Doyon Native Community Forest Project

Integrity

The validation documentation indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB, which supports additionality robustness. Permanence risk management appears reasonably strong for an IFM project due to a 22% buffer pool contribution (extracted record), and no reversals were reported in the extracted record. Leakage treatment is comparatively conservative: the monitoring documentation indicates leakage was quantified with a 40% leakage deduction (monitoring report, 2022-09-23). The main integrity gap is that the baseline method and any baseline reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record, which is central to IFM credit quantification.

Transparency

The monitoring report clearly states the monitoring period (2020-08-19 to 2021-08-18) and identifies the verifier as SCS Global Services (monitoring report, 2022-09-23). The extracted record also shows no material findings and no corrective actions required, which is helpful for assessing audit outcomes (monitoring report, 2022-09-23). However, total ERR claimed and total ERR verified were not found in the extracted record, preventing a basic reconciliation of quantified outcomes. Several operational MRV details (for example, usage monitoring) are not applicable or not found, which limits transparency beyond core forest carbon accounting.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of high-profile aviation-related claims (extracted record). Leakage appears to be treated conservatively via a large quantified deduction of 40% (monitoring report, 2022-09-23), which can reduce over-crediting risk if appropriately justified. Nonetheless, baseline method details were not found in the extracted record, which is a primary driver of over-crediting risk in IFM. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, so buyers should avoid making CCP-aligned claims without further confirmation.

Documentation

The extracted record includes a PDD, validation report, and monitoring report (three documents total) with high extraction confidence, supporting a solid documentation score. The monitoring report is recent (2022-09-23) and includes the monitoring period and audit outcomes (monitoring report, 2022-09-23). However, some key quantification fields (ERR totals, baseline method, crediting period) were not found in the extracted record, indicating incompleteness for buyer due diligence. In addition, safeguards reporting is inconsistent between documents, which reduces confidence in narrative disclosures.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: additionality is VVB-confirmed and permanence/leakage controls look directionally conservative (22% buffer; 40% leakage deduction), but missing baseline and ERR totals constrain confidence in the credit quantification. The key contradiction is safeguards disclosure: the monitoring report (2022-09-23) indicates safeguards are mentioned, while the PDD (2022-09-15) indicates they are not. For scoring, the monitoring report was privileged as the later, implementation-stage document, but the inconsistency itself reduces transparency/documentation scores because it signals unreliable or shifting disclosures. No gate-rule caps are triggered because documentation and integrity remain above the stated thresholds.