REDD+ THE LAST HABITAT

Integrity

The project has some integrity support because the VVB confirmed additionality through an investment test, and the baseline was last reassessed in 2021. However, reversal events are reported in the extracted record, including deforestation, usurpation, and armed intrusion, which raises permanence concerns even with a 14% buffer contribution. Leakage is treated with a quantified 0% deduction, but the contradiction showing an alternative record that said leakage was not addressed reduces confidence in the treatment.

Transparency

Transparency is weak because the record does not state verified issuance totals, and usage monitoring details are not found in the available documents. The monitoring period is identified, but the project documentation was also found by Verra to be incomplete, and the VVB was said not to have fully described its assessment of VCS conformance. The extraction confidence is medium rather than high, which further limits trust in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is limited by the project-specific baseline and the absence of clear verified usage data. The quantified leakage deduction of 0% helps, but the contradiction indicating leakage may have been not addressed in another document weakens confidence. The record also does not clearly state CORSIA eligibility, while a contradiction suggests CCP approval may have been claimed elsewhere, so dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out cleanly.

Documentation

Documentation quality is poor to moderate: there is a named VVB, a stated monitoring period, and several official findings, but Verra explicitly said the documentation is incomplete and non-conforming. The record also includes multiple unresolved corrective actions, and the evidence list is sparse. Because one key document was only extracted with medium confidence, the documentation score is further constrained.

Overall

I privileged the most recent stakeholder consultation record dated 2024-10-11 for the current status, while using the earlier project documents only where they were not contradicted. The contradictions matter: I treated the 14% buffer as the current value because it appears in the extracted record, but noted that an earlier document reportedly showed 10%; I also treated leakage as quantified because that is the current extracted value, while flagging the conflicting earlier 'not addressed' entry; and I treated CCP status as not mentioned because that is the current record, despite an older contradiction suggesting approval. Verra's finding that the documentation is incomplete and that the project does not conform with program rules is the dominant reliability signal and justifies downward pressure on transparency, documentation, and overall confidence.