Toucan Base Carbon Tonne
CC-6
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any reversals/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record
inferred Soil carbon projects typically face permanence and measurement uncertainty, but no project-specific controls were documented
Transparency
missing No VVB, monitoring period, or error reconciliation information was found in the extracted record
missing Registry completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured
Claim Safety
missing No evidence was found on baseline setting, leakage justification, or quantified uncertainty—raising over-crediting/greenwashing risk by default
inferred CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record, so double-claim channel risk cannot be screened
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, leaving the assessment unsupported by primary sources
missing Low extraction confidence suggests missing/illegible source material
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No validation/verification, monitoring, or methodology details were found in the extracted record (no evidence documents captured). As a result, additionality testing, baseline selection and reassessment timing, leakage deductions/justification, and any permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool) cannot be confirmed. Given the sector is soil carbon, the absence of documented permanence and MRV controls is a material integrity concern by default.
Transparency
The extracted record contains no VVB name, monitoring period, or reported-versus-verified emissions reduction figures because no documents were available. With low extraction confidence, even if documents exist elsewhere, the current record does not support transparent third-party scrutiny. This results in very low transparency scoring based on evidence gaps.
Claim Safety
No information was found on baseline method, leakage treatment, uncertainty/error, or any eligibility statuses that would help bound over-crediting and reputational risk. For soil carbon, claim safety depends heavily on conservative quantification and permanence safeguards, none of which are evidenced here. Therefore, claims should be treated as high-risk until supported by primary documents.
Documentation
The extracted record shows zero documents used and low extraction confidence, indicating missing and/or unreadable source material. Without PDD/monitoring/verification reports in the evidence set, the project cannot be assessed against VCS requirements in a defensible way. This drives the documentation score near the floor.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any underlying documents (0 used) and low extraction confidence dominate the assessment. With no primary evidence, the scores reflect uncertainty and elevated risk due to inability to verify key quality attributes. Note: under the stated gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high due to lack of evidence rather than confirmed deficiencies.
Project Description
Base Carbon Tonnes (BCT) is a reference token representing one tonne of carbon from the Verra Verified Carbon Unit (VCU) registry from 2008 or later, bridged by the Toucan Protocol. Verra is the dominant voluntary carbon credit issuer and each VCU minted in their registry represents a real emissions saving from a project, that has been measured and audited by independent third parties. The Toucan Bridge is the first to allow any user to bridge their VCUs into crypto, and because it is a fungible ERC 20 token it can directly be integrated into any DeFi application. BCT is a foundational building block to enable an open regenerative finance ecosystem.
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the PDD and the most recent verification/monitoring reports (including VVB name, monitoring period, and reported vs verified ERs) so baseline, additionality, and MRV can be assessed
- Provide documented permanence and leakage provisions (e.g., buffer contribution, reversal procedures, leakage assessment and any deduction) and safeguards evidence (FPIC/grievance mechanism)
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 evidence found
Permanence controls not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
CORSIA/CCP status not evidenced
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 →