ONIL Stoves Guatemala Uspantan

Integrity

The project is an avoidance cookstove activity using VMR0006 with additionality confirmed by the VVB (validation/verification documentation referenced in the extracted record). Leakage is treated with a quantified approach and a 5% deduction (monitoring report, 2025-01-21), which is stronger than assuming zero leakage. However, the baseline is project-specific and no baseline reassessment timing is found in the extracted record, and the large inconsistencies in emission reduction totals across documents reduce confidence in the integrity of quantified outcomes.

Transparency

The monitoring approach is described as annual surveys and a very high verified usage rate is reported (monitoring report, 2025-01-21). The VVB is identified (KBS Certification Services Pvt Ltd), and no material findings are reported in the monitoring report. Transparency is weakened by conflicting values for key parameters (e.g., fNRB and crediting period) and by contradictory claimed/verified ER totals across validation/monitoring/issuance-related records, making it difficult to reconcile what was actually monitored and issued.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of problematic aviation-related claims. Nonetheless, over-crediting/claims risk remains material because the claimed and verified emission reductions are inconsistent across documents, and even the fNRB value differs between monitoring reports (0.913 in 2024-12-15 vs 0.7982 in 2025-01-21). These inconsistencies increase the chance that public claims could exceed what is robustly supported by the underlying MRV.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates broad documentation coverage (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance; 45 documents) and high extraction confidence, supporting a mid-to-strong documentation score. However, the monitoring report notes corrective actions/clarifications were needed, including providing a year-wise ER breakup for 2017 and 2018 and closure of multiple CARs/CLs (monitoring report, 2025-01-21). The presence of multiple cross-document contradictions also signals documentation control issues even if many documents exist.

Overall

Key contradictions materially affect confidence. For emission reductions, two different claimed totals (193,352 vs 32,021) appear in the same-dated validation report (2024-12-18); this is a serious reliability issue, so the assessment privileges the later monitoring/issuance-side quantified figures where available (173,300 verified in the 2025-02-06 record) but scores are reduced due to unresolved inconsistency. For safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit-sharing, the monitoring report (2025-01-21) states these are present, while the issuance record (2025-02-03) indicates they are absent; because issuance is the registry-facing outcome record, it is treated as higher priority for claim-risk, lowering claim_safety and transparency. For usage rate, 0.9763 vs 97.63 is interpreted as a unit/formatting issue (fraction vs percent) and the monitoring report value is privileged as the more MRV-specific expression. For fNRB (0.913 vs 0.7982) and crediting period (2010–2020 vs 2020–2030) across monitoring reports, the more recent monitoring report (2025-01-21) is privileged, but the contradictions still reduce integrity and transparency scores.