CDM avoidance Brazil Vintage 2012 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Landfill gas recovery, energy generation and biogas distribution from CTR Santa Rosa

CDM-2cd4a5 ↗

5.5 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

5.0

Claim Safety

5.8

Documentation

6.6

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test.

missing The monitoring report does not address leakage and provides no leakage deduction, and baseline reassessment timing is not stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

verified The VVB is identified (Bureau Veritas Certification) and the monitoring period is clearly stated (2017-07-01 to 2017-12-31) in the monitoring report (2018).

missing Claimed and verified ER totals were not found in the extracted record, and the usage monitoring approach is not stated.

Claim Safety

verified The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible in the extracted record, reducing certain aviation-claim risks.

missing Over-crediting risk is harder to rule out because leakage is not addressed and ER totals (claimed/verified) are not available in the extracted record.

Documentation

verified Multiple core documents are present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with high extraction confidence.

missing Crediting period end is not stated and safeguards information is inconsistent between documents, reducing documentation reliability.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB via an investment test. The monitoring report (2018) shows no material findings and no corrective actions in the extracted record, which supports procedural robustness. However, leakage is explicitly not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated in the monitoring report, and the baseline is described only as project-specific with no baseline reassessment date found, which weakens integrity confidence.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate: the monitoring report (2018) clearly specifies the monitoring period (2017-07-01 to 2017-12-31) and identifies the VVB as Bureau Veritas Certification. At the same time, total emission reductions (claimed and verified) were not found in the extracted record, and the monitoring approach for any end-use/biogas distribution is not stated, limiting third-party reproducibility of results.

Claim Safety

Claim safety benefits from the project being explicitly not CORSIA-eligible in the extracted record, which reduces the risk of certain overlapping compliance claims. Nonetheless, greenwashing/over-crediting risk remains because leakage is not addressed and there are no extracted totals for claimed or verified ERs for the monitoring period, making it difficult to assess whether credited reductions are conservative.

Documentation

Documentation quality is relatively strong given three key document types are available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and extraction confidence is high. However, the crediting period end date is not stated in the extracted record, and safeguards-related information is inconsistent across documents, which reduces confidence that non-carbon requirements are being tracked consistently over time.

Overall

Overall performance is mid-range: additionality is comparatively strong (VVB-confirmed investment test), but MRV completeness and leakage treatment are weak in the extracted record. The key contradiction is safeguards reporting: the PDD (2015) indicates safeguards are mentioned, while the monitoring report (2018) indicates they are not. For scoring, the monitoring report was privileged as the more recent operational document, and the inconsistency was treated as a reliability issue that lowers transparency/documentation and increases claim-risk.

Audit Analysis

This CDM landfill gas-to-energy project has a reasonably strong additionality signal because the VVB confirmed an investment test, and no material findings or corrective actions were reported in the extracted record. However, key integrity elements (leakage treatment, baseline reassessment timing, and quantified ER figures) are missing or not addressed in the available documents, and safeguards reporting is inconsistent across documents.

Project Description

The present CPA is to be implemented as part of the CDM PoA: Caixa Econômica Federal Solid Waste Management and Carbon Finance Project . It aims at avoiding methane emissions from municipal waste treated CTR Santa Rosa landfill in Brazil. The privately operated landfill of CTR Santa Rosa is located in Rio de Janeiro state, in Seropédica municipality, close to Rio de Janeiro city, the second most populous Brazilian city. CTR Santa Rosa covers an area of 1,699,512.97 m2 and started receiving waste in March 2011, having received all necessary environmental licenses for operation. The landfill will initially receive an expected 6,000 tons per day for the first year of domestic solid waste from Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica and Itaguaí municipalities. Phase 1 of the Carbon Credit Project was developed from 2012 to 2019, in which the collection and flaring of landfill gas in high temperature enclosed flares was carried out, avoiding the emission of more than 2.5 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Red Flags

Leakage is not addressed in the monitoring report, with no leakage deduction stated, despite a project type where leakage considerations are typically expected.
No verified or claimed emission reduction totals were found in the extracted record for the stated monitoring period, limiting confidence in MRV outcomes.
Safeguards reporting is contradictory between the PDD (mentions safeguards) and the monitoring report (does not), raising reliability concerns.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2012 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the monitoring/verification tables showing total ERs claimed and verified for 2017-07-01 to 2017-12-31, including any uncertainty/adjustments applied by the VVB.
Explicitly address leakage in the monitoring report (quantify and deduct, or justify negligible leakage consistent with ACM0001) and document safeguards/grievance arrangements consistently across PDD and monitoring reports.

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