Methane Recovery Project Houbensteyn Ysselsteyn, Limburg, The Netherlands

Integrity

The verification report dated 2025-01-10 confirms additionality through a barrier test and states no material findings, which supports the project’s core integrity. At the same time, permanence is not fully robustly documented because reversal events are listed as not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is provided. Leakage is described as quantified with a 0% deduction, but the supporting detail is thin in the extracted record.

Transparency

The latest verification report covers the 2022 monitoring period and shows total emission reductions claimed and verified at 15,201, which is a positive sign for reporting consistency in that year. However, the usage monitoring method is not found in the available documents, and baseline reassessment timing is also not stated. Low extraction confidence further reduces transparency because at least one key document was poorly readable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the project being marked not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of overlapping international claims. Still, the baseline is project-based rather than clearly standardized, and the record does not provide enough detail on leakage and usage monitoring to fully rule out over-crediting concerns. The contradiction on verified emission reductions, with an older figure of 58,034 versus the latest 15,201, also weakens confidence in the claim history.

Documentation

Documentation is moderate rather than strong because 32 documents were used and the verification report is recent, but the extraction confidence is low. A corrective action was required, and several important items are missing or not stated, including buffer pool coverage, baseline reassessment timing, and usage monitoring method. The record also shows conflicting statements on FPIC, safeguards, and the crediting period, which further limits documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the latest verification report dated 2025-01-10 for the 2022 monitoring year when values conflicted, because it is the most recent and specific source for current issuance verification. That means I relied on 15,201 verified reductions rather than the older 58,034 figure, and on the later statements that FPIC, safeguards, and a grievance mechanism were present, while still penalizing the score for the contradictions themselves. The crediting period contradiction is material: I treated the 2025 report’s 2006-05-01 start date as controlling over the older 2016-05-01 start date, but the inconsistency lowers reliability and keeps the overall score in the mid range.