Inner Mongolia Keyihe IFM (Conversion Of Logged To Protected Forest) Project

Integrity

The project has a stronger-than-average additionality signal because the VVB confirmed an investment test, and the record shows a 22% buffer pool with no reported reversal events. That said, the verification report also lists one corrective action request and five clarifications, including a finding that uncertainty for the improved forest management activities was not calculated in a correct and transparent way, which weakens confidence in the credited amount. Leakage is treated as negligible with a 0% deduction, but the documentation issues keep the integrity score from being higher.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated and the record includes a quantified verified total of 492,793, with the China Quality Certification Center named as verifier. However, the extracted record has low extraction confidence, the evidence base is thin, and the registry status is on hold, all of which reduce transparency. Public-facing completeness is also limited because several operational details, such as usage monitoring, are not stated in the available documents.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the fact that the project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of overlapping aviation claims. On the other hand, the baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized or recently reassessed, and the record does not provide a robust quantified treatment for several claim-critical items. The leakage treatment is favorable on paper, but the broader documentation weaknesses and corrective actions keep over-crediting risk from looking low.

Documentation

The record contains a substantial number of extracted fields and identifies the verifier, methodology, crediting period, and monitoring period. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, only one evidence document is identified in the structured record, and the project has a long list of unresolved or partially resolved issues. The contradictions on benefit sharing, safeguards, grievance mechanism, FPIC, leakage justification, and reversal treatment further reduce documentation quality.

Overall

Overall, this is a middling-quality forestry project record: there are real positives such as VVB-confirmed additionality, a buffer pool, and no reported reversals, but these are offset by a corrective action request, multiple clarifications, and a transparency concern in the uncertainty calculation. I privileged the later documents in the contradictions because they are more recent and appear to be the higher-priority verification/monitoring evidence, so I treated benefit sharing, safeguards, grievance, FPIC, leakage, and reversal treatment as present where the later documents say so. The registry being on hold and the low extraction confidence materially reduce trust in the file, so the score remains moderate rather than strong.