Safe Water Programme – Kenya – VPA 39

Integrity

The verification record confirms additionality through a combined test and VVB review, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. However, the monitoring record states a 5% leakage deduction while also marking the leakage justification as not addressed, and reversal events are likewise not addressed. No buffer pool percentage is provided, so permanence protection is not well evidenced.

Transparency

The issuance record identifies Earthood Services Private Limited as the VVB and gives the monitoring period and monitoring approach. Still, the record does not provide verified totals for claimed versus verified emission reductions, and the documentation contains several contradictions that weaken traceability. The absence of a clear baseline reassessment date also limits transparency.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by inconsistent monitoring values and methods. The record shows a contradiction in usage rate between monitoring documents, and the FNRB value and method also conflict across sources, with the privileged value being the more recent monitoring report because it is the latest issuance record. The project is not clearly shown to be CCP-approved or CORSIA-eligible, so dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out.

Documentation

The file set is reasonably broad, with 20 documents used and medium extraction confidence, but the documentation is not clean. Four material findings were recorded, including two corrective actions, which suggests the evidence package needed substantive follow-up. The crediting period is stated, but the baseline was not shown to have been recently reassessed.

Overall

Overall, I privileged the more recent monitoring/issuance values where contradictions existed, especially for usage rate and leakage treatment, because they appear in the latest issuance record. Even so, the contradictions between monitoring documents on usage rate, FNRB, leakage justification, and safeguards reduce reliability and should lower confidence in the claimed reductions. Because leakage and permanence are not well supported, the project scores in the mid-low range rather than as a strong crediting case.