PUR Alternative Materials Norway Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Termowood - Hurdal

PUR-641179 ↗

3.1 / 10

Integrity

2.8

Transparency

3.2

Claim Safety

3.0

Documentation

3.6

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Baseline, additionality, leakage, and reversal/buffer provisions are not stated in the available documents (document dated 2021-06-01).

verified The extracted record shows no material findings and no corrective actions in the available document (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Transparency

verified A specific VVB is named (DNV GL) in the extracted record (document dated 2021-06-01).

missing Monitoring period and verified vs claimed totals are not stated, limiting MRV transparency (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Claim Safety

missing CORSIA and CCP status are not stated, and core quantification (claimed/verified totals) is missing, increasing greenwashing/over-crediting risk (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

inferred No material findings are reported, but the absence of baseline/leakage details prevents confidence in credit quality (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Documentation

missing Only one source document of unknown type is referenced, with many key fields not stated (evidence list: one 'unknown' document; dated 2021-06-01).

verified Extraction confidence is medium and the VVB is identified (DNV GL), supporting minimal document reliability (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The extracted record does not state the additionality test used, whether additionality was confirmed by the VVB, or the baseline method (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). Leakage is also not quantified and no justification is provided, and permanence tools such as a buffer pool percentage or any reversal reporting are not stated (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). Although the record indicates no material findings and no corrective actions, the absence of core methodological and accounting information drives a low integrity score (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Transparency

Transparency is limited because the monitoring period, usage monitoring method, and any claimed versus verified totals are not stated in the extracted record (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). A positive element is that the VVB is named as DNV GL, which supports traceability of assurance in principle, but the underlying MRV details are not available here (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). With only one document of unknown type, registry-level completeness cannot be corroborated from the extracted record (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Claim Safety

Claims risk is elevated because the extracted record provides neither total claimed nor total verified climate benefit, and does not state the baseline or leakage approach that would bound over-crediting risk (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are also not stated, so buyers cannot easily position the credits against common integrity benchmarks (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). The absence of reported material findings helps, but it is insufficient without quantified MRV and accounting disclosures (unknown document type, 2021-06-01).

Documentation

Documentation appears incomplete: only one evidence document is listed and its type is unknown, while many key fields (methodology, monitoring period, baseline, leakage, reversals) are not stated in the extracted record (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). The minimum extraction confidence is medium, which is better than a low-readability case, and the VVB is identified as DNV GL (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). Overall, the record is too sparse to support high confidence scoring.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. However, the overall assessment is constrained by major evidence gaps across additionality, baseline, leakage, monitoring period, and quantified claimed/verified outcomes, all of which are not stated in the available document (unknown document type, 2021-06-01). Note: if documentation were to score below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall score would be capped at 6.0 post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

Based on the extracted record, key integrity elements (additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and monitoring details) are not stated in the available documentation for this Puro Alternative Materials project. While the VVB is identified (DNV GL) and no material findings or corrective actions are reported, the lack of quantified MRV and methodological details materially increases over-crediting and claims risk.

Project Description

Tewo is proud to be the first Norwegian timber company on the Puro.earth marketplace. Located in the beautiful Hurdal valley in South-Eastern Norway, they have been developing timber construction elements for several years. In April 2020, they inaugurated a highly automated production line for cross-laminated timber and for the assembly of building elements. This puts TEWO in another league as they can significantly increase production volumes and reach new markets. Their patented technology is an innovation in the timber construction industry. Locally sourced, PEFC certified lumber is used to make pre-fabricated, insulated wall elements. The products eliminate waste and reduce building time which makes them highly competitive and more sustainable than traditional methods. As trees grow, they capture CO2. One ton of wood absorbs 1,8 tons of CO2 during the growth period, but the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if the tree decomposes or is used for paper or energy. However, in the case of bio-based construction materials, carbon is stored in the building for the long-term, disrupting the normal carbon cycle and creating a net-negative process because sustainable forestry ensures that trees are re-planted. In the case of Scandinavia, the overall forest coverage has increased over the last 40 years. In Europe, buildings are regulated to have a minimum lifetime of 50 years, but in real life, the CO2 storage is likely to be much longer. By storing CO2 for a minimum of 50 years, bio-based construction materials present an opportunity for companies to invest in carbon capture and storage and take proactive steps towards carbon net-zero.

Red Flags

Additionality approach and whether it was confirmed by the VVB are not stated in the available documents.
Baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing are not stated in the extracted record.
Leakage treatment (deduction and justification) is not stated, despite being important for biomass/wood product system boundaries.
No monitoring period, claimed removals/reductions, or verified totals are provided in the extracted record.

Credit Vintages Exhausted

		Issued	Retired	Available
2020		192	192	0
Total		192	192	0

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the Puro methodology name/version used, the baseline scenario description, and the additionality demonstration as confirmed in the validation/verification report.
Disclose the monitoring period, quantified claimed and verified totals, and the leakage treatment (deduction percentage and justification), plus any permanence/reversal management provisions (e.g., buffer or replacement rules).

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.