CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSBiogas - HeatSwitzerlandRegistry: RegisteredAMS-III.D

GS3428 - Biogas PoA Switzerland - VPA1

Developer: South Pole Ltd

GS-704 ↗ · current registry ID: GS4014

Worked comparison example (English)

#386of 525 in Biogas#26of 27 in Switzerland#1868of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)#169of 200 in AMS-III.D

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 4 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.3 / 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%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-04medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2021-12-31

evidence: 27/29 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

Analysis

This Swiss biogas project (Gold Standard, TÜV NORD CERT verified) has a combined additionality test confirmed by the VVB and a measured project-specific baseline, but is undermined by a very large number of material findings and corrective actions, a contradiction in leakage treatment (10% vs 0%), a flip in additionality verification between the 2023 and 2024 reports, and the absence of a buffer pool. The primary extracted document is essentially empty (one page, zero words, titled 'Untitled Document'), which severely limits confidence in the data record.

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

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 4 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 29 registry documents (27 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

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)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • 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
2017
9939930
2018
7,8237,8230
2019
7,7707,7700
2020
9,3139,3130
2021
9,4322,7106,722
Total35,33128,6096,722

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2017–2019AMS-I.Cversion not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report

  2. 2017–2019AMS-III.Dversion not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report

  3. 2017–2019AMS-I.Cversion not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report

  4. 2017–2019AMS-III.Dversion not confirmed in the document text

    monitoring report

  5. 2020AMS-I.C v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2020AMS-III.D v20.1since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2021AMS-I.C v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  8. 2021AMS-III.D v20.1since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-I.C: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on
  • AMS-III.D: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

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 III.D; AMS.I.C
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 →