LIENZO EN NEGRO
CT-864
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record due to missing documents
inferred Gold Standard is stated as the program, but no supporting verification/monitoring evidence is available here to confirm quality
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified ER figures were found in the extracted record
missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline method, leakage justification, and verified outcomes were not found in the extracted record
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, leaving double-claim/eligibility risk unresolved
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, leaving the assessment unsupported by primary sources
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No verification report, monitoring report, or PDD was included in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and permanence measures (e.g., buffer or reversal procedures) are not stated in available documents. With no extracted evidence, integrity cannot be demonstrated and must be scored conservatively.
Transparency
The extracted record contains no evidence documents and no fields for VVB identity, monitoring period, or claimed versus verified emission reductions. As a result, MRV transparency and registry completeness cannot be evaluated from the available materials.
Claim Safety
Because baseline method, leakage justification/deductions, and any verified results are not found in the extracted record, the risk of unsupported or overstated climate claims cannot be ruled out. CORSIA and CCP status are also not stated in available documents, leaving eligibility and double-claim risk unclear.
Documentation
The extracted record shows 0 documents used and low extraction confidence, indicating that either documents were unavailable or not readable enough for reliable extraction. This is a major evidence gap and materially limits confidence in any quality assessment.
Overall
No contradictions were reported in the extracted record. However, the absence of any underlying documents (and low extraction confidence) prevents substantiation of key quality criteria, so scores are driven down across all dimensions. Note: under the gate rules, documentation below 3.0 would cap the transparency score after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, and MRV results) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting or unsupported claims is high based on the available evidence.
Project Description
Every year, wildfires ravage thousands of hectares of forest in Spain, leaving behind scorched landscapes, lifeless soil, and ecosystems that take hundreds of years to recover. In recent summers, climate change, rural depopulation, and a lack of forest management have transformed this situation into an emergency that threatens our entire biodiversity. "Black Canvas" was born out of this reality: the urgent need to transform devastation into hope. The goal of this project is to restore burned lands across the country through soil restoration, reforestation, and the creation of ecosystems more resilient to fire. This project aims to bring life back to landscapes that are now dark stains on maps, turning what was destruction into a new beginning. Every donation translates into planted trees, regenerated fertile soil, and better-protected water.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing verification of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring results
- 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 the PDD, latest monitoring report, and latest verification report (including VVB name, monitoring period, and verified ERs) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV can be assessed
- Publish or extract registry details (issuance/retirement records, methodology, and any eligibility statements such as CCP/CORSIA) to reduce double-claim and greenwashing risk
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 evidence found
Permanence provisions not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
CORSIA/CCP status not evidenced
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 →