Nepal Biogas Support Program - CPA 1: 20,000 digesters

Integrity

The verification report (2025-02-13) confirms additionality via the VVB and applies the AMS.I.E. methodology with a quantified leakage deduction of 5%. However, there are many material findings and corrective action requests recorded (multiple CARs, CLs and FARs) — although many were closed, their initial presence indicates weaknesses in earlier controls. Reversal events are inconsistently reported across records, and permanence treatment is not fully clear in the extracted record, which reduces confidence in long-term integrity.

Transparency

The project provides a named VVB (Carbon Check India) and a defined monitoring period (2022) in the verification report, and the methodology version is stated. Despite that, key reported numbers conflict across documents (for example ERR figures and FNRB method/value), evidence documents are listed as 'unknown', and extraction confidence is flagged as low — all of which undermine transparency and make independent verification harder.

Claim Safety

Positive aspects include a quantified leakage justification and a 5% leakage deduction. However, inconsistent FNRB reporting (national default with value 86.1 in the verification record vs a reported local-field approach/value elsewhere) and contradictions in ERR totals (claimed vs verified) create a meaningful risk of over- or under-crediting. CORSIA/CCP status is not clearly stated, so dual-claim risk cannot be fully excluded.

Documentation

There is a recent verification report (2025-02-13) and a large document set (n=43). Nevertheless, the minimum extraction confidence is low and the evidence document list is not specific, which reduces the documentation score. Multiple CARs were raised historically (some descriptions show they were closed), but their existence plus unresolved contradictions indicate remaining documentation and reporting weaknesses.

Overall

I privileged information from the most recent verification report (2025-02-13) where available when resolving contradictions: e.g., grievance mechanism = present (2025 report) vs older record saying absent (2014) — privileged the 2025 report as it is most recent; leakage justification = quantified in 2025 vs earlier not addressed — privileged 2025 quantified justification; usage monitoring = annual survey per 2025 vs earlier self-report — privileged 2025. For ERR and verified totals, I treated the verification figures reported in the merged record (total ERR verified = 234,881) as authoritative for the verified outcome, while noting contradictory historical claimed totals. The FNRB is inconsistent across documents (86.1 vs 0.861 or local-field), and I privileged the national-default figure stated in the more recent verification materials because it is explicitly used in the verification calculations. The many contradictions and the low extraction confidence lowered scores, particularly for transparency and documentation. Overall score reflects VVB confirmation and quantified leakage but is limited by reporting inconsistencies, numerous past corrective actions, and poor extraction confidence.