Distribution of Improved cook stove - Phase II
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the verification report reports no material findings or corrective actions.
missing Baseline method and last reassessment are not stated, and buffer pool treatment is not found in the extracted record.
Transparency
verified The verification report identifies TÜV SÜD South Asia Pvt. Ltd. as the VVB and provides a defined monitoring period.
missing Total claimed reductions are not available in the extracted record, and the low extraction confidence suggests at least one key document was hard to read.
Claim Safety
verified Leakage is described as quantified, which is better than leaving leakage untreated.
missing The project is a cookstove activity, but usage rates are not verified in the extracted record and CORSIA/CCP status is not stated.
Documentation
verified Twelve documents were used, and the verification report is dated 2022-10-17, which is relatively recent for the extracted monitoring period.
missing The extracted record shows low extraction confidence and only one evidence document is explicitly identified, which weakens documentation reliability.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report confirms additionality was checked by the VVB, and it reports no material findings and no corrective actions required. Leakage is at least addressed in a quantified way, which is a positive sign for cookstove accounting. On the negative side, the baseline method and any buffer pool or reversal treatment are not stated in the extracted record, so permanence and baseline robustness cannot be fully verified.
Transparency
The verification report names TÜV SÜD South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and gives a monitoring period from 2012-11-14 to 2017-11-13, which supports some traceability. However, the extracted record does not provide the total claimed reductions, and several key MRV fields are missing or not stated. The low extraction confidence also suggests at least one source document was difficult to read, which lowers transparency.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is helped by the fact that leakage is quantified rather than ignored, and the project is a standard cookstove activity under AMS II-G. Still, the extracted record does not state the usage rate verified in monitoring, so there is some over-crediting uncertainty for stove adoption and continued use. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the available record.
Documentation
The record indicates 12 documents were used, and the verification report date of 2022-10-17 suggests reasonably recent documentation relative to the monitoring period. That said, the extraction confidence is low, which reduces confidence in completeness. The extracted record also leaves several important fields unstated, including baseline details and buffer pool treatment, so the documentation set is only moderately complete.
Overall
The main contradiction concerns the crediting period: one document shows 2012-10-22 to 2017-11-13, while another shows 2012-12-15 to 2022-12-14. I privileged the later verification report dated 2022-10-17 because it is more recent and likely reflects the final verified period, but the inconsistency still lowers reliability. Given the VVB-confirmed additionality and lack of material findings, the project is not a high-risk case, but missing baseline/permanence details and low extraction confidence keep the overall score in the mid range.
Audit Analysis
This cookstove project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, quantified leakage treatment, and no material findings in the verification report. However, key baseline and permanence details are not stated in the extracted record, and the documentation quality is weakened by low extraction confidence and a major crediting-period contradiction across documents. Overall, the project looks moderately credible but not especially robust on disclosure and claim safety.
Project Description
Proponent: G K Energy Marketers Pvt. Ltd Protocol categories: Energy demand Protocols: AMS-II.G. Estimated annual GHG reductions: 12644 tCO2e Region: Asia Registration date: 2023-02-21
Red Flags
- The crediting period differs between documents, with the later verification report showing a much shorter period than the earlier document; this creates a reliability concern.
- Baseline method, buffer pool treatment, and reversal history are not stated in the extracted record, limiting confidence in permanence and baseline validity.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 11,756 | 0 | 11,756 | |
| 2013 | 12,220 | 1,000 | 11,220 | |
| 2014 | 12,197 | 0 | 12,197 | |
| 2015 | 11,721 | 9 | 11,712 | |
| 2016 | 11,491 | 3,000 | 8,491 | |
| Total | 59,385 | 4,009 | 55,376 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish the baseline method, reassessment history, and any buffer pool or reversal treatment details in a single consolidated project summary.
- Provide a clear reconciliation of the conflicting crediting-period dates and disclose verified usage rates, claimed reductions, and market-eligibility status.
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 additionality
buffer and reversal treatment not stated
leakage quantified but not fully detailed
baseline method not stated
FPIC and grievance mechanism documented
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
+ 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 →