PUR Agriculture Finland Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Soilfood-1-Finland

PUR-785725 ↗

3.6 / 10

Integrity

3.2

Transparency

4.1

Claim Safety

3.4

Documentation

4.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The issuance record reports no material findings and no corrective actions required (issuance document dated 2022-12-12).

missing Additionality, baseline method, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions (buffer/reversal handling) are not stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

verified The monitoring period is clearly stated as 2021-01-01 to 2021-12-31 (issuance document dated 2022-12-12).

missing Claimed vs verified removals are not provided in the extracted record, and key MRV elements (e.g., usage monitoring method) are not stated.

Claim Safety

verified A specific methodology title is identified: “Pulp sludge based soil improver and carbon storage Methodology” (issuance document dated 2022-12-12).

missing CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, and core quantification safeguards (baseline/leakage/permanence) are not evidenced in the extracted record.

Documentation

verified A VVB is named (DNV – Business Assurance Finland Oy Ab) in the issuance record (2022-12-12).

missing Only two documents were used and the evidence document list is not specific (“unknown”), leaving major gaps in traceability.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The issuance document (2022-12-12) lists no material findings and no corrective actions required, which is a positive signal for process quality. However, the extracted record does not state the additionality test used nor whether additionality was confirmed by the VVB. It also does not state the baseline method, any leakage deduction or justification, or any buffer/reversal provisions, which are central to soil carbon integrity.

Transparency

The issuance document (2022-12-12) clearly specifies the monitoring period (2021-01-01 to 2021-12-31) and identifies the VVB. But the extracted record does not provide the claimed or verified total removals for that period, and it does not state the monitoring approach (e.g., how application/usage and carbon storage were monitored). The evidence document references are not specific, reducing auditability for external reviewers.

Claim Safety

Because the baseline method, leakage treatment, and permanence controls are not stated in the extracted record, there is a meaningful risk that credited removals could be overstated relative to a defensible counterfactual. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are also not stated, so buyers cannot easily position claims against common quality screens. The presence of a named methodology helps, but without versioning and quantification details, claim risk remains high.

Documentation

Documentation is partial: the extracted record includes an issuance document dated 2022-12-12 and names DNV as the VVB, with medium extraction confidence. However, only two documents were used and the evidence document list is effectively non-identifying (“unknown”), while many key fields (baseline, leakage, additionality, permanence, safeguards) are not stated. This limits the ability to independently verify quality claims from the extracted package.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The overall score is driven down primarily by missing core integrity and MRV information (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence) and limited document traceability. Note: if documentation were scored below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0 post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

This soil carbon project has a named third-party verifier and no reported material findings in the available issuance record, but key integrity elements (additionality, baseline approach, leakage, and permanence provisions) are not stated in the extracted documents. With major evidence gaps around how removals were quantified and safeguarded, the risk of over-crediting and weak claim defensibility is elevated.

Project Description

Novel carbon removal methodology Our project is verified following the Soil Amendment methodology and results in CORC20+ credits. The decomposition of organic carbon contained in the Soil Improvement Fibres is modelled with the Yasso-model (https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/yasso), which is developed by the Finnish Meteorological Institute and used by Finnish authorities for calculating Finland’s greenhouse gas inventory. Only the proportion of carbon that is stored in the soil for 20 years or more is considered as a carbon removal. This way the carbon that decomposes during the fast decomposition phase after application is not included in the carbon removal. Globally, in other soil carbon removal schemes the soil carbon sequestration credits are issued based on shorter crediting periods, ranging between 5 and 20 years depending on the project. Soilfood is a circular economy company that aims to replace virgin raw materials with recycled materials in large volumes and quickly. At the same time, we work in co-operation with our customers to reduce emissions and create carbon removals in the soil. We create a sustainable food chain by processing industry side-streams into fertilizers and soil improvers for agriculture. We add novel value to the circular economy by selling the first carbon removals from Finnish agriculture. Revenue from the sale of carbon removals is divided into three parts: one for the farmer, one for the industrial operator and one for Soilfood, as it takes all involved parties to ensure that the recycling of side streams and the creation of carbon removals is possible. This way we make sustainable choices more competitive. How are carbon removals achieved? Soil Improvement Fibres are carbon-rich soil amendment products that are manufactured from pulp and paper industry side-streams. Typical fibre application of 25–50 tonnes per hectare adds multiple tonnes of slowly decaying organic carbon to soil. The carbon removal is achieved by applying t

Red Flags

Additionality approach and whether the VVB confirmed it are not stated in the extracted record.
Baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are not stated, limiting confidence in quantified removals.
No leakage deduction or leakage justification is stated for the monitoring period.
No buffer pool or reversal management information is stated for a soil carbon storage activity.

Credit Vintages Exhausted

	Issued	Retired
2021	5,691	5,691
2022	6,585	6,585
Total	12,276	12,276

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the full monitoring report and verification statement showing the quantified removals (claimed and verified), uncertainty/QA-QC, and the monitoring approach used for soil carbon storage and application rates.
Disclose the additionality assessment, baseline method (and any reassessment), leakage assessment (including any deduction), and permanence provisions (buffer pool and reversal management) in publicly accessible project documentation.

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