Up Energy Improved Cookstoves Programme, Uganda – CPA No 034 supported by Republic of Korea

Integrity

The project scores reasonably well on integrity because the monitoring report confirms additionality through a combined test and the VVB is named as 4K Earth Science Private Limited. Leakage is not ignored: the report states a quantified deduction of 0.95%, and there are no unresolved material findings because all listed CARs and CLs were closed successfully. The main weakness is permanence: reversal events are marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is found in the extracted record.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring report provides a clear monitoring period, a named verifier, and a usage rate derived from an annual survey. At the same time, total emissions reductions claimed and verified are not stated in the extracted record, which limits public comparability. The record also contains contradictions on the usage monitoring method and the FNRB approach, which reduces confidence in the consistency of the reporting.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is acceptable but not strong. The quantified leakage deduction supports a more conservative crediting approach, and the verified usage rate is high at 90.92%, which helps reduce over-crediting concerns. However, the baseline remains project-specific rather than clearly standardized, and the extracted record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, leaving some dual-claim and market-claim uncertainty.

Documentation

Documentation quality is middling: the extracted record includes a monitoring report, stakeholder consultation material, and a named VVB, with medium extraction confidence. The project also has a recent monitoring period and a later baseline reassessment year of 2025, but the record does not provide all key quantitative fields. The contradiction on the crediting period is especially important, and I privileged the more recent value because it appears in the later-dated extraction, but that still signals a reliability issue.

Overall

Overall, this is a moderately solid project with some good-quality elements, especially VVB-confirmed additionality, quantified leakage, and resolved findings. I privileged the more recent values in the contradiction set where they appear to come from later extraction, including the 2024-12-05 to 2029-12-04 crediting period, but the presence of conflicting values for the crediting period, usage monitoring method, FNRB method, and benefit-sharing description lowers confidence. The integrity score remains above the gate threshold, so the overall score is not capped, but the documentation and transparency weaknesses keep the project from scoring higher.