VCS Agroforestry D. Republic of the Congo Vintage 2011 Registry: Registered Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Mai Ndombe

VCS-934 ↗

5.6 / 10

Integrity

6.0

Transparency

5.5

Claim Safety

4.5

Documentation

6.5

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified additionality confirmed by the VVB via an investment test (validation report)

missing contradictions on buffer pool (25% vs 16%) and inconsistent reversal treatment reduce permanence confidence

Transparency

verified VVB named (Earthood Services Limited) and a recent monitoring period provided (2022)

missing key numbers inconsistent between documents (large discrepancy in total verified ER removals), and some fields not stated (grid EF, usage rates)

Claim Safety

verified baseline reported as jurisdictional in the 2021 monitoring report, which lowers over‑crediting risk if correct

missing leakage treatment shows a 0% deduction with contradictory justification and baseline/method contradictions increase over‑crediting risk

Documentation

verified 80 documents used and multiple evidence doc types (PDD, monitoring and validation reports, issuance)

missing medium extraction confidence and recent validation/monitoring contradictions indicate data reliability issues

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Additionality is documented and confirmed by the VVB using an investment test (validation report), and the project uses a buffer mechanism (AFOLU Buffer Account discussed). However, there are contradictions: the buffer pool percentage is reported as 25% in an older monitoring report and 16% in a more recent validation report, and reversal treatment is reported as 'none reported' in older documentation but 'not addressed' in the latest validation. Baseline method is reported as jurisdictional in a 2021 monitoring report but as project‑level in a 2017 monitoring report; the more recent jurisdictional baseline is privileged. These inconsistencies reduce confidence in permanence and leakage handling.

Transparency

A named VVB (Earthood Services Limited), a recent monitoring period (2022) and a monitoring report dated 2025 indicate recent activity and some transparency. Nevertheless, critical numeric fields are missing or inconsistent: grid emission factor, assumed/verified usage rates and the total ERR figures are contradictory across validation reports (3,398,286 vs 10,773,562). The minimum extraction confidence is medium, which further lowers evidence reliability.

Claim Safety

There is some mitigation of over‑claiming risk because a jurisdictional baseline is present in recent documents and additionality was VVB‑confirmed. On the negative side, leakage is reported as 'quantified' in one document but 'not addressed' elsewhere, and a leakage deduction of 0% combined with contradictory justification raises concern. The large discrepancies in total verified ER removals also materially increase claim risk.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is good (80 documents, PDD, monitoring, validation, issuance), and no material findings or corrective actions were reported in the extracted records. However, the minimum extraction confidence is medium (some source readability issues), and key contradictions between monitoring and validation reports (buffer pool, reversals, ERR, baseline method) reduce the effective quality of the documentation.

Overall

I privileged the more recent and higher‑priority documents where possible: for buffer pool percentage I privileged the validation report value of 16% (validation report dated 2025 is more recent than the 2012 monitoring report's 25%); for reversals I privileged the recent validation report's 'not addressed' designation (2025) over older monitoring text that stated no reversals; for leakage justification I provisionally accept the 'quantified' justification in the 2025 monitoring report but flag the internal contradiction in the same document which lowers confidence; for total verified ERs I privileged the more recent validation report value of 10,773,562 (2017) over the older 2012 figure, and for baseline method I privileged the 2021 monitoring report's jurisdictional baseline over earlier project‑level statements. These contradictions reduced scores across integrity, transparency and claim safety. If the contradictions were resolved in favor of the more rigorous, recent documents (clear, consistent ERR reporting; consistent buffer and reversal treatment; documented leakage justification), scores would increase materially.

Audit Analysis

The project shows several positive controls: a VVB-confirmed investment additionality test, a jurisdictional baseline in recent documents, FPIC and a grievance mechanism, and no material findings. However, multiple contradictions across key fields (buffer pool size, baseline type, reversal treatment, and verified ERR) and some missing quantified inputs reduce confidence and increase risk of over-crediting.

Project Description

About the project The Mai Ndombe REDD+ Project protects 300,000 hectares (740,000 acres) of critical bonobo and forest elephant habitat within the world’s second-largest intact rainforest and some of the most important wetlands on the planet, the Congo Basin. This project reduces the principal drivers of forest and biodiversity loss and is charting a new pathway for community prosperity through comprehensive investments into the surrounding local communities, which are among the most impoverished in the world. Such investments include building and renovating schools, providing healthcare services (such as access to immunizations), supporting food security and nutrition (such as through agricultural diversification), and providing capacity building activities that empower local communities. The Threat In the western part of the DRC, along the west side of Lake Mai Ndombe, almost 250,000 hectares of rainforest, highly valued by logging companies, were zoned for commercial timber extraction. This forest, which has one of the most important wetlands in the world, is home to bonobos, forest elephants and chimpanzees. The area is also home to over 180,000 people. Prior to the project, logging companies had severely damaged the environment in the region, and had largely ignored the rights and health of the wildlife and community. Logging drove already threatened wildlife populations further. The Solution In 2008, following a revision by the government of the DRC National Forest Code, and in an effort to address corruption in the sector, 91 of the 156 logging contracts then in effect were suspended. After the moratorium was lifted, the government began reissuing the concessions. It was expected that these concessions would be rewarded to the original companies, or would go back to public tender for logging companies to bid on the concession. One of the project’s founders identified a clause in the forest code indicating t

Red Flags

Conflicting total verified emissions removal figures (3,398,286 vs 10,773,562) across validation reports
Inconsistent buffer pool percentage reported (25% vs 16%) and contradictory treatment of reversals
Leakage justification contradictory within monitoring documents (both 'quantified' and 'not addressed')

Credit Vintages

	Issued	Retired	Available
2012	472,355	466,820	5,535
2015	1,374,124	992,123	382,001
2016	1,018,560	492,771	525,789
2017	1,783,527	722,418	1,061,109
2018	6,876,093	2,918,820	3,957,273
2019	3,640,695	2,079,862	1,560,833
2020	3,927,498	3,399,374	528,124
2021	5,808,400	5,708,400	100,000
2022	5,208,904	5,208,904	0
Total	30,110,156	21,989,492	8,120,664

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Resolve and publicly reconcile contradictions in verified ER figures, buffer percentage and baseline method across validation and monitoring reports
Provide explicit, consistent leakage justification and any usage/usage‑rate monitoring data, and increase extraction confidence by supplying higher‑quality source scans

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.