Fuel efficient stoves for Ethiopia Programme of Activities CPA 001
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified The project uses AMS-II.G and was reviewed by Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., with no material findings beyond the emissions mismatch noted in the verification report.
missing Core integrity evidence is missing: no baseline method, no additionality test type, no buffer pool information, and reversal events are not addressed in the available verification record.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period is stated, the VVB is named, and the project documents include a verification report and monitoring report among the evidence used.
missing The record does not provide claimed versus verified emission reduction totals, and the monitoring approach is only described at a high level as an annual survey.
Claim Safety
verified FPIC and a grievance mechanism are both documented, which helps reduce non-carbon social risk around the project claim.
missing Leakage treatment is unclear in the verification report, and the contradiction indicates the PDD had a quantified leakage approach that was not carried through consistently.
Documentation
verified Four documents were used and the extraction confidence is high, which supports basic document reliability.
missing The verification report is from 2016 for a 2014–2015 monitoring period, and the key accounting details needed to assess the project are largely not stated in the extracted record.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The project is based on AMS-II.G and was verified by Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., but the extracted record does not state the baseline method, the additionality test type, or any buffer pool arrangement. Leakage is marked as not addressed in the verification report, and reversal events are also not addressed, which weakens permanence and accounting robustness.
Transparency
Transparency is limited because the record does not include claimed versus verified emission reduction totals, and several core monitoring parameters are missing or only broadly described. The monitoring period and VVB are identified, and the monitoring method is described as an annual survey, but that is not enough to fully reconstruct the MRV trail.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is moderate to weak because the project’s carbon accounting is not fully traceable from the extracted facts, especially around leakage and the missing baseline details. The contradiction log shows the PDD reportedly quantified leakage, while the later verification report says leakage was not addressed; I privileged the verification report because it is later and more specific to the verified issuance context, but the inconsistency still increases over-crediting risk.
Documentation
Documentation quality is mixed: four documents were used and extraction confidence is high, which is positive, and the project includes a verification report dated 2016 for a 2014–2015 monitoring period. However, many key fields are not found in the available documents, so the record is incomplete for a full quality assessment despite the presence of safeguards documentation.
Overall
The project has some positive governance features, including FPIC, a grievance mechanism, and a named VVB, but the carbon-accounting evidence is incomplete. The contradiction on leakage treatment is important: I privileged the 2016 verification report over the 2014 PDD because it is later and reflects the verified issuance context, but the discrepancy still reduces reliability. Overall confidence is constrained by missing baseline, additionality, and verified emissions data.
Audit Analysis
This cookstove PoA has some safeguards and a named VVB, but the evidence base is thin on core carbon-accounting elements like baseline method, additionality test, leakage treatment, and reversal handling. The verification report also flags a mismatch between the GS and CDM emission reduction values, which lowers confidence in the claimed reductions.
Project Description
Developer: atmosfair gGmbH Type: Energy Efficiency - Domestic Size: Small Scale Methodology: AMS-II.G. Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass Crediting period: 2014-11-15 → 2021-11-14 Estimated annual credits: 43097 tCO2e SDGs: Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being, Goal 15: Life On Land, Goal 13: Climate Action
Red Flags
- The verification report says the GS monitoring report emission reductions did not match the CDM monitoring report, and the report had to be adapted.
- Leakage is not addressed in the verification report, while the contradiction log says the PDD had a quantified leakage treatment that was not reflected in the later report.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 3,149 | 0 | 3,149 | |
| 2015 | 21,309 | 0 | 21,309 | |
| Total | 24,458 | 0 | 24,458 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the full baseline and additionality documentation, including the exact test applied and any reassessment history.
- Publish reconciled GS and CDM emission reduction calculations, with a clear leakage treatment and any verified versus claimed totals.
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
No additionality assessment found
Reversal risk not addressed
Leakage treatment inconsistent
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 →