Cleaner Cooking for Rural Zimbabwe
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a combined test, and the verification report reports no material findings or corrective actions.
missing The project-specific baseline has not been shown to be recently reassessed, and reversal treatment is not clearly documented in the extracted record.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period, verifier name, and both claimed and verified emission reduction totals are available from the monitoring and verification records.
missing The extraction confidence is low, and key public-facing details such as the buffer pool share and baseline reassessment timing are not stated.
Claim Safety
verified Leakage is at least quantified, with a small deduction of 1% reported in the monitoring record.
missing The verified emission reductions are far below the claimed amount, and the record shows contradictions on usage rate, FNRB, and leakage treatment.
Documentation
verified A substantial set of documents was used, including monitoring and verification material, and the project has a defined crediting period and monitoring window.
missing Low extraction confidence and missing or unstated items such as buffer pool coverage and reversal detail reduce confidence in the completeness of the record.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report confirms additionality through a combined test and indicates no material findings, which supports the project’s core integrity. Leakage is quantified at 1% in the monitoring record, but the baseline is project-specific and the last reassessment date is not stated in the extracted documents. Reversal risk is not clearly addressed, and the buffer pool percentage is not found in the available record, which keeps the score below a strong level.
Transparency
The record includes the verifier name, monitoring period, and both claimed and verified emission reduction totals, which is helpful for traceability. At the same time, the extraction confidence is low, and important details such as buffer pool coverage and baseline reassessment timing are not stated. The project is listed as Gold Standard certified, but the extracted record does not provide a fully complete public audit trail.
Claim Safety
The project is avoidance-based cookstove activity with a quantified leakage deduction, which is better than an unaddressed leakage case. However, the verified emission reductions are substantially lower than the claimed amount, and the record contains contradictions on usage rate, FNRB, and leakage treatment. Because the higher-priority monitoring record was privileged for the final values, the claim remains usable but not especially robust.
Documentation
The project has a relatively rich document set, including monitoring and verification materials, and the crediting and monitoring periods are clearly stated. The VVB is identified, and the record shows no material findings or corrective actions. Still, low extraction confidence means at least one key document was poorly readable, and several important fields are missing or only partially specified.
Overall
I privileged the monitoring report for the quantified leakage deduction and the higher usage rate, while noting that earlier documents reported lower usage, a different FNRB method, and lower FNRB values. I also privileged the more recent verified emission reduction figure over the earlier claimed totals, but the large gap between claimed and verified values remains a concern. The contradictions reduce reliability, and because reversal treatment is not clearly documented and the buffer pool share is missing, the project scores as moderate rather than strong.
Audit Analysis
This is a certified Gold Standard cookstove project with VVB-confirmed additionality, quantified leakage treatment, and no material findings reported. However, the record shows several important inconsistencies across documents, a low extraction confidence, and a large gap between claimed and verified emission reductions, which weakens confidence in the claim quality.
Project Description
Over 700 million Africans cook on open fires, which are extremely inefficient and a primary cause of deforestation across the continent. Open fire cooking is also the leading source of household air pollution (HAP), causing over 4 million premature deaths each year, more than tuberculosis and HIV combined. Improved cook stoves (ICS) can reduce HAP by up to 50% and fuel use by up to 70%. TASC has distributed over 79,000 cookstoves in rural Zimbabwe and reduced CO2 emissions by over 155,000 tonnes to date. Our local project partner, Cicada Carbon, works closely with tribal authorities to introduce and train the local communities to use and maintain their stoves. After the stoves are distributed we continue to visit beneficiaries for ongoing monitoring in the community. Project Impacts and Benefits The primary impact of the clean cooking programme is to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing the amount of non-renewable biomass that is used in household cooking. Consumption of local wood fuel is reduced by up to 70%. The introduction of an improved cooking solution also reduces exposure to the indoor air pollutants associated with traditional biomass cooking. Furthermore, in the poorest communities, the burden of collecting and/or purchasing fuel for cooking often falls on women and children. By reducing fuel collection and cooking time, this project ensures that women in project households have more time to invest in other productive economic development activities. Finally, the implementation of the project allows for the employment of the local community to assist with the distribution, logistics, management, and monitoring activities. In the first monitoring period: Good health and wellbeing - 98% of project households reported a reduction in smoke (or particulate matter) after the introduction of the stoves Gender equality - 96% of project households reported a time savings after the introduction of the stoves; female beneficiaries may use time saved
Red Flags
- The verified emission reductions are materially below the claimed amount, and the record contains multiple contradictions on usage, leakage, and FNRB inputs.
- Reversal risk is not clearly addressed in the extracted record, and the buffer pool share is not stated.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 8,371 | 562 | 7,809 | |
| 2022 | 463,407 | 12,404 | 451,003 | |
| 2023 | 1,029,511 | 0 | 1,029,511 | |
| 2024 | 558,486 | 0 | 558,486 | |
| Total | 2,059,775 | 12,966 | 2,046,809 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a clear reconciliation note explaining the differences in usage rate, FNRB, leakage treatment, and claimed versus verified emission reductions.
- Provide explicit documentation of buffer pool coverage, reversal risk handling, and the most recent baseline reassessment.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed combined test
reversal treatment unclear
quantified 1% deduction
project baseline, reassessment missing
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
CORSIA-eligible status known
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →