CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
Re-assessment pendingGSEnergy Efficiency - DomesticHondurasVintage 2021Registry: RegisteredGS-TPDDTEC

Proyecto Mirador Enhanced Distribution of Improved Cookstoves in Latin America - First VPA for Distribution of Dos por Tres Cookstoves in Honduras

Developer: Proyecto Mirador Foundation

Methodology: GS-TPDDTEC (GS)

GS-1575 ↗ · current registry ID: GS2758

Worked comparison example (English)

#1283of 1699 in Industrial#41of 48 in Honduras#1727of 2179 in Gold Standard (GS)#325of 474 in GS-TPDDTEC

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 5 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 4.6 / 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

Scored2026-09-05medium confidence

evidence: 59/61 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

How this analysis was made

Standard
Gold Standard (GS) How our current method reads projects of this standard
Methodology
Reduced Emissions from Cooking and Heating: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC) How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.1 · analysed on 5 Sep 2026 · 59/61 registry documents analyzed · re-assessment under v2.2 pending

Analysis

Proyecto Mirador is a Gold Standard cookstove project in Honduras with VVB-verified additionality and a measured baseline, but it is undermined by a dramatic fNRB revision (69% to 32%), a 42% gap between claimed and verified emissions reductions, extensive material findings including double-claiming and thermal-efficiency inconsistencies, and the absence of a stated buffer pool. The project's data reliability is further weakened by eleven cross-document contradictions in key parameters. While safeguards and FPIC are documented, the cumulative effect of these issues places the project in a moderate-risk category.

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

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score 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 5 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 61 registry documents (59 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 · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks credits of this project with the Integrity Council's Core Carbon Principles label: check that the units offered carry it.

    Source: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: credits of this project that carry the label on the registry — not every unit or lot

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label · read on 2 Nov 2026

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • 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:2026-11-02

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2013
13,79813,7980
2014
193,466193,4660
2015
229,920229,9200
2016
276,435276,4350
2017
297,020296,0201,000
2018
310,032209,532100,500
2019
275,083260,91814,165
2020
268,606268,6060
2021
276,064270,2625,802
2022
258,93990,894168,045
2023
181,0500181,050
2024
124,52712,577111,950
Total2,704,9402,122,428582,512

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

Marketplaces

Each listing shows what the shop published on the day it was checked. The registry balance on this page is not a seller's stock, and some shops show no price.

Cool Effect

Vintage 2021

checked on 1 Nov 2026

↗
+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

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 →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.