Fugong Mukeji Hydropower Project
#939of 1935 in Renewable energy#495of 1084 in China#681of 1459 in CDM (UNFCCC)#736of 1287 in ACM0002
Audit Analysis
A small Chinese hydropower project under CDM with a reputable VVB (TÜV NORD CERT) and a 100% verified-to-claimed ERR ratio, but significant documentation gaps around additionality testing, safeguards, and monitoring methodology. Two contradictions in the record (leakage treatment and baseline method) reduce confidence in the extracted data, though the validation report is privileged as the higher-priority source.
Red Flags
- Additionality test type and VVB confirmation are not stated in any extracted document, despite being a mandatory CDM requirement
- Contradiction between validation report (leakage deemed negligible) and appendix (leakage quantified) creates ambiguity in the leakage treatment
- Contradiction between validation report (jurisdictional baseline) and appendix (project-specific baseline) affects baseline credibility
- No FPIC, grievance mechanism, or usage monitoring method documented in the available record
- Two of five evidence documents are listed as 'unknown', reducing traceability
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 24,496 | 0 | 24,496 | |
| 2011 | 50,670 | 0 | 50,670 | |
| Total | 75,166 | 0 | 75,166 |
Risk Indicators
Test type not stated in extracted record
Avoidance project, no reversal risk
0% deduction, contradiction in record
Jurisdictional EF, contradiction with appendix
Mentioned but FPIC/grievance not documented
CORSIA and CCP status not stated
⚑ Dispute this rating
Are you the project owner?
Metadata correction (free)
Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.
Does not modify the score.
[email protected] →Pipeline re-run with new documents
Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.
Submit Documents →Share this rating
