PUR removal Sweden Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Hjelmsäters Egendom

PUR-984723 ↗

4.7 / 10

Integrity

5.6

Transparency

4.2

Claim Safety

5.0

Documentation

3.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The verification report (2023) confirms additionality using an investment test and reports no material findings or corrective actions.

missing Baseline approach and leakage treatment were not found in the extracted record, limiting assessment of over-crediting and system boundary completeness.

Transparency

verified The verification report (2023) identifies the VVB (DNV Business Assurance Finland Oy Ab) and specifies a monitoring period (2021-10-01 to 2023-05-31).

missing Claimed vs verified removals were not found in the extracted record, and low extraction confidence reduces MRV transparency.

Claim Safety

verified CCP status is listed as eligible, which can support higher-quality claims if substantiated by complete public documentation.

missing CORSIA eligibility was not found in the extracted record and key quantifications (verified removals, leakage) are missing, increasing greenwashing/over-crediting risk.

Documentation

verified A dated verification report is present (2023-09-13) with a named VVB and no reported corrective actions.

missing Evidence documents are not clearly identified (listed as "unknown") and minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating documentation gaps/legibility issues.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report (2023) confirms additionality via an investment test and indicates no material findings and no corrective actions, which supports basic program integrity. A buffer pool contribution of 2.5% is reported, but no reversal events were found in the extracted record, so permanence performance cannot be confirmed. Baseline approach and baseline reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record, and leakage deduction/justification were also not found, both of which are important for biochar system integrity.

Transparency

The verification report (2023) provides a clear monitoring period (2021-10-01 to 2023-05-31) and names the VVB (DNV Business Assurance Finland Oy Ab). However, the extracted record does not include claimed or verified total removals, preventing a basic reconciliation of monitoring results to credited outcomes. Minimum extraction confidence is low, which reduces confidence that all relevant MRV details were captured accurately.

Claim Safety

CCP status is listed as eligible, which can reduce reputational risk if the underlying evidence is complete and consistent. Still, the extracted record lacks key quantitative anchors for safe claims—verified removals, leakage treatment, and baseline method—raising the risk of overstating climate impact. CORSIA eligibility was not found in the extracted record, so buyers cannot rely on aviation-eligibility signaling either way.

Documentation

A verification report dated 2023-09-13 is present and includes the VVB identity, and it reports no corrective actions, which is a documentation positive. At the same time, the evidence document list is not specific (shown as "unknown"), and minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was hard to read and increasing the chance of missing or mis-extracted details. Several important fields (baseline, leakage, ERR totals, grievance mechanism) were not found in the extracted record, suggesting incomplete accessible documentation for due diligence.

Overall

Overall quality appears moderate: additionality is VVB-confirmed in the verification report (2023) and no findings were reported, but the extracted record is missing core quantifications (verified removals, baseline method, leakage treatment) that are necessary to judge over-crediting risk. There were no contradictions flagged across documents, so no cross-document discrepancy adjustment was required; the main issue is evidence absence rather than conflicting evidence. Because documentation is thin/uncertain (low extraction confidence and unclear source list), confidence in any strong climate claim should be limited until the missing items are substantiated.

Audit Analysis

This Puro biochar removal project has some integrity positives, including VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported material findings in the verification report (2023). However, key quantifications that underpin credit quality—verified removals, baseline approach, and leakage treatment—were not found in the extracted record, increasing over-crediting and claims risk. Low extraction confidence and limited identifiable source documents further reduce confidence in the available evidence.

Project Description

Hjelmsäter in Sweden uses a BIOMACON technology to produce biochar from forestry residues that is used for soil amendment and environmental improvement in Sweden. The raw material used in the process is a residue from the farm's own forestry and other local actors, all FSC certified forestry. The material used has a content of lignin that makes it suitable for biochar production but less useful for other purposes due to its low energy value. The energy used in the pyrolysis process comes from Hjelmsäter’s own solar panels and the excess heat from the pyrolysis process is used within the business facilities. Hjelmsäters Egendom is situated in Lake Vänern Archipelago and Mount Kinnekulle UNESCO Biosphere Reserve - a model region for sustainable development. The production of biochar could be compared to the reversed effect off burning fossil fuels! Through the process green carbon from the fast carbon cycle is transformed into more stable structure that can be stored for hundreds to thousands of years. Each ton of dry biochar produced at Hjelmsäter contains 94% carbon. The main part of this carbon is sequestered for a long time and kept out form the fast carbon cycle in a way that alternative use of the biomass, such as natural degradation of the biomass or use om the biomass for energy purposes, would fail to do. In the production process of the biochar, including the outtake and transportation of the biomass, 0.1 ton CO2e is emitted while producing 1 ton of biochar. The emissions from the production process are exceptionally low, and the pyrolysis process only represent 5% of all emissions. With respect to the low emissions from the production, and a buffer to cover the degraded carbon in the biochar, each ton of dry biochar corresponds to 3.26 ton of CO2e removed from circulation. The production process and the carbon footprint of the biochar are third party reviewed and audited. For further details of the carbon footprint please send a request to contact@puro

Red Flags

Verified removals (total verified ERR) were not found in the extracted record, limiting the ability to assess whether issued credits match measured outcomes.
Baseline approach and any baseline reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record, making over-crediting risk harder to evaluate.
Leakage deduction and justification were not found in the extracted record for a biomass/biochar system where upstream/downstream leakage can be material.
Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and weakening evidentiary reliability.

Credit Vintages Exhausted

	Issued	Retired
2021	556	556
2022	176	176
2023	249	249
Total	981	981

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish or provide the quantified monitoring/verification results (claimed and verified removals) and the calculation workbook so credits can be reconciled to measured outcomes.
Disclose the baseline approach and leakage assessment (including any deduction and justification) and document safeguards implementation (FPIC/grievance mechanism) in accessible project documentation.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.