Ambatolampy 20 MW Solar PV

Integrity

The latest verification report confirms additionality through a first-of-its-kind test and says the VVB found no material findings, which supports the project’s core integrity case. That said, leakage is listed as not addressed in the latest record, and buffer pool coverage is not stated, so permanence/leakage robustness is only moderate. The project is an avoidance project, so reversal risk is inherently lower than for removals, but the missing buffer detail still matters.

Transparency

The documentation includes a recent verification report dated 2025-09-25 and a clearly stated monitoring period from 2024-01-01 to 2025-03-31, which helps traceability. However, the extracted record does not state the usage monitoring method, and both CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not found, limiting public claim clarity. The verified emission total is available, but the claimed total is not stated in the extracted record, so reconciliation is incomplete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the project type: a solar PV avoidance project under ACM0002 with a stated grid emission factor and a project baseline. The main concern is that leakage is not addressed in the latest verification record, while an earlier document reportedly quantified it, which creates uncertainty about over-crediting controls. With no stated CORSIA or CCP status, the project cannot be treated as especially claim-safe from the available evidence.

Documentation

The record is reasonably broad, with 28 documents used and a recent verification report that reports no material findings and no corrective actions required. Still, extraction confidence is only medium, which lowers confidence in the completeness of the record. Several key items are missing or not stated, including buffer pool percentage, baseline reassessment timing, and usage monitoring method, so the documentation package is incomplete.

Overall

I privileged the latest verification report for operational facts such as the latest verified emission total and the statement that leakage is not addressed, because it is the most recent and directly relevant assurance document. I also noted the contradictions explicitly: an earlier document reportedly quantified leakage, an earlier document reportedly described benefit sharing, and an earlier verified emission total differs from the latest one; these were treated as reliability concerns and pulled scores down. Because integrity remains above the low-risk threshold but documentation and transparency are only moderate, the overall score lands in the middle range.