Up Energy Improved Cookstoves Programme, Uganda – CPA No 045 supported by Republic of Korea

Integrity

The monitoring report confirms additionality was verified by the VVB, which is a strong positive for integrity. Leakage is treated with a quantified deduction of 0.95%, and no reversal events are reported, but reversal handling is still described as not addressed in the extracted record. The baseline is project-specific, and the last reassessment is only partially evidenced as 2024, so baseline robustness is acceptable but not strong.

Transparency

The monitoring report names 4K Earth Science Private Limited as the VVB and covers the 2022 monitoring period, with annual survey-based usage monitoring and a verified usage rate of 90.92%. However, total emissions reductions claimed and verified are not stated in the available documents, which limits public traceability. The record is also weakened by contradictions in the monitoring method and other fields, so transparency is moderate rather than high.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the quantified leakage deduction and by the fact that the verified usage rate is close to the assumed 90% value, reducing obvious over-crediting risk. On the other hand, the project is marked CORSIA-eligible, which raises dual-market claim exposure, and the crediting period is inconsistent across documents. The use of a project-specific baseline and only partially clear reassessment timing also leave some room for conservative skepticism.

Documentation

Documentation is fairly complete, with 13 documents used, a named VVB, a monitoring report, and stakeholder consultation evidence. The extraction confidence is medium, not low, so readability was acceptable overall. Still, several important items are not stated in available documents, including buffer pool coverage and total verified emissions reductions, and the record contains multiple contradictions that reduce documentation quality.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project record: the VVB-confirmed additionality and quantified leakage are positives, but the evidence is not clean enough for a top-tier score. I privileged the more recent or more specific monitoring-report values where contradictions existed, such as the annual survey usage method and the 2022 monitoring-period figures, because they are closer to the verification evidence; however, the conflicting crediting-period entries and leakage/usage discrepancies still reduce confidence. The integrity score stays above the gate threshold, but the contradictions and missing fields keep the project in the middle range rather than the high range.