Vai al contenuto principale
VCS removal China Vintage 2020 Registry: On Hold - see notification letter Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Zhangye Improved Grassland Management Project

VCS-2748 ↗

4.2 / 10
Integrity
4.6
Transparency
4.1
Claim Safety
4.3
Documentation
3.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test under VM0026.

missing Reversal events are reported, and the extracted record explicitly notes that permanence is a real issue.

Transparency

verified The monitoring period is stated as 2022-01-01 to 2024-12-31, and the VVB is identified as Tuev Nord Cert GmbH.

missing Total ERR claimed and verified are not found in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low.

Claim Safety

verified Leakage is treated with a quantified deduction of 10%, which is better than leaving it unaddressed.

missing The project is listed as CORSIA-eligible, while CCP status is not mentioned, leaving some dual-claim risk unresolved.

Documentation

verified The record includes 28 documents used, a named VVB, and a recent monitoring period ending in 2024.

missing Extraction confidence is low, and key fields such as usage monitoring method and FNRB inputs are not stated in available documents.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report supports additionality through an investment test, and the project uses a project baseline with a 2016 reassessment date. Leakage is quantified at 10%, and the buffer pool is 15%, which helps, but reversal events are reported and the record says lack of permanence is a real issue. Those permanence concerns materially weaken the integrity score despite the positive additionality evidence.

Transparency

The project identifies the VVB as Tuev Nord Cert GmbH and gives a clear monitoring period from 2022-01-01 to 2024-12-31. However, total ERR claimed and verified are not found in the extracted record, and the usage monitoring method is also not stated. The low extraction confidence further reduces confidence in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by a quantified leakage deduction and by the presence of safeguards such as FPIC, a grievance mechanism, and benefit-sharing documentation. Still, the project is marked CORSIA-eligible, while CCP status is not mentioned, so dual-claim risk is not fully resolved. The project being on hold in the registry also adds caution around relying on the claims.

Documentation

The documentation set is fairly broad, with 28 documents used, a named verifier, and a recent monitoring period. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and several important fields are missing, including the usage monitoring method, FNRB method, and verified usage rates. The long crediting period through 2057 also means recency and ongoing documentation quality matter more, and the current record does not fully satisfy that standard.

Overall

I privileged the more recent entries where contradictions existed, because the extracted record points to later-dated information for buffer pool size, leakage treatment, additionality test type, reversal status, and benefit-sharing. That means I used the 15% buffer pool, quantified leakage, investment-test additionality, reported reversals, and benefit-sharing described as the operative values, while noting that earlier documents differed. The contradictions and low extraction confidence reduce reliability, and the registry status being on hold further tempers the overall assessment.

Audit Analysis

This project has some positive signs, including VVB-verified additionality, a quantified leakage deduction, and documented safeguards such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism. However, the record also shows reversal events, a long crediting period, low extraction confidence, and several key monitoring fields that are not stated, which weakens confidence in the claimed removals.

Project Description

The project is coordinated by Zhangye Academy of Forestry Sciences, with the aim to restore the local degraded grassland ecosystem by seeding grass and building fence on the degraded grassland, increase carbon sequestration and contribute to local development by introducing sustainable grazing and management of grassland. The project covers Gaotai County, Shandan County, Minle County, Su’nan County, Ganzhou district and Shandan Racecourse. Shandan Racecourse is the largest central local enterprise in Zhangye. Although its geographical location is in Zhangye, it is directly managed by the central government. Therefore, it is an independent administrative region. Before the implementation of the project, the grassland in the region has been facing serious degradation and even desertification due to the impact of climate change and human activities. 261,059.80 ha of degraded grassland have been managed sustainably by fence building and reseeding of local high-quality forage. There are three main restoration measures as followes in the project: - Rotational grazing of 76,608.83 ha of degraded grassland - Rest grazing of 107,448.54 ha of degraded grassland. - Reseeding grass was implemented of 77,002.43 ha of seriously degraded grassland. Besides these main restoration measures, the project also alleviates soil desertification and restore grassland vegetation to improve soil carbon storage and local biodiversity through grassland management measures, such as daily management measures from other protect projects like rodent and pest control and grassland fire prevention to ensure the long-term sustainable management of the project area. This project also has achieved the Climate Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCB) and is also one of the only carbon removal projects certified for the CORSIA – Pilot Phase.

Red Flags

  • Reversal events are reported, and the record itself says permanence is a real issue.
  • The project is on hold in the registry, and the extracted record has low extraction confidence with several missing monitoring details.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2017
236,725 236,725 0
2018
553,951 376,186 177,765
2019
9,723 4,784 4,939
2020
1,092,140 314,174 777,966
2021
911,440 134,092 777,348
Total 2,803,979 1,065,961 1,738,018

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Publish the full verification and monitoring evidence for ERR claimed versus verified, usage monitoring, and FNRB inputs.
  • Resolve the permanence issue with a clear reversal response, updated buffer rationale, and registry status clarification.

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

Additionality

VVB-confirmed investment test

Permanence

Reversal events reported

Leakage

10% quantified deduction

Baseline

Project baseline, reassessment date known

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism documented

Double-claim

CORSIA-eligible; CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-19 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

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