CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticUgandaRegistry: RegisteredGS-TPDDTEC

Improved Cookstoves for Social Impact in Ugandan Communities

Developer: Impact Carbon

Methodology: GS-TPDDTEC (GS)

GS-793 ↗ · current registry ID: GS447

Worked comparison example (English)

#1058of 1699 in Industrial#123of 185 in Uganda#1473of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)#274of 474 in GS-TPDDTEC

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 5 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

Scored2026-09-05medium confidence

evidence: 44/46 registry documents analyzed · 4 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 our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 5 Sep 2026 · 44/46 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

This Gold Standard cookstove project in Uganda has a fundamentally sound design with VVB-verified additionality and no reversal events, but is severely undermined by an extraordinary volume of material findings (over 60) and corrective actions (over 40) that point to persistent data-quality and reporting weaknesses. The project-specific baseline, absence of a stated buffer pool, a 13% gap between assumed and verified usage rates, and unresolved contradictions in ERR figures and leakage treatment collectively limit confidence in the integrity and safety of the claimed credits.

Red Flags

4 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 5 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 46 registry documents (44 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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • 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
2007
14,97614,9760
2008
42,16142,14714
2009
109,310109,134176
2010
169,084169,0840
2011
220,542220,5420
2012
335,612335,6120
2013
482,134482,1340
2014
713,792712,6921,100
2015
711,962711,9620
2016
613,532613,5320
2017
787,747787,68958
2018
764,535762,2122,323
2019
759,570757,5482,022
2020
703,298693,07810,220
2021
1,078,3541,003,82174,533
2022
1,131,1531,026,058105,095
2023
1,053,423180,510872,913
2024
1,083,45372,1891,011,264
2025
629,5600629,560
Total11,404,1988,694,9202,709,278

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records. (+23)

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.