Trust infrastructure

Carbon-market credibilitydepends on evidence,not slogans.

EcoConnect is designed around practical controls that a skeptical grant reviewer, buyer, or registry partner can inspect before approving expansion beyond a pilot.

§Integrity factors

Integrity factors

Seven controls scored onevery project profile.

Each factor is documented, weighted, and visible to reviewers. The integrity score is transparent — it does not pretend to be official certification.

01Additionality

Additionality evidence

Documentation that the project would not have occurred without carbon finance, with regulatory baselines considered.

  • 0 — no additionality argument provided
  • 3 — written argument with at least one quantitative test
  • 5 — independently reviewed additionality assessment with sensitivities
02Permanence

Permanence plan

Plans, buffer pools, and contingency arrangements that protect against reversal risk over the credit lifetime.

  • 0 — no plan articulated
  • 3 — buffer contribution and basic monitoring strategy
  • 5 — modelled permanence risk with insurance or pooled reserves
03Leakage

Leakage assessment

Analysis of activity shifts that could move emissions outside the project boundary.

  • 0 — leakage not considered
  • 3 — qualitative leakage discussion with rule-of-thumb deductions
  • 5 — quantified leakage model with sensitivities and monitoring plan
04Safeguards

Safeguards & community impact

Evidence of human-rights, indigenous, gender, and biodiversity safeguards with stakeholder engagement.

  • 0 — no safeguard documentation
  • 3 — written safeguard policy and grievance mechanism
  • 5 — independent safeguard assessment and stakeholder sign-off
05Double-counting

Double-counting controls

Registry linkage, serial-number tracking, and corresponding-adjustment evidence to prevent the same credit being claimed twice.

  • 0 — no registry linkage or serialisation evidence
  • 3 — single-registry serial tracking
  • 5 — multi-registry deconfliction with corresponding-adjustment status
06Retirement

Retirement evidence

Documented retirement records and beneficiary claims language with traceable references.

  • 0 — no retirement records cited
  • 3 — sample retirements with public registry references
  • 5 — verified retirement audit log with beneficiary attribution
07Documentation

Documentation completeness

Coverage of the full evidence pack: methodology, monitoring, validation, verification, governance, and audit.

  • 0 — most required documents missing
  • 3 — core documents present but outdated
  • 5 — complete, dated, version-controlled evidence pack
§Risk & compliance

Nothing hidden

Transparent risk posture —nothing concealed.

Every significant risk is named, mitigated, and owner-assigned. Reviewers should expect this level of candour.

Compliance
High severity

Grant eligibility is not yet proven

Confirm applicant legal status, jurisdiction, tax registration, beneficial ownership, authorized signatory, match funding, and program-specific cost eligibility before submission.

Owner · Finance & Compliance lead

Reputational
High severity

Carbon-credit integrity claims could be overstated

Use conservative claims language, require project evidence, track retirement proof, and separate verified climate outcomes from platform activity metrics.

Owner · Head of integrity

Compliance
High severity

Live trading may trigger legal, financial, AML, or market-conduct obligations

Keep the MVP as a discovery/reporting pilot until legal review confirms the path for exchange, broker, payment, and custody functions.

Owner · General counsel

Market
Medium severity

The source plan had aggressive revenue and market-share assumptions

Use bottom-up pilot metrics, conservative scenarios, and validation evidence instead of promising market dominance or guaranteed investor returns.

Owner · Product & strategy lead

Operations
Medium severity

Registry and verification-data access may be incomplete

Start with documented public profiles and manual review, then add APIs only after data-rights and partner agreements are signed.

Owner · Head of partnerships

Security
Medium severity

Sensitive buyer or project data could be mishandled during scale-up

Add role-based access, encryption, audit logging, privacy assessments, vendor reviews, retention policies, and incident response before production data intake.

Owner · CTO / security lead

Technical
Medium severity

Heavy reliance on third-party verification limits MVP throughput

Pre-onboard verification partners, document handoffs, and design queue-friendly evidence workflows.

Owner · Head of integrity

Reputational
Low severity

Buyer claims language is misused after a purchase

Embed approved claims templates in reports, restrict free-text claims, and flag misuse via audit logs.

Owner · Head of integrity

§Control baseline

Control baseline

Minimum controls beforemarketplace expansion.

These controls should be completed before EcoConnect processes sensitive organisation data, live transactions, or regulated financial flows.

  • Integrity scoring controls

    Additionality, permanence, leakage, safeguards, double-counting, retirement evidence, and documentation completeness checks per project.

  • Partner KYC and screening

    Future buyer and project-developer onboarding with KYC, sanctions, beneficial-ownership screening, and conflict-of-interest disclosure.

  • Information security

    Role-based access control, audit logging, encrypted storage, incident response, and DPIA before any private data processing.

  • Claims governance

    Approved claims templates so buyers understand what they can and cannot say after a purchase or retirement.

  • Independent monitoring

    Independent monitoring and evaluation to prevent self-reported impact inflation and to satisfy grant accountability.

  • Registry linkage

    Project profiles linked to registry IDs, serial numbers, retirement records, and corresponding-adjustment status.