VCS removal Sierra Leone Vintage 2022 Registry: Verification approval requested Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Reforestation of Degraded Lands in Sierra Leone

VCS-2401 ↗

3.5 / 10

Integrity

4.0

Transparency

3.5

Claim Safety

3.0

Documentation

3.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified additionality confirmed by the VVB (verification report, 2024-10-17)

missing multiple material findings and corrective actions required listed in the verification report (2024-10-17); reversal events reported (loss of 50.88 ha, verification period 2020–2022)

Transparency

missing many key monitoring fields are not stated in available documents (e.g., grid emission factor, usage monitoring, total ERR claimed/verified)

inferred extraction confidence is low which reduces trust in the extracted dataset (min extraction confidence = low, n_docs_used = 18)

Claim Safety

missing extremely inconsistent leakage treatment (leakage deduction reported as 11,055% in one record and 0% in an earlier record) — high over-crediting risk

verified safeguards and FPIC are documented and a grievance mechanism is present (verification report, 2024-10-17)

Documentation

missing lowest-confidence extraction flagged (min extraction confidence = low) and evidence docs listed as unknown despite 18 documents used

verified there is a recent verification report (doc_date 2024-10-17) and a named VVB (KBS Certification Services Ltd.)

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Additionality is explicitly confirmed by the verification report (VVB KBS Certification Services Ltd., 2024-10-17) and the project uses a project-specific baseline under AR ACM0003 v2.0. However, the baseline was last reassessed in 2014, reversal events (loss of 50.88 ha during 2020–2022) are reported, and multiple material findings with corrective actions are listed in the 2024 verification report — these reduce confidence in ongoing integrity. The contradictory and implausible leakage deduction figures further degrade the reliability of leakage treatment and permanence assessment.

Transparency

A named VVB and a 2024 verification report exist, but many monitoring and accounting fields are missing from the extracted record (grid emission factor, usage monitoring method, total ERR claimed/verified, FN/RB values). The dataset flags low extraction confidence, and evidence documents are not clearly identified despite 18 documents used; this weakens transparency and traceability.

Claim Safety

There is documented FPIC, safeguards mention and a grievance mechanism, which helps reduce greenwashing risk. However, the presence of an absurd leakage deduction (11,055%) in one extracted value versus 0% in earlier documentation is a major red flag for over-crediting risk. CORSIA/CCP status is not stated in available documents, leaving double-claim risk unresolved.

Documentation

Documentation is mixed: the project has a recent verification report (2024-10-17) and a named VVB, but the extraction process is flagged as low confidence and evidence docs are listed as unknown. Multiple corrective actions and material findings were required in the verification report, indicating outstanding documentation/implementation issues.

Overall

I privileged the most recent verification report (doc_date 2024-10-17) and the VVB-confirmed statements as higher-priority evidence because they are the latest authoritative verification of the project. Contradictions: (1) buffer pool percentage appears as 17 (2024) vs 19 (2021) — I privileged the 2024 value but downgraded scores because of inconsistency; (2) leakage justification appears as quantified (2024-10-17) vs not addressed (2021) and leakage deduction is highly inconsistent (11,055% in 2024-08-27 extract vs 0% in 2021) — I privileged the 2024 verification report's qualitative statement but treat the numeric 11,055% as an extraction or calculation error and rate claim safety very low for this uncertainty; (3) reversal events are reported in 2024 but earlier documents did not address them — I accept the 2024 report but reduced integrity for the reported reversals and outstanding corrective actions. Low extraction confidence (min_extraction_confidence = low) further reduces trust in the numbers and was treated conservatively in all scores.

Audit Analysis

The project has some positive elements (VVB-confirmed additionality, FPIC and grievance mechanism, buffer contribution reported) but serious data reliability issues and multiple material findings weaken confidence. Large contradictions (especially an implausible leakage deduction of 11,055%) and low extraction confidence make the emissions/removals figures unreliable.

Project Description

The project is located in Sierra Leone, West Africa and consists of the establishment of high quality commercial forestry plantations with short rotation species. The project provides environmental, social and economic benefits to local communities. The selected species are Eucalyptus pellita, Eucalyptus hybrid cross urophylla x grandis, Corymbia citriodora, Acacia mangium, Tectona grandis and Gmelina arborea. The project activity is the reforestation of degraded lands in Sierra Leone, and considers 3968.07 ha of eligible area for this verification. The project consists of the establishment of high-quality commercial forestry plantations with short rotation species, for producing sawn timber, poles, plywood and biomass, for domestic and international markets, and providing environmental, social and economic benefits to local communities. The project is expected to provide income to more than 600 people and around 80 communities in Yoni Chiefdom, contributing to the improvement of their well-being and their families. The project is expected to bring economic benefits to the economy of Sierra Leone in the form of foreign currency, thereby encouraging the Miro Forestry Company to plant more tree crops for sale in the European market. The fringe communities in the project area have also benefited from diverse local employment opportunities that have been opened up by the company's ongoing development, the benefits of which have a direct positive impact on the communities. Employment is due to increase over the lifetime of the project; employment enhances the living conditions and wellbeing of the workforce and their families. Small and medium-scale support businesses have also been created due to the company's entry into the community, which has boosted local economic activity in villages surrounding the project area.

Red Flags

Contradictory leakage deduction values (0% vs 11,055%) across documents indicating extraction or calculation error
Multiple material findings and corrective actions required reported in the 2024 verification report
Reversal events (loss of 50.88 ha during 2020–2022) reported, but baseline last reassessed in 2014