Safe Water Programme – Nigeria – VPA 17

Integrity

The monitoring report dated 2024-07-23 confirms additionality through a combined test and identifies Earthood Services Private Limited as the VVB. The project has a stated project baseline, but the baseline was not recently reassessed, leakage is marked as not addressed, and two corrective actions were required, which weakens the overall robustness of the integrity case. No reversal events are reported, but buffer pool coverage is not stated in the available documents.

Transparency

The record provides a clear monitoring period from 2023-01-01 to 2023-11-30 and identifies the registry as Gold Standard. However, the extracted facts do not state total claimed or verified emission reductions, and the latest monitoring report contains unresolved discrepancies across several fields, which reduces transparency. The documentation is usable, but not fully complete for independent replication of the claimed results.

Claim Safety

The verified usage rate of 96.84% is close to the assumed 90% and suggests the project is operating near or above expectations. That said, the latest report uses a national default FNRB value of 82.3, while earlier documentation used a local field value, and the latest report says leakage is not addressed. With no stated CORSIA or CCP status, and with these inconsistencies, over-crediting risk remains moderate.

Documentation

The evidence base is reasonably broad, with 21 documents used and medium extraction confidence. Earthood Services Private Limited is named as the VVB, which supports independence, but the record still contains two corrective actions and several contradictions, including usage rate, FNRB method, leakage justification, usage monitoring method, and benefit-sharing disclosure. The crediting period runs through 2025-12-31, so the documentation is not stale, but it is incomplete in key places.

Overall

I privileged the 2024-07-23 monitoring report for the disputed values because it is the most recent document in the extracted record, while noting that earlier reports sometimes point to different assumptions or methods. The contradictions on usage rate, FNRB, leakage justification, usage monitoring method, and benefit-sharing disclosure reduce reliability, and I have scored downward accordingly. Because integrity remains above 4.0, the overall score is not capped by the gate rule, but the missing leakage treatment and required corrective actions keep the project in the middle range.