MORRO DO FOGO FARM PROJECT – REDD + ARR
CC-22
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline method, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions (buffer/reversals) were not found in the extracted record (documents listed as unknown/methodology).
inferred No material findings or corrective actions are listed, but the underlying verification/monitoring evidence is not clearly identified (document type unknown).
Transparency
missing VVB name, registry details, and verified vs claimed ER/ERR figures were not found in the extracted record (document type unknown).
inferred A monitoring period and crediting period are provided, but the MRV methods and results are not (documents listed as unknown).
Claim Safety
verified The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, reducing one channel of double-claim/eligibility risk (extracted record).
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline, leakage, and verified ER/ERR are not found in the extracted record (documents listed as unknown).
Documentation
missing Minimum extraction confidence is low and key fields are missing, indicating weak document readability/coverage (extracted record).
missing Evidence documents are not clearly identified beyond “unknown” and “methodology,” limiting auditability (evidence list).
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
For a REDD+ARR project, the extracted record does not provide an additionality test, a baseline method, or any baseline reassessment date (documents listed as unknown/methodology). Leakage is also not addressed: neither a leakage deduction nor a justification was found in the extracted record. Permanence risk management is unclear because no buffer pool contribution and no reversal-event reporting were found in the extracted record, even though these are central to land-sector credit integrity.
Transparency
Transparency is weak because the extracted record does not identify the VVB, the registry, or any claimed-versus-verified ER/ERR totals (document type is unknown). Although a monitoring period (2023-05-18 to 2023-05-24) and a crediting period (2023-05-24 to 2024-05-24) are provided, the monitoring methods and quantified outcomes are not found in the extracted record. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that missing items are truly absent rather than unreadable.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is constrained by the inability to validate core drivers of credit quantity: baseline setting, leakage, and verified ER/ERR are not found in the extracted record (documents listed as unknown/methodology). The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces one form of eligibility-based double-claim risk, but CCP status is not found in the extracted record. With no verified results and no leakage/baseline detail, the risk of overstated climate claims remains elevated.
Documentation
Documentation quality is low because the evidence set is minimal and poorly specified (evidence documents include “unknown” and “methodology”), and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was hard to read. The document date is provided (2023-07-18), but the document type is unknown, and key verification/monitoring artifacts (e.g., VVB identity and quantified findings) are not found in the extracted record. The absence of listed corrective actions is not very informative given the unclear provenance of the underlying reports.
Overall
No contradictions were flagged in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. However, the overall assessment is heavily penalized because multiple integrity-critical elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence provisions, and verified ER/ERR) were not found in the extracted record and the extraction confidence is low. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap the transparency score post-scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record for this REDD+ARR project is too thin to substantiate core carbon-integrity elements such as additionality, baseline setting, leakage treatment, and permanence risk management. While the project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, the lack of verifiable MRV details and low document readability materially increase over-crediting and greenwashing risk.
Project Description
The Morro do Fogo Farm Project aims to protect, conserve, and develop reforestation and revegetation actions in the pasture areas present in the project area. Thus, this project contributes to the mitigation of climate change by focusing on reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and reforestation, revegetation, and afforestation (ARR) in order to conserve the Cerrado Forest standing and recover previous areas with livestock activities. The Morro do Fogo Farm is located in Alto Araguaia, Mato Grosso, central-west Brazil. This area is inserted in the Cerrado Biome, which occupies about 25% of the Brazilian territory, in addition to covering ten states (Goiás , Tocantins, Mato Grosso donSul, southern Mato Grosso, western Minas Gerais, Federal District, western Bahia, southern Maranhão, western Piauí and portions of São Paulo) Documents: https://carbon.credit/api/getPubFile?id=39 https://carbon.credit/api/getPubFile?id=40 https://carbon.credit/api/getPubFile?id=41 https://carbon.credit/api/getPubFile?id=42
Red Flags
- Baseline approach and any baseline reassessment timing were not found in the extracted record, which is critical for REDD/ARR credit integrity.
- No additionality test or VVB confirmation of additionality was found in the extracted record.
- Leakage treatment (deduction and justification) was not found in the extracted record despite being material for REDD/ARR.
- Permanence risk management is unclear: no buffer pool contribution and no reversal reporting were found in the extracted record.
- Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, reducing reliability of all extracted conclusions.
- Leakage not addressed in project documentation
- Buffer pool size not disclosed in available documents
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the full verification/monitoring report(s) identifying the VVB, the quantified claimed vs verified ER/ERR, and any material findings/corrective actions.
- Disclose and document the baseline approach (including reassessment schedule), leakage quantification/justification and deduction, and permanence risk management (buffer pool contribution and reversal monitoring).
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
No additionality assessment found
Buffer/reversal provisions not evidenced
Leakage treatment not found
Baseline method not found
No FPIC/grievance/safeguards evidenced
Not CORSIA-eligible; CCP status unknown
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Registry Documents
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →