Safe Water Programme – Nigeria - VPA 87

Integrity

The validation report by Earthood Services Private Limited confirms additionality through a combined test, which supports the project’s core integrity case. The baseline was last reassessed in 2021, and no reversal events are reported, but permanence protection is weakened because no buffer pool percentage is stated. Leakage is treated as negligible, yet no quantified deduction is provided, so the evidence is incomplete.

Transparency

The monitoring period for December 2024 is clearly identified, and the project has a named VVB, which helps traceability. However, the extracted record does not provide total verified emissions reductions, and the low extraction confidence suggests at least one key source was difficult to read. Usage monitoring is described as an annual survey, but the underlying verified usage rate is not stated.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because the project uses a project baseline and has a recent reassessment, but the evidence base is not strong enough to rule out over-crediting concerns. The assumed usage rate is 0.9, while the verified usage rate is not found in the available documents, and leakage is only described as negligible rather than quantified. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-claim risk cannot be excluded from the extracted record.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is decent because the extracted record references a validation report, stakeholder consultation, and appendix material, with 12 documents used overall. Still, the extraction confidence is low, which lowers trust in completeness, and the contradiction set shows differing crediting-period dates and a change in benefit-sharing description across documents. Those inconsistencies reduce confidence in the documentary trail even though the project appears to have multiple source documents.

Overall

The project scores in the mid range because it has a credible additionality claim and some recent baseline work, but important evidence gaps remain around leakage, permanence safeguards, and verified usage data. I privileged the more recent statements in the contradiction set for usage monitoring, benefit sharing, and crediting period because they appear to come from later documents, but the presence of these discrepancies still lowers reliability. Since no direct evidence of double registration or reversal events is shown, the main issue is incomplete and somewhat inconsistent documentation rather than a clear integrity failure.