biodiversity Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Savimbo Biodiversity Credits (MRV)

DV-f4ba40

1.7 / 10

Integrity

1.8

Transparency

1.0

Claim Safety

2.2

Documentation

1.5

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence/buffer provisions were not found in the extracted record

inferred Safeguards are mentioned, but FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing are not evidenced in the extracted record

Transparency

missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed results were found in the extracted record

missing Registry/issuance fields and MRV method details were not found in the extracted record

Claim Safety

missing No quantified outcomes (claimed or verified) were found in the extracted record, increasing over-crediting/greenwashing risk

inferred CORSIA and CCP status were not found in the extracted record, leaving eligibility/claims-channel risk unclear

Documentation

missing Only one document of unknown type/date is listed, with low extraction confidence

verified No material findings or corrective actions are recorded in the extracted record (but evidence is limited)

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No additionality assessment or confirmation by an independent verifier is found in the extracted record, and the baseline approach and any baseline reassessment timing are also not stated. Leakage is not quantified and no justification is provided in the extracted record, and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool or any reversal reporting are not found. While safeguards are mentioned in the available extract, there is no supporting detail on FPIC, grievance mechanisms, or benefit sharing in the extracted record.

Transparency

The extracted record does not provide a monitoring period, MRV/monitoring method, or any claimed versus verified results. The verifier identity is not stated, and the registry information is not found in the extracted record. With only an unspecified document listed as evidence, the public traceability of the project’s MRV is weak.

Claim Safety

Because neither claimed nor verified outcomes are found in the extracted record, it is not possible to evaluate whether credits are conservatively quantified. Baseline and leakage approaches are not stated, which increases the risk that any biodiversity claims could be overstated. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not found in the extracted record, so downstream claim/label risk cannot be screened.

Documentation

Documentation quality is very weak: only one evidence document is listed and its type and date are unknown. The minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable, which reduces confidence in completeness. Although no material findings or corrective actions are recorded in the extracted record, the lack of identifiable audit/verification documentation limits the value of that signal.

Overall

There are no contradictions reported in the extracted record, but the absence of core MRV and accounting fields (baseline, additionality, monitoring period, quantified results, leakage, permanence provisions) prevents a credible quality assessment. Given the low-confidence extraction and minimal documentation, scores are conservatively low across all dimensions. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains too little verifiable information to assess baseline setting, additionality, leakage, or permanence for this biodiversity credit project. With only one poorly readable/low-confidence source and most core MRV fields not found, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high.

Project Description

Our impact credit uses the same unit and methodology as our certified credits. All credits have full measurement, reporting, and verification. They all have full topography and ground-vetted attestations for land control. But they are sold by Indigenous groups and smallfarmers that are excluded from the market because of structural inequity. Either they don’t have full land title, or the land titles they do have can’t be corrected. In most cases, the sellers of these credits have land tenure,

Red Flags

No baseline approach, additionality test, monitoring period, or quantified results were found in the extracted record
Low extraction confidence and only a single, unspecified document source limits reliability and auditability

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the full MRV documentation set (methodology, monitoring report with monitoring period, quantified results, and any verification/assurance statement naming the verifier and findings)
Disclose baseline and leakage approaches (including any deductions/justifications) and document safeguards implementation (FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit-sharing arrangements)

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.