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

GS1005 Qori Q'oncha - Improved cookstoves diffusion programme in Peru - VPA5

Developer: Livelihoods Fund SICAV SIF

GS-902 ↗ · current registry ID: GS5107

#715of 1734 in Industrial#42of 79 in Peru#988of 2180 in Gold Standard (GS)#99of 313 in GS-TPDDTEC

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.0 / 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 confirmed additionality assessment and no reversal events, but is burdened by an extensive history of corrective actions, inconsistent leakage treatment across documents, a notable gap between assumed (90%) and verified (81%) usage rates, and the absence of a buffer pool. The project-specific baseline and multiple data contradictions reduce confidence in the robustness of the credit claims.

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 23 registry documents (21 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)

    Pilot phase only (2021–2023)

    Eligible only for the pilot phase: not usable for the current 2024–2026 phase.

    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
2016
4,8724,739133
2017
75,66057,22618,434
2018
6,6123,3903,222
2019
56,1788,14448,034
2020
40,17611,92128,255
2021
20,0357,69012,345
Total203,53393,110110,423

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

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 (TPDDTEC)

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 →