Vai al contenuto principale
GS avoidance Kenya Vintage 2021, 2023, 2024 Registry: Certified & crediting Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Efficient And Clean Cooking For Households In Somalia

GS-2747 ↗

4.2 / 10
Integrity
4.6
Transparency
4.2
Claim Safety
3.8
Documentation
4.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was tested as a barrier analysis and the VVB confirmed it in the verification report.

missing Leakage treatment is weak: the verification report notes leakage was not addressed, while the monitoring report shows a 0% deduction with conflicting documentation.

Transparency

verified The project has a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and reported verified versus claimed ERs in the monitoring record.

missing Low extraction confidence and several contradictory values across documents reduce confidence in the public record.

Claim Safety

verified Verified usage of 87.11% is close to the assumed 90%, which reduces but does not remove usage-risk concerns.

missing The project is CCP approved, and the record does not state CORSIA eligibility, so dual-claim scrutiny remains elevated.

Documentation

verified The record includes multiple official documents, including validation, verification, monitoring, and PDD materials.

missing Extraction confidence is low, and the verification report lists multiple CARs and CLs, indicating documentation quality issues.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The project has some integrity support because the verification report confirms a barrier-based additionality test and states that the VVB accepted it. However, the same record shows leakage was not addressed in the verification report, while the monitoring report records a 0% leakage deduction, which weakens confidence in the emissions accounting. No buffer pool percentage is stated, and reversal events are not addressed in the extracted record, so permanence controls are only partially evidenced.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate at best: the record identifies the VVB, gives a monitoring period, and reports both claimed and verified ER totals. At the same time, min extraction confidence is low, which means at least one key source was hard to read, and the contradictions across documents reduce reliability. Usage monitoring is described as self-reporting in the verification report, which is less robust than direct measurement.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the combination of a project-based baseline, unclear leakage treatment, and CCP approval. Verified usage of 87.11% is reasonably close to the assumed 90%, but the monitoring record still shows a meaningful gap between claimed and verified ERs. CORSIA eligibility is not stated, so I cannot treat the project as excluded from dual-claim risk.

Documentation

The documentation set is fairly broad, with validation, verification, monitoring, PDD, stakeholder consultation, and appendix materials all present. But the record also shows low extraction confidence, multiple corrective actions, and several clarifications and CARs in the verification report, which lowers confidence in completeness and readability. The crediting period and monitoring period are not perfectly aligned across documents, adding some recency inconsistency.

Overall

I privileged the more recent monitoring report for usage, leakage, and baseline-related values, and the verification report for additionality and safeguard statements because those are the most specific sources for those topics. The contradictions matter: leakage is described as unaddressed in one document but quantified as 0% in another, usage rate differs slightly across monitoring records, and the additionality test type differs between the PDD and validation report; these inconsistencies reduce reliability and pull scores down. The project appears viable but not high-confidence, with the main concerns being leakage treatment, reversal handling, and documentation consistency.

Audit Analysis

This is a Gold Standard cookstove project with some positive evidence on additionality, safeguards, and verified usage, but the record also shows material concerns around leakage treatment, reversal handling, and over-crediting risk. The documentation is usable but weakened by low extraction confidence, multiple corrective actions, and several contradictions across documents.

Project Description

BURN Manufacturing's project in Somalia improves the lives of some of the world's most vulnerable people. More than 90% of the population still relies on biomass fuels for cooking, driving particularly high deforestation rates in an already arid landscape. In addition, nearly 3 in 4 people live below the poverty line. Local charcoal production is unsustainable and very expensive. Using an inefficient traditional stove costs Somalian families as much as $50/month, and excess smoke creates health problems. A study done by the Clean Cooking Alliance shows that cooking with an open fire causes over 3 million premature deaths each year.  This project helps families transition to BURN's JIKOKOA, the world's most fuel-efficient biomass stove. The JIKOKOA, reduces charcoal consumption by up to 50% - slowing deforestation and saving Somalian families $171 million to date. It also reduces indoor air pollution by up to 80%, with families reporting that they get ill less often. These health benefits, tied with fuel and time savings, help reduce gender inequities, improve lives, and save forests.  BURN has been working in Somalia since 2019, and remains the only carbon project in the region. This is particularly important because the area struggles to attract foreign investment, despite high levels of need. Clean cooking an important catalyst in the sustainable, equitable development of the region, while reducing deforestation, smoke inhalation, and improving the lives of 900,000 people.  Project impacts and benefits: Since 2019, BURN Manufacturing's work in Somalia has had the following impacts: 350k stoves distributed 900,000 lives impacted over 2 million tonnes of wood saved 2 million tonnes of CO2 reduced This project meets the following SDGs: Climate action - The Jikokoa lowers fuel consumption by up to 50%, thus limiting CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from cooking. Since 2019, this project has avoided 2M tonnes of CO2 from being emitted. In addition,

Red Flags

  • Leakage was recorded as 0% with no clear justification in the verification report, while other documents indicate leakage was treated differently.
  • The verification record includes multiple corrective actions and comments questioning the retroactive addition of stoves and the strength of the additionality case.
  • Reversal risk is not clearly addressed and no buffer pool percentage is stated.
  • The project is CCP approved, which increases dual-claim scrutiny even though CORSIA eligibility is not stated.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2019
81,483 81,483 0
2020
227,263 153,150 74,113
2021
598,106 165,562 432,544
2022
770,823 59,139 711,684
2023
860,576 661,587 198,989
2024
363,881 356,523 7,358
Total 2,902,132 1,477,444 1,424,688

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide a clear, document-consistent leakage assessment with quantified justification and reconcile the 0% deduction against other monitoring references.
  • Publish a complete permanence and claims package, including buffer pool treatment, reversal monitoring, and a clear statement on CORSIA eligibility and any dual-claim restrictions.

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

Additionality

Barrier test confirmed, but challenged by review comments

Permanence

No buffer pool stated and reversals not addressed

Leakage

0% deduction with weak or conflicting justification

Baseline

Project baseline present, but not clearly standardized

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism present, but documentation is m

Double-claim

CCP approved; CORSIA eligibility not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-14 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

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