avoidance Guatemala Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Where Trees Save the Seas

CE-where-trees-save-the

5.1 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

5.0

Claim Safety

4.6

Documentation

6.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The monitoring documentation indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB and reports no material findings or corrective actions.

missing Core accounting parameters (baseline method, leakage deduction value, buffer pool contribution, and reversals) are not stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

verified The extracted record identifies the VVB (S&A Carbon, LLC) and specifies the monitoring period (2017–2018).

missing Claimed vs. verified ER totals are not stated in the extracted record, reducing MRV transparency.

Claim Safety

verified Social safeguards signals are relatively strong (FPIC, benefit sharing described, grievance mechanism).

missing CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, and missing baseline/leakage figures elevate over-crediting and claims risk.

Documentation

verified High extraction confidence and no reported corrective actions/material findings in the available monitoring documentation.

missing Only two documents were available (PDD and monitoring report), leaving major quantification fields not found in the extracted record.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The monitoring report (2019) indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and it reports no material findings and no corrective actions required. However, the extracted record does not state the baseline method, the last baseline reassessment date, the leakage deduction percentage (despite saying leakage was quantified), or any buffer pool contribution for non-permanence. With a long crediting period (2012–2042), these missing accounting details materially weaken confidence in the robustness of credited reductions.

Transparency

The extracted record provides basic MRV identifiers, including the VVB name (S&A Carbon, LLC) and a defined monitoring period (2017-01-01 to 2018-12-31) from the monitoring report (2019). But the extracted record does not include total emission reductions claimed or verified for that period, preventing a clear check of issuance-relevant quantities. Public-facing completeness is therefore moderate: some governance details are present, but key quantitative MRV outputs are missing.

Claim Safety

The project shows relatively stronger safeguards process indicators in the extracted record: FPIC is marked as conducted, benefit sharing is described, and a grievance mechanism is present (from the available documents). Nonetheless, over-crediting risk cannot be well bounded because the baseline approach and leakage deduction value are not stated in the extracted record, even though leakage is described as quantified. In addition, CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, increasing uncertainty for downstream claims and labeling.

Documentation

Only two documents are listed as evidence (PDD and a monitoring report dated 2019-07-19), but extraction confidence is high. The monitoring report (2019) shows no material findings and no corrective actions required, which supports document quality and audit outcomes. Still, multiple critical fields (baseline method, buffer pool percentage, leakage deduction percentage, ER totals) are not found in the extracted record, indicating incomplete documentation coverage for scoring purposes.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so there is no need to privilege one document value over another. The overall score is driven down primarily by evidence gaps on baseline setting, leakage quantification (missing the actual deduction), non-permanence risk treatment (buffer pool/reversals), and missing claimed/verified ER totals for the monitoring period. Note: if integrity were to score below 4.0, an overall cap would apply post-scoring under the gate rules; that cap is not triggered by the scores provided here.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record indicates a REDD+ avoidance project with strong social process signals (FPIC and a grievance mechanism) and no reported material findings or corrective actions in the available monitoring documentation. However, key carbon-accounting elements (baseline approach, leakage deduction value, buffer/pooling for reversals, and verified ERs) are not stated in the extracted record, which increases uncertainty and over-crediting risk.

Project Description

Why we chose this project: In the absence of the project activities, this area would be subject to conversion to cropland for pasture and agriculture, creating degradation and deforestation and a significant loss of biodiversity leading to an adverse effect on coastal ecosystems. The project lifetime is 30 years but is designed to create

Red Flags

Baseline approach is not stated in the extracted record, limiting confidence in additionality and credit quantification.
Leakage is described as “quantified” but the actual leakage deduction percentage is not stated in the extracted record.
No buffer pool contribution percentage or reversal-risk treatment is stated in the extracted record for a long crediting period (2012–2042).
Verified and claimed emission reductions are not stated in the extracted record for the 2017–2018 monitoring period.

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide the baseline approach and the date of the most recent baseline reassessment from the PDD/verification documentation, including key parameters used to quantify ERs.
Disclose the quantified leakage deduction percentage and the verified vs. claimed ER totals for the 2017–2018 monitoring period, along with evidence of non-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.