Orizon CarbonCrop Rewards Programme

Integrity

The project reports additionality via a barrier test and the verification was performed by SCS Global Services (verification/issuance documentation), which supports basic additionality. However, key integrity protections are missing: the latest issuance record does not state a buffer pool percentage or describe reversal handling, and reversal events are listed as not addressed. Leakage is marked as not addressed in the most recent extracted document, which directly undermines baseline/leakage robustness. No baseline reassessment date is found, and the baseline is project-specific, reducing confidence in baseline validity.

Transparency

VVB name, monitoring period (2018-08-01 — 2022-07-31), and registry (VCS) are present in the extracted records, which aids transparency. However, many important MRV figures are absent from the extraction: total emissions reductions claimed/verified, leakage deduction percentage, buffer pool percentage and grid emission factors are not found. The evidence_docs entries are not specific (listed as unknown) and extraction confidence is medium, lowering traceability.

Claim Safety

There is a meaningful over-claiming risk because the baseline is project-specific and there is no evidence of a recent reassessment. Leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents: an earlier document (2024-10-23) reportedly showed quantified leakage, while the latest issuance (2025-08-29) indicates leakage is not addressed. I privilege the later issuance record because it is more recent, so scores are penalized for unresolved leakage. CORSIA/CCP status is not stated, so double-claim risk cannot be ruled out.

Documentation

Twelve documents were used and an issuance document dated 2025-08-29 is present, but the extracted evidence list is non-specific and the minimum extraction confidence is medium. No material findings or corrective actions are recorded, which is positive, but the medium extraction confidence and missing numeric MRV fields reduce the documentation score.

Overall

Weighted scores yield an overall quality score of 4.5. The main drivers are VVB-confirmed additionality and presence of safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism) weighed against missing or inconsistent treatment of leakage, lack of buffer/reversal detail, and absent MRV numbers. Regarding the contradiction in leakage: one document dated 2024-10-23 reportedly indicates leakage was quantified, while the latest issuance document dated 2025-08-29 reports leakage as not addressed. I privileged the more recent issuance document (2025-08-29) because it is newer and appears to be the authoritative issuance record; this lowers confidence and pulls scores down for integrity and claim safety. The medium extraction confidence also reduces the documentation score.