Improving livelihoods through Agroforestry Plantations in India

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through a combined test and says the VVB found no material findings or corrective actions. That supports the project, but permanence is weaker because reversal events are marked as not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is stated. Leakage is at least acknowledged as quantified, which is better than silence, but the underlying deduction amount is not available in the extracted record.

Transparency

Transparency is limited by missing core MRV fields: the record does not state claimed versus verified ER totals, the usage monitoring method, or any registry completeness details. The monitoring period is clearly identified, and the VVB is named as Carbon Check (India) Private Limited, which helps, but the low extraction confidence reduces trust in completeness. The absence of quantified public-facing reporting elements keeps this below a strong transparency score.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers dual-claim risk, but the baseline is project-specific rather than a clearly standardized or recently reassessed jurisdictional baseline. Leakage is only described as quantified, without a percentage or supporting detail, and the FNRB field is marked not applicable rather than providing a benchmark against national defaults.

Documentation

Documentation quality is moderate but not strong. The record includes a verification report and no corrective actions, yet the evidence list is not specific and the extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was difficult to read. The long crediting period is stated, but the contradictions across documents and missing supporting details reduce confidence in the completeness of the file.

Overall

I privileged the 2026-02-13 verification report where it conflicts with earlier documents, because it is the most recent and appears to be the highest-priority assurance source. That means I accepted the later values for safeguards, grievance mechanism, FPIC, leakage treatment, reversal handling, benefit sharing, additionality test type, and crediting period, while still penalizing the score because the contradictions themselves indicate reliability risk. The project is not CORSIA-eligible and has some positive verification signals, but the missing permanence, MRV, and documentation details keep the overall assessment in the mid range.