Uganda · Natural forest rehabilitation (AR-ACM0001) · Read by the checks: Project description + 2 monitoring reports + verification report, 248 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.
0x9477…6ba2(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 5; 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.
Issuance is far below the document's figures (2009-2017: issued 788,228 t, document 9,695,423 t (0.08x, table on page 67)). Either the project delivered much less than projected, or the table holds cumulative stocks rather than yearly figures (common for afforestation projects); check the table.
No yearly net-reduction table in the monitoring reports read overlaps an issued vintage; skipped VCS_Monitoring_Report_Kibale_2017-2020_v1.1 (002).pdf (no monitoring period recorded).
More credits retired than issued for vintage 2017 (+13,052 t). Likely a data inconsistency in the registry records; worth a reconciliation.
Document and registry both give AR-ACM0001.
No project in the same country with a closely matching name.
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS673.json.
AI-assisted checks: 13 of 18 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from. 1 check the models disagreed on was 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: 44,967 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 1 of 4 checks (A2); not found in the excerpt: A1, A3, A4.
“***) The part of the Development Area studied by Meijer exceeded the area implemented; the types listed by Meijer also includes riverine vegetation, and other vegetation outside the compartment area. STEP 3. Investment analysis Was not carried out for this ARR project activity because the baseline scenario identified in sub-step 2c above allows for the highest baseline GHG removals by sinks. STEP 4. Common practice analysis There are a couple of projects being implemented in other regions of Uganda. The first is a small scale reforestation project in Rwoho Central Forest Reserve of the Nile Basin. The Rwoho project was the first ever Ugandan project to be registered under CDM. It is part of a project cluster of 5 similar projects aiming to provide a new financing mechanism to overcome the current barriers to establish timber plantations in Uganda and to allow communities to benefit from the CDM. In total the project activities cover an area of 347.1 ha within Rwoho Central Forest Reserve (NFA planting area: 324.9 ha (94 %), community planting area: 22.2 ha (6 %). The Reserve covers in total an area of 9,100 ha. Based on conservative estimates, with a 22 years rotation cycle for all tree species, the project will produce 24,421 tCO2-e by 2012. The project allows the involvement of private and community-based tree planting initiatives with different investor shares. Due diligence, monitoring, validation and verification costs will be shared among the project cluster. Based on a successful implementation of the first pilot cluster it is planned to extend the portfolio across the country clustered in a number of deforested public forest reserves and target regions. Hence, a project design that can be easily replicated was developed and the concept will consider options for a programmatic approach. The other reforestation activity is the Community Reforestation Project in the Albertine Rift valley region which is currently working with established groups of farmers in the Albertine Rift region of Uganda to plant agroforestry and small”
Excerpt read: 44,870 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 3 checks (P1, P2, P3).
“1.11 Identification of risks that may substantially affect the project’s GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements: Non-permanence risk assessment was carried out using the VCS’ “AFOLU Non- Permanence Risk Tool” version 3 of 8 March 2011. According to this tool, the project activity was rated at a low risk after yielding a 8.5% of buffer requirement. The project has a system in place to identify risks and established targets to reduce any non-permanent risks. Procedures have been developed and responsibilities are well assigned with internal auditing, reviews and training in place. The project also has a well qualified, experienced local management team in place to ensure that the project activities are implemented effectively. The land planned for the project activity is wholly contained within a national park. Based on the Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Uganda Wildlife Statute, the national park is fully owned by the government of Uganda under the UWA Act and mandated by Uganda Wildlife Authority on behalf of Uganda government and all Ugandans. Therefore, UWA has full control over the entire project lands. Additionally, the project will hold a 10% VCS buffer in reserve for use in case of any loss of permanence. Reference is hereby made to the detailed VCS report called “Non-Permanence Risk Report: Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park” for more information. 1.12 Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented to create GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of its subsequent removal or destruction. At the time the project started, in 1995, carbon credits were not a commodity and the concept was unheard of. Face became involved in 1994 and did not invest in forest destruction but in forest restoration. Instead, deforestation that took place in the UWA-Face project area was as a result of encroachment by local communities in the period between 1970 and 1985 (Okonya, 1993). For almost 30 years local communities were farming within the Forest Reserve, grazing cattle, growing maize and bananas. There was no productively managed forest in the area. In 1993 all inhabitants and encroachers within the boundaries of the National Park were were re-settled in Kibaale District, approximately 100 km from Kibale National Park (FSC, 2010; General Management Plan of Kibale National Park, 2003- 2013). These statements are further substantiated by the Figures 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 presented earlier in the PD. The purpose of the project is to reforest degraded lands and to promote natural regeneration. The project was not implemented to create GHG emissions hence no clearing of forest for creation of VCU’s took place. 1.13 Demonstration that the project has not created another form of environmental credit (for example renewable energy certificates).”
“The percentage of VCU’s to be deposited in the AFOLU Pooled buffer account is 10% = 24,085 (see Non- Permanence Risk Report 2017).”
“Spot slashing: In the second year after planting, spot slashing was carried out at intervals of three months in the second and third year. In the fourth and fifth year, spot slashing was carried at four month intervals to harden off planted crop and reduce maintenance costs. Spot hoeing: this was only carried out in the new crop during the second rains after planting. This was done in order to allow easy penetration of water and reduce weed competition. Fire Protection: Fires are a major factor preventing forest regeneration. Elephant grass and spear grass provide excellent combustible material especially during the dry seasons. Planted areas are completely surrounded by a 15 m external fire line or by non-combustible riverine vegetation. In the centre of each 15 m firebreak 4 m are scrapped clean of all vegetation. Furthermore, each compartment is divided into manageable blocks, which are separated by 10 m wide internal fire lines. Three meters of all internal fire lines is also scrapped clean. All fire lines are accessible by cars during the dry season. Training and retraining workers in fire fighting techniques is done. Another vital component of fire protection is fire awareness campaigns among the local populations neighbouring the park, including schools. GIS technology:”
Excerpt read: 44,954 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).
“For this ARR project activity, Face in 1999 commissioned Meijer to carry out a baseline study whose results show that changes in the carbon stocks for both above and below ground biomass are expected not to exceed actual net GHG removals by sinks and are therefore assumed to be zero in the absence of the project activity. Hence the formula above is only applied to multiply the 5.2 tonnes of carbon per hectare (adjusted from Meijer, 1999), which is the conservative value of the carbon stock in the stratum ‘banana plantation’, with the combined area Ai of stratum ‘Planted Area’ and ‘Regenerating Area’. The total area to be planted during the crediting period is presented in Table 7.2 and has a size of 6,000 hectares. In addition, the Regenerating Area is 2,593 hectares. The combined area is therefore 8,593 hectares. As the baseline is in a steady state, there is no increases in GHG removals. See Annex III for details on the estimation, and the spreadsheet ´ Kibale Baseline Recalculation_082711 ´, which details the calculation of the mean tree carbon stock in the baseline, based on inventory data by Meijer in 1999. In addition, the carbon stock changes in dead wood, litter and soil organic matter are conservatively assumed to be zero based on the methodology applied.”
“Total for crediting period 4.615.038 4.4 Quantifying GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements for the GHG project: Based on the methodology AR-ACM0001, version 05.0.0, the net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks is calculated with equation (8): CAR-CDM = ΔCACTUAL – ΔCBSL – LK Leakage (LK) is not applicable to the project. The parameter ΔCBSL is quantified in Section 4.2 of the PD and ΔCACTUAL is quantified in Section 4.3 of the PD. The Table 4.4.1 below presents the calculation of the parameter CAR-CDM.”
“For this ARR project activity, Face in 1999 commissioned Meijer to carry out a baseline study whose results show that changes in the carbon stocks for both above and below ground biomass are expected not to exceed actual net GHG removals by sinks and are therefore assumed to be zero in the absence of the project activity. Hence the formula above is only applied to multiply the 5.2 tonnes of carbon per hectare (adjusted from Meijer, 1999), which is the conservative value of the carbon stock in the stratum ‘banana plantation’, with the combined area Ai of stratum ‘Planted Area’ and ‘Regenerating Area’. The total area to be planted during the crediting period is presented in Table 7.2 and has a size of 6,000 hectares. In addition, the Regenerating Area is 2,593 hectares. The combined area is therefore 8,593 hectares. As the baseline is in a steady state, there is no increases in GHG removals. See Annex III for details on the estimation, and the spreadsheet ´ Kibale Baseline Recalculation_082711 ´, which details the calculation of the mean tree carbon stock in the baseline, based on inventory data by Meijer in 1999. In addition, the carbon stock changes in dead wood, litter and soil organic matter are conservatively assumed to be zero based on the methodology applied.”
“The type and origin of data and information to be reported is described in the Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below. Section 3.4 deals with monitoring frequency, roles and responsibilities and management of data quality. 3.3 Data and parameters monitored / Selecting relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for monitoring or estimating GHG emissions and removals: Data / Parameter: Ai Data unit: ha Description: Total area monitored for GHG sinks Source of data to be used: GPS coordinates Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions”
Excerpt read: 42,801 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.
“1 Description of Project:.........................................................................................4 1.1 Project title.................................................................................................4 1.2 Type/Category of the project .....................................................................4 1.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the crediting period including project size:............................................................................................4 1.4 A brief description of the project:..............................................................4 1.5 Project location including geographic and physical information allowing the unique identification and delineation of the specific extent of the project:.....5 1.6 Duration of the project activity/crediting period: ....................................11 1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation: ......................................................12 1.8 A description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions and/or removal enhancements: ............................................................................14 1.9 Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity: 14 1.10 Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations related to the project: .................................................................................................................23 1.11 Identification of risks that may substantially affect the project’s GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements: ..................................................25 1.12 Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented to create GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of its subsequent removal or destruction............................................................................................................25 1.13 Demonstration that the project has not created another form of environmental credit (for example renewable energy certificates)......................25 1.14 Project rejected under other GHG programs (if applicable):...................26 1.15 Project proponents roles and responsibilities, including contact information of the project proponent, other project participants:........................26 1.16 Any information relevant for the eligibility of the project and quantification of emission reductions or removal enhancements, including legislative, technical, economic, sectoral, social, environmental, geographic, site- specific and temporal information.):....................................................................33 1.17 List of commercially sensitive information (if applicable): ....................33 2 VCS Methodology:.............................................................................................. 33 2.1 Title and reference of the VCS methodology applied to the project activity and explanation of methodology choices:...............................................33 2.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: ..............................................................................................33 2.3 Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline scenario and for the project:...............................................................................................35 2.4 Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario:...........................................................................36 2.5 Description of how the emissions of GHG by source in baseline scenario are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality):...................................36 3 Monitoring: ........................................................................................................... 43”
“3.1 Title and reference of the VCS methodology (which includes the monitoring requirements) applied to the project activity and explanation of methodology choices: ..........................................................................................43 3.2 Monitoring, including estimation, modelling, measurement or calculation approaches: ..........................................................................................................43 3.3 Data and parameters monitored / Selecting relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for monitoring or estimating GHG emissions and removals:.......44 3.4 Description of the monitoring plan..........................................................49 4 GHG Emission Reductions: .............................................................................. 61 4.1 Explanation of methodological choice: ...................................................61 4.2 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline scenario:61 4.3 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project: ................64 4.4 Quantifying GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements for the GHG project:........................................................................................................67 5 Environmental Impact:........................................................................................ 69 6 Stakeholders comments:.................................................................................. 70 6.1 Brief description of how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:...........................................................................................70 6.2 Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: ........71 7 Schedule:................................................................................................................ 73 8 Ownership:............................................................................................................ 73 8.1 Proof of Title............................................................................................73 8.2 Projects that reduce GHG emissions from activities that participate in an emissions trading program (if applicable): ..........................................................75 9 References: ........................................................................................................... 75 10. List of Annexes:.................................................................................................... 77”
Excerpt read: 44,969 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (S1, S3, S4); not found in the excerpt: S2; 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
“6 Stakeholders comments: 6.1 Brief description of how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: The 2006 SGS’ FSC report states that “Community consultation was carried out at Kibale and all groups/individuals interviewed (e.g. the Nyabweya Parish Community, the Bigodi Women’s Group, the Mugume Clinic Nurse, Nursery workers) were well aware of the benefits of the forest, and how they could access these benefits. In addition, there was evidence of good communication between UWA and the community. Records of liaison (e.g. minutes of meetings, letters etc) were kept by the Assistant Warden for Community Conservation (Olivia Biira), who was appointed to operate in the 28 parishes, which are on the boundary of the park. UWA also supports the CPI (Community Protected area Institution), which comprises of people nominated by the communities, to represent the different Parishes and have the responsibility of overseeing issues in the communities, including environmental issues.” 6.1.1 Summary of the comments received Since the start of the project activities, there have been several meetings held with local stakeholders. The following are only a small sample of comments received over the years by the UWA members of staff during community consultations. UWA’s Isunga office in Kibale National Park contains several folders where meeting minutes are filed. 6.1.2 Minutes of the meeting held Mbale Parish on 17th July 1996 The meeting objective was to address the community’s needs to access wild coffee in the National Park. To ensure long-term sustainable harvest of wild coffee, community members suggested that UWA should limit the number of people accessing the park for coffee using distance of the village settlement from the park boundary and also to include those whose gardens are raided by wildlife. The community members further suggested that they could form community groups which would limit the number of people going into the park to harvest wild coffee. They also wanted to know if their views would be integrated into the coffee resource management plan. 6.1.3 Workshop on management of problem animals held on July 28th 2000 at St. Joseph’s Inn in Virika Crop raiding by problem animals was a major issue of concern and communities felt that they it required joint efforts from all relevant stakeholders such as UWA and the Local Government to live up to their responsibilities. The major threats to crop damage included baboons, elephants, wild pigs, red-tailed monkeys and to a certain extent, birds.”
Decided by a team member: not found (checklist model: not found; second model 50% likely found)
“• collection of soil for nursery activities • disposal of plastic pots from seedlings • collection of wildlings from the forest However, from 2001 onwards seedlings raised in the communities are purchased, as a way of promoting further income generation activities within the local communities. The nursery farmers raise seedlings adjacent to the project nurseries not only for easy supervision by Project staff, but also for proper rehabilitation of areas where nursery soil is collected. Plastic pots are generally re- used by local communities and the pots are bio-degradable. Collection of wildings is not considered to be on such a scale that it would have a significant impact. There is no road construction or harvesting activities and no chemicals or exotic species are being utilised. The re-establishment of natural forest is seen as a positive impact, enlarging the habitat for native species, protecting the park’s biodiversity and enhancing its tourism value. Native grasslands located in the project area need to be protected; they are not reforested. Detailed documentation on the analysis of environmental impacts are contained in the “Environmental Impact Study (EIS) report for the future operations of the UWA-Face Project” prepared by Environmental Monitoring Associates (EMA) Ltd in 1999.”
“During the remote audit process AENOR could confirm that the project protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples, communities and other stakeholders in accordance to the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards and the validated project design.”
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.
0x9477…6ba2(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x1d77…10b5(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x9db3…d401(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x3d47…a6cb(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x7efb…605f(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 v5 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)