Oeste de Caucaia Landfill Project

Integrity

The validation report (2021-05-20) indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a combined test, which supports additionality robustness. The monitoring record shows a project-specific baseline approach under ACM0001, but the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record. Leakage is explicitly not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated, which is a material integrity gap for complete accounting. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is supportive but does not resolve the leakage and consistency issues.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2021-05-19) provides a clear monitoring period (2020-09-24 to 2020-12-31) and identifies the VVB as KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the extracted record contains major inconsistencies in both claimed and verified emission reductions between the validation report (2021-05-20) and an earlier monitoring report (2021-03-12), which undermines transparency and traceability of results. Several MRV-relevant fields (such as usage monitoring method) are not stated in the extracted record, limiting replicability of calculations.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of higher-stakes aviation claims. Nonetheless, the large contradictions in emission reduction quantities across documents increase the risk of over-crediting or miscommunication of outcomes to buyers. Leakage is not addressed and no deduction is stated, which further increases the risk that credited reductions are overstated. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity claim frameworks.

Documentation

The extracted record references multiple document types (validation report, monitoring report) and indicates 11 documents were used with high extraction confidence, supporting document completeness. The most recent extracted document date is 2021-05-19 (monitoring report), which is reasonably aligned with the monitoring period end in 2020. However, one evidence source is labeled “unknown” (dated 2022-04-01) and it conflicts with the monitoring report on whether safeguards are mentioned, which reduces confidence in the documentation set. The absence of stated baseline reassessment timing and missing leakage quantification also indicate documentation gaps on key quality topics.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down primarily by data reliability issues and incomplete accounting: leakage is not addressed, and key ER figures conflict across documents. For the ER contradictions, the earlier monitoring report (2021-03-12) values (156,846 claimed; 77,019 verified) are privileged over the validation report (2021-05-20) values (1,431,429 claimed; 1,081,131 verified) because monitoring/verification-period-specific numbers are typically more directly tied to measured performance, while validation documents can contain projections or different scopes; the discrepancy still materially reduces confidence. For safeguards, the monitoring report (2021-05-19) stating safeguards are not mentioned is privileged over the “unknown” 2022-04-01 source due to unclear provenance of the latter. These contradictions warrant a conservative stance on integrity, transparency, and claim safety; documentation remains moderate given the number of documents and high extraction confidence.