Animal Kingdom
CE-grasslands-water-wil
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Baseline, additionality, leakage treatment, and any reversal/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record due to missing documents.
inferred Project is described as an avoidance credit type, but permanence/reversal risk controls cannot be confirmed without documentation.
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed ER figures were found because no evidence documents were captured.
missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed from the extracted record (0 documents; low readability).
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline approach and leakage justification were not found in the extracted record.
missing CORSIA/CCP status was not found, increasing uncertainty around downstream claim risk.
Documentation
missing No evidence documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents used).
missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating poor readability of at least one key source.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No validation/verification, PDD, or monitoring information was captured in the extracted record (0 documents), so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any permanence controls (e.g., buffer pool or reversal reporting) are not substantiated. Given the evidence gap, the integrity score is conservative. The project is described as avoidance, but that alone is insufficient to confirm robustness without the underlying documents.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because no documents were captured in the extracted record, so key MRV elements (monitoring period, VVB identity, and claimed vs verified emission reductions) cannot be checked. Low extraction confidence further suggests that even if sources existed, they were not reliably readable or extractable. As a result, public-data and registry completeness cannot be evidenced here.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak by default because the extracted record provides no basis to evaluate over-crediting controls (baseline selection, reassessment timing, leakage justification/deductions, or usage monitoring). Eligibility signals that affect marketing claims (CORSIA eligibility and CCP status) were not found in the extracted record. With these unknowns, the risk of unsupported or overstated claims is elevated.
Documentation
Documentation quality is very poor: the extracted record lists zero evidence documents and zero documents used. The minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable, which reduces confidence in completeness and accuracy. This warrants a very low documentation score and triggers the post-scoring gate that would cap transparency if applied.
Overall
There are no contradictions listed in the extracted record, but this is largely because there is no underlying documentation to compare. With 0 documents and low extraction confidence, the assessment is dominated by evidence gaps across all dimensions. Overall scoring is therefore conservative, and the documentation gate rule (documentation below 3.0) would cap transparency when applied downstream.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (baseline, additionality, leakage, and monitoring) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default.
Project Description
Why we chose this project: “We are supporting this project because it restores 420,000-hectares of forests and grasslands in a more cost-effective manner. Through planting trees in a new forest plantation, this project is an excellent example of climate change mitigation and adaptation occurring simultaneously, helping nature, wildlife, and the vulnerable Masai population. Revenue
Red Flags
- No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, further reducing reliability.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide core Verra documentation (PDD, validation/verification reports, monitoring reports) so baseline, additionality, leakage, and MRV can be assessed.
- Improve document readability/extraction quality (higher-resolution scans or text PDFs) and include registry fields (VVB, monitoring period, claimed vs verified ERs, CORSIA/CCP status).
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
No additionality assessment found
Permanence controls not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
CORSIA/CCP status not found
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 →