Kijani Forestry smallholder farmer forestry project
#164of 261 in Soil carbon#130of 163 in Uganda#1071of 1339 in Verra (VCS)#67of 97 in AR-ACM0003
Audit Analysis
The Kijani Forestry project in Uganda is a smallholder tree-planting initiative with VVB-verified additionality and a 14% buffer pool, but the verification report surfaced 27 material findings and 26 corrective actions, including insufficient justification for zero leakage, a project-specific baseline, and a potential double-counting risk under Uganda's NDCs. The claimed and verified ERR figures match at 850 tCO₂e for the first monitoring period, though the PDD's ex-ante figure of 1,430 tCO₂e introduces uncertainty about the baseline estimate. Overall, the project's integrity is undermined by the volume of unresolved methodological concerns and the lack of a robust leakage or permanence risk assessment.
Red Flags
- 27 material findings and 26 corrective actions raised by the VVB, including incorrect application of CDM Tool 02, insufficient common-practice analysis, and missing ex-ante buffer contribution calculations
- Zero leakage deduction justified only as 'deemed negligible,' yet the verification report itself flags 'insufficient justification for zero leakage' as a material finding
- Material finding raises potential double counting of reforestation activities under Uganda's NDCs, with no documented resolution
- Reversal events are marked as 'not addressed' in the extracted record, and the non-permanence risk report required updates to justify risk ratings
- Five contradictions across documents on ERR figures, buffer pool percentage, leakage treatment, and crediting period dates
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Total | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Risk Indicators
VVB-verified but with material findings on common-practice analysis and CDM Tool 02 application
14% buffer pool present; reversal events not addressed; NPR required updates
0% deduction with 'deemed negligible' justification flagged as insufficient by the VVB
Project-specific baseline; zero-emission justification found insufficient; reassessment timing not stated
FPIC and grievance mechanism documented, but AFOLU safeguards and stakeholder feedback flagged as insufficient
CORSIA and CCP status not stated; NDC double-counting risk raised as material finding
⚑ Dispute this rating
Are you the project owner?
Metadata correction (free)
Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.
Does not modify the score.
[email protected] →Pipeline re-run with new documents
Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.
Submit Documents →Share this rating
