Fujian Qingliu IFM (conversion of logged to protected forest) Project
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified additionality confirmed by the VVB (validation report / monitoring report)
missing contradictions on reversal reporting (issuance reports reversals; validation/monitoring report states none) and no baseline reassessment stated
Transparency
verified VVB named and monitoring period provided; verified emission reductions reported (monitoring report 2022-10-21)
inferred usage and grid emission factors not stated in available documents, limiting reproducibility
Claim Safety
verified leakage deduction of 20% and quantified justification in the monitoring report (2022-10-21)
missing project-specific baseline with no reassessment date and lack of CCP/CORSIA status increases over-crediting/double-claim risk
Documentation
verified multiple documents available including PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance; high extraction confidence
inferred contradictions between documents (issuance vs validation/monitoring; PDD vs monitoring on leakage) reduce reliability
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
Additionality is supported by an investment test and was confirmed by the VVB in the validation/monitoring materials, and a 22% buffer pool is assigned (monitoring report / validation report). The project uses a project-specific baseline (VM0010 project method) and baseline reassessment timing is not stated in available documents, which weakens baseline robustness. There is a contradiction on reversal events: the issuance document (2022-05-13) records reversals while the later validation and monitoring report (2022-10-21) state none reported; this reduces confidence in non-permanence handling and has been penalized in the integrity score.
Transparency
Transparency is relatively good: the VVB is named (China Environmental United Certification Center), the monitoring period and verified ERR are provided (monitoring report 2017-01-01 — 2021-11-30; total verified ERR 357,652), and multiple evidence documents are present. However, several technical details are missing from the extracted record (grid emission factor, usage rates, total ERR claimed), which limits independent reproducibility.
Claim Safety
Leakage is addressed in the monitoring report with a quantified 20% deduction and justification, which reduces over-crediting risk. Nevertheless, the project relies on a project-specific baseline without a stated reassessment date and has no stated CCP/CORSIA status in the available records, increasing residual risk of double-claiming or baseline bias. The earlier PDD did not address leakage (PDD 2022-04-18) while the monitoring report does, indicating initial under-documentation.
Documentation
Documentation is moderate: there are multiple documents (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance) and extraction confidence is high; monitoring report is recent (2022-10-21). No material findings or corrective actions were extracted. The presence of contradictory statements between documents (notably on reversals and leakage) and missing baseline reassessment details reduce the documentation score.
Overall
I privileged the later validation and monitoring materials (monitoring report and validation report dated 2022-10-21) over earlier PDD and issuance entries for narrative facts because they are more recent and typically consolidate monitoring outcomes; specifically, I treated the monitoring/validation statement of no reversals and quantified leakage as the authoritative current position. However, the issuance document (2022-05-13) that reported reversals and the PDD (2022-04-18) that did not address leakage are important contradictions that indicate data evolution and some reliability concerns. Those contradictions lowered the integrity and documentation scores and are reflected in the overall score of 6.2.
Audit Analysis
The project shows reasonable integrity with VVB-confirmed additionality, a sizable 22% buffer pool and a quantified 20% leakage deduction reported in the monitoring report. However, contradictions between documents (reported reversals in issuance vs none in later validation/monitoring, and leakage not addressed in the PDD but quantified in monitoring) and several missing baseline details weaken confidence.
Project Description
The Fujian Qingliu IFM (conversion of logged to protected forest) Project (hereafter “the project activity”) is implemented in Qingliu County, Sanming City, Fujian Province of China by Fujian Qingliu Forestry Co., Ltd. The geographic coordinate of project is 116°38’ ~117°11’ E and 25°47’ ~26°21’ N, the total area is 180,630 ha, which includes the Improved Forest Management (IFM) of the forests in the conversion of logged to protected forest. The area of the project activity is 5856 ha, including 698 subcompartments spreading over Dengjia Town, Lijia Town, Litian Town, Lingdi Town, Longjin Town, Linshe Town, Shaqiang Town, Songkou Town, Songxi Town, Tianyuan Town, Wenjiao Town, Yupeng Town, Changxiao Town of Fujian Qingliu Forestry Co. Ltd. All these departments are 100% owned by Fujian Qingliu Forestry Co. Ltd and have the legal right to forest ownership. The species involved in the project are Chinese Fir, Masson pine and Broad-leaf trees. These are common local tree species. Prior to the implementation of the project activity, the trees are logged annually according to a valid and verifiable government-approved timber management plan for harvesting the project area. The implementation of the project activity converses the trees to protected forest to reduce the GHG emissions for about 2,858,234 tCO2e in 30 years, the average annual emission reduction is 95,274 tCO2e and Verified Carbon Units with buffer deduction is about 2,229,423 tCO2e in 30 years, the average annual VCUs with buffer deduction is 74,314 tCO2e. The project activity will contribute to the environment (biodiversity conservation and soil erosion control), thus contribute to sustainable development.
Red Flags
- Contradictory records on reversal events (issuance record reports reversals while later validation/monitoring report states none).
- Leakage was not addressed in the PDD but later reported as quantified with a 20% deduction — indicates data evolution and initial omission.
- Key baseline details (reassessment timing) and emissions factors are not stated in available documents.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 69,450 | 1,527 | 67,923 | |
| 2018 | 70,727 | 36 | 70,691 | |
| 2019 | 73,058 | 163 | 72,895 | |
| 2020 | 74,442 | 14,441 | 60,001 | |
| 2021 | 69,975 | 57,000 | 12,975 | |
| Total | 357,652 | 73,167 | 284,485 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish clear reconciliation explaining the issuance-recorded reversals vs later validation/monitoring conclusion and provide supporting evidence.
- Document baseline reassessment timing and supply missing technical inputs (grid emission factor, usage rates) and a clear statement on CCP/CORSIA eligibility.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed
buffer present; reversal record mixed
20% deduction reported; earlier PDD omitted leakage
project-specific baseline; reassessment not stated
FPIC and grievance described
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →