GS contribution Peru Vintage 2021 Registry: Late to verify Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Vista Alegre

VCS-1 ↗

5.0 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

4.6

Claim Safety

4.1

Documentation

6.4

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The validation report (2007-09-26) confirms additionality.

missing Leakage treatment is missing/absent in the extracted record (monitoring report dated 2008-02-25).

Transparency

verified A named VVB is provided (SGS United Kingdom Ltd) and core project dates are available (monitoring report dated 2008-02-25).

missing The extracted record does not include claimed or verified emission reductions for the monitoring period.

Claim Safety

missing Leakage is not addressed, increasing over-crediting risk for claims.

inferred CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, limiting confidence for downstream claims screening.

Documentation

verified Multiple key documents are present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with high extraction confidence.

missing Safeguards and usage monitoring details are not evidenced in the extracted record.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

Additionality is supported because the validation report (2007-09-26) confirms additionality, and the extracted record shows no material findings or corrective actions. Baseline setting appears project-specific (baseline described as project-based), and there is no evidence in the extracted record of a baseline reassessment date. Leakage is a major integrity gap: the monitoring report (2008-02-25) does not address leakage and no leakage deduction is stated.

Transparency

The project has basic transparency elements such as an identified VVB (SGS United Kingdom Ltd) and a clearly stated monitoring period (2006-04-01 to 2007-10-20) in the monitoring report (2008-02-25). However, the extracted record does not provide either claimed or verified emission reductions for that period, limiting the ability to independently evaluate performance. Usage monitoring methods are also not stated in available documents, reducing MRV clarity.

Claim Safety

Because leakage is not addressed in the extracted record, there is elevated risk that credited reductions could be overstated, which weakens the safety of public claims. The project is labeled as a contribution credit type, but neither CORSIA eligibility nor CCP status is stated in available documents, so buyers cannot easily screen for eligibility-related claim constraints. The baseline is project-specific and the timing of any reassessment is not found in the extracted record, adding uncertainty around over-crediting risk.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate: the extracted record includes a PDD, validation report, and monitoring report (three documents) with high extraction confidence. The monitoring report is dated 2008-02-25 and covers an early monitoring period, but key quantitative outputs (claimed/verified ERs) are not present in the extracted record. Safeguards-related documentation is notably absent (no FPIC, no grievance mechanism, and safeguards not mentioned).

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down primarily by missing leakage treatment, missing ER quantification (claimed/verified), and absent safeguards evidence, despite VVB-confirmed additionality. There is a contradiction on the additionality test type: the PDD (2007-09-18) indicates a barrier test, while the validation report (2007-09-26) indicates an investment test; the validation report is privileged because it is the VVB’s assessment and is later-dated, but the inconsistency reduces confidence and slightly lowers integrity and documentation. CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so claim-screening confidence remains limited.

Audit Analysis

The project has VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported material findings or corrective actions in the extracted record, which supports basic credibility. However, leakage is not addressed, safeguards are absent, and key quantification fields (verified ERs, leakage deduction, baseline reassessment) are missing, increasing over-crediting and reputational risk.

Project Description

About Saving the Amazon Saving the Amazon is a Colombian foundation that has spent eight years working for the conservation of the Amazon and the well-being of the indigenous communities that inhabit it. The main objective of Saving the Amazon is to be an alternative for any person, company or institution in the world to reverse the climate crisis and at the same time help the most vulnerable populations. Save the Amazon - Plant a Tree Saving the Amazon developed a model for carbon sequestration through tree planting and for this to be a means to improve the quality of life of indigenous communities. Indigenous Communities Through its projects, it has made a presence in different places in Colombia, one of them is the department of Vaupés, located in the eastern part of the country on the Amazon. In this place inhabit different indigenous communities that have been the ones that for hundreds of years have taken care of this immense vegetation cover. Unfortunately, these indigenous communities have been victims of countless injustices for many years, which has led to the fact that today they are the population with the highest concentration of multidimensional poverty in the country (70% - 98%), therefore they do not they have access to education, health, work, sanitation, among many other things. The project For this reason, Saving the Amazon develops the Campo Alegre project through which two communities of Vaupés (Campo Alegre and San Pedro) unite, bringing together 110 families to plant 33,000 trees. Through this project we would be offsetting approximately 33,000 tCO2 and generating income for these families for 36 months. Our projects are measured in number of trees, the price per tree unit will be €5 and the minimum quantity to access this price is 10,000 trees, this value is paid only once and our allies have our value proposition for three years.

Red Flags

Leakage is not addressed in the extracted record (no justification and no deduction stated).
Safeguards are not evidenced: no FPIC, no grievance mechanism, and safeguards not mentioned.
Key MRV outputs are missing from the extracted record (no claimed or verified emission reductions).
Contradictory additionality test type between the PDD and the validation report.

Credit Vintages Exhausted

	Issued	Retired
2006	9,074	9,074
2007	12,630	12,630
Total	21,704	21,704

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Disclose the monitoring/verification results for the stated monitoring period, including claimed and verified emission reductions and any uncertainty/QA-QC notes.
Provide an explicit leakage assessment (and deduction if applicable) consistent with the applied methodology, with clear justification in the monitoring/verification documentation.
Publish safeguards evidence (FPIC process, stakeholder consultation outcomes, and a functioning grievance mechanism) and describe benefit-sharing arrangements if relevant.

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