Carbon Capture & Storage Switzerland Vintage 2023 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Edaphos Engineering

CM-00b965 ↗

3.8 / 10

Integrity

3.2

Transparency

4.1

Claim Safety

3.6

Documentation

5.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing The PDD/validation/monitoring set (as listed) does not yield an identifiable additionality test, baseline method, leakage treatment, or permanence provisions in the extracted record.

inferred The monitoring report (dated 2024-12) reports no material findings or corrective actions, but this does not substitute for missing core quantification and methodological details.

Transparency

verified A monitoring period is clearly stated (2021-01-01 to 2024-12-31) and multiple document types are available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report).

missing Key MRV outputs and inputs (verified removals, methodology, VVB name, grid factor, monitoring methods) were not found in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

verified The project is explicitly marked as not CORSIA-eligible, reducing one channel of double-claiming risk.

missing Over-crediting risk is elevated because verified removal totals, baseline approach, and leakage treatment are not stated in available documents.

Documentation

verified Three core document types are present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with a recent monitoring report date (2024-12).

missing Extraction confidence is only medium and many critical fields (VVB identity, methodology/version, quantified results) were not found in the extracted record.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

For a DAC/CCS project, integrity depends heavily on a clearly defined baseline, robust additionality demonstration, quantified leakage, and permanence/reversal management. In the extracted record, the additionality test type and whether additionality was confirmed by the VVB are not stated in available documents (PDD/validation report not yielding these fields). Leakage deduction and justification are also not stated in available documents, and permanence provisions such as a buffer contribution or any reversal reporting are not found in the extracted record. The monitoring report (2024-12) shows no material findings or corrective actions, but the absence of core methodological and quantified elements keeps integrity low.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the monitoring report provides a clear monitoring period (2021-01-01—2024-12-31) and the evidence set includes a PDD and validation report. However, the extracted record does not include the VVB name, the applied methodology and version, the monitoring/usage monitoring method, or any verified total removals figure. The lack of both claimed and verified totals in the extracted record prevents an independent reader from checking whether reported outcomes align with monitoring evidence.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by missing quantification and missing methodological parameters that would allow assessment of over-crediting risk. Neither claimed nor verified total removals are found in the extracted record, and baseline and leakage approaches are not stated in available documents, which is particularly important for DAC where energy sourcing and upstream emissions can dominate net removals. On the positive side, the project is explicitly marked as not CORSIA-eligible, lowering the risk of CORSIA-related double-claiming, but CCP status is not stated in available documents.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate because the extracted record indicates three key document types (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and a recent monitoring report date (2024-12). Still, many critical items that should be readily extractable from these documents—such as the VVB identity, methodology/version, baseline definition, leakage treatment, and verified totals—were not found in the extracted record. The minimum extraction confidence is medium, suggesting some readability/structure limitations that may have contributed to missing fields.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The overall score is primarily driven down by evidence gaps on the fundamentals: quantified verified removals, additionality approach and confirmation, baseline method, and leakage treatment are not stated in available documents. Because documentation is above 3.0, no transparency cap would be triggered by the gate rules; however, the low integrity score indicates the project would be subject to the integrity-based overall cap in post-processing.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains major evidence gaps for core ISO 14064-2 quality determinants (additionality approach, baseline definition, leakage treatment, and quantified verified removals). While the monitoring period and a set of key documents are present, the lack of quantified results and methodological specifics materially increases over-crediting and greenwashing risk for a DAC/CCS claim.

Project Description

Edaphos Engineering: Soil Remediation and Restoration Solutions Edaphos Engineering specializes in soil decontamination and ecosystem restoration through natural, innovative, and sustainable solutions. We rehabilitate contaminated soils, reduce carbon emissions, and revitalize degraded environments. With our expertise, we provide concrete and measurable responses to today’s environmental challenges. 🔹 Why Choose Edaphos Engineering? ✅ Soil Remediation : Targeted approaches to clean and restore contaminated land. ✅ Sustainable Solutions : Natural techniques for a positive environmental impact. ✅ Commitment to the Planet : Concrete projects that help reduce CO₂ emissions and preserve ecosystems. 🌍 Our Impact and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Edaphos Engineering aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation → Our solutions prevent groundwater pollution by treating contaminated soils. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure → We develop innovative approaches to rehabilitate polluted sites and make them usable again. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities → By cleaning up degraded environments, we contribute to healthier and more sustainable territories. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production → We promote natural and eco-friendly solutions to reduce industrial impact. SDG 13: Climate Action → Our projects lower CO₂ emissions by restoring soils and enhancing carbon sequestration. SDG 15: Life on Land → Soil remediation helps restore ecosystems, protect biodiversity, and revitalize degraded land. 🌱 Acting Together for a Sustainable Future At Edaphos Engineering, we believe that clean soil is the key to a healthy and resilient environment. By choosing us, you actively contribute to soil remediation projects that restore life to the land while reducing climate impact.

Red Flags

No quantified verified removals were found in the extracted record (no verified total emissions reductions/removals figure).
Additionality approach and whether it was confirmed by the VVB were not found in the extracted record.
Baseline method and any reassessment timing were not stated in available documents.
Leakage deduction and justification were not stated in available documents for a project type where upstream energy and supply-chain leakage can be material.
Safeguards elements (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) are explicitly not documented in the extracted record.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

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

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish (or extract clearly) the quantified claimed and verified net removals for 2021–2024, including uncertainty, data sources, and any VVB adjustments from the verification/validation documentation.
Disclose the baseline definition and additionality demonstration used under ISO 14064-2, and document leakage accounting (energy sourcing, upstream emissions) plus permanence/reversal management (storage monitoring, liability, and any buffer/insurance approach).

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