CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticChinaRegistry: RegisteredAMS-II.G

WWF Mamize Firewood-Saving Cook Stove Project IV

Developer: South Pole Ltd

GS-1673 ↗ · current registry ID: GS1096

Worked comparison example (English)

#475of 1735 in Industrial#1064of 3065 in China#696of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)#144of 353 in AMS-II.G

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 10 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.6 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
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

Scored2026-09-10low confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2021-12-30

evidence: 16/18 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The WWF Mamize cook-stove project has a solid additionality foundation (VVB-confirmed investment test) and a quantified 5% leakage deduction, but is undermined by the absence of any stated buffer pool or permanence mechanism, a project-specific baseline, and a critical 100-fold discrepancy in the FNRB value between the verification report and the monitoring report. The project delivered roughly 97% of its pro-rata ex-ante expectation for the 2019–2021 monitoring window, which is reasonable, but the data-reliability issues and low extraction confidence across 16 documents limit confidence in the underlying figures.

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 10 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 18 registry documents (16 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; 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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMAMS-II.G

    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: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

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.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2012
2,2272,2270
2013
4,9924,9920
2014
5,1495,1490
2015
4,8634,83132
2016
4,6174,491126
2017
4,6284,516112
2018
4,6084,6080
2019
4,5384,5299
2020
4,0103,93080
2021
3,9893,91079
Total43,62143,183438

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2011–2013AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2013–2014AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2014–2015AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2015–2017AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2017–2019AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2019–2021AMS-II.G v3.0since replaced by v14.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-II.G: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents 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].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceAMS-II.G
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

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 →