CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
ScoredGSBiogas - HeatChinaRegistry: RegisteredAMS-I.I

GS1239 Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme PoA- CPA Nb. SCHHBG-2013-067

Developer: Chengdu Oasis Science & Technology Co., Ltd

GS-435 ↗ · current registry ID: GS2579

#198of 374 in Biogas#1806of 2297 in China#1363of 2030 in Gold Standard (GS)#20of 78 in AMS-I.I

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.6 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Scored2026-09-03high confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2023-12-31

evidence:26/28registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas PoA has a verified additionality assessment and a measured, recently reassessed baseline, but is undermined by an extensive list of corrective actions (including fundamental calculation errors in baseline, project, and reduction figures), a 0% leakage deduction with a weak 'deemed negligible' justification, and the absence of a buffer pool. Multiple contradictions across documents—particularly in ERR figures and the leakage treatment—reduce confidence in the reliability of the reported credits.

Red Flags

4 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMAMS-I.I

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2014
7,80707,807
2015
8,53808,538
2016
9,24809,248
2017
9,38609,386
2018
9,32509,325
2019
7,83907,839
2020
8,29108,291
2021
8,66808,668
2022
8,42008,420
2023
8,67108,671
2024
1,67101,671
Total87,864087,864

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceAMS-I.I. - Biogas/biomass thermal applications for households/small users; AMS-III.R. - Methane recovery in agricultural activities at household/small farm level
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →