Stopping Ocean Plastic
CT-317
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any corrective actions were not found in the extracted record
inferred No contradictions were detected, but this provides little assurance given the absence of underlying documents
Transparency
missing No monitoring/verification details (period, VVB, errors, methods) were found in the extracted record
missing Registry/public-data completeness cannot be evaluated because no evidence documents were provided
Claim Safety
missing Eligibility/labels that affect claim risk (e.g., CORSIA/CCP status) were not found in the extracted record
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline and leakage assumptions are not available
Documentation
missing No evidence documents were provided and 0 documents were used
missing Low extraction confidence suggests poor readability of at least one key document
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project design or assurance documents were provided in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions are not stated in available documents. With no monitoring or verification report content available, it is not possible to confirm whether any material findings or corrective actions existed. This results in a very low integrity score due to major evidence gaps.
Transparency
The extracted record does not include a VVB name, monitoring period, verification outcomes, or any quantified uncertainty/error information, so MRV transparency cannot be evaluated. No evidence documents were listed, and the minimum extraction confidence is low, which further reduces confidence that the public record is complete or readable. Transparency is therefore scored very low.
Claim Safety
Because baseline and leakage assumptions are not available in the extracted record, the risk of over-crediting cannot be assessed. Status indicators that would affect downstream claims (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP approval) were not found in the extracted record, increasing greenwashing risk for any public claims. Claim safety is therefore low.
Documentation
The extracted record lists zero evidence documents and indicates that zero documents were used, which is a critical documentation gap. In addition, the minimum extraction confidence is low, implying at least one key source was poorly readable. Documentation is scored near the bottom as a result.
Overall
No contradictions were reported, but this does not improve confidence because the extracted record contains no underlying documents to validate key quality attributes. Given the absence of evidence for additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV, the project cannot be robustly assessed and is scored very low overall. Note: the documentation score is below 3.0, so a transparency cap would apply under the stated gate rules (applied after scoring).
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (baseline, additionality, leakage, and monitoring) cannot be assessed. Given the very low documentation completeness and low extraction confidence, the risk of over-crediting or misleading claims cannot be ruled out.
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 Indonesia 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 used), preventing assessment of additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, further reducing reliability
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the PDD and the latest monitoring and verification reports (including baseline, additionality test, leakage assessment, and quantified results) so the crediting basis can be evaluated
- Provide registry and assurance details (VVB name, monitoring period, findings/corrective actions, and any eligibility/label status such as CCP/CORSIA) and ensure documents are machine-readable to raise extraction confidence
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/FPIC/grievance 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 →