CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingVCSWaste handling and disposalChinaRegistry: Registered

Yangxiang AWMS GHG Mitigation Project in Liaoning Province

Developer: Henan Yangxiang Breeding Co., Ltd

VCS-3871 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#2121of 2787 in China#1350of 1615 in Verra (VCS)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 31 Aug 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.8 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-08-31medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2022-12-31

evidence: 10/10 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

How this analysis was made

Standard
Verra (VCS) How our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
AMS-III.F v12.0, AMS-III.D v21.0 No methodology-specific rules: the general rules apply. Read the general rules
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 31 Aug 2026 · 10/10 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Yangxiang AWMS project in Liaoning Province is a registered VCS waste-management project with VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported reversal events, but it carries significant integrity concerns stemming from 17 material findings (including missing baseline justification for both methodologies) and 4 corrective action requests raised during verification. The 0% leakage deduction rests on a thin 'deemed negligible' justification, and the grid emission factor was nearly doubled between PDD versions, raising over-crediting risk. Documentation breadth is adequate (16 documents) but quality is undermined by the volume of corrections required.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 31 Aug 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 10 registry documents (10 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project credit type

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-11-01

Credit VintagesExhausted

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2021
22,48922,4890
2022
3,5873,5870
Total26,07626,0760

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2021–2022AMS-III.D v21.0since replaced by v22.0

    verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2021–2022AMS-III.F v12.0current version

    verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-III.D: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on
  • AMS-III.F: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.