Ketrawe Foundation 2013-2017

Integrity

For a soil-carbon project, core integrity elements are not stated in the extracted record: the baseline method, any additionality test, leakage deduction and justification, and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool percentage (monitoring report 2024-11). Reversal monitoring and any reversal events are also not stated, which is a major gap given the non-permanent nature of soil carbon. While the monitoring report indicates no material findings and no corrective actions, the absence of quantified MRV and risk controls materially weakens confidence in credited outcomes (monitoring report 2024-11).

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the monitoring period is clearly stated as 2013-01-01 to 2023-12-31 and the VVB is named as Control Union (monitoring report 2024-11). However, the extracted record does not include total removals claimed or verified, nor the monitoring/measurement approach used to quantify soil carbon changes, limiting independent scrutiny (monitoring report 2024-11). The registry field is not stated in the extracted record, which also reduces traceability of issuance and retirements.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by missing information that typically drives over-crediting risk in soil-carbon projects: baseline definition, leakage treatment, and permanence controls are not stated in the extracted record (monitoring report 2024-11). The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of CORSIA-related double-claiming, but CCP status is not stated, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity labels (monitoring report 2024-11).

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate: three documents were used (including a monitoring report and a validation report) and extraction confidence is high, suggesting the documents were readable (document set; monitoring report 2024-11). Still, many key fields are not captured or not stated in the extracted record (baseline, additionality, leakage, permanence), indicating incomplete disclosure or incomplete extraction of critical sections. The safeguards information is inconsistent across documents, which reduces confidence in the reliability of the narrative record.

Overall

Overall quality is limited primarily by missing core integrity parameters (baseline, additionality, leakage, permanence/reversal controls) in the extracted record, which elevates over-crediting risk for a soil-carbon project (monitoring report 2024-11). One explicit contradiction exists on whether safeguards were mentioned: the 2024 monitoring report indicates safeguards were not mentioned, while a 2023-08 document indicates they were mentioned. I privilege the more recent, clearly-typed monitoring report (2024-11) as the higher-priority operational record, but the inconsistency still reduces confidence and lowers scores for documentation and integrity. Note: if documentation were scored below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring under the gate rules; that cap is not triggered here.