Cup of The Amazon – Alto Mayo

Integrity

The monitoring/verification record shows additionality was confirmed by the VVB (AENOR) using a combined test, and the monitoring report (2016) reports no material findings and no corrective actions. Permanence risk management is partly addressed via a 10% buffer contribution and no reversals reported. Integrity is reduced by reliance on a project-specific baseline (VM0015) with baseline reassessment timing not stated in the extracted record, and by leakage being described as quantified while still resulting in a 0% deduction in the monitoring report (2016).

Transparency

The monitoring report (2016) clearly states the monitoring period (2014-06-15 to 2016-06-14) and reports verified ERs equal to claimed ERs (1,364,191), which supports MRV consistency. The VVB is identified as AENOR, and the project is on the VCS registry. Transparency is limited by missing extracted details on baseline reassessment timing and by eligibility/status fields (e.g., CORSIA, CCP) not being stated in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

Because this is an avoidance ARR project with a buffer contribution (10%) and no reversals reported, permanence-related claim risk is moderated. However, the baseline is project-specific and the extracted record does not state when (or whether) the baseline was reassessed during the long crediting period (2008–2028), which can elevate over-crediting risk. In addition, leakage is treated as 0% despite being described as quantified in the monitoring report (2016), and CORSIA eligibility/CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates a solid document set (PDD, monitoring report, validation report) and a relatively recent monitoring report date (2016-08-12), with high extraction confidence and no reported corrective actions. Documentation quality is weakened by missing extracted specifics for some key risk controls (notably baseline reassessment timing and detailed reversal treatment in earlier validation materials). Overall, the documentation is adequate but not fully complete on the highest-risk parameters for credit quality assessment.

Overall

Overall scoring reflects a generally well-documented VCS project with VVB-confirmed additionality, matched claimed vs verified ERs, and a buffer contribution supporting permanence. The main quality uncertainties are baseline robustness over time (reassessment timing not stated) and the plausibility of a 0% leakage deduction despite leakage being described as quantified. Contradiction addressed: reversal events are listed as “not addressed” in an older validation report (2012-07-30) but “none reported” in a later validation report (2016-09-09); the later document is privileged as more recent, but the inconsistency indicates reporting reliability issues and slightly lowers integrity/transparency.