency is limited by missing quantified MRV outputs: the record does not provide total claimed versus verified emission reductions, usage monitoring method, or any usage-rate assumptions or verification. On the positive side, the monitoring period and crediting period are both specified, and the verification report is dated 2024-04-06, which helps with recency. Overall, the documentation is incomplete for a full public audit trail.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. CCP approval is a favorable signal, but the project is not shown to have quantified leakage treatment, FNRB benchmarking, or verified usage monitoring, all of which are important for over-crediting risk in soil carbon projects. Because the baseline is only described as project-based and the key netting inputs are absent, the risk of overstated climate claims remains material.

Documentation

Documentation quality is moderate because five documents were used, including the PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, and extraction confidence is high. Still, several important safeguards and accounting fields are not stated in available documents, including grievance mechanisms, FPIC, additionality testing, and leakage treatment. The recency of the verification report is helpful, but the record is not complete enough to support a high documentation score.

Overall

The main contradiction field is empty, so there are no explicit cross-document discrepancies to resolve. I privileged the verification report for findings on material issues and the more recent verification date for recency, but I did not treat missing values as positive evidence. The overall score is constrained by the many evidence gaps around additionality, leakage, permanence, and MRV reconciliation; if the post-scoring gate were applied, the low integrity score would also cap the overall result.

Audit Analysis

The project has some positive signs, including a named VVB, an approved CCP status, and no material findings in the verification report. However, key integrity elements are missing from the extracted record, including additionality evidence, leakage treatment, permanence safeguards, and any quantified error or credit reconciliation, which makes the crediting claim hard to assess confidently.

Project Description

Eastwood Farms, established in 2009, is a family-owned farm that took the forward leap into hemp cultivation in 2015, embracing this versatile crop as a cornerstone of their operation, which plays a key role in soil regeneration, carbon capture, and sustainable agriculture. By cultivating hemp, they sequester carbon, restore soil health, and promote long-term environmental resilience. Hemp’s deep root system stores carbon by depositing organic matter into the soil, improving long-term soil organic carbon (SOC) levels. As the roots decay, they lock carbon into the ground, enhancing soil fertility. The plant’s rapid growth allows it to absorb large amounts of CO₂ through photosynthesis, converting it into biomass. Its stalks, composed of up to 70% cellulose, retain carbon until they decompose or are processed into durable products. Revenue from carbon credit sales is essential for Eastwood Farms to invest in sustainable farming, expand operations, and implement new technologies that enhance carbon capture. Without this revenue, sustaining regenerative practices and scaling hemp acres would be limited. Corporate buyers investing in Eastwood's carbon credits can be confident that their funding directly supports measurable environmental impact. The HCS 10-year carbon credits are independently verified, ensuring that carbon sequestration is additional—not just a result of traditional farming operations. HCS’s advanced Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system uses precision remote sensing technology to track carbon capture with accuracy and transparency while minimizing leakage. This rigorous monitoring process strengthens the credibility of Eastwood’s carbon credits. Beyond carbon sequestration, Eastwood’s regenerative farming methods improve soil health, enhance biodiversity, and reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers and chemical inputs. These practices create economic opportunities for local farmers, generating additional revenue to sustain

Red Flags

No additionality test or VVB-confirmed additionality is stated in the extracted documents.
Leakage, buffer pool coverage, and reversal protection are not stated, leaving permanence and net climate benefit uncertain.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023, 2024 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide a full additionality package, including the test type, assumptions, and VVB confirmation.
Disclose quantified leakage, permanence safeguards, and a reconciliation of claimed versus verified credits with usage monitoring details.

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