Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticRwandaRegistry: Registered

GS5047 VPA80 African Improved Cookstoves and Clean Water Programme: Gishwati – Mukura Forest Conservation Project VIII

Developer: Likano Project Development GmbH

GS-2975 ↗ · current registry ID: GS11016

#1029of 1735 in Industrial#67of 148 in Rwanda#1423of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 4 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.9 / 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

A Gold Standard improved-cookstove distribution project in Rwanda with VVB-confirmed additionality and no reversal events, but undermined by 37 outstanding corrective actions, nine cross-document contradictions (including conflicting leakage justifications and fNRB values), and a project-specific baseline with no stated reassessment date. The data-quality issues and contradictory records significantly erode confidence in the verified emission reductions.

Red Flags

4 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

On this page: the analysis of 4 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 25 registry documents (23 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; 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:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2022
3,8503,8500
2023
9,9139,715198
2024
10,000010,000
Total23,76313,56510,198

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 ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1

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 →