Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticPeruRegistry: RegisteredGS-ICS-KR

GS1005 Qori Q'oncha - Improved cookstoves diffusion programme in Peru – VPA3

Developer: MICROSOL SAS

GS-220 ↗ · current registry ID: GS1365

#1605of 1734 in Industrial#69of 79 in Peru#2050of 2180 in Gold Standard (GS)#16of 17 in GS-ICS-KR

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 2 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 3.7 / 10 Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Analysis

The Qori Q'oncha cookstove project in Peru has a long operational history (since 2008) and a VVB-confirmed additionality assessment, but is burdened by an extraordinary volume of material findings (30+ items) and corrective actions, including double-counting risks, ER calculation non-compliance, broken and stolen stoves, and a 0% leakage deduction with contradictory justifications. Multiple contradictions across documents—particularly in the fNRB value (73.75 vs 0.8726) and verified ER figures—undermine confidence in the reported emission reductions. The project's integrity and claim-safety profiles are significantly weakened by these unresolved quality issues.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 25 registry documents (23 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology approved by ICVCMGS TPDDTEC

    The methodology meets the Core Carbon Principles; this project's credits do not carry the CCP label yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2011
9,5799,5790
2012
35,31634,576740
2013
50,97850,9735
2014
36,01736,0170
2015
9,9319,752179
2016
7,3427,3420
2017
6,7336,7330
Total155,896154,972924

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

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

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceTechnologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →