CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticKenyaRegistry: RegisteredAMS-II.G

CPA 009 – Charcoal Stoves in Kenya

Developer: BioLite, Inc

GS-3182 ↗ · current registry ID: GS11194

Worked comparison example (English)

#620of 1734 in Industrial#72of 191 in Kenya#843of 2180 in Gold Standard (GS)#174of 353 in AMS-II.G

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.1 / 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

Scored2026-09-01medium confidence

evidence:29/31registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

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

Analysis

The BioLite Improved Cook Stoves Programme in Kenya has a sound core design with VVB-verified additionality, a measured project-specific baseline, and a quantified 5% leakage deduction. However, the project is burdened by an extensive list of material findings and corrective actions (over 30 items), the absence of a buffer pool, missing feedstock sustainability and LCA data, and CORSIA eligibility that creates dual-channel risk. The overall picture is of a project with credible design fundamentals but significant MRV quality and documentation gaps that need resolution before credits can be considered high-integrity.

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

Detailed Analysis

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

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 31 registry documents (29 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — 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)

    Stated in the project documents

    The documents claim CORSIA eligibility, but no registry label confirms it: check vintage and authorization.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by 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

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: registry label

  • 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:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2021
44,43144,4310
2022
46,13945,217922
2023
39,049039,049
Total129,61989,64839,971

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2021AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2021AMS-I.Eversion not stated in the document

    monitoring report

  3. 2021AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2022AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2023AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2024AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-I.E: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · 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

Analysis ProvenanceAMS II. G. “Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass”
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 →