GS 1220 Ecological Stoves for Better Living - Micro Scale PoA - VPA1 Bolivia

Integrity

The project appears to have a documented combined additionality test, and the verification record reports no material findings or corrective actions. However, permanence is weaker because reversal events are not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is provided, even though this is a stove project rather than a removal project. Leakage is treated with a 0% deduction and a quantified justification, but the overall robustness is reduced by the limited permanence evidence.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated, and both the verification and monitoring records provide usage-rate information, which supports traceability. That said, the VVB name is not found in the extracted record, which limits auditability. Transparency is also weakened by the conflicting usage-rate and monitoring-method values across documents, suggesting the public record is not fully consistent.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because the project uses a project-specific baseline and reports a quantified leakage treatment. The main risk is the contradiction on usage rates: the older verification report shows 0.9, while the later monitoring report shows 0.75, and the same later report is also the source for the assumed usage rate of 0.75. I privileged the later monitoring report for operational parameters because it is more recent and likely reflects current performance, but the discrepancy still lowers confidence in the claimed reductions. CORSIA eligibility is not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

Documentation is reasonably broad, with five documents used and high extraction confidence overall. The presence of FPIC, a grievance mechanism, and benefit-sharing language is positive for completeness. Still, the VVB name is missing, and the long crediting period relative to the monitoring period leaves a gap in how current the evidence is for the claimed issuance window.

Overall

Overall, I privileged the later monitoring report for the usage-rate and usage-monitoring-method values because it is more recent than the 2018 verification report and likely reflects the latest operating data. Even so, the contradiction between 0.9 and 0.75 is material and reduces reliability, so the score is held to the mid-range rather than higher. The project also lacks clear evidence on reversal handling and does not state CORSIA eligibility, which further limits confidence in the claim.