Fujian Yong’An Improved Forest Management Project

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was assessed via an investment test and confirmed by the VVB (CQC), which supports additionality robustness. Permanence provisions appear reasonably strong for a VCS IFM project, with a 25% buffer contribution and no reversals reported in the monitoring report (2022-06-01). However, leakage is deducted at 0% while the monitoring record does not consistently justify why leakage is negligible, and the baseline is project-specific with no baseline reassessment date found in the extracted record—both weaken integrity.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2022-06-01) provides a clear monitoring period (2016-07-01—2021-06-30) and a verified ER figure of 287,276 tCO2e, which supports MRV transparency. At the same time, the claimed ER figure is not found in the extracted record, limiting the ability to reconcile claims versus verification. The presence of CAR01 in the monitoring/verification package indicates the auditor found inconsistencies in stratification versus forest investigation data, which reduces confidence in the underlying activity data transparency.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of high-impact aviation claims being made from these credits. Nonetheless, claim safety is constrained by potential over-crediting signals: CAR01 flags stratification inconsistencies (monitoring/verification package), and leakage is treated as 0% with inconsistent justification across monitoring reports. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity label claims.

Documentation

The extracted record references a substantial set of documents (including PDD, validation report, monitoring report, and issuance) and indicates high extraction confidence with 14 documents used, supporting a solid documentation score. However, several key statements differ between the validation report (2016-08-02) and the later monitoring report (2022-06-01), especially on safeguards-related items, which undermines document consistency. Corrective actions are explicitly listed (CAR01), which is good for audit trail completeness but indicates issues that should be resolved and clearly documented.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down mainly by reliability and over-crediting risk signals rather than by a complete absence of controls: additionality is VVB-confirmed and permanence provisions include a 25% buffer with no reversals reported. Contradictions were addressed by privileging the more recent monitoring report (2022-06-01) over the older validation report (2016-08-02) for safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit-sharing, because it is later in time and should reflect implemented practices; however, the inconsistency itself reduces confidence and therefore lowers transparency and documentation. For leakage, the most recent monitoring report (2022-06-01) stating leakage is not addressed was privileged over the older monitoring report (2016-07-02) claiming negligible leakage, because it is more recent and more conservative; this contradiction reduces integrity and claim safety. For reversals, the monitoring report’s 'none reported' was used as the best available statement, but the existence of another record indicating reversals were 'not addressed' suggests incomplete reporting and slightly reduces integrity.