biodiversity Colombia Vintage 2022 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Banco de Hábitat, Bosque de Niebla - El Globo

CM-8c2841 ↗

2.8 / 10

Integrity

2.2

Transparency

2.8

Claim Safety

3.0

Documentation

3.6

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Baseline, additionality, leakage, and permanence/reversal provisions are not stated in the available monitoring report (Dec 2020).

verified The monitoring report (Dec 2020) reports no material findings and no corrective actions required.

Transparency

missing Registry details, monitoring period, verifier identity, and quantified results are not found in the extracted record from the monitoring report (Dec 2020).

inferred Safeguards are mentioned in the monitoring report (Dec 2020), but supporting details (FPIC, grievance mechanism) are not evidenced.

Claim Safety

missing Eligibility/labeling signals (CORSIA eligibility and CCP status) are not stated in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims.

missing No quantified credited outcome (claimed vs verified) is found in the extracted record from the monitoring report (Dec 2020).

Documentation

missing Only one document (a monitoring report dated Dec 2020) is available; key program elements are missing from the extracted record.

inferred Extraction confidence is medium, but the absence of a VVB name and verification details limits assurance.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The monitoring report (Dec 2020) does not provide an additionality test, a baseline method, or any baseline reassessment timing in the extracted record, which materially weakens confidence that outcomes are additional. Leakage is not quantified and no leakage justification is captured from the monitoring report (Dec 2020). Permanence risk management is also not evidenced: no buffer pool contribution and no reversal event reporting are found in the extracted record. While the monitoring report (Dec 2020) indicates no material findings and no corrective actions required, that alone is insufficient to establish robust integrity without the missing core design elements.

Transparency

Transparency is limited because the extracted record from the monitoring report (Dec 2020) lacks the monitoring period, registry information, verifier identity, and any quantified results that would allow independent scrutiny. The monitoring report (Dec 2020) mentions safeguards, but the extracted record does not include FPIC, a grievance mechanism, or benefit-sharing details. With only one document available, the public audit trail and MRV completeness cannot be confirmed.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by the absence of quantified outcomes (no claimed or verified totals are found in the extracted record from the monitoring report, Dec 2020), which increases over-crediting/over-claiming risk. The extracted record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so downstream users cannot easily assess whether the unit could be marketed under multiple quality labels. Missing baseline and leakage information further increases the risk that credited biodiversity outcomes could be overstated.

Documentation

Documentation is partial: only a monitoring report (Dec 2020) is listed, with no PDD, methodology reference, verification report, or registry record captured in the extracted record. The extraction confidence is medium, but key assurance fields (such as the VVB name and additionality confirmation) are not present in the extracted record. The absence of corrective actions and material findings in the monitoring report (Dec 2020) is a positive signal, but it does not compensate for missing foundational documentation.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. However, the overall score is low because the single available monitoring report (Dec 2020) does not evidence core quality determinants (baseline, additionality, leakage, permanence) and does not provide quantified results or third-party verification details. Note: gate rules may cap transparency if documentation were to score below 3.0; here documentation is slightly above that threshold, but the project still faces high uncertainty due to evidence gaps.

Audit Analysis

Based on the single available monitoring report (Dec 2020), key integrity elements such as baseline setting, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and permanence/reversal risk management are not evidenced in the extracted record. Safeguards are mentioned, and no material findings or corrective actions are reported, but the overall evidentiary basis is too thin to support high-confidence biodiversity credit quality claims.

Project Description

CONTEXT El Globo is the first project in Colombia to issue Voluntary Biodiversity Credits. It is a 340 hectares conservation initiative registered as Habitat Bank by the Colombian Ministry of Environment , located in the Cuchilla Jardín-Támesis Integrated Management District (DMI by its acronym in Spanish). Known as the “water star” of southwestern Antioquia, this area is within the Antioquia’s prioritized ecosystems for conservation. Here, ecosystem preservation, enhancement and restoration activitiesgenerate positive and permanent impacts on biodiversity. RELEVANCE The fragments of Cloud Forest found within the El Globo are strategic for regional development since they provide important ecosystem services related to water regulation, carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. These patches of forest also represent an exceptional place to counter pressures on biodiversity like habitat loss and fragmentation, enabling fundamental biological processes for the persistence of many species. HOW DOES IT WORK? Habitat Banks are land where conservation initiatives are added and ecosystem preservation, enhancement or restoration actions are implemented to generate quantifiable biodiversity gains. The project applied the Protocol for the Issuance of Voluntary Biodiversity Credits, a methodology that prioritizes projects based on quality, permanence and additionality criteria. The project has 310,000 of potential credits . From the entire batch, 62,000 are currently available , since credits are only released as performance milestones are met over a ten-year period. Each Biodiversity Credit represents 10 m2 of threatened, conserved or restored land. Technical, financial and legal assurances will maintain the project for at least 30 years. EL GLOBO IS HOME TO The Yellow-eared Parrot (Ognorhynchus icterotis) and the Crested Eagle (Spizaetus isidori), two bird species that are in the “Endangered” categor

Red Flags

No baseline approach or reassessment timing found in the extracted record, making it hard to judge whether credited outcomes are additional.
No additionality test or third-party confirmation of additionality found in the extracted record.
No leakage deduction or justification found in the extracted record.
No permanence tools (e.g., buffer pool) or reversal event reporting found in the extracted record.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the PDD and/or methodology reference with a clear baseline approach, additionality demonstration, and leakage assessment (including any quantified deduction).
Publish verification/assurance information (VVB name, scope, monitoring period, and quantified results) and document safeguards implementation (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit-sharing).

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.