Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingVCSEnergy industries (renewable/non-renewable sources)Congo, The Democratic Republic of TheRegistry: RegisteredAMS-I.L

Talihya Nord I Hydro power rural electrification

Developer: Energie du Nord-Kivu SARL

VCS-4184 ↗

#4443of 5070 in Renewable energy#19of 23 in DR Congo#1520of 1583 in Verra (VCS)#11of 11 in AMS-I.L

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 30 Aug 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 3.7 / 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 small hydro-powered rural electrification project in DRC using the AMS-I.L methodology, validated by Applus+ Certification. The project is registered and presents no reversal risk, but the validation report raised 18 material findings and 18 corrective actions covering additionality discussion, baseline calculation consistency, monitoring plan completeness, and a missing double-accounting undertaking. No monitoring report or verified emission reductions are available in the extracted record, and the low extraction confidence limits the depth of assessment.

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 30 Aug 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 9 registry documents (9 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — 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)

    Not checked yet

    This registry publishes CORSIA labels, but CarbonMeld has not read this project's credit records yet: we cannot say whether its credits carry one. Check on the registry.

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMAMS-I.L

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project sector

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not checked yet

    This registry publishes Article 6 authorizations, but CarbonMeld has not read this project's credit records yet: we cannot say whether any credits are authorized. Check on the registry.

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.

Credit Vintages

No issuances recorded on the registry.

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 ProvenanceAMS-I.L

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 →