carbon Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Vaca Diez 2014-2019

DV-e048fe

2.6 / 10

Integrity

1.1

Transparency

3.4

Claim Safety

3.2

Documentation

3.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Baseline method, leakage treatment, and permanence/buffer provisions are not found in the extracted record (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

inferred No material findings or corrective actions are reported, but this is hard to interpret without the underlying verification detail (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Transparency

verified The monitoring period is clearly stated as 2014-01-01 to 2024-12-31 (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

missing Core MRV outputs (claimed vs verified emission reductions) and monitoring methods are not found in the extracted record (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Claim Safety

verified The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, reducing one channel of eligibility-related claim risk (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be assessed because baseline, leakage, and verified results are not found in the extracted record (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Documentation

verified A VVB is identified (Control Union) and the document is recent (dated 2025-04) (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

missing Only one document type is available and extraction confidence is not high, leaving major evidence gaps (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

For a REDD project, integrity hinges on a defensible baseline, leakage treatment, and permanence risk management, but the extracted record does not include a baseline method, any baseline reassessment date, a leakage deduction or justification, or any buffer pool contribution (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). Additionality is also not evidenced in the extracted record: neither the additionality test type nor confirmation by the VVB is found (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). No material findings or corrective actions are reported, but without the missing core design and accounting elements, this does not materially increase confidence (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly provided as 2014-01-01 through 2024-12-31, which supports basic transparency on the time boundary (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). However, the extracted record does not include claimed or verified emission reductions, nor does it describe monitoring methods (e.g., how activity data and forest cover change were monitored), limiting the ability to scrutinize MRV quality (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). Registry details are also not found in the extracted record (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Claim Safety

The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of CORSIA-related marketing claims (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). CCP status is not found in the extracted record, and the absence of baseline, leakage, and verified results makes over-crediting risk difficult to evaluate (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). With safeguards indicators negative (no FPIC, no grievance mechanism, and safeguards not mentioned), reputational and stakeholder-claim risks are elevated (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Documentation

Documentation is limited to a single monitoring report extract, with medium extraction confidence, which leaves substantial evidence gaps for a REDD assessment (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). The VVB is identified as Control Union and the document date is recent (2025-04), which is a positive signal for recency and third-party involvement (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). However, without the PDD/methodology and verification outputs, the documentation set is not sufficient to substantiate key quality claims (monitoring report extract, 2025-04).

Overall

No contradictions are listed in the extracted record, so there are no cross-document discrepancies to resolve. The overall score is driven down primarily by missing core REDD accounting elements (baseline, leakage, permanence/buffer) and missing quantified outcomes (claimed vs verified emission reductions), all of which are not found in the extracted record (monitoring report extract, 2025-04). Note: if documentation were to score below 3.0, transparency would be capped post-scoring under the stated gate rules; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall would be capped at 6.0 post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

Based on the single available monitoring report extract, key integrity elements for a REDD project (baseline approach, additionality demonstration, leakage treatment, and permanence/buffer provisions) are not found in the extracted record. While a VVB name is provided and no material findings or corrective actions are reported, the evidence base is too thin to support high confidence in credit quality.

Project Description

A Legacy of Protection in the Heart of the Bolivian Amazon A project by Ketrawe Foundation For over a quarter-century, the pristine forests of Vaca Diez (VD) have stood as a testament to what patience and commitment can preserve. In 1998, when the decision was made to end logging operations and begin conservation, few could have imagined the challenges that would follow - or the extraordinary biodiversity that would flourish under protection. Under the stewardship of Ketrawe Foundati

Red Flags

Baseline approach and any baseline reassessment timing are not found in the extracted record for a REDD project.
No leakage deduction or leakage justification is found in the extracted record, despite leakage being a common material risk in REDD.
No permanence risk management details (e.g., buffer pool contribution or reversal reporting) are found in the extracted record.
Additionality test type and whether the VVB confirmed additionality are not found in the extracted record.
Leakage not addressed in project documentation
Buffer pool size not disclosed in available documents

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the PDD/methodology and baseline documentation, including baseline setting approach and the most recent baseline reassessment date.
Provide verification outputs with claimed vs verified emission reductions and a clear leakage assessment (quantified deduction or justified negligible leakage), plus permanence risk management (buffer pool contribution and any reversal reporting).

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