*Suzhou Qizi Mountain Landfill Gas Recovery Project (300259)

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a combined test and names LGAI Technological Center, S.A. as the verifier, which supports the project’s core integrity. At the same time, the report lists multiple CARs and CLs, and it explicitly says the ER calculation method is conservative but not ideal because it is not based on directly monitored LFG parameters. Leakage is not addressed in the extracted facts, and reversal treatment is also not clearly documented.

Transparency

The documentation identifies the monitoring period, the verified emissions reductions of 317,242, the registry, and the verifier, which is helpful for traceability. However, key MRV details are missing from the extracted record, including the leakage deduction, usage monitoring method, and claimed ER total. The medium extraction confidence also suggests the record is usable but not fully complete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by CCP approval and by the fact that the project is a landfill gas recovery activity, which is generally easier to justify than many nature-based credit types. Still, the baseline is project-specific, leakage is not addressed, and the record does not show a quantified leakage deduction or a clearly documented usage-rate check. Those gaps increase over-crediting and greenwashing risk.

Documentation

The record draws on 23 extracted items across several document types, including the verification report, PDD, monitoring report, and appendix, which is a reasonable documentation base. The verifier is independent and the report is recent, but the extraction confidence is only medium and the report contains several corrective actions, including a meter calibration correction. That lowers confidence in the completeness and cleanliness of the documentation trail.

Overall

The project looks moderately credible overall, but not top-tier because the verification report contains multiple corrective actions and a conservative calculation approach that is acknowledged as not ideal. I privileged the 2023 verification report over the older 2013 report for the crediting-period contradiction because it is more recent and therefore more relevant to the current assessment; the older period appears to reflect an earlier issuance cycle rather than the current status. I also privileged the verification report’s statement that benefit sharing is described over the older PDD contradiction because the verification report is later and more specific to the reviewed monitoring period. These contradictions reduce reliability somewhat, but they do not by themselves overturn the main positive signals.