Indonesia · REDD+ / peatland (VM0007) · Read by the checks: Project description + 5 monitoring reports + verification report + validation report, 1,388 pages · Verra registry page
Signal, not verdict. These findings summarize what the project documents say and where. They are not a rating, a certification or an ICVCM assessment, and they can be wrong.
Looked up by methodology code in table version 2026-10-15. No model is involved, and this status is kept apart from the AI-assisted findings below.
0x066b…35e0(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 6; earlier versions stay readabledeepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashtypesafe/jev-1.13Third-party models, not developed by this team.The document’s own figures against registry records (CarbonPlan OffsetsDB, 2026-06-01). A flag is a lead for a reviewer, not a finding of wrongdoing.
The document's yearly figures do not overlap any issued vintage.
No yearly net-reduction table in the monitoring reports read overlaps an issued vintage.
Across 6 vintages, retired volume never exceeds issued volume.
Document and registry both give VM0007.
No project in the same country with a closely matching name.
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS1477.json.
AI-assisted checks: 15 of 18 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from. 2 checks the models disagreed on were decided by a team member, whose answer counts; the models’ answers are shown next to it.
Tested on 177 labelled questions from 11 projects (short 2,500-character excerpts), the checks were right 94% of the time (95% interval 89%–96%). Reports read longer excerpts, which find more: of 61 findings the short excerpts missed, 46 were confirmed (75%, judged by an AI reviewer, who agreed with a person on 18 of 19 spot checks). How this was measured.
Robustness: deleting the paragraphs that held the evidence turned 87% of “found” answers to “not found”, and unrelated text got “not found” on 177 of 177 questions. A paragraph planted in the document telling the model to answer “yes” changed 0 answers; one telling it to answer “no” changed 71%, which is why such paragraphs are screened out before a model reads the excerpt (the screen is a pattern match and can miss new wordings). Robustness tests.
Excerpt read: 44,954 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (A2, A3); not found in the excerpt: A1, A4.
“There is also a lack of information regarding the 2020 regulation from the Directorate of Sustainable Production Forest Management to analyse the common practices of other acacia plantations regarding this policy. However, given that in the baseline scenario there are two distinguished land uses, acacia plantation and community crops (rubber), the baseline scenario meets the requirements of this regulation. There is no longer a requirement (in any of the new policies) to have areas assigned to community crops in the concession, but it was decided to maintain the previously delineated areas (see previous PD) as there is insufficient information at the moment to assess what other plantations have done with these areas, and to comply with the multi-business regulation.”
“outlines how the project's contributions to biodiversity conservation and community development are not mandated by law, not practiced under business-as-usual conditions, and not financially viable without the project, and how they go beyond what would be achieved through existing legal frameworks. Additionality of Biodiversity Benefits Baseline Scenario In the absence of the Katingan Mentaya Project, the baseline scenario would likely involve continued forest conversion, peatland degradation, and biodiversity loss. This is due to systemic under-enforcement of environmental regulations, the economic attractiveness of plantation development, and weak land governance. Indonesia’s conservation laws (e.g., Law No. 5/1990 and PP No. 57/2016 on peatland protection) exist, but enforcement is limited, particularly in remote forest areas. The project area contains globally significant biodiversity, including endangered species such as the Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and Proboscis Monkey (Nasalis larvatus), which would face escalating threats under business-as-usual conditions. Barriers to Natural Protection Several barriers prevent natural forest protection in the absence of the project:”
Excerpt read: 44,987 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 3 checks (P1, P2, P3).
“A non-permanence risk assessment was carried out in accordance with the most recent AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool v.4.2 and the Risk Assessment Calculator. The resulting risk rating and non-permanence risk buffer is 14%. This assessment primarily addresses the risk to climate benefits but is equally applicable to the risks associated with community and biodiversity benefits.”
“A non-permanence risk assessment was carried out in accordance with the most recent AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool v.4.2 and the Risk Assessment Calculator. The resulting risk rating and non-permanence risk buffer is 14%. This assessment primarily addresses the risk to climate benefits but is equally applicable to the risks associated with community and biodiversity benefits.”
“Fire prevention: Remote sensing using fire hotspot data was conducted during the previous PD period in order to alert field staff to any fire incidences. On-the-ground fire suppression, management activities and patrols have also been implemented, and will continue during the next decade in order to reduce the threat of fire to biodiversity. As reported in the previous monitoring reports, the project has also established fire break plantations totaling 6.91 ha (as of 2020). During the next decade, additional fire break plantations will be established as per the project implementation plan (see the ‘Katingan-Mentaya- Fire-Management-and-Mitigation-Report-Final.pdf’ report in the ‘Anthropogenic threats: Fires’ supporting evidence folders for details). Furthermore, fire prevention and awareness training with project staff and communities will continue to reduce the impact of fires. These activities will continue to protect this important area of peatland habitat and the biodiversity it supports.”
Excerpt read: 44,969 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (Q2, Q3, Q4); not found in the excerpt: Q1; 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
Decided by a team member: not found (checklist model: not found; second model 59% likely found)
“As there was no leakage during the previous baseline period, it is assumed that no leakage will occur. Actual leakage will be monitored throughout the project crediting period and will be reported at each monitoring event. If leakage occurs, the resulting emissions will be calculated following steps in the LK-ASP module.”
“• Before constructing any canal block that could impact areas outside the project area, surveys are conducted to determine whether the local population uses the canal (for example, for transportation, agriculture, fishing, or other activities). If no such uses are identified, a full block is designed and built. However, if any uses are found, the blocks are constructed with spillways to ensure that these activities are not affected. Spill gates regulate water flow and prevent any increase in water table depth outside the project area, therefore avoiding any increased CH4 emissions or decreased vegetation production.”
“The integrity of the rewetting activities, along with the absence of ecological leakage, will be demonstrated during each monitoring event. Monitoring of ecological leakage will only take place on rewetted canals that have hydrological connectivity to water bodies outside the project area. It will be conducted through the installation of staff gauges and monitoring wells to assess hydrological impacts (flood and drought). The monitoring points will be established within transects with a radius of 1,200 meters from the canal blocking points. Each transect will be positioned perpendicular to the canal, covering both inside and outside of the project area. Monitoring outside the project area will be carried out wherever is possible, as there are community and land ownership constraints. Monitoring will be conducted regularly, with intervals ranging from hourly (using automatic data logger) to trimonthly (for manual data collection).”
“The total uncertainty error in the project was calculated to be 2.44%. Considering the 15% uncertainty threshold, no VCU deductions were made due to uncertainty. Detailed annual uncertainty calculations for the REDD baseline scenario, including error propagation methodology and bootstrap-derived uncertainty coefficients, are provided in the REDD Uncertainty BSL Workbook.”
“Condition met. X-UNC has been used throughout to estimate uncertainties associated with this project. See 3.2.5.1.”
“Uncertainty calculations for all project activities were reviewed at length as prescribed by the methodology and confirmed to result in a correct estimate of uncertainty. No uncertainty deduction was required for this monitoring period.”
“Figure 2. Industrial-plantation concessions on the similar-lands stratum, Indonesia: acacia (green) and oil palm (red). Industrial plantation is the dominant class acquiring similar lands; of these, only the acacia HTI licence is legally available on the project's Permanent Production Forest classification. Note: concessions intersected with the national forest map (2000) on peat; forest loss measured using Global Forest Watch (2011–2020). 2.3 Data and methods The analysis followed these steps. (a) The national land-cover series (Indonesia Land Cover Map; primary and secondary dryland, mangrove and swamp forest) was used, and the 2000 forest classes were collapsed into a single continuous “forest at 2000” layer. (b) This forest-2000 layer was intersected with the national peatland map to obtain forest on peat. (c) The acacia and oil-palm concessions were intersected with this forest-on-peat layer to isolate the forest on peat inside those concessions e.g., the units within which forest loss over 2011–2020 was measured. (d) Because the national land-cover series does not extend to 2011–2020, forest loss inside those concessions was measured using Global Forest Watch (2011–2020) for the forest types of the national forest map. (e) Two suitability filters (slope and elevation, set to ±20% of the project’s range) were then applied to bring the retained forest closer to Katingan Mentaya Project’s forest-on-peat type, yielding 9,074,003 ha. (f) For robustness, an alternative suitability scenario was constructed from proximity to extraction infrastructure (within 30 km of a river and 40 km of a road, the greatest distances to the farthest point of the project); (g) this market-access scenario yielded a smaller, more conservative area of 8,932,940 ha (mask 2), which was adopted as the basis for the forest-loss analysis reported below. The two suitability proxies bracket the same result: the slope/elevation scenario gives 9,074,003 ha and the market-access scenario 8,932,940 ha, a difference of only 141,063 ha, with class shares essentially unchanged. The market-access scenario is the more conservative of the two and is adopted for the analysis. Under it the two industrial-plantation classes hold closely comparable shares of similar lands (acacia 13.2%, oil palm 13.6%) and importantly oil palm clears its holdings at a higher annual deforestation rate than acacia (5.46% yr⁻¹ versus 5.10% yr⁻¹), so identifying acacia as the agent of planned deforestation yields the lower baseline clearing rate and is the conservative choice. 2.4 Application to Agents A, B and C Because the project area is 97% peat, near-flat and uniformly Permanent Production Forest, it forms a single dominant stratum, and the most-common-purchaser result applies uniformly across the areas assigned to Agents A, B and C. Agent A is documented (PT Kayu Alam Kencana, below); Agents B and C are the same class of agent on the same stratum. 2.5 Conclusion”
“Each installed canal-blocking structure is equipped with monitoring wells (piezometers) located in the surrounding area to assess its effectiveness in raising and maintaining the water table. These monitoring points are used to evaluate the hydrological impacts of canal blocking on adjacent peatland areas. Water Table Depth (WTD) monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis using a combination of automatic data loggers and manual measurements. The use of both methods enhances data reliability and enables cross-verification of recorded water level fluctuations over time.”
“The integrity of the rewetting activities, along with the absence of ecological leakage, will be demonstrated during each monitoring event. Monitoring of ecological leakage will only take place on rewetted canals that have hydrological connectivity to water bodies outside the project area. It will be conducted through the installation of staff gauges and monitoring wells to assess hydrological impacts (flood and drought). The monitoring points will be established within transects with a radius of 1,200 meters from the canal blocking points. Each transect will be positioned perpendicular to the canal, covering both inside and outside of the project area. Monitoring outside the project area will be carried out wherever is possible, as there are community and land ownership constraints. Monitoring will be conducted regularly, with intervals ranging from hourly (using automatic data logger) to trimonthly (for manual data collection).”
“The Katingan Mentaya Project employs a comprehensive biodiversity and forest monitoring framework to assess and enhance conservation outcomes. Indicators for carbon monitoring, including field plot data and remotely sensed imagery, track natural forest regeneration, which serves as a proxy for forest quality and its suitability to support RTE species. Additionally, line transect surveys, camera trapping, and opportunistic observations are used to document RTE species. While these methods are not designed to provide precise population density estimates, they are both cost-effective and feasible, offering valuable insights into species presence and relative abundance indices. Key species monitoring includes ground nest surveys for Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), the project’s key trigger species, to track population trends over time. Plans for future monitoring periods include freshwater fish surveys to document species within aquatic habitats. Regular patrols will also document signs of anthropogenic disturbance, such as logging camps, timber piles, and used shotgun cartridges. The Community Engagement team plays a critical role in addressing and monitoring ongoing hunting activities to mitigate pressures on wildlife populations. Biodiversity monitoring spans the entire project area, with a particular focus on different habitat types and key species. A suite of tailored field survey methods is applied to different taxa and are detailed in Table 5.5. Community interviews further enrich the monitoring process by assessing local harvest practices and threats to biodiversity. To evaluate conservation success, rigorous data”
Excerpt read: 22,311 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 3 checks (D1, D2, D3).
“Participation under Other GHG Programs: The Katingan Project has not been registered under any emissions trading programs, but may seek to do so in the future. In this case applicable requirements in the VCS Standard, AFOLU Requirements, and the Registration and Issuance process will be followed. The project will not claim credit for the same GHG emission reduction or removal under the VCS Program and another GHG program.”
“Participation under Other GHG Programs: The Katingan Project has not been registered under any emissions trading programs but may seek to do so in the future. In this case applicable requirements in the VCS Standard, AFOLU Requirements, and the Registration and Issuance process will be followed. The project will not claim credit for the same GHG emission reduction or removal under the VCS Program and another GHG program.”
“Participation under Other GHG Programs: The Katingan Project has not been registered under any emissions trading programs, but may seek to do so in the future. In this case applicable requirements in the VCS Standard, AFOLU Requirements, and the Registration and Issuance process will be followed. The project will not claim credit for the same GHG emission reduction or removal under the VCS Program and another GHG program.”
“Participation under other GHG Programs The Katingan Project has not been registered under any emissions trading programs but may seek to do so in the future. In this case applicable requirements in the VCS Standard, AFOLU Requirements, and the Registration and Issuance process will be followed. The project will not claim credit for the same GHG emission reduction or removal under the VCS Program and another GHG program.”
“The verification team is not aware of project involvement in other forms of environmental credits from its activities. The project has not been registered, and is not seeking registration, under any other GHG programs. The Katingan Project currently only seeks carbon credits under the VCS program. This was confirmed through a risk-based internet review and interview with Project Proponents. Therefore, the verification team deems the project eligible to participate under the VCS Program.”
“There were no methodology deviations or PD deviations during this relating to monitoring period (please see Section 3.2). The GHG emission reductions generated by the project are not included in an emissions trading program other than the VCS program. The Project Proponent has not received or sought any other form of environmental credit as confirmed through a risk-based review by the verification team (see Section 3.1).”
“The audit team performed a web based review of current GHG programs and found no evidence of the project being registered under any other program”
“Emission Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits: During this monitoring period, activities carried out by the project are not covered by any emission trading programs or other binding limits in relation to GHG emissions. Presidential Decree No. 61/2011 regarding the National Action Plan for Reducing Green House Gas Emissions requires government agencies to set reduction targets for specific sectors and identify plans for achieving these goals. The project is not currently subject to these targets nor will its reductions be used to demonstrate achievement of the agency goals.”
“Other Forms of Environmental Credit: The Katingan Project currently only seeks carbon credits under the VCS program, and has not received other forms of environmental credits from its activities.”
“2.6.2 Double Claiming, Other Forms of Credit, and Scope 3 Emissions (VCS, 3.24)”
“2.6.2.1 No Double Claiming with Emissions Trading Programs or Binding Emission Limits”
“Are project reductions and removals or project activities also included in an emissions trading program or binding emission limit? See the VCS Program Definitions for definitions of emissions trading program and binding emission limit.”
“2.6.2.2 No Double Claiming with Other Forms of Environmental Credit”
“Has the project activity sought, received, or is planning to receive credit from another GHG- related environmental credit system? See the VCS Program Definitions for definition of GHG- related environmental credit system.”
“2.1.11 Double Claiming, Other Forms of Credit, and Scope 3 Emissions (VCS, 3.24)”
“2.1.11.2 No Double Claiming with Other Forms of Environmental Credit”
“Has the project activity sought, received, or is planning to receive credit from another GHG- related environmental credit system? See the VCS Program Definitions for definition of GHG- related environmental credit system.”
“There were no methodology deviations or PD deviations during this relating to monitoring period (please see Section 3.2). The GHG emission reductions generated by the project are not included in an emissions trading program other than the VCS program. The Project Proponent has not received or sought any other form of environmental credit as confirmed through a risk-based review by the verification team (see Section 3.1).”
“3.1.9.2 Emission trading programs and other binding limits”
“Financial Services Authority (OJK) Regulation No. 14/2023 on Carbon Trading in the Carbon Exchange. The project is registered under the SRN PPI with registration number REG-11-PR-X- 2025-6737. Although the SRUK registry is not yet available at the time of the preparation of the PD, the recently launched registry system of Indonesia ensures transparency and prevents double counting, meaning that even if voluntary credits are sold to foreigners, the emissions reductions remain as Indonesian assets toward their NDC. 2. Regional and Local Environmental Regulations Peatland and Forest Fire Management Presidential Instruction (INPRES) No. 10/2011 and subsequent renewals regarding Peatland Management Government Regulation PP No. 71/2014 on Protection and Management of Peatland Ecosystems Regional Regulation of Central Kalimantan Province No. 1/2020 on Forest Fire Control Sustainable Land and Water Management Ministry of Environment and Forestry Decree No. P.15/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/2/2017 on Water Table Measurement in Peat Ecosystems Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 60/MENLHK/Setjen/Kum.1/10/2019 on Peat Ecosystem Management 3. Compliance Assurance Measures The Katingan Mentaya Project adheres to these regulations through the following mechanisms:”
“Indonesia National Registry System: With the issuance of Ministry of Environment and Forestry no P70, P71, P72 and P73 in late December 2017, REDD projects within the jurisdiction of Indonesia should now be registered with the newly created National Registry System. It is also proposed that this may in turn make projects eligible to receive Result Based Payments for avoided emissions. However, up to date, this law is not enforced and supporting regulation and institution are still being developed and yet to be trialed. Therefore, avoided carbon emissions generated in this monitoring period are unaffected by this regulation.”
Excerpt read: 44,995 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (S1, S2, S3, S4); 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
“All project activities were designed and implemented in participation with project-zone communities and based on full consultation and FPIC principles. The project has continuously promoted collaborative management, as described in Section 3.1.7. An example of this is the development of collaboration management areas within the project area, including one that involves community members living near the Hantipan Canal and in the North Eastern area. A partnership scheme has been agreed between Kampung Melayu village, Telaga village and the project to ensure tenurial rights are fully recognized. Through the partnership, a community-led agroforestry initiative has been developed, which has been designed to generate local income and has included the planting of various native tree species. The partnership was established following a formal process, involving central and local government institutions, community organizers, representatives from the villages, and the project staff. Spatial planning, area delineation, and the agroforestry technical concept were made in collaboration with the two villages. For further details about activities related to this community-led agroforestry initiative during this monitoring period, please see Section 5.2.3.3.”
Decided by a team member: found (checklist model: found; second model 13% likely found)
“Information Materials: The project distributes brochures, flyers, and posters throughout the community centres and public gathering spots, detailing the steps to file a grievance, contact information for zona managers, and the types of issues that can be addressed through this mechanism. Accessibility of the Grievance Mechanism Multiple Reporting Channels: Grievances can be reported not just in person but also via dedicated phone lines, email addresses, and a project-specific app, if available. This multi- channel approach ensures that villagers can submit their grievances in a manner that is most convenient and accessible to them. Assistance in Grievance Filing: For individuals who may need assistance in articulating their grievances, such as the elderly or those who are illiterate, project staff provide support in documenting and filing their complaints to ensure everyone could be heard. Documentation and Public Availability SIRETA Database: All grievances, whether they are validated or not, are recorded in the SIRETA database. This centralised system includes detailed entries of each case, such as the nature of the grievance, the stakeholders involved, the responses provided, and the resolution status. Transparency in Documentation: Once a grievance is resolved, all relevant documentation including minutes of meetings, agreements, and photographic evidence, is uploaded to the database. This not only maintains a record of the issue and its resolution but also ensures that the process is transparent. Public Access to Information: Key summaries of grievance cases and their resolutions are periodically shared with the community through public meetings and posted on the project’s official website. For sensitive issues, privacy is maintained by anonymising the details that could identify the individuals involved. Feedback Loops: The project incorporates feedback received about the grievance process itself into ongoing improvements, ensuring the mechanism remains effective and responsive to community needs.”
“In our commitment to sustainable community engagement and the application of the precautionary principle, we have established measures to mitigate potential negative impacts on community well-being, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women, girls, children, and other marginalised populations, as well as for the maintenance and enhancement of high conservation value (HCV) attributes related to community well-being. Current and Future Measures for Community Well-being and Environmental Protection Participatory Planning and Consultation We have implemented a participatory planning process, central to which are ongoing consultations with community members. This approach facilitates the early identification and discussion of potential negative impacts, such as air and noise pollution, water discharges, waste generation, and the release of hazardous materials. By directly involving community members, especially representatives of vulnerable groups, we ensure that our project design addresses their unique needs and concerns (UNDP, 2018; IFC Performance Standard 1). This collaborative approach promotes shared ownership of both the project and the outcomes, fostering trust and transparency (WHO, 2020). Proactive Risk Assessment and Precautionary Planning In alignment with the precautionary principle (Rio Declaration, 1992), we conduct risk assessments that consider both scientifically substantiated risks and potential risks for which conclusive evidence may be lacking. This forward-looking strategy prioritises preventive action, ensuring that we address potential threats to community well-being before they materialise (IPBES, 2019). This includes designing strategies to minimise emissions, control waste, and limit noise, as well as implementing spill prevention protocols to protect water quality and prevent contamination (IFC Performance Standard 4). Monitoring and Responsive Adaptation Based on our ongoing monitoring and insights gathered through team interactions with the community, no significant adverse effects have been recorded to date. However, we remain vigilant. Monitoring systems are in place to identify early signs of potential impacts on community well-being or HCV attributes, allowing us to adapt our strategies as needed (HCV Resource Network). By prioritising community feedback, we ensure that adjustments are responsive to emerging issues or unforeseen challenges (IFC Performance Standard 1). Safety and Inclusivity Measures for Vulnerable Groups Specific measures to safeguard women, girls, children, and other marginalised groups are embedded in our project design (UNDP, 2018). For example, we implement safe worksite protocols (ILO, 1992), maintain accessible communication channels for reporting concerns, and promote training programmes on environmental safety and personal security (WHO, 2020). These proactive actions provide a secure environment and support community empowerment by equipping individuals with knowledge and resources to contribute to and benefit from the project sustainably. Alignment with the Precautionary Principle These measures exemplify our commitment to the precautionary principle, where we prioritise the prevention of harm even in the absence of complete scientific certainty (Rio Declaration, 1992). Our approach reflects the belief that safeguarding community well-being and protecting environmental attributes are foundational to achieving sustainable, long-term outcomes (IPBES, 2019). This forward-thinking stance ensures that the health, safety, and rights of all community members remain central to our operational philosophy.”
“The Katingan Project adopts FPIC principles in all community consultation processes (see Figure 2). This approach has been and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. It allows local people to critically consider potential impacts of the project and to negotiate based on mutual consensus without being forced or manipulated. The FPIC approach is also used for stakeholder consultations and communications which were discussed earlier in this report.”
Every version anchored on Sepolia stays readable: a retirement records the version current when it happened. Each file is hashed in your browser and compared with that version on the contract.
0x066b…35e0(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xad4d…41cd(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xd019…2ef3(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x4784…8fe7(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x357d…4f1e(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x7285…34e0(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)Signal, not verdict. Each check says whether a specific kind of evidence is present in an excerpt of the submitted documents, not whether the evidence is true. Scores are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.
Report v6 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)