Distribution of Improved cook stove - Phase 25

Integrity

The monitoring/issuance record reports 59,165 tCO2e verified for the 2012-10-04 to 2017-10-03 monitoring period, and the VVB is identified as TÜV SÜD South Asia Pvt Ltd, with no material findings or corrective actions reported in the extracted record. Additionality is stated as verified by the VVB, but the specific additionality test type is not stated in available documents. Leakage is a key integrity item for cookstoves: the validation report describes leakage as “quantified,” yet the PDD indicates it was not addressed, and the leakage deduction percentage is not found in the extracted record—this weakens confidence in conservativeness.

Transparency

The project provides a clear monitoring period (2012-10-04—2017-10-03) and a verified ER total (59,165 tCO2e), and it states an annual survey approach for usage monitoring in the monitoring report. However, the total ERs claimed are not found in the extracted record, preventing a claimed-versus-verified comparison. Critical parameters for cookstove MRV—assumed usage rate, verified usage rate, and the leakage deduction percentage—are also not found in the extracted record, limiting transparency into how ERs were derived.

Claim Safety

Because this is a cookstove distribution project under AMS II-G, credit quality is highly sensitive to adoption/usage and any leakage assumptions; yet neither assumed nor verified usage rates are found in the extracted record, and leakage quantification is inconsistent across documents. The reported fraction of non-renewable biomass is high (87.9), but the method used to derive it is not stated in available documents, which increases over-crediting/claim risk. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so downstream claim compatibility and associated reputational risk cannot be confidently assessed.

Documentation

The evidence set includes a PDD, validation report, monitoring report, and issuance record, with 11 documents used and high extraction confidence, supporting a relatively strong documentation score. The monitoring report date (2022-08-19) is recent relative to the stated monitoring period and crediting period, suggesting the file set is up to date. Nonetheless, contradictions between documents (leakage treatment and crediting period dates) indicate internal inconsistency that reduces document reliability.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: VVB involvement (TÜV SÜD), a stated monitoring period, and verified ERs with no reported findings support credibility, but missing key quantifications (usage rates, leakage deduction, claimed ERs) and document inconsistencies elevate uncertainty. For the leakage contradiction, the validation report’s “quantified” statement is privileged over the PDD’s “not addressed” because validation is typically the more specific assessment of methodology application, but the absence of the actual leakage deduction percentage still warrants a score penalty. For the crediting period contradiction, the monitoring report’s 2012-10-04—2022-10-03 dates are privileged because they align with the monitoring period start date and are the more operationally relevant reference for issuance, but the mismatch with the PDD (2013-01-01—2022-12-31) signals data governance issues that lower confidence.