{
  "schema": "report-v1",
  "project": {
    "project_id": "VCS673",
    "project_name": "Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degraded land of Kibale National Park",
    "registry_url": "https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/673",
    "methodology": "AR-ACM0001",
    "methodology_version": "5.0.0"
  },
  "document": {
    "file_name": "PROJ_DESC_673_05SEP2011.pdf",
    "sha256": "cbfb2a9fd2ac091ff985c80c5ab8cec857adc699e396425920653318f096e1b1",
    "pages": 77
  },
  "methodology_status": {
    "code": "AR-ACM0001",
    "version": "5.0.0",
    "status": "not_ccp_approved",
    "summary": "No ICVCM decision found for this CDM afforestation methodology. Its CDM successor AR-ACM0003 was inactivated in the VCS Program in September 2023 in favour of VM0047, which ICVCM approved; ICVCM also approved ACR's afforestation methodology (v1.0-1.2, natural forests) and Isometric's reforestation protocol.",
    "sources": [
      "https://verra.org/methodologies/ar-acm0003-afforestation-and-reforestation-of-lands-except-wetlands/",
      "https://verra.org/icvcm-approves-updated-version-of-verras-afforestation-reforestation-and-revegetation-methodology/",
      "https://icvcm.org/integrity-council-approves-second-afforestation-reforestation-and-revegetation-methodology/",
      "https://calyxglobal.com/research-hub/commentary/icvcm-ccp-label-tracker"
    ],
    "table_version": "2026-10-15"
  },
  "method": {
    "report_schema": "report-v1",
    "prompt_version": "v1",
    "question_set_version": "qs-v1",
    "llm_model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash",
    "decision_model": "typesafe/jev-1.13",
    "decision_input": "verified_quotes",
    "methodology_table_version": "2026-10-15",
    "pdf_extractor": "pymupdf 1.28.2"
  },
  "method_hash": "0x076a22fba5542813548efeedda46f487883a123b0350f79d1bc0c45f892e33d8",
  "principles": [
    {
      "principle": "additionality",
      "rationale": "The document applies the CDM combined baseline/additionality tool, identifies three alternative land-use scenarios, selects a conservative baseline, and presents detailed investment, institutional, technological and first-of-a-kind barrier analysis plus a common-practice review. It states investment analysis was not performed because the chosen baseline is most conservative, so no IRR-versus-benchmark test is shown.",
      "quotes": [
        {
          "text": "Without the GHG allowance sales, the project would not be economically attractive, and would face significant barriers.",
          "page": 37,
          "paragraph_id": "p37-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "However, alternative land use 4 faces the following barriers, which prohibit it from getting implemented in the absence of income derived from the sale of carbon credits derived from the Project Activity.",
          "page": 39,
          "paragraph_id": "p39-08",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "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.",
          "page": 42,
          "paragraph_id": "p42-06",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "eliminated from consideration because it is prevented by all the barriers outlined in sub-step 2a. On the other hand, continuation of pre-project scenarios 1-3 are not prevented by any of the barriers listed above in sub-step 2a.",
          "page": 41,
          "paragraph_id": "p41-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        }
      ],
      "dropped_findings": 0,
      "llm": {
        "status": "evidence_found",
        "score": 80,
        "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash"
      },
      "decision": {
        "evidence_level": "documentary",
        "evidence_probabilities": {
          "quantified_verifiable": 0.0,
          "documentary": 0.57,
          "assertion_only": 0.43,
          "not_addressed": 0.0
        },
        "evidence_confidence": 0.43,
        "independent_sources": 0.19,
        "strength": 1.31,
        "strength_probabilities": {
          "0": 0.01,
          "1": 0.7,
          "2": 0.26,
          "3": 0.03
        },
        "strength_confidence": 0.67,
        "model": "typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917"
      },
      "status": "assertion_only",
      "score": 44,
      "review_flags": []
    },
    {
      "principle": "permanence",
      "rationale": "The document reports a non-permanence risk assessment using the VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, a low-risk rating, an 8.5% buffer requirement, and a 10% VCS buffer reserve. It also describes risk identification systems, targets, procedures, assigned responsibilities, internal auditing, reviews, training, and UWA control over national park land. This is specific substantive evidence for permanence.",
      "quotes": [
        {
          "text": "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.",
          "page": 25,
          "paragraph_id": "p25-02",
          "verification": "alnum"
        },
        {
          "text": "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.",
          "page": 25,
          "paragraph_id": "p25-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "Additionally, the project will hold a 10%  VCS buffer in reserve for use in case of any loss of permanence.",
          "page": 25,
          "paragraph_id": "p25-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        }
      ],
      "dropped_findings": 0,
      "llm": {
        "status": "evidence_found",
        "score": 85,
        "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash"
      },
      "decision": {
        "evidence_level": "quantified_verifiable",
        "evidence_probabilities": {
          "quantified_verifiable": 0.93,
          "documentary": 0.07,
          "assertion_only": 0.0,
          "not_addressed": 0.0
        },
        "evidence_confidence": 0.91,
        "independent_sources": 0.41,
        "strength": 2.52,
        "strength_probabilities": {
          "0": 0.0,
          "1": 0.04,
          "2": 0.4,
          "3": 0.56
        },
        "strength_confidence": 0.52,
        "model": "typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917"
      },
      "status": "strong_evidence",
      "score": 84,
      "review_flags": []
    },
    {
      "principle": "robust_quantification",
      "rationale": "Document specifies conservative baseline carbon stock (5.2 Mg/ha), omits dead wood/litter/SOC conservatively, uses permanent plots with ±10% precision at 90% confidence, and applies SOP/QA-QC. No explicit leakage assessment appears in excerpts.",
      "quotes": [
        {
          "text": "The dead wood carbon pool increases less in the baseline than in the project scenario, and is therefore conservatively omitted from carbon accounting",
          "page": 36,
          "paragraph_id": "p36-03",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "However, the more conservative figure of 5.2 Mg/ha, belonging to the stratum ‘banana plantation’, is adopted as the baseline carbon stock to be more conservative.",
          "page": 41,
          "paragraph_id": "p41-03",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "The number of permanent sampling plots and the targeted precision level for the biomass estimation is ± 10% of the mean at a 90% confidence level",
          "page": 58,
          "paragraph_id": "p58-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "Carbon monitoring campaigns are carried out following monitoring steps in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Standard of Quality Control and Quality Assurance developed specifically for Kibale (Annex I and II) by the Czech Republic based Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research (IFER).",
          "page": 59,
          "paragraph_id": "p59-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        }
      ],
      "dropped_findings": 0,
      "llm": {
        "status": "evidence_found",
        "score": 85,
        "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash"
      },
      "decision": {
        "evidence_level": "documentary",
        "evidence_probabilities": {
          "quantified_verifiable": 0.48,
          "documentary": 0.51,
          "assertion_only": 0.01,
          "not_addressed": 0.0
        },
        "evidence_confidence": 0.35,
        "independent_sources": 0.41,
        "strength": 2.52,
        "strength_probabilities": {
          "0": 0.0,
          "1": 0.04,
          "2": 0.39,
          "3": 0.56
        },
        "strength_confidence": 0.53,
        "model": "typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917"
      },
      "status": "strong_evidence",
      "score": 84,
      "review_flags": []
    },
    {
      "principle": "no_double_counting",
      "rationale": "The document addresses other environmental credits and other GHG programs only by marking them 'NOT APPLICABLE' without explanation. It does not provide details on double issuance, corresponding adjustments, registries, or how reductions are counted only once. Evidence is therefore asserted rather than substantiated.",
      "quotes": [
        {
          "text": "1.13 Demonstration that the project has not created another form of environmental credit (for example renewable energy certificates).",
          "page": 25,
          "paragraph_id": "p25-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "NOT APPLICABLE. 1.14 Project rejected under other GHG programs (if applicable): NOT APPLICABLE.",
          "page": 26,
          "paragraph_id": "p26-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        }
      ],
      "dropped_findings": 0,
      "llm": {
        "status": "evidence_weak",
        "score": 35,
        "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash"
      },
      "decision": {
        "evidence_level": "assertion_only",
        "evidence_probabilities": {
          "quantified_verifiable": 0.0,
          "documentary": 0.01,
          "assertion_only": 0.93,
          "not_addressed": 0.05
        },
        "evidence_confidence": 0.91,
        "independent_sources": 0.16,
        "strength": 0.98,
        "strength_probabilities": {
          "0": 0.03,
          "1": 0.97,
          "2": 0.0,
          "3": 0.0
        },
        "strength_confidence": 0.97,
        "model": "typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917"
      },
      "status": "assertion_only",
      "score": 33,
      "review_flags": []
    },
    {
      "principle": "safeguards",
      "rationale": "Document cites an EIS report, legal EIA requirement, community consultation records, and responses to stakeholder comments. It does not show FPIC, grievance mechanism, or gender-specific measures. Evidence is specific for environmental assessment and consultation, but incomplete on some safeguard elements.",
      "quotes": [
        {
          "text": "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.",
          "page": 69,
          "paragraph_id": "p69-16",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "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.",
          "page": 70,
          "paragraph_id": "p70-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "Comments from the local stakeholders at the St. Joseph’s Inn where taken into account by proposing training of target groups including the task force members of Kibale National Park, formation of vermin control units and units at the district level to help address the problem.",
          "page": 72,
          "paragraph_id": "p72-02",
          "verification": "exact"
        },
        {
          "text": "Projects which must undergo the EIA process include forestry related activities such as reforestation and afforestation.",
          "page": 38,
          "paragraph_id": "p38-03",
          "verification": "exact_relocated"
        }
      ],
      "dropped_findings": 0,
      "llm": {
        "status": "evidence_found",
        "score": 75,
        "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash"
      },
      "decision": {
        "evidence_level": "documentary",
        "evidence_probabilities": {
          "quantified_verifiable": 0.0,
          "documentary": 0.97,
          "assertion_only": 0.03,
          "not_addressed": 0.0
        },
        "evidence_confidence": 0.96,
        "independent_sources": 0.61,
        "strength": 2.23,
        "strength_probabilities": {
          "0": 0.0,
          "1": 0.02,
          "2": 0.73,
          "3": 0.25
        },
        "strength_confidence": 0.73,
        "model": "typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917"
      },
      "status": "partial_evidence",
      "score": 74,
      "review_flags": []
    }
  ],
  "overall": {
    "score": 65,
    "included": [
      "additionality",
      "permanence",
      "robust_quantification",
      "no_double_counting",
      "safeguards"
    ],
    "excluded": [],
    "weights": {
      "additionality": 0.25,
      "permanence": 0.2,
      "robust_quantification": 0.25,
      "no_double_counting": 0.15,
      "safeguards": 0.15
    }
  },
  "disclaimer": "Signal, not verdict. Scores describe how well the submitted document evidences each ICVCM principle. They are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.",
  "generated_at": "2026-10-15T17:24:59+00:00"
}