Grassland Restoration and Stewardship in South Africa (GRASS)

Audit Analysis

The GRASS grassland restoration project in South Africa has a verified additionality assessment and a 12% buffer pool, but is undermined by extensive material findings on non-permanence, a project-specific baseline, and contradictory leakage justifications across documents. The first monitoring period delivered only about 42% of the pro-rata ex-ante expectation, suggesting the lifetime estimate may be optimistic. Multiple unresolved concerns from commenters about permanence and the 'theoretical' nature of the credits, combined with 30+ corrective actions, indicate a project still maturing in its MRV and risk management.

Project Description

Red Flags

• ⚠The 2026 verification report states reversal events were 'not addressed,' a regression from the 2025 report which confirmed none were reported — this gap in the most recent verification is a permanence concern
• ⚠Commenters explicitly described the credits as 'theoretical with limited impact' and questioned the permanence of a grassland project, raising fundamental questions about the robustness of the soil carbon claims
• ⚠Leakage justification shifted from 'quantified' in the 2023 validation report to 'deemed negligible' in the 2026 verification report, with a 0% deduction — the basis for this change is not clearly documented
• ⚠The ex-ante lifetime estimate was revised upward from 14.66 million (PDD, 2022) to 19.19 million tCO2e (validation report, 2023), a 31% increase, yet the first monitoring period delivered only 42% of the pro-rata expectation, suggesting the revised estimate may still be optimistic
• ⚠30+ corrective actions were required across validation and verification, including issues with non-permanence risk scoring, baseline scenario description, and monitoring plan adequacy

Credit Vintages