VPA 211 Sierra Leone Safe Water

Integrity

Additionality is confirmed by the VVB in the verification report (2021-02-05) and the baseline was last reassessed in 2024, which supports the project’s baseline validity. Leakage is treated with a 0% deduction but is reported as 'quantified' (monitoring report), which is acceptable if the quantification is robust; however, the lack of buffer pool data and the unclear treatment of reversals reduce confidence. Material findings (closed CLs and CARs) were raised and closed according to the verification report, and no corrective actions remain outstanding.

Transparency

The project names its VVB (Earthood Services Limited) and provides a monitoring period (2023–01–01 to 2024–12–31), but key MRV outputs such as total emissions claimed/verified, grid emission factor, and buffer pool percentage are not present in the extracted record. The minimum extraction confidence is low, which implies some source documents were poorly readable and lowers the effective transparency score.

Claim Safety

There is an elevated claim risk because the project is listed as CORSIA-eligible (merged facts field) and CCP status is not mentioned, creating potential for dual use of credits. Contradictions exist in usage rates (100% vs 81.73) and in FNRB values (0.95 vs 0.85) between documents; I privileged the values from the monitoring and verification reports where they are explicitly stated because those are formal, project-level measurement documents (monitoring report 2021-03-26; verification report 2021-02-05). These inconsistencies increase the risk of over-crediting until reconciled.

Documentation

Although 21 documents are listed in the extraction and standard documents (PDD, monitoring report, verification report, validation report) are present, the extraction confidence is low and several fields are null or 'not stated in available documents' (e.g., total ERR claimed/verified, grid EF, buffer pool). The verification report is dated 2021-02-05 and monitoring records include 2021 and 2023–2024 periods, but the low extraction confidence and missing quantitative records justify a conservative documentation score.

Overall

I privileged monitoring-report and verification-report values where contradictions exist because they are the primary project measurement and assurance documents and are specific (monitoring report 2021-03-26; verification report 2021-02-05). Specific contradictions: (1) usage rate — monitoring report records 100% (2021-03-26) vs an earlier 81.73% (2020-10-14); I privilege the monitoring report 100% value but note the inconsistency reduces reliability. (2) usage rate assumed — verification report asserts 100% (2021-02-05) vs 0.85 in the PDD (2019-10-29); I privilege the verification report as the later formal check. (3) reversal events — monitoring report marks as not addressed (2021-03-26) while a later unknown record states none reported (2024-12-13); I take the conservative view that reversals are not clearly addressed. (4) FNRB — monitoring report gives 0.95 (2021-03-26) vs 0.85 in an unknown 2023 record; I privilege the monitoring report but flag the discrepancy. (5) crediting period — monitoring report/PDD indicate 2019–2027 while an unknown later record claims a different future period; I privilege the project's documented crediting period in primary project documents. These contradictions and the low extraction confidence reduce the overall reliability, yielding an overall score of 5.0.