Jari Pará REDD+ Project

Integrity

The extracted record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB (Earthood Services Private Limited), which supports additionality robustness. Permanence risk management is partially evidenced by an 11% buffer pool contribution, but reversal events are marked as not addressed in the extracted record, leaving a key integrity element unclear. Baseline integrity cannot be fully assessed because the baseline method and the date of last baseline reassessment were not found in the extracted record, which is a major uncertainty for a REDD+ avoidance project.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated (2017-10-23 to 2023-03-06) and the total emission reductions claimed equal the total verified (both 1,012,082) in the extracted record, which supports MRV consistency at the headline level. However, leakage reporting is not consistently described across the document set and the leakage deduction percentage is not provided in the extracted record, limiting reproducibility of the net credit calculation. The presence of many clarifications and corrective actions also suggests the audit trail may have required substantial follow-up to reach a final verified figure.

Claim Safety

Over-crediting risk remains moderate because core REDD+ drivers—baseline approach and leakage deductions—are not fully visible in the extracted record. The monitoring report indicates leakage was quantified, which is preferable to an unsubstantiated 0% leakage assumption, but the absence of the actual leakage deduction percentage prevents an independent reasonableness check. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, so downstream claim compatibility and double-claim channel risk cannot be confidently characterized.

Documentation

Documentation coverage appears relatively strong in breadth, with 31 documents used and key types present (monitoring report, validation report, and PDD). Extraction confidence is medium, which is acceptable but still implies some risk of missed details. The monitoring/verification record notes extensive follow-up (10 clarifications, 11 corrective actions, and a further action request related to CCB validation), which weakens confidence in initial documentation quality even if issues were ultimately resolved.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range: VVB-confirmed additionality and an 11% buffer pool are positives, but baseline and leakage quantification gaps constrain confidence in the credited volume. The key contradiction is on leakage: the validation report (2019-10-15) indicates leakage was not addressed, while the monitoring report (2019-11-24) states leakage was quantified. For scoring, the monitoring report statement is privileged because it is later and directly tied to quantified monitoring/crediting calculations, but the inconsistency itself reduces confidence and lowers integrity/transparency/claim-safety scores. If documentation were to score below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring; if integrity were below 4.0, overall would be capped at 6.0 (gate rules noted for context).