SMG - Access to Clean Cooking in Himalayas VPA 01

Integrity

The monitoring report confirms additionality through a combined test and the VVB is named as LGAI Technological Center, S.A., which is a positive sign. Leakage is quantified at 5%, but buffer pool coverage is not stated and reversal handling is described as not addressed in the extracted monitoring record, so permanence is only moderately supported. The project uses the TPDDTEC methodology, but no baseline reassessment date is found in the extracted record.

Transparency

The record includes a defined monitoring period, the VVB name, the usage monitoring method, and the claimed emissions reductions figure, which helps traceability. At the same time, the verified emissions reductions total is not found, and the evidence set includes an unknown source, so the public accounting trail is incomplete. The extraction confidence is medium rather than high, which limits transparency confidence.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the quantified leakage deduction and by the usage rate being both assumed and verified at 90, suggesting limited mismatch on that parameter. However, the project is marked CORSIA-eligible, which keeps dual-channel claim risk relevant, and the record does not show a clearly recent baseline reassessment. The contradictions around FNRB formatting and benefit-sharing disclosure also weaken confidence in the claim boundary.

Documentation

The documentation base is reasonably broad, with 14 documents used and both monitoring and stakeholder consultation materials present. Still, the record contains multiple corrective-action and clarification requests, including stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanism setup, and double-counting checks. Because the extraction confidence is medium and some key fields are missing, the documentation package is only moderately complete.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-range project with credible elements but notable evidence gaps. I privileged the monitoring report for reversal, leakage, and FNRB-related values because it is the most specific source in the extracted set, but I discounted confidence because the contradictions show inconsistent downstream extraction and some later records appear to disagree on key points. The contradictions on reversal events, leakage justification, FNRB value formatting, and benefit-sharing disclosure were all considered as reliability issues rather than substantive proof of failure.