HomeBiogas Programme in Kenya
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB in the verification report, which supports the project’s core eligibility claim.
missing Leakage deduction is not stated, reversal events are marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is provided.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period, VVB name, and verified emission reductions are stated in the extracted records, giving some traceability.
missing The record shows low extraction confidence and several unresolved contradictions, including different usage rates and different verified ER totals across reports.
Claim Safety
verified The project uses a project baseline and a quantified FNRB value based on a national default, which is better than an unstated baseline approach.
missing Usage assumptions and verified usage differ between documents, and the absence of leakage and permanence detail raises over-crediting risk.
Documentation
verified The evidence set includes both monitoring and verification reports, plus stakeholder consultation material, and the project has 25 documents used.
missing Low extraction confidence, multiple corrective actions, and missing key fields such as buffer pool and leakage deduction reduce documentation quality.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report confirms additionality through VVB review, and the project uses a project baseline under the stated biogas methodology. At the same time, leakage treatment is not quantified in the extracted record, reversal events are not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is available, which weakens permanence and accounting robustness. The presence of several CARs and CLs also suggests the project required substantive follow-up before acceptance.
Transparency
The records identify the VVB, the monitoring period, and the verified emission reductions, which supports basic traceability. However, the extracted data has low extraction confidence, and the documents disagree on key figures such as the usage rate and verified ER totals. That combination limits confidence in the completeness and consistency of the public record.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is moderate at best because the project has a stated baseline approach and a quantified FNRB value derived from a national default. But the usage rate is inconsistent across documents, leakage is not clearly quantified in the extracted record, and permanence controls are not documented, all of which increase over-crediting risk. The project is Gold Standard certified, but the available facts do not fully eliminate claim-risk concerns.
Documentation
The evidence set includes monitoring and verification reports, stakeholder consultation material, and a relatively large number of documents used. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and several important items are either not stated or only partially captured, including buffer pool coverage, leakage deduction, and reversal handling. The multiple corrective actions further indicate that the documentation package was not fully clean or straightforward.
Overall
Overall, this is a mid-quality avoidance project with some credible safeguards and VVB-backed additionality, but the evidence package is not strong enough to score highly. I privileged the more recent monitoring-report usage rate of 90% over the earlier 100% figure because the contradiction log identifies it as the later document, and I treated the higher verified ER total as the current value for the same reason. The contradictions around usage, leakage treatment, and verified ER totals reduce reliability and justify a downward adjustment in the final score.
Audit Analysis
The project has some positive integrity signals, including VVB-confirmed additionality, a project baseline, and documented safeguards such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism. However, reliability is weakened by multiple CARs/CLs, low extraction confidence, missing leakage and permanence detail, and several contradictions between the monitoring and verification records.
Project Description
In Kenya, over 90% of rural households rely on charcoal and firewood, harming the environment through deforestation and exposing families, especially women and children, to financial strain and health risks from indoor air pollution. This reliance also accelerates biodiversity loss and climate change. HomeBiogas is transforming this reality. Our innovative biodigesters empower underserved families by converting organic waste—primarily animal manure—into clean, renewable biogas for cooking and nutrient-rich fertilizer for farming. By reducing reliance on polluting fuels, our solution enables families to save money, eliminate the cutting of many trees annually, and boost agricultural productivity through natural fertilizers. This program not only addresses critical environmental and economic challenges but also delivers tangible, lasting improvements to health, livelihoods, and sustainability in Kenya's rural communities. Project Impacts and Benefits SDG 1 : No Poverty The HomeBiogas system provides a lifeline for underserved families by saving them money that would have otherwise gone to charcoal or firewood. These savings enable households to invest in essentials like education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities, creating a pathway out of poverty. SDG 2: Zero Hunger The biodigesters produce nutrient-rich organic fertilizer, enhancing soil health and boosting crop yields. This allows smallholder farmers to grow healthier, more productive crops, ensuring food security and improving agricultural sustainability. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being By eliminating the need for smoky charcoal and firewood, the project reduces indoor air pollution, which is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses in rural communities. Families, especially women and children, benefit from healthier kitchens and living environments. SDG 5: Gender Equality Reducing time spent collecting firewood and cooking, empowering women and children to focus
Red Flags
- Multiple material findings and corrective actions were raised in the verification report, including concerns about the program name and several CARs/CLs.
- Key carbon-accounting details are incomplete or inconsistent, including missing leakage deduction, no buffer pool information, and conflicting usage-rate and ERR figures across documents.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 3,238 | 3,238 | 0 | |
| 2023 | 13,273 | 8,364 | 4,909 | |
| 2024 | 21,251 | 0 | 21,251 | |
| Total | 37,762 | 11,602 | 26,160 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide a clear, reconciled accounting note that explains the usage-rate and verified-ER discrepancies and identifies which document is authoritative for each figure.
- Disclose leakage deduction, reversal-risk treatment, and any buffer pool or equivalent permanence safeguard in a single consolidated monitoring summary.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed additionality
No buffer pool stated
Leakage not clearly quantified
Project baseline, reassessment not stated
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
CORSIA/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →