Up Energy Improved Cookstoves Programme, Uganda – CPA No 031 supported by Republic of Korea

Integrity

The project scores moderately well on integrity because the VVB confirmed additionality and the methodology is identified as AMS-II.G, with a quantified leakage deduction of 0.95% in the monitoring report. That said, permanence is not robustly evidenced: reversal events are marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is available in the extracted record. The baseline is project-based rather than a clearly standardized jurisdictional baseline, which is acceptable but not especially strong.

Transparency

Transparency is middling because the monitoring report names the VVB, gives a clear monitoring period, and states annual survey-based usage monitoring. However, the extracted facts do not provide verified and claimed ERR totals, and the registry/claim picture is incomplete because CORSIA eligibility is not stated and CCP status is only noted as not mentioned. The absence of these figures limits the ability to independently reconcile issuance and claims.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate but not high. The quantified leakage deduction supports better over-crediting control, and the verified usage rate of 90.92% is close to the assumed 90%, which reduces concern about a major usage assumption gap. Still, the project-specific baseline and the missing CORSIA/CCP status leave residual greenwashing and double-claim risk unresolved.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair: the extracted record draws on 13 documents, includes a monitoring report and stakeholder consultation material, and extraction confidence is medium. The project also shows a long list of resolved CARs/CLs, which is helpful, but the record still lacks some key values such as buffer pool coverage and verified versus claimed ERR totals. The contradictions in the merged facts reduce confidence in the completeness and consistency of the documentation set.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality record with some solid project-level controls but meaningful evidence gaps. I privileged the more specific and more recent values where contradictions existed: for example, I used the later national-default FNRB treatment over the earlier local-field reference, the monitoring-report annual survey over the later self-report description, and the later crediting-period entry over the older one because the contradiction list indicates those are the higher-priority values. The contradictions on leakage treatment and usage monitoring, plus the missing CORSIA/CCP status, justify a cautious score rather than a strong one.