GS1340 Efficient cookstoves in Burkina Faso – VPA-13 - tiipaalga F3PA cookstoves in Kourwéogo

Integrity

The project’s integrity is supported by VVB-confirmed additionality and a combined additionality test, plus a quantified leakage deduction of 0.95%. At the same time, the verification report includes several CARs and CLs, including inconsistent design-certification dates, duplicated GPS locations, and crediting-period/date issues, so the underlying MRV quality is only moderate.

Transparency

The monitoring period for 2022 is clearly stated, and the VVB is identified as Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. However, the extracted record has low extraction confidence and only one evidence document listed, while contradictions appear on verified emissions, leakage treatment, and usage monitoring method, which limits transparency.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the gap between the assumed stove usage rate of 0.95 and the verified rate of 0.699, which suggests meaningful over-crediting risk if not fully explained. The project’s baseline is project-specific rather than standardized, and the record does not show CORSIA eligibility or CCP approval, so dual-claim risk is not fully resolved but also not evidenced as a direct conflict.

Documentation

Documentation quality is mixed: the record includes FPIC, a grievance mechanism, benefit-sharing, and a list of corrective actions, which is positive. But min extraction confidence is low, the evidence set is thin, and the verification report itself notes several unresolved or corrected issues, so the documentation package is incomplete in practice.

Overall

I privileged the 2025 verification report where it appears to be the most recent and specific source, especially for the corrected crediting period, quantified leakage, and updated safeguard evidence. The contradictions still matter: the record conflicts on leakage justification, usage monitoring method, total verified emission reductions, and crediting period, so I discounted the scores for reliability even though the later report appears to supersede earlier versions. Because documentation is below a strong level but not critically weak, the transparency score is not capped here; however, the integrity score remains only moderate due to the unresolved verification findings and the large usage-rate gap.