biodiversity Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Savimbo Biodiversity Credits

DV-bd1617

1.7 / 10

Integrity

1.8

Transparency

1.2

Claim Safety

2.0

Documentation

1.5

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool or reversal handling) are not stated in available documents.

inferred The extracted record shows no material findings or corrective actions, but this is weak evidence given the low-confidence extraction and unknown document type.

Transparency

missing Monitoring period, monitoring approach, and verification outcomes (claimed vs verified results) are not found in the extracted record.

missing VVB name and registry details are not stated in available documents.

Claim Safety

missing Eligibility/quality signals (CCP status, CORSIA eligibility) are not stated in available documents, limiting defensibility of claims.

missing Baseline and leakage information is missing, elevating over-crediting/over-claiming risk.

Documentation

missing Only one document of unknown type is referenced, and extraction confidence is low.

missing Key fields typically present in official documentation (dates, methodology, crediting/monitoring periods, verifier identity) are not stated in available documents.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The extracted record does not include an additionality test type or confirmation by a VVB, and no baseline method or baseline reassessment timing is stated in available documents. Leakage is not addressed in the extracted record (no leakage deduction and no justification), and permanence provisions such as a buffer pool percentage or any reversal reporting are also not found. While the extracted record lists no material findings and no corrective actions, the document is of unknown type and the extraction confidence is low, so this provides limited assurance.

Transparency

The extracted record does not provide a monitoring period, monitoring/usage monitoring method, or any claimed-versus-verified results, which prevents assessment of MRV rigor. The verifier identity is not stated in available documents, and registry information is also not found in the extracted record. With only a single, low-confidence source document, transparency is materially constrained. Note: if documentation remains below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule (applied post-scoring).

Claim Safety

Because baseline and leakage information are not stated in available documents, the risk of over-crediting or overstated biodiversity outcomes cannot be ruled out. CCP status and CORSIA eligibility are not found in the extracted record, so there is no extracted evidence supporting high-integrity market eligibility claims. The absence of verifier and quantified results further increases greenwashing risk for downstream claims.

Documentation

Only one evidence document is listed and its type is unknown, with low extraction confidence indicating at least one key document was poorly readable. Core documentation elements—methodology and version, document date, crediting period, monitoring period, verifier name, and quantified outcomes—are not stated in available documents. Although safeguards are mentioned in the extracted record, there is no extracted detail on FPIC, grievance mechanisms, or benefit-sharing.

Overall

There are no contradictions flagged in the extracted record, so no cross-document reconciliation was required. However, the evidence base is extremely thin (one unknown document) and low-confidence, and most decision-critical fields are not stated in available documents, driving low scores across all dimensions. If integrity were to fall below 4.0, the overall score would be capped at 6.0 by the gate rule (applied post-scoring).

Audit Analysis

Based on the extracted record, key quality determinants (baseline approach, additionality, leakage, monitoring period, and verification details) are not stated in available documents. Safeguards are mentioned, but there is no extracted evidence of FPIC, grievance mechanisms, or benefit-sharing details. With only one poorly readable/low-confidence source document, the project’s credit quality cannot be substantiated from the provided materials.

Project Description

Savimbo is a company created by, and for, indigenous smallfarmers in the Colombian Amazon. Our aim is to employ 1 billion smallfarmers within 10 years to clean the world’s air. Credit Stock Our current stock of 94k credits is from a 74,200 ha collective of >300 Indigenous smallfarmers and 4 Indigenous groups in the Tropical Andean biodiversity hotspot. Observations of indicators species are tracked and pre-validated in iNaturalist for >1 year and all smallfarmers have a 30-year con

Red Flags

No baseline method or reassessment timing found in the extracted record, increasing over-crediting risk.
No additionality test or VVB verification details found in the extracted record.
Leakage treatment (deduction and justification) not found in the extracted record.
Only one source document was used and extraction confidence is low, limiting reliability.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish/submit the full methodology and baseline approach (including reassessment schedule) and provide the monitoring period with quantified results and uncertainty/verification outcomes.
Provide independent verification details (VVB name and verification statement) plus explicit leakage assessment (deduction and justification) and documented safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit-sharing).

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