Shuangbaotai AWMS GHG Mitigation Project in Jiangsu Province

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a combined test and states that the VVB validated it, which supports the project’s core integrity case. The baseline method is project-specific and was last reassessed in 2022, and the report notes no reversal events during the monitoring period. Leakage is described as quantified, but the extracted record does not provide the actual deduction percentage, so that part of the integrity evidence remains incomplete.

Transparency

The verification report provides the monitoring period, verifier identity, and identical claimed and verified issuance totals of 118,757, which is a positive transparency signal. At the same time, min extraction confidence is low, meaning at least one key document was difficult to read, and the record identifies only one evidence document. The presence of several corrective actions and an inconsistency in monitored parameter reporting also weakens confidence in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is supported by the fact that claimed and verified reductions match exactly, which reduces concern about over-crediting in this monitoring cycle. The project also has a recent baseline reassessment and a quantified leakage treatment, both of which help reduce accounting risk. However, the project is CORSIA-eligible, so it does not sit in the safest category for dual-claim exposure, and the extracted record does not provide enough detail on leakage magnitude to fully de-risk the claim.

Documentation

The documentation is reasonably recent, with a 2023 verification report covering the 2022 monitoring period and a crediting period that is still active. Still, low extraction confidence indicates that at least one source was poorly readable, and the report lists multiple CARs and CLs along with a required correction to align the monitoring report with the spreadsheet. Those issues reduce confidence in the completeness and cleanliness of the documentation set.

Overall

The project scores well on core carbon-accounting quality because additionality was VVB-confirmed, the baseline was reassessed in 2022, and verified issuance matched the claim. I privileged the 2023 verification report over earlier documents where contradictions existed, because it is the more recent and higher-priority assurance source; for example, I accepted the later statement that leakage was quantified and that no reversal events were reported, while noting the earlier contrary records. The contradiction on benefit sharing is less central to the carbon claim but still signals inconsistency across documents, and combined with low extraction confidence and reporting inconsistencies it justifies a moderate downward adjustment to documentation and transparency.