Safe Water Programme – Nigeria - VPA 94

Integrity

The validation report from 2022 confirms additionality through a combined test, which is a meaningful positive. The baseline method is project-based and was last reassessed in 2021, but no buffer pool was found and no reversal events were reported in the extracted record. Leakage was quantified at 5%, which helps, although the overall permanence picture is limited by missing buffer information.

Transparency

The project is documented under Gold Standard with Earthood Services Private Limited as VVB, and the monitoring approach references annual surveys. However, verified and claimed emission reduction totals were not found in the extracted record, which limits public traceability of performance. The low extraction confidence also weighs on transparency because at least one key document was poorly readable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the quantified leakage deduction and the VVB-confirmed additionality. Still, the assumed usage rate of 90% is not matched by a verified usage rate in the extracted record, so over-crediting risk cannot be ruled out. The project is not shown to have CORSIA or CCP status in the available data, so dual-claim risk is not clearly resolved.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is moderate: the extracted record cites 11 documents and includes a validation report, stakeholder consultation material, and an appendix. That said, extraction confidence is low, which materially weakens confidence in the record. There are also contradictions on the monitoring method, benefit sharing, and crediting period, suggesting the documentation set is not fully consistent.

Overall

I privileged the more recent entries in the contradiction set where they appeared to be later-dated, but the record does not clearly identify which source is authoritative, so reliability remains reduced. Specifically, I treated the annual survey monitoring method and the 2024-01-08 to 2029-01-07 crediting period as the working values because they appear in the later-dated entries, while noting the conflicting earlier statements. The project’s overall score is held back by low extraction confidence, missing verified ER totals, and unresolved inconsistencies, even though additionality and leakage treatment are reasonably supported.