Up Energy Improved Cookstoves Programme, Uganda – CPA No 026 supported by Republic of Korea

Integrity

The monitoring report confirms additionality through a combined test and says the VVB verified it, which is a meaningful positive for integrity. The project also reports a quantified leakage deduction of 0.95% and no reversal events are described, but reversal handling is not clearly addressed and no buffer pool percentage is available. The baseline is project-specific rather than standardized, which is acceptable but less robust than a recent jurisdictional baseline.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring report names the verifier, gives the monitoring period, and provides a leakage deduction figure. However, total ERs claimed and verified are not found in the extracted record, and the usage monitoring method is inconsistent across documents, with the monitoring report showing self-report while later material refers to an annual survey. That inconsistency reduces confidence in the public-facing MRV trail.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the quantified leakage deduction and the 2025 baseline reassessment, which suggest some effort to keep the accounting current. Still, the usage-rate evidence is inconsistent across documents, and the project is marked CORSIA-eligible while CCP status is not mentioned, so the dual-claim picture is incomplete. The project therefore looks usable but not especially low-risk for conservative claims.

Documentation

Documentation is fair rather than strong: there are multiple source types, including a monitoring report and stakeholder consultation material, and extraction confidence is medium rather than low. At the same time, several important items are contradicted, including the crediting period, leakage justification, benefit sharing, and usage monitoring method. Those contradictions reduce reliability even though the file set is not sparse.

Overall

I privileged the more specific and apparently later records where contradictions existed, especially for the crediting period, usage rate, and leakage treatment, because they appear to come from more recent monitoring or validation material. Even so, the contradictions themselves are a material reliability issue and justify a downward adjustment in confidence and score. The project is reasonably supported on additionality and leakage, but the inconsistent documentation and unresolved dual-claim picture keep the overall assessment in the middle range.