Swine Farm Animal Manure Management System GHG Mitigation Project in Hubei Province

Integrity

The project has a positive integrity signal because the VVB confirmed additionality and the monitoring report shows no extreme event that would indicate a reversal. However, the baseline is project-specific, the last reassessment is not found, and leakage is not quantified or justified in the extracted record. No buffer pool percentage is stated, so permanence and leakage controls are only partially evidenced.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the monitoring report names Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd. as the VVB and gives a clear monitoring period from 2023-01-01 to 2023-12-31. But the record does not state total claimed versus verified reductions, usage monitoring method, or any grid-factor inputs, which limits auditability. The medium extraction confidence also means at least one source was not fully clear.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because the project is biogas electricity under ACM0010 and the VVB-confirmed additionality reduces some over-crediting concern. Still, the absence of leakage treatment, missing usage-rate evidence, and a project-specific baseline leave room for uncertainty about the robustness of the claimed reductions. CORSIA eligibility is stated, but CCP status is not found, so dual-market claim risk is not fully resolved.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair but incomplete. The record includes 14 documents, the monitoring report date, and a list of 18 CARs and 14 CLs that were closed, which supports some review depth. However, key fields are missing, extraction confidence is only medium, and the crediting period is inconsistent across documents, reducing confidence in the completeness of the file.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project file with some strong points, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported reversal event in the available monitoring evidence. I privileged the monitoring report’s reversal statement over the contradictory later note because it is the direct project evidence, but I downgraded reliability because the reversal field is also marked not addressed in the extracted record. I also privileged the monitoring report’s crediting period as the explicit source document, while noting the later conflicting period from another document; that contradiction, plus missing leakage and MRV details, keeps the score in the middle range.