Distribution of ONIL Stoves – Mexico, San Felipe Usila 1

Integrity

The monitoring report (2025-01-27) indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB and leakage was addressed with a quantified leakage deduction of 5%, which supports basic methodological integrity for a cookstove program. However, the same monitoring record lists many corrective actions, including discrepancies in sampling method and questions about crediting-period compliance with VCS v4 rules, which undermines confidence in the robustness of the quantified results. No reversal events are reported in the extracted record, and for an energy-demand project permanence/reversal risk is generally low, but the absence of a stated buffer approach is still an evidence gap.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2025-01-27) provides a defined monitoring period (2021-01-01 to 2021-10-31), identifies the VVB (KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd.), and describes usage monitoring via annual survey with a very high verified usage rate. Transparency is weakened by inconsistent ER figures across documents, making it difficult to reconcile what was ultimately claimed versus verified. The extracted record also lacks some key quantitative context (e.g., no grid emission factor fields populated), though this may be less central for AMS-II.G than for grid-connected projects.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of high-profile aviation claims. Nonetheless, claim safety is materially reduced by conflicting ER totals and key inputs: fNRB is reported both as 0.87 and 0.70 in the same-dated monitoring record (2025-01-27), and the fNRB method differs between monitoring reports (local field in 2025-01-27 vs national default in 2020-07-02). These inconsistencies, combined with VVB requests to clarify methodology applicability thresholds and sampling deviations (monitoring report, 2025-01-27), increase over-crediting and greenwashing risk.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates a broad evidence base (59 documents) including a PDD, validation report(s), monitoring report(s), and issuance, with high extraction confidence. However, the monitoring report (2025-01-27) contains a long list of corrective actions, including requests for proof of first/last stove installed, equipment details, spot-check supporting documents, and clarification of implementer status, suggesting documentation gaps at the time of assessment. Conflicting statements across different monitoring vintages (2015 vs 2025) on safeguards/FPIC/grievance also reduce confidence in the completeness and consistency of the documentary trail.

Overall

I privileged the more recent documents when contradictions occurred, but still penalized heavily because the discrepancies are large and sometimes occur within the same date/version family. For emissions reductions, I treated the later validation report figure (19,234; validation report 2025-03-25) as more authoritative than the earlier validation version (9,424; 2025-03-18), but the magnitude of the change indicates reliability risk. For claimed ERs, the monitoring report value (9,424; 2025-01-27) conflicts with the validation report (7,614; 2025-03-05); I leaned toward the monitoring report for the monitoring-period claim but scored down due to the inconsistency. For fNRB, the 2025 monitoring report simultaneously shows 0.87 and 0.70; I treated this as an unresolved internal inconsistency and reduced integrity/claim-safety accordingly. For safeguards/FPIC/grievance and benefit sharing, I privileged the 2025 monitoring report over the 2015 monitoring report as the more recent account, but the contradiction still lowers confidence. For crediting period, I privileged 2011-01-01 to 2020-12-31 as it aligns with the VVB’s explicit corrective action discussion in the 2025 monitoring report, while noting the conflicting 2020–2030 period in a 2023 monitoring report as a significant governance red flag. (Gate rules note: documentation is above 3.0 and integrity is above 4.0, so no deterministic caps would be triggered.)