Micro Scale Biogas CDM Project of CROSS

Integrity

The project has a positive integrity signal because the VVB confirmed additionality and the methodology is identified as a combined test under the stated CDM approach. Leakage is not ignored: the record shows a quantified deduction of 5%, and the latest monitoring record reports no reversal events. That said, the baseline is project-specific rather than a more robust standardized baseline, and the buffer pool is not stated in the extracted record, which weakens permanence confidence.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed. The monitoring period, VVB identity, and leakage deduction are available, and the project record includes many extracted documents. However, total emission reductions claimed versus verified are not stated, and the verified usage rate is also not found, which limits the ability to check issuance quality. The medium extraction confidence also suggests at least one key source was not fully readable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate rather than strong. The quantified leakage deduction helps, but the project uses a national default for non-renewable biomass and does not provide a verified usage rate, so the risk of over-crediting is not fully resolved. The latest record also shows operational issues in the biogas units, including non-operational units and end-user demolition, which can affect realized climate benefit.

Documentation

Documentation is fair but not strong. The extracted record references 25 documents and names the VVB, which is helpful, but the extraction confidence is only medium. Multiple corrective actions were required, and the record contains several closed findings, suggesting the documentation trail needed substantial follow-up. The crediting period also appears to have changed across documents, which adds uncertainty about record consistency.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project with some solid elements, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and a quantified leakage deduction. I privileged the latest dated values where conflicts existed, such as the 2025 crediting period, the 2025 no-reversal statement, and the 5% leakage deduction, because they are more recent than the older records. The contradictions still matter: safeguard-related items, usage monitoring, leakage, and crediting period differ across documents, so reliability is reduced even where the latest record is favorable.