Sustainable agricultural practices for carbon sequestration by Organic and Natural farming groups

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a common-practice test and says the VVB accepted the project’s approach. However, the report also lists 13 corrective action requests, 10 clarification requests, one forward action request, and a methodological deviation that was deemed acceptable, which suggests control weaknesses and some reliance on reviewer judgment. Leakage is treated as negligible, but permanence is less robust because reversal handling is inconsistent across the extracted record.

Transparency

The project’s monitoring period and crediting period are clearly identified, and the VVB is named as EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited. That said, several core MRV fields are not stated in available documents, including the monitoring method and any verified usage-rate information, and the evidence set is thin. The low extraction confidence further reduces transparency because at least one key source was poorly readable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the very large difference between claimed and verified ERs: 22,527,745 claimed versus 1,107,315 verified. The project type is soil carbon under VM0017, and leakage is described as negligible, which helps, but the absence of quantified leakage deductions and missing usage-monitoring detail leave residual over-crediting risk. Because CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

Documentation quality is mixed. The verification report is dated 2025-09-26 and the project has 14 documents used in extraction, but the extraction confidence is low and the evidence-doc list is not informative. The presence of multiple CARs and a FAR also indicates that the documentation required substantial follow-up before acceptance.

Overall

I privileged the 2025-09-26 verification report over the earlier extracted statement where the two contradicted each other, because it is the more recent and more specific source. On additionality, I relied on the VVB-confirmed common-practice test in the verification report rather than the earlier combined-test reference; on reversals, I treated the later statement that reversal events were not addressed as a reliability concern, even though the same report also says no reversal events were reported during the monitoring period. These contradictions reduce confidence in the record and justify a downward adjustment to the overall score.