SILVADOR CLIMATE ACTION
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test, and the baseline was reassessed in 2022.
missing The validation report listed 2 CLs, 2 CARs, and 2 FARs, including concerns about the baseline scenario, methodology deviation conservativeness, and unclear project eligibility.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period and crediting period are stated, and the VVB is identified as EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited.
missing Claimed versus verified ERR totals are not stated, and the extraction confidence is low with only one evidence document clearly identified.
Claim Safety
verified Leakage was quantified with a 0% deduction, and the project is marked as CORSIA-eligible in the extracted record.
missing The validation findings note unclear model inputs, uncertainty over the most profitable alternative land use, and a baseline for future PAIs that was not in line with standard requirements.
Documentation
verified The record includes 22 documents used, a named VVB, and several safeguard elements such as FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing.
missing Extraction confidence is low, and the validation required numerous follow-up actions, including missing audit history, ownership clarification, and updated risk-report tooling.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
Integrity is supported by VVB-confirmed additionality through an investment test, a project baseline last reassessed in 2022, and a buffer pool contribution of 11%. That said, the validation report recorded 2 CLs, 2 CARs, and 2 FARs, with concerns about project eligibility, ownership of VCUs, the conservativeness of a methodology deviation, and a baseline scenario for future PAIs that was not aligned with standard requirements. Reversal handling is also weakly documented: the newer record says reversals were not addressed, while an older document reportedly said reversals were reported, so I privilege the newer record for the current status but penalize reliability because of the contradiction.
Transparency
Transparency is mixed. The project identifies the VVB, monitoring period, and crediting period, and it includes a substantial document set, but the extracted record does not state claimed or verified ERR totals, and key MRV details such as usage monitoring method and FNRB method are missing. The low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that the documentation is complete and readable.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weakened by several unresolved validation issues that directly affect over-crediting risk, including unclear model inputs in the ERR spreadsheet, uncertainty about the most profitable alternative land use, and a baseline scenario for future PAIs that did not meet standard requirements. On the positive side, leakage was quantified with a 0% deduction and the project is marked as CORSIA-eligible, but the absence of verified ERR totals and the open corrective actions keep the claim risk above average.
Documentation
Documentation quality is limited by low extraction confidence and the fact that only one evidence document is clearly identified in the extracted record, even though 22 documents were used. The presence of FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing is helpful, but the validation findings show that several core items still needed clarification or correction, including audit history, VCUs ownership, and the risk-report tool version. The recency of the monitoring period is good, but the unresolved corrective actions prevent a stronger score.
Overall
Overall, I privilege the newer contradiction entry for reversal handling because it is more recent, but the existence of conflicting records still lowers confidence and the score. The project has some solid structural positives, yet the validation findings are numerous and substantive, and the missing ERR totals plus low extraction confidence limit trust in the crediting claims. Because integrity remains above the critical threshold, the overall score is not capped, but the project still sits in a cautious middle range.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, a recent baseline reassessment, and a buffer pool contribution. However, the validation also reported multiple corrective actions and several unresolved questions around eligibility, ownership, leakage, and baseline conservativeness, which materially weaken confidence in the crediting claims.
Project Description
Project Name : Silvador Company SRL / Forest Capital SRL Forest Carbon Credit Project Location : Romania (Counties: Buzău, Dâmbovița, future instances in Arges, Prahova, and Teleorman) Developer : Silvador Company SRL / Forest Capital SRL Impact : Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reductions and removals through the deferral of harvesting on privately owned forests. Project Overview : Silvador Company SRL and Forest Capital SRL own private forestlands in Romania and are spearheading a groundbreaking initiative: the Forest Carbon Credit Project. This initiative is designed to reduce and remove greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by deferring harvesting on privately owned forests. Following the rigorous VCS VM0012 – Improved Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), v1.2 methodology, the project aims to implement sustainable practices across 11 non-contiguous private forest parcels located in the counties of Buzău and Dâmbovița, with plans to expand into Arges, Prahova, and Teleorman in the future. These areas were previously managed for timber harvest before the implementation of this carbon crediting project. Why this project needs your support : Your support is crucial for the success of this initiative. By deferring harvesting activities and implementing sustainable forest management practices, this project contributes significantly to mitigating climate change. Your support will enable the protection and preservation of these vital forest ecosystems, ensuring cleaner air, enhanced biodiversity, and a more sustainable future for all. Join us in our efforts to combat climate change and conserve Romania's precious forestlands.
Red Flags
- Multiple validation findings remain unresolved, including unclear project eligibility, VCUs ownership, model inputs, and baseline conservativeness.
- A contradiction exists on reversal handling: one document says reversals were reported, while the newer record says they were not addressed; this lowers reliability.
- The monitoring/verification record does not provide claimed versus verified ERR totals, limiting over-crediting checks.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 12,150 | 120 | 12,030 | |
| 2022 | 42,135 | 125 | 42,010 | |
| Total | 54,285 | 245 | 54,040 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a complete, reconciled ERR calculation package with claimed and verified totals, model inputs, and the leakage spreadsheet.
- Resolve all validation corrective actions, especially project eligibility, VCUs ownership, baseline conservativeness, and reversal documentation.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed investment test
buffer pool present, reversal status unclear
0% deduction with unresolved justification details
project baseline with reassessment timing known
FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing present
CORSIA-eligible status increases dual-claim caution
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Registry Documents
monitoring
Other
pdd
- SD-VISta-PDD-Silvador Climate Action v1.5 (Feb'25)-Public.pdf
- SD-VISta-Listing-Rep-Multiple-v1.1_Silvador (Jun'23).pdf
- Silvador_2_Project_Description_Monitoring_Report (Jun '23) v1.0-Public.pdf
- SD-VISta-PDD-Silvador Climate Action v1.1 (Aug'23)-Public.pdf
- VCS-Listing-Rep-Multiple-Silvador (Jun'23).pdf
validation
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →