Amazon Rio REDD+ IFM
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a barrier test, and the verification record reports no material findings.
missing Leakage is not robustly documented: the record says it was deemed negligible, but the contradiction log indicates another document treated it as quantified, and reversal handling is not addressed.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period and verified emissions reductions are stated, and the VVB is identified as Earthood Services Limited.
missing Several core MRV details are missing, including the monitoring method, FNRB method, and any claimed-versus-verified ERR comparison.
Claim Safety
verified The project uses a project baseline and has a 10% buffer pool, which provides some protection against over-crediting and permanence risk.
missing Claim safety is weakened by missing FNRB and usage-rate information, plus unresolved contradictions on leakage and the crediting period.
Documentation
verified The record includes many relevant fields, cites 24 documents used, and shows no material findings or corrective actions required.
missing Extraction confidence is only medium, and the evidence list is not specific, which limits confidence in the completeness of the documentation set.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB through a barrier test, and no material findings were reported. A 10% buffer pool is in place, which helps with permanence, but reversal events are listed as not addressed and the baseline has not been shown to have been recently reassessed. Leakage is a concern because the record says it was deemed negligible, yet the contradictions log says another document treated leakage as quantified; I privileged the more explicit contradiction entry from the later document set, but the inconsistency still lowers confidence.
Transparency
The project identifies the VVB as Earthood Services Limited and provides a monitoring period from 2013-06-05 to 2022-06-04, with 202,787 verified reductions stated. However, the monitoring method, FNRB method, and any claimed-versus-verified ERR comparison are not stated in available documents, which limits public MRV clarity. The registry status is only verification approval requested, so the transparency picture is incomplete.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is helped by the use of a project baseline and the presence of a buffer pool, but the record does not provide the FNRB value, usage-rate assumptions, or usage-rate verification. The leakage treatment is not fully reliable because of the contradiction between a negligible-leakage statement and a quantified-treatment reference. With no CCP status or CORSIA eligibility stated, the project cannot benefit from a stronger claim-safety signal.
Documentation
The record is moderately well populated, with 24 documents used, a named VVB, and no material findings or corrective actions required. FPIC, benefit sharing, grievance mechanism, and safeguards are mentioned, which is positive. Still, extraction confidence is only medium, the evidence-doc list is not specific, and key fields remain unstated, so documentation quality is only moderate.
Overall
The project shows a credible but not strong profile: additionality is supported and the verification record is clean, but several core risk controls are either missing or inconsistently documented. I privileged the later, more explicit entries in the contradiction log for the crediting period and leakage treatment, but those contradictions still reduce reliability. Because the integrity score remains above the gating threshold, the overall score is not capped, yet the unresolved documentation gaps keep the project in the middle range.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, a 10% buffer pool, and no material findings reported. However, key elements are either missing or inconsistent, especially leakage treatment, baseline reassessment, and reversal handling, which weakens confidence in the credited reductions.
Project Description
The Amazon Rio Project consists of a mosaic of four private areas (20,387 ha) in the Manicoré Municipality in the state of Amazonas, Brazil that will be conserved by avoiding planned deforestation (IFM). The project activity is based on the cessation of a legally authorised logging plan that had been operational since 1999, added to the implementation of a Management Plan focused on emission reductions, biodiversity conservation, monitoring and sustainable social development in the region, including the promotion of eco-tourism and scientific research. The project will benefit approximately 350 families living in 15 communities surrounding the project area through several socio-economic programs focused on improving access to health, education and income generation, with the purpose of improving the livelihoods of these communities, strengthening their organizational capacity and promoting long-term conservation and sustainability.The Amazon Rio Project consists in the conservation of four private areas - the Amazon Rio I, II, III and IV Reserves in the Manicoré Municipality in the state of Amazonas, Brazil. The project activity is based on the cessation of the planned logging that had been operational since 1999, added to the implementation of a Management Plan focused on emission reductions, biodiversity conservation and sustainable social development in the region, including the promotion of eco-tourism and scientific research. The project seeks the conservation, management and monitoring of the Amazon Rio Reserves through the protection of the area and promotion of sustainable practices in the buffer zone, in which 15 communities will directly benefit from the project. It aims to protect an area of approximately 20,387 hectares of primary forest by avoiding planned deforestation (IFM).
Red Flags
- Leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents: one source says leakage was deemed negligible, while a contradiction notes a quantified treatment elsewhere.
- The crediting period differs between documents, and the record does not explain why the later date range was preferred.
- Reversal risk is not clearly addressed beyond a buffer pool, and reversal events are listed as not addressed.
- Public-facing MRV detail is thin: the monitoring method, FNRB method, and claimed-versus-verified ERR comparison are not stated.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 46,353 | 46,353 | 0 | |
| 2014 | 43,216 | 43,216 | 0 | |
| 2015 | 46,401 | 46,401 | 0 | |
| 2016 | 46,377 | 46,359 | 18 | |
| Total | 182,347 | 182,329 | 18 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide a clear, document-backed explanation for the leakage treatment, including whether it was quantified or deemed negligible and why.
- Publish the missing MRV details, especially the FNRB method, usage monitoring approach, and a clear reconciliation of claimed versus verified reductions.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed barrier test
buffer pool present, reversal handling unclear
negligible claim but contradictory leakage treatment
project baseline, reassessment timing missing
FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing documented
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →