China · Manure biodigester (ACM0010) · Read by the checks: Project description + validation report, 263 pages · Verra registry page
Signal, not verdict. These findings summarize what the project documents say and where. They are not a rating, a certification or an ICVCM assessment, and they can be wrong.
Looked up by methodology code in table version 2026-10-15. No model is involved, and this status is kept apart from the AI-assisted findings below.
0x5ed5…2200(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 4; earlier versions stay readabledeepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashtypesafe/jev-1.13Third-party models, not developed by this team.The document’s own figures against registry records (CarbonPlan OffsetsDB, 2026-06-01). A flag is a lead for a reviewer, not a finding of wrongdoing.
Issuance is within 20% of the document: 2021-2022: issued 468,854 t, document 729,500 t (0.64x, table on page 68).
No monitoring report was read.
Across 3 vintages, retired volume never exceeds issued volume.
Document and registry both give ACM0010.
No project in the same country with a closely matching name.
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS2846.json.
AI-assisted checks: 12 of 15 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from.
Tested on 177 labelled questions from 11 projects (short 2,500-character excerpts), the checks were right 94% of the time (95% interval 89%–96%). Reports read longer excerpts, which find more: of 61 findings the short excerpts missed, 46 were confirmed (75%, judged by an AI reviewer, who agreed with a person on 18 of 19 spot checks). How this was measured.
Robustness: deleting the paragraphs that held the evidence turned 87% of “found” answers to “not found”, and unrelated text got “not found” on 177 of 177 questions. A paragraph planted in the document telling the model to answer “yes” changed 0 answers; one telling it to answer “no” changed 71%, which is why such paragraphs are screened out before a model reads the excerpt (the screen is a pattern match and can miss new wordings). Robustness tests.
Excerpt read: 44,924 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (A1, A2, A3); not found in the excerpt: A4.
“(b) Comparison of the project IRR for the project and the benchmark following table. Without income from selling VCUs, the IRR of the project is 5.38%, lower than the benchmark IRR 9.5% and the project is financially unacceptable because of its low profitability. While considering such income, the IRR of the project is 10.69%, higher than the benchmark, and the project is financially acceptable.”
“3.5 Additionality Additionality for the project activity is demonstrated using Tool 02 Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version 07.0). Step 1-3 were already done in section 3.4 of this JPM. As per Tool 24 Common practice (Version 03.1), Step 4 common practice analysis will be conducted as follows: Step 4: Common practice analysis”
“Applicable A single aerobic treatment technique is not suitable for treating low concentration organic wastewater in wastewater. This kind of wastewater contains a large amount of highly concentrated organic wastewater, which is difficult to be treated by the aerobic method and does not meet the Chinese environmental quality standards and pollutant discharge standards for discharge to water bodies. At present a combine Anaerobic Digester-Aerobic Treatment system is considered to be one of the most advanced manure management systems, but to implement such technology need high invest and the proposed project will not be invested and constructed without being registered as a VCS project. Outcome of Step 1a: In summary, the alternatives to the baseline scenario are identified by the tool 02:” Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version 07.0)”as: Scenario 6: “The manure is disposed in an uncovered anaerobic lagoon” Scenario 8&17: Anaerobic Digester-Aerobic Treatment i.e., the project activity not being registered as a VCS project activity. Step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations There is no legal law and regulation to mandate the livestock farm owners to implement anaerobic digestion, aerobic or other biological treatment techniques to treat the animal manure in China. Only the manure is prohibited to discharge directly into environment without any treatment as per Regulations on Prevention and Control of Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Farming11 issued by the State Council in Nov. 2013.”
Emission-avoidance activity without stored carbon at risk of reversal; permanence is not applicable (rule based on project category, not AI).
Not scored for this activity type (no reversal risk).
Excerpt read: 44,968 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).
“6.5 Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals As per paragraph 54 in applied methodology ACM0010 (Version08.0): Furthermore, if the actual methane captured from anaerobic digesters in project activity is lower than (BECH4,y - PEAD,y), then(BECH4,y - PEAD,y) is replaced by actual methane captured QCH4,y. Biogas captured during monitoring period is 60,783,901.90m3, which equals to 661,957 tCO2e that emission from methane production 34. Baseline methane emission (BECH4,y) in this monitoring period is 695,501tCO2e. Project emissions associated with anaerobic digester in this monitoring period is (PEAD,y) is 36,280 tCO2e. Actual methane captured from anaerobic digesters is higher than the difference of BECH4,y and PEAD,y. Therefore, the equation (BECH4,y - PEAD,y) can be used to calculate emission reduction. So, the Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals can be calculated using Equation 45 in Section 4.4. The Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals in this monitoring period is shown in following table.”
“described in Section 4.3 and the specific calculation and the result are shown in Table 6-9. The calculation result of leakage emission is shown in Table 6-10.”
“Value applied 100% for ex ante estimation, which sourced from Project evaluation report. As this parameter is not monitored in the actual operation. So, in the monitoring period, to be conservative, the value of this parameter in the emission reduction calculation is 100%.”
“Implementation and Monitoring frequency The sampling process will start as soon as the target population is determined, and the sampling should be done once a month. The Sampling process will be determined by the VCS monitoring team. The one monthly monitoring activity of the samples will be completed in the 9 swine farms during each monitoring periods. Because the sampling activity is once a month, all the samples will be changed in the next month. The monitoring data will be collected and recorded throughout the entire crediting period. All archived data and documentation will be kept for at least 2 years after the end of the last crediting period. Procedures for Administering Data Collection and Minimizing Non-sampling Errors”
Excerpt read: 33,315 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.
“The project has neither been registered nor seeking registration under any other GHG programs. The project is seeking registration only in VCS program.”
“The project hasn’t sought or received another form of environmental credits.”
Excerpt read: 32,923 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (S1, S2, S3); not found in the excerpt: S4.
“Local stakeholder consultation was conducted by project owner before the construction of the project and during the monitoring period through the means of questionnaire. Local stakeholder consultation before the construction of the project In order to solicit the opinions and attitudes of various stakeholders on the construction of this project, the project owner issued a stakeholder survey opinion form at each project site from 04- November-2019 to 09-November-2019 investigate the opinions of local residents on the construction of this project. Since the farm has been in operation for a long time, local stakeholders or farmers have a better understanding of the situation of the farm. Therefore, for the stakeholder investigation of the project which can bring economic and environment benefits to the local people, the Local stakeholders or farmers is more willing to participate in the survey. The questionnaire mainly contains the following content: 1. Do you know the purpose of this project? 2. What do you think is the impact of the implementation of this project on the local environment? 3. What impact do you think the implementation of this project will have on your life? 4. Do you think the implementation of this project is in harmony with the local ecosystem? 5. What impact do you think the implementation of this project will have on the social economy? 6. What effect do you think the implementation of this project will have on local sustainable development? 7. What effect do you think the implementation of this project will have on local employment? 8. Do you think other regions should also vigorously promote this type of technology? 9. Do you support the construction and implementation of this project? 10. Do you have any suggestions and comments on this project? A total of 180 questionnaires were issued for this project, 20 copies for each project site, and 180 copies were collected. The basic information about the survey respondents is listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Structure of stakeholder survey”
“Civil servant 22 The survey results are as follows: 1. 95% of the respondents understand this project, 5% don’t know much about this project. 2. 100% of the respondents believe that the implementation of this project has reduced environmental pollution and is an environmental protection project. 3. 100% of the respondents believe that the implementation of the project will bring economic benefits to their lives, because they get free organic fertilizer. 4. 96% of the respondents believe that the implementation of the project is in harmony with the local ecosystem; 4% of the respondents are not sure whether it is in harmony. 5. 100% of the respondents believe that the implementation of the project has a good impact on the social economy. 6. 100% of the respondents believe that the construction of this project can promote energy conservation and emission reduction, improve environmental quality and investment environment, and promote the sustainable development of the local economy. 7. 96% of the respondents believe that the implementation of this project can promote employment growth; 4% of the respondents believe that it has no impact on local employment. 8. 100% of respondents believe that AWMS technology can be vigorously promoted. 9. 100% of respondents support this project. In general, local stakeholders are supportive of the project construction. The project owner carefully listened to and accepted the suggestions and opinions of stakeholders and stated that it would implement environmental protection facilities (AWMS) in strict accordance with the requirements in the environmental impact report form and the approval opinions of the local environmental protection bureau. There is no suggestion about the project design. Local stakeholder consultation during the monitoring period During this monitoring period, mean of a questionnaire survey was adopted for stakeholder consultation. From 06-September-2021 to 10-September-2021, the project proponent put up public announcements at the villages near the project site; also, the project proponent contacted the local authorities (mainly the Ecology and Environment Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau) by phone. The general information about the introduction of project, the date and the purpose of the questionnaire survey as well as the project proponent’s phone number and email”
“In all, all the villagers and local government that filling out questionnaires are all supportive of the project and to date there has been no need to modify the due to the comments received. In addition, in order to set up the mechanism for on-going communication with local stakeholders, a grievance book was put at the entrance of each swine farm. All stakeholders are allowed to record their grievances or comments in the book at any time. No any grievances or comments were received during this monitoring period.”
“Furthermore, via site inspection, CTI confirmed that a grievance book was put at the entrance of each swine farm so that to collect the grievances or comments from local stakeholders anytime, and via checking all the books, CTI verified that there was no any grievances or comments received during this monitoring period.”
“The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report for the Project has been approved by local”
“The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report for the project has been approved by local governmental authorities. The environmental impacts and mitigation measures during the construction period and the operation period are summarized as follows. Construction period Air pollution For dust-generating points such as excavation, filling, and temporary storage yards, measures should be taken to reduce dust by watering; the transportation of powdered materials such as cement, dust, and sand should be closed or covered, and the speed of vehicles should be limited to reduce the generation of dust. Wastewater The wastewater during the construction period of the project is mainly generated from the domestic sewage of construction workers, groundwater during foundation excavation and rinsing water after pouring concrete. Oil separation and sedimentation tanks should be set up in the construction site so that the production wastewater can be reused for construction after oil separation and sedimentation. The groundwater and rinsing water will be intercepted and treated centrally. The domestic sewage can be collected in a septic tank and treated centrally, and then used as fertiliser for the surrounding farmland after precipitation and clarification. Therefore, the wastewater generated during the construction of the project has little impact on the surrounding environment. Noise Noise during the construction period is mainly generated by the construction machineries and vehicles. Use advanced low-noise equipment as much as possible, and construction is prohibited”
“In China, an Environmental Impacts Assessment is required according to Chinese legislation. The EIA was designed by Nanyang Environmental Protection Research Institute Co., Ltd./6/ and approved by Nanyang Municipal Department of Ecology and Environment on 28-May-2019/7/. The analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity is sufficiently described according to EIA report/6/. The assessment is as below,”
Every version anchored on Sepolia stays readable: a retirement records the version current when it happened. Each file is hashed in your browser and compared with that version on the contract.
0x5ed5…2200(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x95e3…66d7(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x7f15…b09e(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xd81f…0558(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)Signal, not verdict. Each check says whether a specific kind of evidence is present in an excerpt of the submitted documents, not whether the evidence is true. Scores are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.
Report v4 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)