GS2404 International Water purification PoA - Chlorine Dispensers in Uganda - CPA 9

Integrity

The monitoring report for 2020 shows additionality confirmed by the VVB, and the project is described under AMS-III.AV with an investment test basis. At the same time, reversal risk is not addressed in the extracted record, with no buffer pool percentage and no reversal detail available, which weakens permanence confidence. Leakage is described as quantified, but the actual deduction percentage is not stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

The monitoring report names Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd and gives a clear monitoring period for 2020, which supports traceability. However, the extracted record does not provide verified emissions reduction totals, and the usage rate is not verified. The extraction confidence is medium, so documentation quality is adequate but not strong.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is supported by VVB-confirmed additionality and a quantified leakage treatment, but the absence of verified usage data limits confidence in the claimed climate benefit. The project is marked CORSIA-eligible, which does not by itself create a problem, but it does mean the claim is not in the safest category for dual-channel risk. The contradictions on FNRB treatment and usage monitoring method further increase over-crediting concern.

Documentation

The record draws on multiple official documents, including the appendix, PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, and it includes named VVB oversight. Still, several important items are missing or not stated, including buffer pool coverage, verified usage rate, and emissions reduction totals. The medium extraction confidence and the presence of resolved CARs indicate usable but imperfect documentation.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: the project has a credible additionality signal and documented safeguards, but important risk controls are incomplete or not visible in the extracted record. I privileged the monitoring report for the 2020 monitoring period and VVB details, while noting the contradiction that the PDD states an investment test and a later source refers to a combined test; I treated the VVB-verified monitoring record as more operationally relevant, but still downgraded confidence because the discrepancy suggests inconsistent documentation. I also privileged the monitoring report’s national-default FNRB treatment and annual-survey usage monitoring over later conflicting references, because the monitoring report is the direct source for the claimed period, but the contradictions still reduce reliability.