avoidance Brazil Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Owners of the Amazon

CE-brazilian-amazon-ros

5.4 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

6.1

Claim Safety

5.0

Documentation

5.4

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality is confirmed by the VVB (validation report).

missing Baseline method and leakage deduction are not stated in the extracted record, despite leakage being described as “quantified” (monitoring report).

Transparency

verified Claimed and verified ERs match at 5,720,431 for the monitoring period 2012-01-02 to 2017-12-31 (monitoring report).

missing Several MRV-critical items are missing or flagged for correction (land-use change analysis, risk assessment, sustainable development activities) (monitoring report).

Claim Safety

verified No discrepancy between claimed and verified ERs reduces immediate over-issuance risk (monitoring report).

missing CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, and baseline/leakage quantification details are not clearly captured in the extracted record.

Documentation

verified Three core documents are available (PDD, monitoring report, validation report) with high extraction confidence.

missing Corrective actions indicate missing supporting documentation (e.g., land tenure evidence and risk assessment) (monitoring report).

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The validation report indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB, which supports integrity, but the specific additionality test type is not stated in the extracted record. The monitoring report reports no reversal events and shows an 11.75% buffer contribution, which helps manage non-permanence risk. However, the baseline method and leakage deduction are not stated in the extracted record, even though leakage is described as “quantified” in the monitoring report, leaving uncertainty about whether leakage was conservatively treated.

Transparency

The monitoring report provides a clear monitoring period (2012-01-02 to 2017-12-31) and shows verified ERs equal to claimed ERs (5,720,431), which is a positive transparency signal. At the same time, the monitoring report lists multiple corrective actions (missing land ownership records, missing risk assessment, missing land-use change analysis, and missing description of sustainable development activities), which undermines confidence in the completeness of disclosed MRV evidence.

Claim Safety

Because the monitoring report shows no gap between claimed and verified ERs, the immediate risk of over-issuance from verification adjustments appears low for this period. Nonetheless, the extracted record does not state the baseline method, baseline reassessment timing, or the leakage deduction percentage, which are central to over-crediting risk in REDD+ avoidance projects. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility are also not stated in available documents, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims and labeling.

Documentation

The evidence set includes a PDD, monitoring report, and validation report (three documents) and the extraction confidence is high, supporting basic documentation quality. However, the monitoring report’s corrective actions explicitly cite missing foundational documents (land ownership records, risk assessment, land-use change analysis), indicating that key supporting evidence was incomplete at the time of reporting. The crediting period end date is also not clearly stated in the extracted record, reducing clarity on crediting boundaries.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range: governance and permanence controls look partially in place (FPIC and grievance mechanism noted; buffer contribution and no reversals reported), but baseline/leakage clarity and evidence completeness are weak points. A key contradiction exists on the crediting period: the monitoring report lists a start of 2009-01-01 with the end not stated, while the validation report shows 2012-01-02 to 2017-12-31; for scoring, the validation report dates were privileged because they provide a complete, specific period and are the formal VVB assessment, while the monitoring report entry is incomplete. This inconsistency reduces confidence in boundary definitions and slightly lowers transparency/documentation scores.

Audit Analysis

This Verra REDD+ avoidance project shows some strong governance signals (FPIC and a grievance mechanism) and reports no reversals with an 11.75% buffer contribution. However, key integrity-critical elements (baseline approach and leakage deduction) are not clearly stated in the extracted record, and the monitoring report lists multiple corrective actions that point to gaps in core evidence.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: “This project addresses the unique and widespread issue of illegal land acquisition and its ties to deforestation. RMDLT focuses on land tenure rights, developing local businesses and income-generating activities to preserve Earth’s largest rainforest and its people. The project uses funds from the carbon sales to finance boats and

Red Flags

Baseline approach and timing of baseline reassessment are not stated in the extracted record, limiting confidence in the counterfactual and over-crediting risk controls.
Monitoring report lists corrective actions including missing land ownership records, missing risk assessment, and missing land-use change analysis—core evidence for a REDD project.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Disclose the baseline approach used (including parameters, data sources, and any reassessment schedule) and reconcile the crediting period dates consistently across documents.
Publish the leakage quantification results including the applied leakage deduction percentage, plus the missing supporting evidence flagged in corrective actions (land tenure documentation, risk assessment, and land-use change analysis).

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