removal Spain Vintage 2013 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

RESTAURACIÓN AMBIENTAL EN UNA EXPLOTACIÓN MINERA EN BEMBIBRE

CM-e3828a ↗

2.2 / 10

Integrity

1.1

Transparency

2.4

Claim Safety

2.8

Documentation

3.4

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Baseline approach, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and reversal/buffer provisions are not found in the extracted record (PDD, 2022).

inferred No material findings or corrective actions are listed, but this appears to reflect missing verification documentation rather than confirmed audit outcomes (PDD, 2022).

Transparency

missing No monitoring period, monitoring approach, or verified vs claimed removals are provided in the extracted record (PDD, 2022).

missing No verifier/VVB name is provided, limiting traceability of any independent assurance (PDD, 2022).

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be assessed because baseline method, leakage justification, and quantified results are not found in the extracted record (PDD, 2022).

inferred CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, leaving eligibility/claims risk unclear (PDD, 2022).

Documentation

missing Only one document (a PDD dated 2022-10-05) is available; no monitoring or verification reports are included (extracted record).

inferred Extraction confidence is medium, but the lack of supporting documents limits completeness (extracted record).

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The extracted record contains only a project design document (2022) and does not provide an additionality test type or confirmation by an independent verifier. For a removal project, the baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are not found, making it difficult to judge whether credited removals are conservative. Leakage treatment (deduction or justification) and permanence management (buffer pool or reversal procedures/events) are also not found in the extracted record (PDD, 2022).

Transparency

Transparency is limited because the monitoring period, monitoring approach, and any usage/field monitoring method are not found in the extracted record (PDD, 2022). Claimed and verified emission reduction/removal totals are also not provided, preventing a basic reconciliation of what was issued versus what was measured. No verifier/VVB name is listed, reducing audit traceability (PDD, 2022).

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by missing quantification fundamentals: baseline method, leakage justification, and verified results are not found in the extracted record (PDD, 2022). CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so buyers cannot rely on those labels to reduce greenwashing risk. With safeguards and grievance provisions not documented, reputational risk for public claims is elevated (PDD, 2022).

Documentation

Documentation is incomplete: only one evidence document (a PDD dated 2022-10-05) is included, with no monitoring report, verification report, or registry-facing issuance/retirement evidence in the extracted record. The extraction confidence is medium, but the main limitation is the absence of supporting documents rather than readability issues. No corrective actions are listed, but without verification documentation this does not provide assurance (extracted record).

Overall

There are no listed contradictions between documents, but the evidence base is extremely thin (only a PDD), so the main risk is not inconsistency but missing substantiation. Given the absence of baseline, additionality, leakage, permanence, and quantified/verified results in the extracted record, the project scores low across integrity, transparency, and claim safety. Note: if integrity were to score below 4.0, an overall cap would apply under the gate rules (applied after scoring).

Audit Analysis

Based on the single available project design document (2022), key integrity elements for a removal project—baseline approach, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and permanence/reversal management—are not evidenced in the extracted record. Safeguards and grievance provisions are also not documented, increasing reputational and over-crediting risk. Overall confidence is limited by the absence of monitoring/verification information and quantified results.

Project Description

Short Description Environmental reforestation of an old mining operation with an area of 8.78 ha in Bembibre, León (Spain). Area The plot is located in the northern part of Bembibre (León), to the east of Laguna de la Grulla, in the area of the Coal Mine. With an area of 8.78 ha, it is located at about 900 meters above sea level. The area is a high fire risk area. The Plantation The reforestation of the degraded area after continuous mining operations will contribute to multiple improvements of the different ecosystem services. On the one hand, it will increase the quality of the area's landscape, the vegetation will protect the soil, reducing soil erosion and increasing the soil's water retention capacity. All this will translate into an increase in the area's biodiversity. On the other hand, the pine forests will help mitigate climate change by absorbing CO2 and fixing it, while contributing to another ecosystem service, the supply of wood, managing it under the criteria of sustainable forest management. In the plantation, two species of pine were used, with a plantation frame of 3x3 m. It is planned to make a clearing after 25 years and reduce the density of feet and in turn reduce the risk of fire.

Red Flags

No additionality test or third-party validation/verification evidence found in the extracted record (only a PDD is available).
No baseline method or reassessment information found, which is central to quantifying removals and avoiding over-crediting.
No permanence provisions (buffer pool or reversal monitoring/response) found for a removal project.
Safeguards, FPIC, and grievance mechanism are not documented in the extracted record.
Leakage not addressed in project documentation
Buffer pool size not disclosed in available documents

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2013 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide monitoring and verification reports showing the monitoring period, quantified removals, uncertainty/QA-QC, and the verifier’s opinion (including any findings and corrective actions).
Disclose the baseline and leakage approach (including reassessment schedule and any deductions) and document permanence management (reversal monitoring, response plan, and any buffer/insurance mechanism).

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