Graze a Trail
CE-graze-a-trail
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record (no documents available)
inferred Removal project type implies permanence and leakage are material, but neither is evidenced in the available record
Transparency
missing No VVB, monitoring period, or MRV details were found in the extracted record (no documents available)
missing Registry- and reporting-level details (e.g., ERR claimed vs verified) were not found in the extracted record
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be assessed because baseline and monitoring methods were not found in the extracted record
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty around downstream claim risk
Documentation
missing No evidence documents were captured (0 documents used), so the project is not auditable from the extracted record
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project design, monitoring, or verification documents were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions are not stated in available documents. For a removal project, lack of evidence on reversal risk management (e.g., buffer pool or other safeguards) is a major integrity gap. With no VVB findings or corrective actions available, there is no basis to judge whether the credited removals are robust.
Transparency
Transparency is very weak because no VVB name, monitoring period, or quantified results (e.g., claimed vs verified removals) were found in the extracted record. The absence of any listed evidence documents prevents independent review of MRV procedures or registry completeness. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that the public record is complete and readable.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is low because the extracted record provides no baseline method, leakage justification, or monitoring approach, making over-crediting risk impossible to bound. Eligibility or quality labels that affect claims (e.g., CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) are not stated in available documents, increasing uncertainty for buyers. With no verified figures available, there is no way to reconcile claimed versus verified outcomes.
Documentation
Documentation quality is extremely poor: the extracted record lists zero evidence documents and indicates low extraction confidence. Without a PDD, monitoring report, or verification report in the record, the project cannot be assessed for conformance, recency, or auditor independence. This also implies a high likelihood of missing key disclosures (methods, data, findings).
Overall
No contradictions were reported in the extracted record, but this is largely because no documents or quantitative fields were captured to compare. Given the absence of any underlying documentation and low extraction confidence, the scores are conservatively low across all dimensions. Note: per the gate rules, documentation below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, and key quality determinants (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, and MRV) are not stated in available documents. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and unreliable claims is high.
Project Description
Why we chose this project: The Chihuahua Desert ecoregion is the most biodiverse desert regions in the world, and yet remains largely unprotected. Unsustainable ranch management has led to severe land degradation, desertification, and loss of nutrient-rich soil – which results in CO2 emissions. This project developer specializes in soil technology and data tracking
Red Flags
- No project documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents), so baseline, additionality, leakage, and monitoring cannot be validated
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide and link core documents (PDD, monitoring report(s), verification report(s)) and ensure they are machine-readable to resolve the low extraction confidence
- Disclose and evidence baseline selection, additionality test, leakage assessment/deduction, and permanence/reversal risk management (e.g., buffer pool or equivalent), including VVB conclusions and any corrective actions
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
No additionality assessment found
Permanence provisions not evidenced
Leakage treatment not evidenced
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not documented
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 →