Vai al contenuto principale
GS avoidance Vintage 2020 Registry: Certified & crediting Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Expanding Access to LPG in Haiti Through Microfinance Services

GS-420 ↗

5.0 / 10
Integrity
6.2
Transparency
5.1
Claim Safety
3.8
Documentation
4.3

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB in the verification report, and the project uses a project-specific baseline under TPDDTEC methodology version 3.1.

missing Leakage deduction is not quantified in the extracted record, reversal events are marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is provided.

Transparency

verified The project has a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and a documented annual survey approach for usage monitoring in the verification report.

missing The extracted record shows low extraction confidence and a very large mismatch between claimed and verified emission reductions, which reduces trust in the reporting trail.

Claim Safety

verified The verified usage rate is high at about 84.7%, and the project is a Gold Standard certified avoidance project rather than a removal project.

missing The verified emission reductions of 98,266 are far below the 325 claimed in the record, and CORSIA/CCP status is not stated.

Documentation

verified Multiple official documents were used, including a verification report, monitoring report, PDD, appendix, and stakeholder consultation material.

missing Extraction confidence is low, several fields are missing or not stated, and the crediting period in the verification report conflicts with the PDD.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through VVB review, and the project uses a project-specific baseline under TPDDTEC methodology version 3.1, which supports the core project design. Integrity is weakened because leakage treatment is not quantified in the extracted record, reversal events are marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is available. The project is an avoidance activity, so permanence risk is lower than for removals, but the documentation still leaves important gaps.

Transparency

The verification report identifies the VVB, gives a monitoring period from 2019-04-01 to 2021-03-31, and states annual survey-based usage monitoring. Transparency is reduced by low extraction confidence and by the large discrepancy between claimed and verified emission reductions, which makes the reporting trail harder to trust. The record also lacks some registry and eligibility details that would help external users assess the claim more easily.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is only moderate because the project is certified and the verified usage rate is relatively high at about 84.7%, which supports the underlying intervention. However, the verified emission reductions are much lower than the amount claimed in the extracted record, creating a serious over-claim risk. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the available evidence.

Documentation

Documentation quality is mixed: the record draws on multiple official documents, including the verification report, monitoring report, PDD, appendix, and stakeholder consultation material. At the same time, min extraction confidence is low, several fields are missing, and some items are only described in general terms rather than quantified. The verification report also conflicts with the PDD on the crediting period, and the verification report is more recent, so it was privileged for that item.

Overall

I privileged the verification report over older or less specific documents where contradictions existed, because it is the most recent independent assessment and is more authoritative for verified values. That said, the contradictions still matter: the usage rate differs across monitoring documents, grievance mechanism and safeguards differ between the appendix and later reporting, leakage justification changes from deemed negligible to quantified, and the crediting period differs between the PDD and verification report. These inconsistencies, together with low extraction confidence and the large claimed-versus-verified emissions gap, justify a cautious overall score.

Audit Analysis

This is a certified Gold Standard cookstove project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a project-specific baseline, which supports moderate integrity. However, the record has several reliability issues, including low extraction confidence, contradictory source values, and a very large gap between claimed and verified emission reductions, which weakens confidence in the claims.

Project Description

In Haiti, 90% of the population relies on firewood and charcoal for cooking. The poorest spend a large portion of their budgets on these fuels and suffer from harmful fumes. Women are particularly affected because they are in charge of collecting or buying firewood and charcoal and cooking, exposing them to exhaustion and toxic fumes. The practice also leads to significant deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. LPG (liquefied gas) offers a cleaner alternative for the needs of households and street food vendors, but its adoption is hindered by: • Limited distribution networks for cooking kits and refilling points. • Financial constraints that prevent the purchase of gas stoves and refills. Palmis Enèji (A Haitian social enterprise created by the French NGO Entrepreneurs du Monde) helps fuel-poor populations transition from firewood and charcoal to gas cooking through key activities: Equipment distribution: Provides quality gas stoves, trains distributors and partners to expand distribution networks across urban and semi-urban areas. Financial services: In partnership with MFIs, offers financial solutions (microfinance) to make clean cooking technologies available and affordable for vulnerable households. Training and support: Educates beneficiaries on the safe and efficient use of the equipment and ensures that the beneficiaries do not encounter any difficulties in long-term use. Awareness campaigns: Promotes the benefits of clean cooking through awareness campaigns. The project has already facilitated access to gas for more than 25,000 households via quality equipment.  Palmis Enèji not only improves the quality of life for thousands of families but also contributes significantly to sustainable development in Haiti. Our approach stands out by implementing a local and sustainable distribution system designed to operate independently in the long term, even without the involvement of Entrepreneurs du Monde. All profits are r

Red Flags

  • Verified emission reductions are far below the amount claimed, suggesting a major over-claim or unit/recording inconsistency.
  • Leakage treatment, permanence handling, and some safeguards are only partially documented, with contradictions across source documents.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2015
325 325 0
2016
5,961 5,961 0
2017
8,414 8,414 0
2018
9,677 9,677 0
2019
36,264 21,264 15,000
2020
50,888 49,891 997
2021
13,402 9,483 3,919
Total 124,931 105,015 19,916

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Publish a clear reconciliation of claimed versus verified emission reductions, including units, calculation steps, and any corrections made.
  • Provide explicit, up-to-date documentation for leakage, reversal risk, safeguards, and market-eligibility status, with consistent values across all project documents.

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

VVB-confirmed additionality

Permanence

Avoidance project, but reversal handling not addressed

Leakage

Leakage treatment not clearly quantified in extracted record

Baseline

Project-specific baseline, reassessment timing not stated

Safeguards

Safeguards and grievance mechanism partially documented

Double-claim

CORSIA/CCP status 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