Stopping Ocean Plastic 2
CT-365
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any permanence provisions were not found in the extracted record because no documents were captured.
inferred No contradictions were detected, but this provides little assurance given the absence of underlying sources.
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed results were found in the extracted record due to missing documents.
missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were provided.
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated because baseline and leakage assumptions are not available in the extracted record.
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, so double-claim/eligibility risk cannot be screened.
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, leaving the assessment unsupported by primary sources.
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document quality/readability issues that reduce reliability even if documents exist elsewhere.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No official project documents were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions are not stated in available documents. With these core integrity elements unverified, the project must be scored conservatively. The low extraction confidence further increases the likelihood that key integrity information is missing or unreadable.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because the extracted record contains no evidence documents and therefore no information on the VVB, monitoring period, or any comparison of claimed versus verified results. Registry completeness and MRV quality cannot be assessed from the available extraction. The low extraction confidence also reduces confidence that transparency-related disclosures were captured accurately.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak because the extracted record provides no basis to evaluate over-crediting risks (baseline setting, leakage, or monitoring rigor). Eligibility indicators relevant to double-claim risk (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) are not stated in available documents. As a result, buyers face elevated greenwashing risk because claims cannot be substantiated from the extracted materials.
Documentation
Documentation is extremely poor: the extracted record shows zero documents used and an overall low extraction confidence. This combination indicates both a completeness gap (no sources) and a reliability gap (at least one key document was poorly readable). Without primary documents, independent review of project assertions is not possible.
Overall
There are no contradictions listed, but the absence of any underlying documents means the assessment cannot validate key quality criteria. Scores are therefore driven primarily by evidence gaps and the low extraction confidence flag. Note: under the stated gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV) cannot be substantiated. Given the low readability flag and zero documents captured, this project scores very low on transparency and documentation, with elevated over-crediting and greenwashing risk due to unverifiable claims.
Project Description
Plastic Bank builds ethical collection communities in vulnerable coastal areas. Community members collect plastic from the environment and exchange it at their local Plastic Bank branch for secure income and social benefits (such as health and work insurance, meal vouchers, cooking fuel). The collected material is then processed into Social Plastic® feedstock for reuse in products and packaging. Your contribution will support the local collection and recycling of ocean-bound plastic in Brazil while improving lives of those who collect it through incremental income and social benefits. All exchanges are recorded through a blockchain-secured platform that enables traceable collection. You will receive a certification from Plastic Bank verifying the amount of kilograms collected from the environment.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing verification of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring.
- Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or misread critical information.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the PDD, monitoring report(s), and verification/validation report(s) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV can be assessed from primary sources.
- Improve document quality/readability (or provide text-searchable PDFs) and include registry/VVB details (VVB name, monitoring period, verified results, and any eligibility/labeling status) to reduce evidence gaps and claim risk.
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
No additionality assessment found
Permanence/reversal provisions not evidenced
Leakage treatment not evidenced
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
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
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 →