CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticCongo, the Democratic Republic of theRegistry: RegisteredAMS-III.BG

EcoMakala Virunga Energy project

Developer: CO2logic

GS-1558 ↗ · current registry ID: GS5391

Worked comparison example (English)

#1017of 1699 in Industrial#14of 21 in DR Congo#1433of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 2 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.9 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-02low confidence

evidence: 22/24 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

How this analysis was made

Standard
Gold Standard (GS) How CarbonMeld reads projects of this standard
Methodology
Gold Standard Methodology: Technologies and practicesto displace decentralized thermal energy consumption (TPDDTEC), Version 2.0 No methodology-specific rules: the general rules apply. Read the general rules
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 2 Sep 2026 · 22/24 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The EcoMakala Virunga Energy project has a solid additionality foundation (combined test, VVB-verified) and recent baseline reassessment, but is undermined by multiple operational gaps: key performance tests were not conducted for two of three sites, the physical site visit was replaced by a virtual meeting due to insecurity, and the verification report was still under revision at the time of extraction. The 0% leakage deduction and absence of a stated buffer pool or reversal treatment leave permanence and leakage risks inadequately addressed. Significant contradictions in ERR figures and a 15-percentage-point gap between assumed and verified usage rates raise over-crediting concerns.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 2 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 24 registry documents (22 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    Pilot phase only (2021–2023)

    Eligible only for the pilot phase: not usable for the current 2024–2026 phase.

    Source: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: credits of this project that carry the label on the registry — not every unit or lot

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology approved by ICVCMGS TPDDTEC

    The methodology meets the Core Carbon Principles; this project's credits do not carry the CCP label yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment · ICVCM table read on 4 Oct 2026

    Covers: the methodology (every project using it), not this project's credits

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-11-02

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2017
7580758
2018
13,30111713,184
2019
19,39138619,005
2020
28,06456027,504
2021
24,49344224,051
2022
11,324011,324
Total97,3311,50595,826

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2018–2019AMS-III.BG v3.0since replaced by v5.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2019–2020AMS-III.BGversion not stated in the document

    monitoring report

  3. 2020–2021AMS-III.BG v3.0since replaced by v5.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2021–2022AMS-III.BGversion not stated in the document

    monitoring report

  • AMS-III.BG: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.