carbon Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Red Hill Farm

DV-8bd31b

2.0 / 10

Integrity

1.8

Transparency

1.2

Claim Safety

3.4

Documentation

1.6

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record (single unknown document dated 2022-04-27).

inferred No material findings or corrective actions are listed, but the absence of core quantification details limits how meaningful this is.

Transparency

missing Monitoring period and verified vs claimed ER/ERR totals were not found in the extracted record, preventing MRV cross-checks.

missing The VVB name and monitoring/usage measurement approach were not found, reducing auditability.

Claim Safety

verified The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, reducing one channel of eligibility-related claim risk.

missing Methodology, baseline, leakage justification, and quantified results were not found, elevating over-crediting and greenwashing risk.

Documentation

missing Only one evidence document is listed and it is unidentified (document type shown as unknown), limiting completeness and verifiability.

missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The extracted record does not provide an additionality test or confirmation by an independent verifier, so additionality cannot be substantiated from the available document (unknown, dated 2022-04-27). No baseline method or baseline reassessment date is provided, preventing evaluation of baseline validity. Leakage treatment is also not evidenced: neither a leakage deduction nor a justification is found in the extracted record. Permanence provisions (such as a buffer pool contribution) and any reversal reporting are not found, leaving reversal risk management unclear.

Transparency

Key MRV elements are missing from the extracted record: the monitoring period, total claimed ER/ERR, and total verified ER/ERR are not provided, so there is no way to reconcile claims to verification outcomes. The verifier identity is not found, and the usage/measurement monitoring method is not stated, reducing auditability. The evidence base is thin (one document listed as unknown), which further limits transparency for third-party review.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of CORSIA-related marketing claims. However, the extracted record lacks the methodology, baseline approach, leakage justification, and any quantified verified results, which increases the risk that any public claims could be overstated or not reproducible. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, so there is no additional assurance from CCP alignment.

Documentation

Documentation quality is weak because only one evidence document is referenced and it is not identified by type or title beyond 'unknown' (dated 2022-04-27). Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating readability/parse issues that reduce confidence in completeness. While no material findings or corrective actions are listed, the absence of core project quantification and assurance details suggests the extracted record is incomplete rather than cleanly audited.

Overall

There are no explicit contradictions flagged in the extracted record, so no cross-document reconciliation was possible. The main issue is pervasive missing information across additionality, baseline, leakage, monitoring period, and verified outcomes, combined with low extraction confidence and an unidentified single source document. As a result, the scores are conservatively low, with slightly better claim-safety only because the project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record for Red Hill Farm (DOVU dMRV) contains major evidence gaps on baseline setting, additionality, leakage, and monitoring results, making credit quality hard to substantiate. While the project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, the lack of quantified MRV outputs and missing methodology details materially increase over-crediting and greenwashing risk.

Project Description

We are young farmers with a young family, who have been given a fantastic first opportunity to farm our very own holding at Red Hill Farm. We farm approximately 100 acres which is mostly permanent grazing pastures. There are 6.5km of hedgerows around the farm which have existed for many years, and attracts many different wildlife species. We currently farm a sheep flock of 200 breeding ewes which include, 160 blackface sheep, 25 pedigree Hampshire Down’s and 15 pedigree Texels. These are la

Red Flags

No baseline approach or reassessment timing found in the extracted record, so the counterfactual emissions/removals cannot be evaluated.
No additionality test or VVB confirmation found, weakening confidence that credits represent beyond-business-as-usual outcomes.
No monitoring period, verified ER/ERR totals, or usage monitoring method found, limiting traceability of issued claims.
Low document readability/extraction confidence and only one unidentified source document reduce reliability of the dataset.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish or provide the applicable methodology and a clear baseline description (including when it was last reassessed) along with quantified parameters used.
Provide complete MRV outputs for a defined monitoring period, including claimed vs verified ER/ERR totals and the independent verifier identity, plus leakage and permanence risk management (buffer/reversal reporting).

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.