CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticIndiaRegistry: RegisteredAMS-II.G

The Breathing Space Improved Cooking Stoves Programme, India - VPA No. 05 Envirofit

Developer: Envirofit International, Ltd

Methodology: AMS-II.G (CDM)

GS-560 ↗ · current registry ID: GS3363

Worked comparison example (English)

#826of 1699 in Industrial#1562of 2759 in India#1194of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)#214of 353 in AMS-II.G

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 6 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.2 / 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

Scored2026-09-06medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2017-07-31

evidence: 15/17 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 our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
AMS-II.G How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 6 Sep 2026 · 15/17 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

The Breathing Space cookstove project in India has a VVB-confirmed additionality assessment and a quantified 5% leakage deduction, but is undermined by a project-specific baseline with no recorded reassessment, the absence of any buffer pool or permanence mechanism, and a cluster of data-quality issues flagged across 11 material findings. The most serious concern is a 2.8-fold discrepancy in the net reduction factor between the PDD (0.322) and the verification report (0.8965), combined with a usage-rate assumption of 100% against a verified 81.2%, which together raise meaningful over-crediting risk.

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 6 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 17 registry documents (15 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 not approved by ICVCMAMS-II.G

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    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
2012
2,9092,9090
2013
31,28631,2860
2014
23,62822,5991,029
2015
9,2749,24628
2016
3,3743,3740
2017
4104100
Total70,88169,8241,057

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2012–2015AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2015–2017AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-II.G: 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.