Vai al contenuto principale
GS avoidance Colombia Vintage 2020, 2021 Registry: Certified & crediting Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Santander and Las Tapias Renewable Energy Project

GS-57 ↗

4.2 / 10
Integrity
4.6
Transparency
4.2
Claim Safety
4.1
Documentation
3.3

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the project uses an investment test according to the verification record.

missing Reversal events were reported, and the verification report notes a delay in renewal that prevented claims for part of the period.

Transparency

verified The monitoring period is clearly stated for 2024, and the VVB is identified as Earthood Services Private Limited.

missing Total emission reductions claimed are not stated in the extracted record, and extraction confidence is low.

Claim Safety

verified The project is an avoidance project with a project baseline method and a leakage deduction of 0% that was described as negligible.

missing The record contains contradictions on additionality test type, leakage justification, and crediting period, which raises over-crediting risk.

Documentation

verified Multiple evidence documents were used, including validation, monitoring, verification, PDD, and appendix materials.

missing The verification report lists many material findings and corrective actions, and the latest template was not being used.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and identifies the VVB as Earthood Services Private Limited. At the same time, reversal events are reported, with the report explaining that no emission reductions were claimed for a delayed period because renewal was submitted late. The project also uses a project-specific baseline method, but the overall integrity picture is weakened by the reported reversal-related issue and the large number of findings.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated for 2024, and the record identifies the registry and verifier. However, total emission reductions claimed are not stated in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low, which suggests at least one key source was difficult to read. The absence of a clearly extracted claimed-vs-verified comparison limits transparency.

Claim Safety

This is an avoidance project with a project baseline method, and leakage was treated as negligible with a 0% deduction. That said, the record contains contradictions on the additionality test type, with the validation report indicating a barrier approach while the verification record points to an investment test, and there is also a contradiction on the crediting period. Those inconsistencies increase the risk that the claim set is not fully reliable.

Documentation

The file set includes validation, monitoring, verification, PDD, and appendix documents, which is a positive sign for coverage. But the extraction confidence is low, and the verification report lists many material findings and corrective actions, including that the latest template was not used. The crediting period also appears inconsistent across documents, which further weakens documentation quality.

Overall

The project appears to have a real monitoring and verification trail, but the evidence quality is only moderate because of low extraction confidence and several contradictions. I privileged the more recent verification report for additionality, leakage treatment, and reversal-related information because it is later and more specific than the validation record, while noting that the validation report still conflicts on some points. The contradiction on the crediting period is especially important because one document shows a period starting in 2013, while another extracted record suggests a later 2020 start, so reliability is reduced.

Audit Analysis

The project has some positive signs, including VVB-confirmed additionality, a documented baseline method, and safeguards such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism. However, the record also shows reported reversal-related issues, a large set of material findings and corrective actions, and low extraction confidence, which together weaken confidence in the crediting claims.

Project Description

This project focuses on Santander Ceramic Factory, a red ceramic industry situated in the Soacha municipality within the state of Cundinamarca - Colombia. Santander specializes in the production of ceramic bricks, primarily destined for the regional market in the metropolitan area of Bogotá. The project mitigates the adverse effects associated with coal usage, a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and a common practice in the region. A large amount of coal is burned in traditional kilns as common practice in Colombian ceramic factories and Santander is the only factory out of 50 in the region using renewable biomass. In contrast to the established baseline, the project optimizes thermal energy by utilizing biomass residues-sawdust, wood residues, and pulp and paper sludge-as the primary fuel source for ceramic kilns, replacing reliance on fossil fuels, particularly coal. This project activity reduces 26,136 tCO2/year through the substitution of coal for renewable biomasses to generate thermal energy. As the first Gold Standard-certified project in Colombia, Santander Ceramic emphasizes its commitment to sustainability and adherence to the highest international standards in carbon reduction and environmental responsibility. The project positively benefits the local community with: - Reforestation initiatives: by setting up and maintaining its own nursery, the community can grow native trees and plants, contributing to the restoration of local ecosystems and the preservation of the biodiversity; - Donation of bricks and other construction materials to a local school from the village of Fuzunga; - The project assists stray dogs from the region, as there is no rescue initiative or shelter in the region. Project Impacts and Benefits SDG 13 - Climate Action: The project activity reduces 26,136 tCO2/year through the substitution of coal for renewable biomasses to generate thermal energy, contributing to the shift away f

Red Flags

  • Reported reversal-related delay led to a period with no emission reductions claimed, indicating permanence and issuance continuity concerns.
  • The verification report lists many material findings and corrective actions, including use of an outdated template, which lowers confidence in documentation quality.
  • Contradictions across documents on additionality test type, leakage treatment, and crediting period reduce reliability of the extracted record.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2013
6,831 6,831 0
2014
19,668 19,668 0
2015
21,348 21,298 50
2016
19,898 19,848 50
2017
21,535 21,535 0
2018
19,707 19,707 0
2019
18,978 14,209 4,769
2020
7,230 2,488 4,742
2021
15,210 2,518 12,692
Total 150,405 128,102 22,303

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide a clean, reconciled document pack that resolves the contradictions on additionality, leakage treatment, and crediting period.
  • Publish the full claimed-versus-verified emissions trail for the monitoring period, along with the latest verification findings and closure evidence for all corrective actions.

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

Risk Indicators

Additionality

VVB-confirmed investment test

Permanence

reversal-related delay reported

Leakage

0% deduction with limited justification

Baseline

project baseline, reassessment timing unclear

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism documented

Double-claim

CORSIA/CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-11 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti