Agrocortex REDD Project

Integrity

The project shows moderate integrity because additionality was verified by Earthood Services Private Limited and the issuance report uses a barrier test under VM0015. Leakage is not ignored: the record states a quantified leakage deduction of 5%, and no reversal events are reported. However, the VVB still required the ERR calculation spreadsheets, which suggests unresolved review gaps, and the contradiction log shows disagreement over the additionality test type and buffer pool percentage.

Transparency

Transparency is limited by missing core quantitative fields: total ERR claimed and verified are not stated, and the usage monitoring method is not found in the extracted record. The monitoring period is clear, and the VVB is named, but the extraction confidence is only medium, so some source material was not fully legible. That weakens confidence in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. A quantified 5% leakage deduction and a buffer pool provide some protection, but the baseline is project-specific rather than a more standardized or jurisdictional approach, which increases over-crediting risk. CORSIA eligibility is not stated, and the contradictions around buffer pool size and additionality test type reduce reliability of the claim.

Documentation

Documentation is only fair because the record includes many extracted documents and identifies the VVB, but key supporting materials were missing or not fully usable. The VVB explicitly requested ERR calculation spreadsheets, and the extraction confidence is medium rather than high. On the positive side, FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing are described, which improves completeness on safeguards.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality REDD issuance record with some solid project-level controls but meaningful evidence gaps. I privileged the 2022 issuance report for the buffer pool and additionality test because it is the most recent document, but I discounted confidence because earlier documents conflict on both points. I also treated the reversal record cautiously: the latest document says no reversals were reported, while an earlier document did not address reversals, so the newer statement is more specific but still not fully corroborated.