Foz Do Chapecó Project

Integrity

The validation documentation indicates additionality was assessed via an investment test and confirmed by the VVB (validation report). Baseline setting is project-specific under ACM0002, and while a reassessment year is indicated as 2022, the extracted record does not provide grid EF inputs (e.g., grid EF year/value), which limits independent checking (validation/monitoring records). Leakage is a key weakness: the 2021 monitoring report indicates leakage was not addressed and no leakage deduction is evidenced, which is conservative-negative for integrity. No material findings are listed, but the monitoring report includes numerous corrective actions that point to underlying MRV weaknesses affecting integrity (monitoring report 2021).

Transparency

The project identifies the VVB (Earthood Services Private Limited) and provides a clear monitoring period (2012-07-01 to 2020-10-14) and crediting period information in the monitoring record (monitoring report 2021). Claimed and verified ERs match in the extracted record, which is a positive transparency signal, but this is undermined by contradictions across validation reports on the ER total. The monitoring report’s corrective actions highlight transparency/MRV gaps, including inconsistencies with CCEE meter readings, unclear meter operational periods, and discrepancies in combined margin calculations and supporting spreadsheets (monitoring report 2021).

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of high-profile aviation claims and some double-claim exposure (registry extract). However, over-crediting risk is elevated by major inconsistencies in reported total ERs between validation reports and by MRV corrective actions related to generation data and grid emission factor calculations (validation reports 2012 vs 2022; monitoring report 2021). Leakage treatment is also inconsistent across monitoring reports (deemed negligible vs not addressed), which increases uncertainty around whether all relevant sources were conservatively handled (monitoring reports 2012 vs 2021). CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving an additional claim-channel uncertainty.

Documentation

The extracted record references a reasonably complete set of document types (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance) and indicates 17 documents were used with high extraction confidence. Despite this, the documentation set contains multiple contradictions on core attributes (ER totals, crediting period, and safeguards/FPIC/grievance), which reduces confidence that the narrative is consistent across official documents. The presence of many corrective actions (including requests for calibration accreditation evidence and official CCEE reports) suggests that key evidentiary items were missing or unclear at least at the time of review (monitoring report 2021).

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down primarily by reliability issues evidenced through contradictions and corrective actions. For the ER total contradiction, the 12,450,836 figure from the more recent validation report (2022-01-18) is privileged over the 1,289,348.563 figure from the older validation report (2012-11-21) because it is later-dated and aligns with the long crediting/monitoring timeframe; however, the magnitude of the discrepancy still indicates a serious consistency problem and reduces confidence. For leakage, the 2021 monitoring report stating leakage was not addressed is privileged over the 2012 monitoring report’s “deemed negligible” because it is more recent and suggests the earlier justification may not have been carried forward or adequately documented. For safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit sharing, the 2021 monitoring report’s affirmative statements are privileged over the 2012 monitoring report’s negatives due to recency, but the inconsistency itself is a documentation-quality red flag. For the crediting period contradiction, the monitoring report’s 2010-10-14 to 2020-10-14 period is privileged as it matches the stated monitoring end date (2020-10-14), while the 2020-2030 period in the 2022 validation report appears to refer to a different/renewed period; this ambiguity lowers confidence and contributes to conservative scoring.