ZAMBIA EASTERN PROVINCE SAFE WATER
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by SustainCERT, which supports the project’s core eligibility case.
missing Leakage deduction is not stated in the extracted record, and the reversal record is inconsistent across documents.
Transparency
verified The project has a named VVB, a defined 2024 monitoring period, and Gold Standard registry status.
missing Verified and claimed ERR totals are not found in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low.
Claim Safety
verified The project uses a project baseline and the baseline was last reassessed in 2024, which is a positive sign.
missing Usage is self-reported, the verified usage rate differs from the earlier reported value, and the project is marked CORSIA-eligible, which keeps dual-claim risk elevated.
Documentation
verified The evidence set includes a PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, with 28 documents used overall.
missing At least one key document was poorly readable, and several material items are either not stated or contradictory.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification evidence supports additionality because SustainCERT confirmed it, and the project is an avoidance-type safe water activity with no reversal events reported in the main record. Still, the extracted facts do not provide a leakage deduction percentage, and the reversal status is inconsistent across documents, so the integrity case is only moderate rather than strong.
Transparency
Transparency is helped by the presence of a named VVB, a defined monitoring period for 2024, and a clear registry identity under Gold Standard. But the extracted record does not include verified or claimed ERR totals, and the low extraction confidence means some source material was difficult to read, reducing trust in completeness.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is mixed: the project uses a project baseline and the baseline was last reassessed in 2024, which is better than an outdated baseline. However, usage monitoring relies on self-reporting, the verified usage rate differs from the earlier reported figure, and the project is marked CORSIA-eligible while CCP status is not stated, so over-claiming and dual-channel risk remain.
Documentation
The record draws on multiple official document types, including the PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, and 28 documents were used. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and several important items are either missing or inconsistent, including leakage treatment, ERR totals, and the reversal record.
Overall
The project looks credible on paper because it is Gold Standard certified, has VVB-confirmed additionality, and includes safeguards such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism. However, the contradictions must be weighted carefully: I privileged the more recent or more specific monitoring-report values for leakage, usage monitoring, reversal status, and crediting period, but the presence of conflicting records still lowers confidence. Because documentation quality is weak and key quantitative claims are missing, the overall score remains moderate rather than high.
Audit Analysis
This is a certified Gold Standard safe water project with VVB-confirmed additionality, safeguards in place, and no reversal events reported in the main monitoring record. However, several key items are missing or inconsistent, including the absence of a stated leakage deduction, no verified ERR totals, and low extraction confidence, which weakens confidence in the claims.
Project Description
The project will support the provision of safe water to hundreds of households within the Eastern Province using borehole technology. By providing safe water, the project will ensure that households consume less firewood during the process of water purification and as a result there shall be a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion process.
Red Flags
- Leakage treatment is not quantified in the extracted record, even though the PDD reportedly did not address it while the monitoring report later described it as quantified.
- The record contains contradictions on usage monitoring, reversal status, and crediting period, which reduces reliability of the extracted evidence.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 209 | 69 | 140 | |
| 2020 | 5,643 | 1,943 | 3,700 | |
| 2021 | 7,034 | 2,300 | 4,734 | |
| 2022 | 2,207 | 123 | 2,084 | |
| Total | 15,093 | 4,435 | 10,658 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a clear, auditable ERR reconciliation showing claimed versus verified credits and the exact leakage deduction used.
- Resolve document contradictions with a dated evidence table that identifies the authoritative source for usage rates, reversal status, and crediting period.
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 additionality
No reversals reported, but record inconsistency
Leakage mentioned but deduction not stated
Project baseline with recent reassessment
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
CORSIA-eligible; CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
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 →