Safe Water in Uganda

Audit Analysis

The Safe Water in Uganda project (GS-3860) has verified additionality and documented safeguards, but is undermined by an unusually high volume of material findings and corrective actions spanning data quality, formula errors, and cross-document inconsistencies. The project-specific baseline, 0% leakage deduction with contradictory justification, and unresolved contradictions in the fNRB method and usage monitoring approach raise meaningful concerns about the robustness of the emission reduction claims. Pro-rata delivery sits at roughly 93% of the ex-ante expectation, which is acceptable but leaves little margin given the data quality issues.

Project Description

Red Flags

• ⚠Thirteen material findings and fifteen-plus corrective actions reported in the verification report, including formula errors, GPS data inconsistencies, borehole plaque removal, and confusion between baseline and project survey data
• ⚠fNRB method contradicted across documents: the verification report (2024) states a local field measurement while the monitoring report (2024) cites a national default value
• ⚠Usage monitoring method contradicted: the verification report (2025) describes annual surveys while the monitoring report (2024) references smart meters
• ⚠0% leakage deduction justified as 'quantified' in the verification report, yet the validation report (2024) records leakage as 'not addressed'
• ⚠Baseline survey was conducted in similar regions rather than at the project site due to COVID-19 restrictions, subject to a deviation request

Credit Vintages