ACP Sustainable Forest Cover Establishment Project

Integrity

The PDD states that additionality was verified by the VVB and that the project used a combined additionality test, which is a meaningful positive signal. Leakage is treated as quantified with a 0% deduction, and the buffer pool is set at 20%, but reversal handling is not addressed in the extracted record, which is a notable weakness for an A/R project. The baseline is project-specific rather than standardized, and the baseline was not shown as recently reassessed.

Transparency

The verification body is identified as Rainforest Alliance, and the documents mention FPIC, a grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing, which helps with procedural transparency. But key MRV fields are missing from the extracted record, including the monitoring period, total ERs claimed and verified, usage monitoring method, and usage rates. That leaves the public evidence trail incomplete and makes it harder to assess issuance quality.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the quantified leakage treatment and the absence of reported NCRs in the initial certification. Still, the project is marked CORSIA-eligible and CCP-eligible, so dual-claim exposure is not excluded by the available record. The contradiction on leakage treatment also weakens confidence in the over-crediting assessment.

Documentation

Documentation quality is moderate: multiple official documents were used, the extraction confidence is medium, and the record includes a named VVB and some safeguard information. However, several important fields are missing or not stated, including monitoring period, crediting period, baseline reassessment, and verified issuance totals. The presence of open forward action requests also suggests the documentation package was not fully closed at the time of certification.

Overall

The project appears moderately credible but not high-confidence because the record is incomplete and contains a direct contradiction on leakage treatment. I privileged the PDD’s quantified leakage treatment because it is the more specific and higher-priority project design document, but I still reduced confidence because a later document reportedly says leakage was not addressed. The overall score is also held back by missing MRV data, unresolved reversal treatment, and the fact that the project remains eligible for both CORSIA and CCP channels.