avoidance Brazil Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

Citizens of the Amazon

CE-jacunda-forest-reser

1.5 / 10

Integrity

2.0

Transparency

0.5

Claim Safety

2.0

Documentation

1.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any reversals/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record (no documents captured)

inferred The project is described as an avoidance credit type, but permanence and leakage controls cannot be confirmed without source documents

Transparency

missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verification/monitoring results were found in the extracted record (no documents captured)

missing Registry-relevant fields such as CORSIA eligibility and MRV parameters were not found in the extracted record

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be assessed because the baseline method and any reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record

inferred Double-claim/eligibility risk cannot be screened because CORSIA/CCP status was not found in the extracted record

Documentation

missing No evidence documents were provided in the extracted record (0 documents used)

missing Low extraction confidence suggests documentation may be incomplete or unreadable, reducing reliability

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No project design or assurance documents were available in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and any permanence risk management (such as buffer contributions or reversal reporting) cannot be confirmed. The only contextual cue is that the credit type is described as avoidance, but that does not substitute for documented baseline and leakage controls. This warrants a conservative integrity score due to major evidence gaps.

Transparency

Transparency is very weak because no monitoring report, verification report, or registry-complete fields were captured in the extracted record. Without a VVB name, monitoring period, or any claimed-versus-verified results, MRV quality cannot be evaluated. The low extraction confidence further increases the likelihood that key transparency elements were missed.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is low because the extracted record does not include the baseline method, leakage justification, or any quantified parameters that would allow screening for over-crediting risk. Eligibility indicators relevant to double-claim risk (such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status) were not found in the extracted record. As a result, marketing claims would be difficult to substantiate based on the available evidence.

Documentation

Documentation is the primary weakness: the extracted record shows zero evidence documents and zero documents used. In addition, the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and increasing the chance of missing critical information. This combination materially reduces confidence in any assessment and triggers the documentation gate risk (documentation below 3 would cap transparency post-scoring).

Overall

There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any documents and the low extraction confidence create a severe evidence gap across all dimensions. With no verification/monitoring/PDD content captured, the assessment must default to conservative scores due to inability to substantiate additionality, baseline validity, leakage treatment, or MRV performance. Note that the documentation gate would apply post-scoring because documentation is below 3, capping transparency.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV performance) cannot be substantiated. Given the low readability flag and zero documents captured, the project should be treated as high uncertainty and high over-crediting/greenwashing risk until primary sources are reviewed.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: “The project is unique as it falls in a State Conservation Unit classified as an ‘Extractive Reserve’. This classification enables sustainable exploitation of natural resources in the area while guaranteeing the rights of the local community with respect to access to resources and the ability to stay in the

Red Flags

No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing verification of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring quality
Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or misread critical details

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide and re-extract the core Verra documents (PDD, monitoring report(s), verification report(s), and registry issuance/retirement pages) with readable scans to raise extraction confidence
Disclose and extract key quantified items: baseline method and reassessment date, leakage assessment and any deduction, monitoring period and verified ERs, VVB identity, and any permanence risk management (buffer contribution/reversal reporting)

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