Savimbo Biodiversity Credits (Pre-certified)

Integrity

The extracted record does not state any additionality test, baseline method, or baseline reassessment timing, so additionality and baseline robustness cannot be evaluated from the available document(s). Leakage is not addressed (no deduction and no justification found), and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool or reversal monitoring are also not stated in the extracted record. While safeguards are mentioned in the source document, key integrity elements like FPIC, grievance mechanisms, and benefit-sharing are not described.

Transparency

The extracted record provides no monitoring period, monitoring methodology, or usage/field monitoring approach, limiting the ability to audit how biodiversity outcomes are measured. No registry information or VVB identity is provided, and there are no stated claimed-versus-verified results. With only an “unknown” document type and no document date, the public traceability of the project’s MRV is weak.

Claim Safety

Because no quantified outcomes (claimed or verified) are stated in the extracted record, there is a high risk that any public claims could be difficult to substantiate. Baseline and leakage information are missing, which are common drivers of over-crediting risk in outcome-based crediting. CCP and CORSIA eligibility are not stated, so the risk of inappropriate eligibility-related marketing claims cannot be ruled out.

Documentation

Only one evidence document is listed and it is labeled “unknown,” and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable. The extracted record lacks dates, methodology identifiers, monitoring periods, and assurance details, suggesting incomplete documentation capture. Although the record shows no material findings or corrective actions, this is not strong evidence of quality given the broader documentation gaps.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so scores are driven primarily by missing information rather than conflicting information. Given the absence of stated additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence provisions, and MRV/assurance details, the project cannot be robustly assessed and is scored very low across integrity, transparency, and claim safety. Note: per the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.