Guidebook to Gold Standard

and CDM Methodologies for

Improved Cookstove Projects
Guidebook to Gold Standard
and CDM Methodologies for
Improved Cookstove Projects
Version: 1.0

Date: 07/07/2016

Prepared by: Gold Standard Foundation

Photo credits: Franziska Kaguembega-Mueller, Tiipaalga, Burkina Faso

ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement vi
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Improved Cookstove Methodology(ies) 3
3.0 Scope and Applicability 4
3.1 Scope of the Methodology 4
3.2 Applicability Conditions 5
3.3 Number of Maximum Cookstoves 9
4.0 Project boundary 11
4.1 Geographic Boundary 11
4.2 GHGs Emission Sources 12
5.0 Baseine and project scenario identification 14
5.1 Baseline Scenario Identification 14
5.2 Project Scenario Identification 15
6.0 Quantification of GHGs emission reductions 17
6.1 Fuel Savings 18
6.2 Baseline Fuel Consumption 21
6.3 Project Fuel Consumption 23
6.4 Efficiency and Efficiency Loss 24
6.5 Rated Thermal Capacity 25
6.6 Emission Factors 25
6.7 Fraction of Non-Renewable Biomass (fNRB) 26
6.8 Other Parameters 27
7.0 Monitoring methodology and requirements 28
7.1 Sales Record and Project Database 28
7.2 Monitoring Survey 28
7.3 Monitoring Frequency 30
7.4 Leakage 34
8.0 Conclusion 36
Annex 1: Relevant links 37
Annex 2: Fuel consumption estimation protocol 39

iii
List of Tables
Table 1: GHGs Quantification and monitoring methodology for Improved
Cookstove projects 3
TaBle 2: Scope of improved cookstove methodologies 6
Table 3: Applicability conditions for eligible scope 3
Table 4: Additional requirements for Gold Standard methodologies 8
Table 5: GHG emissions included in each methodology 13
Table 6: Emission sources included in each methodology 13
Table 7: Fuel consumption estimation methods 18
Table 8: Fuel saving estimation methods 20
Table 9: Baseline fuel consumption estimation methods 21
Table 10: Project fuel consumption estimation methods 23
Table 11: Usage survey 29
Table 12: Monitoring frequency of relevant parameters 31
Table 13: Sample size for surveys and tests 32
Table 14: Fuel characteristics and fuel consumption 33

List of Figures
Figure 1: An example leaflet to explain the carbon credit ownership 9
Figure 2: Examples of the delineation of project boundary, target area
and fuel production/collection area under TPDDTEC 12
Figure 3: Parameters for estimation of emission reductions at project
level 17
Figure 4: Relative benefits and tradeoffs of fuel consumption estimation
methods 19

iv
List of Boxes
Box 1: Fuel switch 5
Box 2: How to estimate energy output 7
Box 3: How to calculate energy savings 10
Box 4: Project Target Area and fuel collection and production area 11
Box 5: TPDDTEC Methodology: +/-5% rule 15
Box 6: TPDDTEC methodology: How to add additional baseline and
project scenarios 16
Box 7: How can project developers use the default fNRB values that are
approved by CDM EB but not yet endorsed by the host countries DNAs 27

v
Acknowledgement
This document is developed as part of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by
Fundación Natura Colombia (FNC) and The Gold Standard Foundation, with the financial
support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the Inter-American Develop-
ment Bank (IDB). Gold Standard would like to thank to Roberto Leon Gomez and Alexan-
dra Ochoa Herrera from Fundación Natura Colombia (FNC) for their inputs and guidance
in preparation of this document.

Gold Standard Foundation

Our role as a standard and certification body is to maximise the impact of climate and de-
velopment activities. We design the strongest processes that amplify the impact of efforts
to deliver clean energy and water, responsibly manage land and forests, and transform
lives of the world’s poor. We then verify those outcomes, inspiring greater confidence that
drives investment to accomplish even more.

Gold Standard was established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs as a
best practice standard to ensure projects that reduced carbon emissions under the
UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) also delivered on their dual mandate to
foster sustainable development. Now with more than 80 NGO supporters and 1100 proj-
ects in over 70 countries, our projects have delivered billions of dollars in climate and
development outcomes in local communities all around the world. Learn more about
Gold Standard at www.goldstandard.org.

vi
Abbreviations and Glossary
Abbreviation Details
AMS-I.E CDM small-scale methodology “Switch from non-renewable bio-
mass for thermal applications by the user”
AMS-II.G CDM small-scale methodology “Energy efficiency measures in ther-
mal applications of non-renewable biomass”
GS Simplified Gold Standard “Simplified methodology for efficient cookstoves”
Methodology
TPDDTEC
Gold Standard “Technologies and practices to displace decentral-
ized thermal energy consumption”
BFT Baseline Field Test (Baseline kitchen performance test)
CCT Controlled Cooking Test
DNA Designated National Authority
EB Executive Board
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
EF Emission Factor
ER Emission Reduction
FNC Fundación Natura Colombia
fNRB Fraction of Non-Renewable Biomass
GACC Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GS Gold Standard
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
ICS Improved cookstove activities
WBT Water Boiling Test
KPT Kitchen Performance Test
LDC Least Developed Country
LLDC Land-locked developing countries
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LSC Local Stakeholder Consultation
NCV Net Calorific Value
PFT Project Field Test (Project kitchen performance test)
TEO Thermal Energy Output
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SUZ Special Underdeveloped Zone

vii
Useful Terms
Term Description
Batch A batch is defined as the population of the device of the same
type commissioned at a certain calendar year. To establish the
date of commissioning, the project participant may opt to group
the devices and the ‘batches’. The latest date of commissioning
of a device within the batch shall be used at the date of com-
missioning for the entire batch.
Methodology A GHG quantification methodology that defines the GHG quan-
tification methods, project boundaries, approaches for identi-
fication of baseline, project scenarios and monitoring require-
ments and guidelines.
Traditional cookstoves Traditional solid-fuel cooking solutions include cookstoves such
as three-stone fires, unvented mud/clay “U” shaped stoves, ba-
sic charcoal cookstoves, and poorly vented coal cookstoves.
Improved (biomass) Solid-fuel stoves that improve on traditional baseline biomass
cookstoves (ICS) technologies in terms of fuel savings via improved fuel ef-
ficiency. Some improved cookstoves also lower particulate
emissions through improved efficiency of combustion, but the
critical distinction from “clean” cooking solutions is that “im-
proved” stoves may not reach sufficiently low emissions levels
to generate meaningful health benefits. Cookstoves covered
by this definition include basic chimney ICS, basic portable ICS
and intermediate ICS.
Basic chimney ICS Solid-fuel cookstoves whose chimneys feature minimal to mod-
erate improvements in thermal efficiency.
Basic portable ICS Portable biomass cookstoves that are unvented and feature
moderate improvements in thermal efficiency. This category
includes minimally improved ceramic and clay cookstoves.
Intermediate ICS A wide range of solid-fuel cookstoves with significant improve-
ments in fuel efficiency but typically more limited health and en-
vironment outcomes in comparison to clean cooking solutions
such as gasifier and modern fuel cookstoves.
Advanced (biomass) Fan draft or natural draft biomass gasification cookstoves that
cookstoves (ACS) achieve significant particulate emission reductions.
Modern cooking Petro-chemical fuel (LPG, natural gas, kerosene), electric
solutions stoves, and electromagnetic induction cookstoves.
Renewable cooking Biofuel cookstoves powered by ethanol and other plant-based
solutions liquids, oils or gels, including biogas cookstoves, solar cookers,
and retained-heat cooking devices.

viii
 Guaranteeing access to
clean cooking is a universal
challenge, as traditional
cooking methods lead to
immense human costs.

ix
1.0 Introduction
Guaranteeing access to clean cooking is a universal challenge, as traditional cooking
methods lead to immense human costs. More than 3 billion people, representing over
60% of the population in developing countries and 40% of the world’s total population,
still rely on traditional biomass fuels such as wood, crop residues, and dung for their pri-
mary cooking needs using open fires or traditional stoves. Sub-Saharan Africa has the
highest level of solid-fuel dependence globally, followed by Asia, Latin America, and East-
ern Europe. Around 82% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa relies on solid-fuels for
cooking, followed by 44–71% in Asia, 19% in Eastern Europe, and 17% in Latin America1.

Solid-fuel cooking imposes immense health, environmental, economic, and social costs
on households in developing countries. In addition, burning solid-fuels contributes to
global climate change by emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide,
methane and short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) such as black carbon (BC). Solid-fuel
cooking and related charcoal production across the developing world generate around
1.5–3.0% of global CO2 emissions2.

Clean cooking presents an opportunity for addressing climate change. In this context
carbon finance is emerging as an attractive option to help fund improved cookstove
initiatives. Carbon finance is a type of payment for environmental services in which the
GHG emission reductions from an activity are certified as having taken place and then
purchased by governments, companies and individuals who wish to invest in a global
effort to reduce GHG emissions. This flow of investment allows projects that would not
normally be economically viable to take place while stimulating technology development
and uptake by providing incentives to reduce GHG emissions.

In the last decade, carbon finance opportunities have proved to be a catalyst in realising
clean cooking activities on the ground and transforming the improved cookstove mar-
ket at a commercial level3. Despite challenges in the carbon market, carbon finance for
improved and clean cookstoves is booming, with voluntary buyers funneling $61 million
to Gold Standard certified offsets to projects that distribute clean cookstoves in 20134.
Organisations ranging from NGOs, donor agencies, international and national agencies,
private investors and stove manufactures, have successfully infused carbon revenue into
their business models for financing cookstove interventions and are aiming to distribute
millions of stoves in the coming years.

1
2015, World Bank, The State of the Global Clean and Improved Cooking Sector
2
Bis 1
3
2015, Oliver Johnson, Hannah Wanjiru, Cassilde Muhoza, Fiona Lambe, Marie Jürisoo, Wathanyu Amatay-
akul and Audrey Chenevoy; From Theory to Practice of Change: Lessons from SNV’s Improved Cookstoves
and Fuel Projects in Cambodia, Kenya, Nepal and Rwanda, Stockholm Environment Institute
4
2015, World Bank, The State of the Global Clean and Improved Cooking Sector

1
To be able to measure and certify emission reductions from a project, an organization (a
project developer) who wishes to develop a project must follow the calculations and pro-
cedures required by an applicable GHG quantification and monitoring methodology. The
leading carbon market certification schemes, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
and Gold Standard provide such methodologies for improved cookstoves. These meth-
odologies differ in terms of applicability criteria, baseline assessment, emission reduction
calculation approaches, monitoring requirements, etc. This guidebook aims to assist proj-
ect developers in evaluating and choosing the methodology that is best suited to their
improved cookstove projects. It provides an overview of applicability, GHG quantification
approaches and monitoring requirements for improved
cookstove projects of the approved CDM and GS meth-
odologies available at the time of writing this guidebook.
It also provides a comparison of requirements, account-
ing approaches and resource requirements for each
methodology and also gives suggestions for applying
these methodologies in practice.

This guidebook is not intended to provide conclusions

regarding the maximising of GHG emission reduction
benefits of the cookstove activity. On the contrary, it is
intended to help project developers in gaining an under-
standing of the key elements of currently approved CDM
and Gold Standard methodologies so that they can make
informed choices when developing a project funded via
carbon finance. Furthermore, this guidebook is not in-
tended to rank the improved cookstove methodologies.
The selected three methodologies each valid under their
respective certification schemes as indicated in Table 1
and can be applied to any improved cookstove activities,
provided that the applicability conditions of the selected
methodology are met. It should be noted that:

• This methodology guidebook refers to the latest version of the methodology avail-
able at the time of writing this guidebook. Since the methodologies are living docu-
ments whereby changes may occur over time, this guidebook is subject to possible
future updates.
• The project developer shall refer to and confirm with the most recent version of the
methodology prior to making a decision.
• This guidebook is not intended to rate the methodologies against each other.
• This guidebook is not a technical manual and does not replace the methodology
requirements.

2
2.0 Improved Cookstove
Methodologies
This guidebook presents a comparison of the three most commonly used GHG quantifi-
cation and monitoring methodologies for improved cookstove activities. These method-
ologies are applicable to the projects applying for CDM and/or Gold Standard certification
for carbon finance (Table 1).

Table 1: GHGs Quantification and monitoring methodology for Improved

Cookstove projects
Methodology Version Applicability
Simplified methodology for efficient cookstoves 1.0 Gold Standard
AMS-II.G: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applica- 7.0 CDM and GS
tions of non-renewable biomass (AMS II.G)
Technologies and practices to displace decentralized 2.0 Gold Standard
thermal energy consumption (TPDDTEC)

All methodologies have the following key components in common:

• Scope and applicability

• Project Boundaries
• Baseline and project scenario
• Quantification of GHG emission reductions
• Monitoring methodology and requirements

The following sections provide detailed information on these key elements.

3
3.0 Scope and Applicability
This section provides insights on the following questions:

• What are the different types of projects eligible for quantifying GHG emission reduc-
tions under each cookstove methodology?
• Which methodology among these three is suitable to technology/fuel and fuel
switch situations?
• How many cookstoves can be included in an activity under each methodology?

The applicability section defines the primary scope of a particular methodology. It outlines
applicability conditions that shall be met by the potential project in order to apply the se-
lected methodology. From the outset, the project developer shall evaluate project eligibil-
ity by reviewing the scope and applicability requirements of the potential methodology.

3.1 Scope of the Methodology

The scopes of the three methodologies are summarised in Table 2. In general, the meth-
odologies under discussion cover technologies and measures that include:

• Project activity involving introduction of improved cookstoves

• Retrofitting of existing cookstoves
• Fuel switch situation

As summarised in Table 2, a project that involves the introduction of improved cook-

stoves is eligible under all three methodologies while a project that involves retrofitting
existing cookstoves is not eligible under the GS Simplified Methodology and the projects
that involve fuel switch situations are not eligible under AMS II.G5.

5
The CDM Methodologies allow fuel-switching activities e.g. AMS-I.E, AMS-III.B.

4
Table 2: Scope of improved cookstove methodologies
Scope (Technology/Measures) GS Simplified Methodology AMS II.G TPDDTEC
Improved cookstove Yes1 Yes1 Yes
Fuel Switch Yes2 No3 Yes
Retrofitting of existing cook- No Yes Yes
stoves
Non-domestic Premises No Yes Yes4

1. Introduction of single-pot or multi-pot portable or in-situ cookstoves with rated

efficiency of at least 20%. It refers to only firewood burning stoves.
2. Only fuel switch from non-renewable to renewable biomass for firewood burning
stoves is eligible under this methodology.
3. The CDM methodologies which allow fuel switch project activities are e.g. AMS-
I.E, AMS-III.B.
4. Industrial/institutional cook-stoves (e.g. schools, hospitals, etc.) and residential
institutional, industrial, or commercial facilities

Box 1: Fuel switch

A fuel switch situation comprises of switching from one fuel to another with or
without changing the technology, such as transitioning from a non-renewable
biomass fuel like firewood or charcoal to a renewable biomass fuel sourced from
sustainably harvested forests or agricultural residues, like rice or coffee husks.
Switching from high GHG emitting fuels to relatively lower GHG emitting fuels or
even non-GHG emitting technologies includes the switch from fuels like kerosene,
charcoal or firewood to ethanol, biogas, LPG or solar.

3.2 Applicability Conditions

A potential project shall meet pre-defined applicability conditions as outlined in each meth-
odology. A summary of applicability conditions for eligible scope/conditions is provided in
Table 3. The TPDDTEC methodology allows the widest range of project types in the cook-
ing regime, while the GS Simplified Methodology has very limited applicability conditions—
i.e., only projects that involve firewood cookstoves or fuel switch from non-renewable to
renewable firewood are allowed. The CDM methodology, AMS II.G, allows biomass fired
stoves that include firewood, charcoal and biomass fuel mix situations.

The fuel switch projects moving from the non-renewable biomass to fossil fuels like LPG
and coal are eligible under the TPDDTEC methodology. However, the emission reductions

5
can only be claimed against the energy efficiency improvement component. Under CDM,
there are other methodologies like AMS-I.E, AMS-III.B, which allow fuel switch projects.

Table 3: Applicability conditions for eligible scope

Technology GS Simplified AMS II.G TPDDTEC
/scope Methodology
Improved Fuel type/technology
cookstove, Firewood Yes Yes Yes
owen and Charcoal No Yes Yes
dryers
Fuelmix No Yes Yes
Solar No No Yes
Biogas No No Yes
Plant oil based stoves No No Yes
Heat retention cookers No No Yes
Fossil fuel stoves No No Yes1
Fuel switch Potential fuel switch scenarios
Non-renewable to renewable Yes No Yes
biomass
Non-renewable biomass to fos- No No Yes
sil fuel
High GHG emitting fossil fuels No No Yes
to lower GHG emitting fossil
fuels (e.g., kerosene to LPG)
Fossil fuel to non-GHG emit- No No Yes
ting fuels (e.g., ethanol, biogas,
solar)
Retrofitting Existing biomass stoves/ovens/ No Yes Yes
dryers
Existing fossil fuel stoves/ov- No No Yes
ens/dryers
Notes:
In the case of projects that introduce fossil fuel stoves like LPG, Coal, etc., based
improved stoves, the emission reductions associated with differences in carbon
content between a non-renewable fuel and fossil fuel shall NOT be eligible for Gold
Standard certification.

In addition to the applicability conditions mentioned in Table 3, the TPDDTEC methodol-

ogy also has a cap on the maximum thermal output for the project technology included in
the project activity. The maximum energy output of the eligible improved cookstove shall
not be more than 150kW per unit. An example to demonstrate how the energy output
shall be estimated is provided in Box 2.

6
 Box 2: How to estimate energy output?
In order to estimate the energy output of project cookstove, the following ap-
proach can be used:

Step 1: Estimate the energy consumption in kWh

Energy consumption (in kWh/stove/day) = Stove fuel consumption * Energy in one
tonne of wood (in kWh)

The energy in wood fuel has an NCV of 0.0156 TJ/t which must first be converted
into kWh by multiplying by 277778. This figure is then multiplied by the stove fuel
consumption of 0.004 t/stove/day to give an estimated energy consumption of
17.33kWh/day.

Step 2: Estimate energy output

Energy output (in kW) = Energy consumption (kWh) / Estimated daily use (in hours)

If the estimated daily use is 3 hours, the estimated fuel consumption will be 17.33 /
3 = 5.78 kW

Step 3: Estimate the useful thermal energy output

Useful energy output (kW) = Estimated fuel consumption * Thermal efficiency of
the stove (%)

Assuming that the thermal efficiency of the cookstove is 28%, the useful output
will be 5.78 kW * 28% = 1.62 kW. This is the energy output that acts upon the stove
and is therefore able to be used for cooking.

Both Gold Standard methodologies also set additional requirements to enhance the
project design and ensure transparency among participants involved in the project de-
velopment and operation. The additional requirements are summarised in Table 4.

7
Table 4: Additional requirements for Gold Standard methodologies
Requirements Description
Double counting Project developers shall ensure that project devices are not
counted more than once and are not included in more than
one project. Avoidance of double counting of emission reduc-
tions can be achieved via unique identifications of the de-
vices and end-user locations (e.g. programme logo). Note that
double counting is also applicable for AMS II.G methodology.
Incentive mechanism to Project developers shall provide a clear description of the
discontinue the use of chosen approach to encourage the removal of the baseline
baseline technology technology and the success of the mechanism that has to
be monitored. If an old technology remains in use in parallel
with the improved technology (e.g. the removal and contin-
ued non-use of three stone fires and other easily construct-
ed traditional devices is in many cases unlikely and impracti-
cal to monitor), corresponding emissions must of course be
accounted for as part of the project emissions.
Ownership of carbon See Figure 1: Carbon Credit Ownership
credits The individual households and institutions do not act as
project participants under Gold Standard methodologies.
The project developer shall proactively inform the end-users
and notify when they cannot claim emission reductions from
the project. The project developer can use various methods
to inform the end-users. For example, leaflets distributed
with the products alerting end-users to the waiving of their
carbon rights in exchange for discounted cost of cookstove
(Fig. 1). Another example is using a waiver form signed by
end-users.
Indoor Air Quality (only Project developers shall ensure that indoor air pollution
applicable for projects levels are not worsened when compared to the baseline.
applying TPDDTEC GHGs emitted by the project fuel/stove combination shall be
methodology and where estimated with adequate precision.
project activities make
use of a new biomass
feedstock)
Notes:
1. TPDDTEC methodology allows a range of technology such as cookstove, bio-
digesters, water filter etc. However, the requirements mentioned in the table
above are primarily limited to cookstove only.
2. Monitoring of auxiliary use is required in all three metodologies. Further details
are provided in the relevant sections in this document.

8
Figure 1: An example leaflet to explain the carbon credit ownership
Credit: Ecoact

3.3 Number of Maximum Cookstoves

During the project planning stages, it is critical to assess the maximum number of im-
proved cookstoves that can be included in a project under different methodologies. For
example, the GS Simplified Methodology caps the maximum number of emission reduc-
tions that can be claimed per year at 10,000 tCO2. The project developer can use the au-
tomated emission reduction calculation tool available for the GS Simplified Methodology
to estimate the potential emission reduction and corresponding to maximum cookstoves
that would be eligible for this methodology.

9
AMS.II G allows up to the number of improved stoves that correspond to the maximum
energy saving level of 180GWhth. Box 3 outlines the approach to determine the energy
savings and shows how a project developer can assess the maximum number of stoves
that can be included.

There is no cap on the maximum number of stoves, emission reductions or energy sav-
ings that can be included under the TPDDTEC methodology.

Box 3: How to calculate energy savings?

In order to check the maximum number of improved cookstoves that can be in-
cluded in a project within the energy threshold i.e., 180 GWhth of AMS-II.G, the fol-
lowing stepwise approach can be applied:

Step 1: Estimate the maximum quantity of biomass saved corresponding to

180 GWHth
The maximum fuel saving is estimated as the threshold value i.e., 180GWh/Net
Calorific Value of the project fuel (in GWh/t)

Step 2: Estimate the maximum number of cookstoves

It is estimated that maximum number of cookstoves is the maximum quantity of
biomass saved / annual fuel savings per stove (fuel savings for the stove can be
determined through KPTs, CCTs or baseline default value and baseline/project
stove efficiencies).

For example
The maximum quantity of biomass saved (in case of firewood) = 180 / 0.004333 =
41,538 ton where (0.004333 GWh/t is the NCV of firewood/firewood waste). As-
suming that annual fuel savings per stove are 2.8 t/year, the maximum number of
stoves = 41,538 / 2.8 = 14,835 stoves

10
4.0 Project Boundary
This section provides insights on the following questions:

• What is included in the project boundary for different methodologies?

• Which GHG emission sources are included in the project boundary?

4.1 Geographic Boundary

All cookstove methodologies require a physical delineation of the project boundary. For
AMS-II.G, the physical, geographical site of the efficient cookstoves that utilise biomass
are part of the project boundary, while for GS methodologies the fuel production and
collection area shall also be included in the project boundary. The fuel production and
collection area is the area within which the fuel is produced, collected and supplied. In
addition, GS methodologies require project developers to clearly define the “Target Area”
and “Target Population” to determine the outer boundary of the project. Doing so defines
the area where the usage of baseline fuel consumption pattern shall be assessed to de-
termine the baseline (Box 4).

Box 4: The Project Target Area and fuel collection and production area
The target area is the region(s) where the considered baseline scenario(s) are
deemed to be uniform across political borders. This area could be within a single
country, or across multiple adjacent countries. The target area provides an outer
limit to the project boundary in which the project has a target population.

In cases where woody biomass (including charcoal) is the baseline fuel or where
the project activity introduces the use of a new biomass feedstock into the proj-
ect situation, the fuel production and collection area is the area within which this
woody or new biomass is produced, collected and supplied.

In a project’s boundary, the target, fuel production and collection area might be identical.
However, there may be cases where the project boundary is different to the target area
and fuel production/collection area. Two examples are illustrated in Figure 2. Please note
that the examples are not exhaustive, since there might be other configurations. For ex-
ample, the fuel production/collection area may be located outside of the project bound-
ary and target area.

11
 Fuel
Fuel
production
production
Target
Target
Area
Area andand
collection
collection
area
area

Fuel
Fuel
production
production
andand Target
Target
area
area
collection
collection
area
area

Project
Project Project
Project
boundary
boundary boundary
boundary

Example 1: Example 2:
The project target population is rural The project target population is urban
households across the entirety of Ugan- households in Mozambique (target
da (target area), however the improved area), however the improved cook-
cookstoves have been distributed in only stoves have been distributed in the
one of the four regions (project bound- capital Maputo only (project boundary).
ary). The fuel (firewood) is sourced from The charcoal for your project comes
two of the four regions (fuel production/ from all over the country (fuel produc-
collection area). tion/collection area).

Figure 2: Examples for the delineation of project boundary, target area and
fuel production/collection area under TPDDTEC

4.2 GHGs Emission Sources

It is important to understand which GHG emissions and emission sources in the baseline
and project scenario are included in the project boundary. There is a significant differ-
ence between AMS-II.G and the GS methodologies in terms of the GHG emissions and
sources included in the project boundary. GS methodologies account for both CO2 and
non-CO2 GHGs, i.e., methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, in the baseline
and project scenario, while the AMS II.G only accounts for CO2 emissions. Since the fuel
production, collection and transportation for GS methodologies are part of the project
boundary, the respective emissions shall be accounted for in the baseline and project
scenario. A summary of emissions and its sources are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

12
Table 5: GHG emissions included in each methodology
GHGs GS Simplified Methodology AMS II.G TPDDTEC
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Included Included Included
Methane (CH4) Included Excluded Included
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Included Excluded Included

In all cases, sources can be conservatively ignored in the baseline, while all sources shall
be included for the project scenario, unless arguably negligible or inapplicable to the in-
dividual project. The project developer must ensure that the calculation of GHG emission
reductions from the project is conservative.

Table 6: Emission sources included in each methodology

Emission sources in base- GS Simplified Methodology AMS II.G TPDDTEC
line and project scenario
Fuel consumption Included Included Included
Fuel production Included Excluded Included
Fuel transportation Included Excluded Included

13
5.0 Baseline and Project Scenario
Identification
The following sections provide a concise overview of emission reductions accounting ap-
proaches for different improved cookstove methodologies. It includes explanations of how
the baseline, project scenario, emission reductions, and leakage are dealt with by the dif-
ferent methodologies. This section provides insights on the following questions:

• How are the baseline and project scenarios identified?

• How is the validity of the baseline determined?

5.1 Baseline Scenario Identification

A baseline scenario represents the typical pre-project fuel consumption patterns in a
population that is targeted for improved cookstoves. The methodologies outline different
approaches for selecting the appropriate baseline scenario. The CDM methodology, AMS-
II.G, assumes that in the absence of the project activity, a mix of fossil fuels, such as kero-
sene, LPG, and coal as the alternatives to solid fossil fuel and would have been used by
default to satisfy cooking requirements. For the GS Simplified Methodology, the baseline
scenario is the consumption of non-renewable firewood to meet thermal energy require-
ments for household cooking. The baseline scenario under
TPDDTEC is the typical baseline fuel consumption patterns
in target population. The project developer may identify
multiple baseline scenarios that are applicable in relation
to the different project technologies in the activity, depend-
ing on local fuel and technology use patterns. For example,
one baseline scenario may represent rural end-users pre-
dominantly using inefficient wood stoves, while the second
baseline scenario may represent a target population pre-
dominantly using inefficient charcoal stoves.

Furthermore, the TPDDTEC methodology allows various

combinations of baseline and project scenarios. For ex-
ample, different improved wood stove models in the proj-
ect activity could be compared to the same wood baseline
scenario, and different improved charcoal stove models in
the project activity could be compared to the same char-
coal baseline scenario. The baseline scenario must be adequately described with all rel-
evant technologies included. It is not legitimate to compare the project to only the most
inefficient technology being used in the baseline.

14
In many projects, the project technology is adopted progressively through the crediting
period of the project. The baseline situation therefore does not occur at the same time for
all technology purchasers.

Box 5: TPDDTEC Methodology: +/-5% rule

The TPDDTEC methodology allows for project technologies with similar design
and performance characteristics to be included under a single project sce-
nario. For example, improved cookstoves can be considered similar if they are
based on the same fundamental combustion technology and their respective
thermal efficiencies or specific consumptions do not differ by more than +/-5%
in absolute terms. Similarly, comparable project technologies may share the
same monitoring procedures. Project technologies with significantly different
performance characteristics (e.g. fuel consumption characteristics in the case of
stoves) are treated as independent project scenarios and hence monitored and
credited separately.

5.1.1 Baseline Validity

In a project targeting households where all cookstoves are installed at the start, the base-
line is considered by default fixed in time during the considered crediting period for all
the three methodologies.

It therefore does not require continuous monitoring. However, whenever the project pro-
ponent applies for a renewal of the crediting period, the baseline must be reassessed
following the applicable rules for renewal of the crediting period.

5.2 Project Scenario Identification

A project scenario is defined by the fuel consumption patterns of end-users within a
target population that adopt a project technology. The TPDDTEC methodology allows
for different types of efficient cookstoves to be installed in a single project activity,
creating multiple project scenarios. As mentioned above, different project scenarios
can be credited against the same baseline scenario if it is deemed applicable. For ex-
ample, the same baseline scenario for inefficient wood stoves could be compared to
separate project scenarios for two or more different improved wood stove models in
the project activity.

15
Box 6: TPDDTEC methodology: How to add additional baseline and
project scenarios?
Project proponents must consider distinct baseline and project scenarios when
the project activity targets end-user populations that consume significantly dif-
ferent fuels or when different technologies are considered in a given project. For
example, end-users cooking predominantly with wood are significantly different
from end-users cooking predominantly with charcoal, and would thus warrant a
different baseline scenario. Ideally, all expected baseline and project scenarios
shall be defined in the project documentation in time for validation and registra-
tion review. However, it is possible that during the crediting period a new stove
model is included in the project activity, which warrants a new project scenario.
The TPDDTEC allows adding additional baseline and project scenarios to a proj-
ect activity at any time during the crediting period. This can only be applied upon
approval of a request for design changes, as per Gold Standard rules. Emission
reductions cannot be credited for a new project scenario, or in relation to a new
baseline scenario, until the respective project studies or baseline studies have
been conducted.

16
6.0 Quantification of GHG
Emission Reductions
This section provides answers to the following key questions:

• How are the emission reductions estimated?

• What is the fundamental difference between the CDM and Gold Standard
methodologies?
• What are the different methods used to estimate emission reductions?
• What are the monitoring requirements for different methods?
• How does the leakage assessment differ in these methodologies?

Emission reductions are determined by comparing fuel consumption in a project scenario

to the applicable baseline scenario. Fundamentally, all the three methodologies follow the
same principles for emission reduction calculations. The emission reductions are a prod-
uct of the amount of woody biomass saved, number of operational devices, operational
days, the fraction that is considered non-renewable biomass, the net calorific value (NCV)
of the biomass, and an emission factor for the fuel avoided. Figure 3 illustrates the dif-

Emission Emission reduction by Leakage

reduction the project devices emission

CDM - AMS II.G

Fuel Number of Number of Emission factor

operational operational fNRB (CO2) NCV
savings
devices days

GOLD STANDARD- SIMPLIFIED COOKSTOVE METHODOLOGY AND TPDDTEC

Fuel Technology Emission factor

Usage rate fNRB NCV
savings days (CO2) + Non-CO2
(Methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide
(N2O))

Number of Number of
installed devices operational days

Figure 3: Parameters for estimation of emission reductions at project level

17
ferences and similarities between CDM and Gold Standard methodologies in a simplistic
way. There are several parameters of interest for the estimation of emission reductions at
a project level as depicted in Figure 3. The following sections provide further insight into
the relevant parameters for different methodologies. Where applicable, the relevance of
the parameters for the specified methodology has been highlighted. However, it is recom-
mended to refer to the methodology itself to ensure the applicability and relevance.

6.1 Fuel Savings

The “fuel saving” criteria, defined as the reduction in fuel consumption following the in-
troduction of an improved cookstove (either through efficiency gains or fuel switching), is
one of the primary parameters of interest for quantifying emission reductions. The three
methodologies have common as well as some distinct fuel consumption estimation meth-
ods. The CDM methodology, AMS-II. G, offers four different options: (i) Thermal Energy
Output (TEO), (ii) Kitchen performance test (KPT), (iii) Water boiling test (WBT) and (iv) Con-
trolled cooking test CCT. The GS methodology, TPDDTEC6 only allows KPT or the recently
approved combination of KPT and WBT7, while the GS Simplified Methodology allows to
use WBT and KPT method for fuel consumption estimation. A summary of eligible meth-
ods for fuel saving applicable under each methodology is provided in Table 7.

Table 7: Fuel consumption estimation methods

Option Method GS Simplified AMS II.G TPDDTEC
Methodology
1 Thermal Energy Output (TEO) No Yes No
2 Water boiling test (WBT) Yes Yes No
3 Controlled cooking test (CCT) No Yes No
4 Kitchen performance test (KPT) Yes Yes Yes
5 Kitchen performance test and No No Yes
water boiling test

There are a number of tradeoffs related to accuracy versus degree of complexity and
costs involved for fuel consumption estimation methods as depicted in Fig. 4. Fuel con-
sumption can be driven by several factors (e.g., geography, climate, and cooking prac-
tices), making it highly difficult to apply an adequate one-size-fits-all estimation approach
(Lee et.al., 2013). The user shall select the method considering the requirements and
complexities involved. For example, the WBT method is the simplest method because
it is cheaper and easier to implement, however, it does not always accurately represent
household cooking conditions. To further assist the developers, a comparison of the three
primary test methods is provided in Annex 2.
6
A baseline KPT is not necessary if a default efficiency is applied to baseline stoves. In this case the only
test needed is a project stove KPT. This is a “SINGLE SAMPLE” KPT.
7
For further details see “Revision to the TPDDTEC methodology” GS TAC rule update (18/12/2015) available
at http://www.goldstandard.org/articles/tac-rule-updates

18
 Increasing costs
Increasing assessment complexity
Result variability
Measurements in households
Actual performance

WBT CCT KPT

Simplification
Reducing cost
Increasing control of variables
Isolation of stove performance
Quantification of emissions
Measurement under laboratory conditions

Figure 4: Relative benefits and tradeoffs of fuel consumption

estimation methods
Source: Adapted from Lee et al., (2013)
Furthermore, each of these methods require additional input parameters to estimate the
fuel savings due to implementation of the project cookstoves. Table 8 provides the de-
tails of these methods, corresponding requirements and how the values for these param-
eters are estimated. It does not include the common parameters like NCV and emission
factors, which are discussed in detail in the following section. Note that the description/
notification/terminology in different methodologies may vary for some parameters.

19
Table 8: Fuel saving estimation methods
Option Method Input parameter required Method Source/How
1 Thermal Number of hours of Monitoring Survey
Energy utilization
Output (TEO) Rated thermal capacity of Measurement Manufacturer specification
project device
Efficiency of the baseline Default Three stone fire or conventional
devices device, not charcoal stove (0.10)
Other device (0.2)
Measurement
Efficiency of the project Measurement Certificate by national standard
device body or
Appropriate certifying body/
agency or
Manufacturer specification, or
Sample test
2 Water boiling Baseline fuel consumption Default 0.5 tonnes/capita per year
test (WBT) Survey Following sampling and surveys
for CDM project activities and
programme of activities
Historical Literature or published reports
relevant to project boundary
Efficiency of the baseline Default Three stone fire or conventional
devices device, not charcoal stove (0.10)
Other device (0.2)
Measurement Efficiency tests
Efficiency of the project Measurement Certificate by national standard
device body or
Appropriate certifying body/
agency or
Manufacturer specification, or
Sample test
Project fuel consumption Survey Sample surveys, that are solely
based on questionnaires or
interviews
Measurement Measurement campaigns at
representative households
3 Kitchen Baseline fuel consumption Default 0.5 tonnes/capita per year
performance Measurement Baseline kitchen performance
test (KPT) test (Baseline KPT)
Project fuel consumption Measurement Project kitchen performance
test (Project KPT)

20
4 Controlled Specific fuel consumption Measurement Controlled cooking test
cooking test or fuel consumption rate following CCT protocol
(CCT) of the baseline stove
Specific fuel consumption Measurement Controlled cooking test
or fuel consumption rate following CCT protocol
of the project stove
5 Kitchen Baseline fuel consumption Measurement Baseline Kitchen performance
performance test (Baseline KPT)
test and Project fuel consumption Measurement Project kitchen performance
water boiling test (project KPT)
test Efficiency of the project Measurement Lab or field test following Water
device boiling test (WBT) protocol

6.2 Baseline Fuel Consumption

The baseline fuel consumption is the quantity of fuel that is consumed prior to the im-
proved cookstove, i.e., baseline scenario or pre-project scenario. The project developer
can choose from a range of options available for baseline fuel consumption estimation
according to the applicable methodology. A brief description of each option is presented
in Table 9.

Table 9: Baseline fuel consumption estimation methods

Estimation method Description
Default value CDM and Gold Standard methodologies provide the default woody biomass
(0.5 tonnes/capita per consumption values for baseline fuel consumption. To estimate the fuel
year) consumption at the household level, the default value is multiplied with the
family size, determined through surveys. The GS methodologies allow for
applying default values for baseline scenarios where the firewood is the
only baseline fueli. The default value is applicable to the project located
across the regions of the world. This is the simplest approach, however, in
some cases it could be lower in comparison to the actual fuel consumption
level in the project boundary.

The developer shall carefully assess the local cooking practices prior to ap-
plying the default values, since in most cases the baseline fuel consumption
level is fixed for the entire crediting period. Only the TPDDTEC methodol-
ogy provides flexibility in updating the baseline (default value) at any time
during the crediting period. To update the default baseline, the developer
shall carry out the baseline Kitchen Performance Tests (KPT) in households
where the baseline technology is still in use in the project area. In addi-
tion, the PP shall establish that the selected sample households exhibit the
same socio-economic circumstances as the households that have already
received the improved devices in the project activity.

21
Survey method AMS II.G and GS Simplified Methodology allow for the determination of the
average annual consumption of woody biomass per device (tonnes/year) via
a sample survey conducted in the target population following the latest ver-
sion of “Guidelines for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and
programme of activities”. The guidelines describe common types of sampling
approaches with examples and also includes a sample size calculator toolto
assist project developers.

The GS Simplified Methodology only provides the guidelines for minimum

sample size required for simple random sampling approach and the survey
template to collect the required information. However, for other sampling ap-
proaches, the developer can refer to “Guidelines for sampling and surveys for
CDM project activities and programme of activities”
Historical data AMS II.G and GS Simplified Methodology also allow sourcing of the baseline
fuel consumption values from relevant published literature. To apply this
method, the developer shall justify the relevance of historical values with
the target population.

Please refer to TPDDTEC V2.0 Footnote 24, Page 19 for suppressed demand
cases for micro and small scale activity, where historical data from credible lit-
erature such as a credible and validated report from a survey by a third party
can be used if baseline fuel in only fuelwood.
Baseline Kitchen per- AMS II.G and GS methodologies allow the baseline Kitchen Performance
formance test (KPT) Test (baseline field tests (BFT)) to measure the fuel consumption level in a
sample household. It is a field test based method that measures the real
fuel consumption level in a representative sample of target households for
each defined baseline scenario (in the absence of the project technology).

The KPT is carried out in accordance with national standards (if available) or
international standards or guidelines (e.g. the KPT procedures specified by
the partnership for clean indoor air (PCIA).

The TPDDTEC methodology also provides simplified guidelines for project

developer to carry out the KPTs how to determine the sample size and as-
sess the result. Please refer to Annex 4: Kitchen Performance Test of TPD-
DETC methodology, page 46.
Specific fuel con- The specific fuel consumption (SFC) or fuel consumption rate of the base-
sumption line stoves is determined following the Controlled Cooking Test (CCT)
(tonnes fuel/unit out- protocol that primarily compare the performance of an improved stove to a
put or tonnes fuel/ traditional stove in a standardized cooking task. The specific fuel consump-
hour) tion or fuel consumption rate of the baseline devices is fuel consumption
per quantity of item/s processed (e.g. food cooked) or fuel consumption per
hour, respectively. The developer shall refer to national (if available) or inter-
national standards or guidelines for CCT.

The TPDDTEC methodology caps the baseline wood fuel consumption at 0.5 t/capita/year estimated
using 10% default efficiency for suppressed demand situation and case of single sample test.
All relevant cookstove national/international protocols are available at the Global Alliance for Clean
Cookstove (GACC) website at the following link: http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/
testing/protocols.html

22
6.3 Project Fuel Consumption
The project fuel consumption is the quantity of fuel that is consumed after installation of
the improved cookstove in the project scenario. The fuel consumption is monitored and/
or adjusted for performance degradation of the project technology over the crediting pe-
riod. A brief description of each option and monitoring requirements are presented below
in Table 10. Note that the fuel consumption estimation methods summarised below are
not alternatives to each other in all cases. The developers are to select one of the options
and corresponding estimation method summarised in Table 10. For example, the survey
method and measurement method summarised in Table 10 are alternative methods only
for option 2: Water Boiling Test (WBT).

Table 10: Project fuel consumption estimation methods

Estimation method Description
Survey method AMS II.G allows a developer to determine the project fuel consumption solely
based on questionnaires or interviews on the condition that the baseline stoves
have been completely decommissioned and only efficient project stove(s) are
exclusively used in the project households. If more than one device, or another
device that consumes woody biomass, are in use in project households, then
the sample survey needs to distinguish the quantity of biomass used by the
project device and the other devices that use biomass.
Monitoring requirements: The surveys are carried out during the first year of
the crediting period and fuel consumption is adjusted for efficiency loss for the
remaining crediting period. If the life span of the improved cookstove is less
than the crediting period, then either the cookstove shall be replaced after the
lifespan has ended or emission reductions can only be claimed until the end of
lifespan of the cookstove.
Measurement AMS II.G also allows a developer to determine the project fuel consumption
method based on measurement campaigns carried out at representative households.
Monitoring requirements: The measurement campaign is carried out during
the first year of the crediting period. Fuel consumption values are adjusted for ef-
ficiency loss for the remaining crediting period, following the same approach as
provided above for survey methods.
Project KPT AMS II.G and TPDDTEC allow the project KPT (project performance field tests
(PFT)) to measure the fuel consumption level at the sample households. It is a
field test based method that measures the real fuel consumption level in a rep-
resentative sample of target households for each defined project scenario (with
the improved cookstove).
Monitoring requirements: The 1st project KPT is carried out in the first year of
commissioning of improved cookstoves following the KPT protocol as men-
tioned above for the baseline KPT. The AMS II.G requires annual monitoring
while the TPDDTEC allows biennial project KPT updates.
Specific fuel For AMS II.G, project specific fuel consumption or fuel consumption rate of the
consumption project cookstoves is determined in representative households in the same way
as for the baseline cookstove following the CCT protocol, as discussed above.
Monitoring requirements: Specific fuel consumption or fuel consumption rates
are updated annually following the CCT protocols.

23
6.4 Efficiency and Efficiency Loss
The project’s baseline and cookstove efficiency are required to estimate the fuel con-
sumption level as summarised in the table above. The AMS.IIG provides options to mea-
sure or use the default efficiency values for two categories of baseline stoves:

i. 10% for three stone fire using firewood or conventional device with no improved
combustion air supply or flue gas ventilation, that is without a grate or a chimney,
and
ii. 20% for other type of devices.

Alternatively, the efficiency level can be determined using the WBT protocol or referring
to relevant literature values. The baseline stove efficiency is determined prior to project
implementation and remains fixed for the entire crediting period.

The AMS II.G allows project developers to have the project stove efficiency certified by a
national standards body or an appropriate certifying agent recognized by that body. Alter-
natively, manufacturer specification can be used. The project stove efficiency can also be
measured by carrying out the test using the WBT protocol measured by sample testing. In
both cases, sourced or measured by the developer, the efficiency test results shall meet
precision requirement, i.e., 90/10. The developer shall always confirm the compliance
with the manufacturer or certifying body prior to distribution of project stoves.

Unlike for the baseline stove, the project stove performance is adjusted to account for
efficiency loss during the monitoring period for AMS II.G and GS Simplified Methodology.
AMS II.G provides several options to account for efficiency loss, such as using the default
value or annual testing to monitor the efficiency loss in a representative sample. Alterna-
tively, no decrease in efficiency of the improved device can be claimed, if justified on a
technical basis by the manufacturer or certification agency. This option shall be identified
with due care and consideration for the follow-up requirements as it will remain fixed for
the entire crediting period at the time of registration.

GS Simplified Methodology provides two options:

i. Default efficiency loss

ii. Annual monitoring of efficiency loss

Although AMS II.G and GS Simplified Methodology both provide the default values, the ap-
plication and default values are different. For example, AMS II.G assumes a linear efficiency
loss across the project lifespan and assumes a terminal project stove efficiency of 20%. If
the lifespan of the project device is five years and the project device has an efficiency of
30% at installation, then an annual efficiency loss of 2% shall be applied. To adopt the de-

24
fault value option, the life span of the project stove, based on manufacturer’s specification,
shall be documented at the time of registration. The GS Simplified Methodology provides
the default annual efficiency loss as 1%, i.e., 0.99. Though it doesn’t account for the lifespan
of the cookstove, it requires monitoring of the cookstove conditions annually through moni-
toring surveys. The cookstove database is adjusted in equal proportion to the fraction of
sampled households where the cookstoves are not in working condition. New cookstoves
are added back to the database as and when they are replaced.

6.5 Rated Thermal Capacity

AMS.II G provides a simplified method: Thermal Energy Output (TEO). It requires the rated
thermal capacity of the project cookstove along with other parameters to estimate the
fuel savings. The manufacturer’s specification is used for the rated capacity of the project
cookstoves. It is fixed from the start of the project.

6.6 Emission Factors

AMS II.G provides the default emission factor based on projected fossil fuels for similar
users, while the GS Simplified Methodology provides default CO2 and Non-CO2 emission
factors for firewood. The TPDDTEC methodology primarily relies on IPCC default factors,
which express emissions as a function of the energy content of fuels consumed. It also
provides a range of options like literature or project relevant measurements provided the
defined criteria for project specific measurement are met.

25
AMS II.G allows a developer to claim emission reductions for reducing CO2 emissions
only for projected fossil fuel. The emission factor of the projected fossil fuel likely to be
used by similar users is estimated based on a weighted average of a mix of present and
future fuels. It consists of a solid fossil fuel (lowest in the ladder of fuel choices), a liquid
fossil fuel (represents a progression over solid fuel in the ladder of fuel use choices) and
a gaseous fuel (represents a progression over liquid fuel in the ladder of fuel use choic-
es). The weighted average value of 81.6 (t CO2/TJ) represents a mix of 50% coal, 25%
kerosene, and 25% LPG fuel.

Contrary to AMS II.G, the GS methodologies emission factors are based on the assump-
tion that the actual baseline fuel would be used in the absence of the project activity. In
addition, both GS methodologies allow a developer to claim emission reductions from
non-CO2 GHGs, i.e., methane and nitrous oxide (CH4 and N2O) as well as emissions
produced during fuel production. The non-CO2 GHGs are applied to the total biomass
savings of the improved stove, not only non-renewable biomass, because the non-CO2
GHGs emission result from combustion of both renewable and non-renewable biomass
cannot be reabsorbed and balanced by renewable biomass growth. Using the Gold
Standard methodologies, the combined effect of the additional accounting of CH4 and
N2O emissions from biomass combustion, plus the use of real conditions for the baseline
(instead of fossil fuel values as in AMS II.G) can influence the emission reductions signifi-
cantly in comparison to AMS II.G8,9

6.7 Fraction of Non-Renewable

Biomass (fNRB)
Fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) is the fraction of woody biomass saved by the
project activity that can be established as non-renewable biomass. It is a key parameter
for all the three methodologies. Guidelines for assessment methods are defined in each
methodology. The TPDDTEC methodology allows both qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods; however, quantitative assessment is the most preferable approach. Furthermore, the
TPDDTEC and GS Simplified Methodology accept the fNRB values estimated using the
guidelines provided in AMS II.G. The developer can estimate the project specific or sub-
national/national values using these guidelines.

To assist developers, the CDM Executive Board (CDM EB) has approved the national
level default fNRB values for several countries. However, the default values are only al-
lowed to be used if it is endorsed by the host country’s Designated National Authority
(DNA). In cases where it is not endorsed or developed by the CDM EB, the developer can
8
Blunck, M., Griebenow, C., Rammelt, M. and Zimm, C. (2011). Carbon Markets for Improved Cooking Stoves:
A GIZ Guide for Project Operators. Revised Edition - January 2011. GIZ-HERA.
9
Carrie M. Lee, Chelsea Chandler, Michael Lazarus, Francis X. Johnson (2013). Assessing the Climate Im-
pacts of Cookstove Projects: Issues in Emissions Accounting. Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Pa-
per 2013-01

26
estimate and get it validated by the Designated Operating Entity. Although GS method-
ologies allow a developer to use fNRB default values without formal DNA endorsement,
they require the project developer to get endorsement form relevant stakeholders (Box
7). Please refer to the CDM website for the latest information on endorsed fNRB value
(https://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/fNRB/index.html).

The fNRB values are selected or estimated prior to project registration and either fixed
for the entire crediting period, or they can be updated annually for AMS II.G, while the GS
Simplified and TPDDTEC methodology provide the flexibility to reassess and update it
any time prior to the end of the crediting period.

Box 7: How can project developer use the default fNRB values that are
approved by CDM EB but not yet endorsed by the host country DNAs?
The CDM EB has approved the default fNRB values (https://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/
fNRB/index.html) for several countries, however not all host country DNAs have
approved the respective country specific default values. The developer may still
use such default fNRB values for Gold Standard methodologies. The developer
shall carry out stakeholder consultation to collect feedback from relevant stake-
holders. If the comments raised during the public consultation can be replied
satisfactorily and validated by the DOE, the developer can use the default values.
The developer shall identify the relevant stakeholders that includes the host coun-
try DNA, other ministry/department of forestry, other active NGOs, and other rel-
evant agencies.

6.8 Other Parameters

6.8.1 Number of Hours of Utilization
The number of hours of project stove utilisation are required for the TEO method. The
number of hours of utilisation are estimated biennially through surveys in the sample
households of the project population.

6.8.2 Net Calorific Value (NCV)

AMS II.G and TPDDTEC use the IPCC default value i.e., 0.015 TJ/tonne for firewood.
AMS II.G requires that the NCV for other fuels like charcoal or briquette is measured
annually. TPDDTEC allows to source NCV value for other fuels from project relevant
literature or from project specific measurement, however, the values are fixed for en-
tire crediting period. Since the GS Simplified Methodology only allows fuelwood cook-
stoves, the NCV has already been accounted for in default emission factors provided in
the methodology.

27
7.0 Monitoring Methodology and
Requirements
In addition to the monitoring parameters relevant to fuel saving estimation methods dis-
cussed above, there are common and distinct additional monitoring requirements for
each methodology. In the following sections, these requirements are discussed in detail.

7.1 Sales Record and Project Database

The objective of the sales record and project database is to provide required information
about the technology, location, user, etc., for monitoring, sampling and emission reduc-
tion calculations. The GS methodologies clearly define the information required for sales
record, i.e., information on sales date and installation date, location, model type of cook-
stoves and contact details, retailers and end-users such as name, address and telephone
number (if available), and mode of use. It is required to collect information about all users
except in cases where it is justifiably not feasible. It should always be 10 times greater
than the survey and field test sample size, therefore comprising a large enough popula-
tion for sample selection. The sales record is updated regularly to account for the new
sales during the project life. AMS II.G requires monitoring of the date of commission for
each device. However, maintaining sales records and project databases is not mandatory
as they are implied ion details required for sampling and monitoring purposes. Further
details on key parameters and their interpretation and use for GS and AMS II.G methodol-
ogy is discussed in the section below.

7.1.1 Sales Date and Installation Date (Commissioning Date)

GS methodologies require the record of the sales date and installation date to be re-
corded (commissioning date for AMS II.G). All three methodologies allow the use of the
individual cookstove installation commissioning date or conservative date for a group
of stoves to be used for emissions reduction calculation. AMS II.G requires that in cases
where the cookstoves are grouped in batches, the latest date of commissioning of the
device shall be used as the commissioning date for the entire batch. However, GS meth-
odologies allow for the application of conservative estimates in such cases.

7.2 Monitoring Survey

The GS methodologies require annual monitoring surveys to collect critical information
on year-to-year trends in end-user characteristics, such as technology use, fuel consump-
tion and seasonal variations. The objective is to evaluate if there are any drastic changes
in cooking patterns in the target population.

28
7.2.1 Usage Survey
Usage assessment, i.e., estimation of the number of operational cookstoves, is a criti-
cal parameter for emission reduction estimation. Primarily, all three methodologies allow
the survey method to capture the relevant information, while AMS II.G also provides an
option of direct monitoring of usage. The sample size requirements are different under
three methodologies as highlighted in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Usage survey

Requirements GS Simplified Methodology AMS-II.G TPDDTEC
Frequency Annual Biennial Annual
Method Survey 1. Survey Survey
2. Direct measurement
Sample Sampling among the Sampling among Sampling among
selection each age group of project the each batch the each age
population commissioned group of project
population
Accounting Weighted average Usage discount for each Weighted average
factor for overall project batch commissioned factor for overall
population project population
Sample size Minimum sample size for Sample size to achieve Minimum 100,
each age group 90/10 precision with at least 30
• Project target population samples for project
< 300: Minimum sample technologies of
size 30 each age being
• Project target population credited
300 to 1000: Minimum
sample size 10% of
group size
• Project target population
> 1000 Minimum sample
size 100

7.2.2 Number of Stove Utilization Days

Since only project stove usage leads to emission reductions, it is therefore required to
monitor the usage intensity of the stoves annually if the baseline and project stove are
used together, which is translated into the number of project stove utilisation days. AMS
II.G defines two options to monitor stove utilisation days:

i. Data loggers
The data loggers such as Stove Utilisation Monitors (SUMs) shall be used over a
90-day measurement campaign to monitor all stove usage in at least 10 randomly
selected project households.

29
 ii. Survey method
Alternatively, the surveys can be conducted in the randomly selected households to
capture information on cooking habits and stove usage to determine the usage fre-
quency of all stoves. However, the surveys may only be conducted if the use of data
loggers to record the continued operation of baseline devices is demonstrated to
be impractical, for example when the baseline device is the three stone fire.

During the days where both devices have been used, if the data loggers are able to de-
tect and record the time each device has been used (e.g. in hours), the share in the total
duration of utilisation will be used to attribute a fraction of this day to one or to the other
device. Alternatively, if the data loggers are not able to determine the duration of the
utilisation, but only the situation of the device being on or off (i.e. used or not used during
that day), the share of 50:50 may be used.

The field test-based approach accounts for the fuel consumption of all stoves used by
households and estimate the fuel savings at the household level by comparing the fuel
consumption in the baseline and project scenario. Therefore, it is not required to esti-
mate the baseline and project stove use separately when field tests are carried out for
TPDDTEC. However, the auxiliary stove use is monitored through surveys to determine
the level of use so that the developer can implement a robust incentive programme to
discourage the use of auxiliary stoves. In these cases, the number of operational days are
estimated using the project sales record and monitoring period.

The GS Simplified Methodology also requires the monitoring of the baseline stove use in
the project scenario. The frequency of the baseline stove usage is further applied to ad-
just fuel quantity, like AMS II.G. The usage frequency is determined separately with each
project age-group following the survey template provided in the methodology.

7.3 Monitoring Frequency

The project fuel consumption monitoring requirements have been discussed in sec-
tion 6.0 and table 10. In addition, there are a few common monitoring parameters that
are applicable to each method, as discussed in the section above. As summarised
above, the three methodologies have different as well as common monitoring pa-
rameters and requirements. There are also differences in monitoring frequency and
sample size requirements for surveys and tests. A summary of monitoring frequency
for relevant parameters and sample size requirements for surveys and tests (including
one time surveys and tests) are provided in Table 12 and 13, respectively. Note that the
monitoring parameter requirements correspond to the methods chosen at the time of
project registration. Therefore, not all parameters listed in Table 12 and 13 are appli-
cable to all projects.

30
Table 12: Monitoring frequency of relevant parameters
Monitoring parameter Monitoring frequency
GS Simplified AMS-II.G TPDDTEC
Methodology
Project database/Sales record
Total sales record/project Continuous Continuous Continuous
database
Survey
Monitoring survey Annual Biennial Annual
Usage survey Annual Biennial Annual
• Number of operational Annual Biennial Annual
stove
• Number of operational Not required Annual Not required
days
• Number of utilization Not required Biennial Not required
hrs
Fuel characteristics and fuel consumption
NRB assessment update Fixed or update anytime Fixed or Annual Fixed or
during the crediting update update
period anytime during
the crediting
period
Net Calorific value Not required Annual Not required
(Fuel other than firewood)
Baseline performance field Not required Not required Not mandatory1
test updates
Project performance field Not applicable Annual Biennial
test updates
Project stove efficiency Annual or default Annual or alternative Annual2
efficiency loss methods
Specific fuel consumption Not applicable Annual Not applicable
Leakage assessment
Leakage assessment Not required for individual Annual or biennial Biennial
activity however for VPAs ex-post survey or
under microscale PoA default values
biennial or default values
Notes:
TPDDTEC
1. If a PP would like to update the baseline during the crediting period, the baseline
performance field tests shall be carried out as per the requirements mentioned in the
methodology (page 8).
2. If aging test approach for project fuel update is applied. Please refer to rule update
available here.

31
Table 13: Sample size for surveys and tests
Parameter/data GS Simplified AMS-II.G TPDDTEC
Methodology
Survey
Monitoring • Population size <300: Sample size to achieve • Population size <300:
survey at least 30 90/10 confidence at least 30
• Population size 300 precision • Population size 300
to 1000: at least 10% to 1000: at least 10%
of group size of group size
• Population size > • Population size >
1,000: at least 100 1,000: at least 100
Usage rate Same as for monitoring Sample size to achieve Minimum 100, with at
survey 90/10 confidence least 30 samples for
precision project technologies of
each age being credited
• Number of Same as for monitoring Sample size to achieve Same as for usage
operational survey 90/10 confidence survey
stove precision
• Number of Not required In case of measurement Not required
operational campaign: At least 10
days randomly selected
Household for at least
90 days
or
In case of surveys:
Sample size to achieve
90/10 confidence
precision
• Number of Not required Sample size to achieve Not required
utilization 95/10 confidence
hours precision

32
Table 14: Fuel characteristics and fuel consumption

Baseline fuel Same as for As per the survey Not applicable

consumption monitoring survey approach
(survey method)
Baseline fuel • Recommended Sample size to achieve • Sample size > 20, and
consumption Sample size 30, 90/10 confidence • Annual fuel saving or
(performance and precision emission reduction shall
test (KPT • Annual fuel comply with “90/30 rule”1
method) saving shall • If complying with the
meet “90/10 90/30 requirements, apply
confidence mean savings or emission
precision reduction. If not apply
lower bound to estimate
overall emission reduction
Project fuel Not applicable Sample size to achieve • In case of paired and
consumption 90/10 confidence independent sampling
(Project KPT) precision same as for baseline KPT
In case of single sample test:
• Sample size > 20, and
• Annual project fuel
consumption or emission
reduction shall comply
with “90/10” rule
• If complying with the
90/10 requirement,
apply mean project fuel
consumption. If not apply
upper bound to estimate
overall emission reduction
Project stove 3 sample runs on • Sample size to • Comply with the 90/10
efficiency at least 3 randomly achieve 90/10 requirement confidence
selected project confidence precision precision level for each
cookstove • 3 stoves with 3 age group
tests each (in case
of stoves produced
by manufacturer
with a good quality
management system):
accepted if Standard
Deviation is small and
90/10 applying the
t-distribution is met

33
Efficiency loss • In case that Sample size to achieve Sample size to achieve 90/10
discount factor 90/10 precision precision
for efficiency • 3 stoves with 3 for each age group
loss is used, not tests each (in case
monitored of stoves produced
• In case that by manufacturer
project stove with a good quality
efficiency management
is annually system): accepted
monitored, if SD is small and
discount factor 90/10 applying the
to account for t-distribution is met
efficiency loss is
subsumed in the
degrading stove
efficiency

Leakage Same as monitoring • Sample size to Same as monitoring survey,

survey, both achieve 90/30 both leakage and monitoring
leakage and confidence precision survey can be done together
monitoring survey
can be done
together
Notes:
TPDDTEC
1. You should take into account that for some parameters under the TPDDTEC the sample
size must be greater than 20. However, the recommended sample size is least 30.
2. The baseline and project field test data must be analysed in combination to estimate the
average annual emission reductions or average fuel savings per unit for each scenario. If
the baseline fuel and project fuel are same (e.g. deployment of improved cook stove only),
the statistical analysis can be conducted with respect to fuel savings per unit. In cases
where baseline fuel and project fuel are different (different emission factors), the statistical
analysis must be conducted with respect to emission savings per unit.

7.4 Leakage
The TPDDTEC methodology requires the risk assessment of potential leakage sources
including potential reuse of the baseline stoves, use/diversion of non-renewable/fossil
fuel saved under the project activity by non-project population, project impact on fNRB in
other emission reduction project collection area, use of other fuel/technology to compen-
sate the loss of space heating in target population and the project impact on lower GHGs
emitting technology. If the assessment reveals leakage that quantifies an increase in fuel
consumption by the non-project households/users attributable to the project activity,
the emission reduction calculation shall account for the quantified leakage. The project

34
always carries risks of potential leakage during its crediting period. Therefore, this meth-
odology requires a biennial leakage risk assessment. Leakage risks deemed very low
can be ignored as long as the case for their insignificance is substantiated.

AMS-II.G accounts for potential leakage related to the use/diversion of non-renewable

woody biomass saved under the project activity by non-project households/users. The
methodology requires ex-post surveys among the end-users and the areas from which
this biomass is sourced to assess the potential use of non-renewable woody biomass.
If there is any increase the baseline fuel consumption, the project population shall be
adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, the baseline fuel consumption can be multiplied by
0.95 to account for potential leakage without carrying out the surveys. Unlike TPDDTEC
and AMS II.G, the GS Simplified Methodology does not consider leakage for an individu-
al activity. However, if the methodology is applied for a microscale programme of activi-
ties and leakage must be considered, it offers two choices: (i) Leakage risk assessment
according to TPDDTEC requirements and (ii) Multiple of the net emission reductions with
a default factor of 0.95 to account the potential leakage (similar to AMS II.G).

35
8.0 Conclusion
In the following section, some key conclusions and takeaways resulting from the compari-
son of the three methodologies are summarised:

• The TPDDTEC methodology allows the widest range of project activities in the
cooking regime including the technology and practices such as improved fossil fuel
stoves/ovens/dryers, solar cookers, heat retention cookers and biogas stoves
• The GS Simplified Methodology has the most limited eligibility i.e., only firewood
stove or a switch from non-renewable firewood to renewable firewood
• AMS-II.G does not allow any kind of fuel switch
• There are thresholds in the AMS-II.G and GS Simplified Methodologies for project
scales:
оо Under AMS-II.G, energy savings shall be lower than 180 GWHth/year,
оо Under GS Simplified Methodology, a maximum of 10,000 tCO2 emission reduc-
tions per year
• The TPDDTEC does not have any threshold for project scale, i.e., a micro, small, or
large scale project can apply TPDDTEC. However, the useful energy output of the
project technology for each unit shall not exceed 150 kW!
• GS methodologies requires communication about the carbon credit ownership with
the end-users
• The minimum project stove efficiency is capped at 20% for AMS-II.G and GS Simpli-
fied Methodologies
• The baseline scenario is defined differently in the three methodologies:
оо AMS-II.G assumes default fuel mix situation
оо The Simplified Cookstove Methodology (only firewood) and TPDDTEC defines
the baseline scenario as the typical baseline fuel consumption pattern in the
target population
• AMS-II.G provides four options to determine the fuel savings (TEO, KPT, WBT, CCT).
• TPDDTEC requires the determination of fuel savings through Kitchen Performance
test or a combination of KPT and WBT
• The GS Simplified Methodology requires the calculation of the fuel savings through
the firewood consumed in the baseline scenario along with the baseline and project
stove efficiencies
• Under CDM methodology AMS-II.G, non CO2 GHGs emissions are not eligible for cred-
iting, while GS methodologies allows crediting against non CO2 GHG i.e., CH4 and N2O
• The TPDDTEC does not allow you to apply a default value for leakage but requests
you to assess the different potential leakage sources through biennial surveys

36
Annex 1: Relevant Links
Gold Standard
www.goldstandard.org (general)
Requirements, mandatory guidelines, legal documents, templates
http://www.goldstandard.org/resources/energy-requirements
GS Standalone Micro-scale Scheme Rules - Annex T
http://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/v2.2_annex-t.pdf
GS Micro-programme Rules and Procedures - Annex U
http://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/v2.2_annex-u.pdf
GS TAC Rule updates
http://www.goldstandard.org/articles/tac-rule-updates
UNFCCC (CDM)
http://cdm.unfccc.int
IPCC
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (2006 IPCC Guidelines for Na-
tional Greenhouse Gas Inventories)
GACC
http://cleancookstoves.org
Additionality:
CDM Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-01-
v7.0.0.pdf
CDM SSC additionality tool
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-21-v1.pdf
CDM Micro-scale additionality tool
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-19-v7.0.pdf
CDM Guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers
https://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/meth/meth_guid38.pdf
CDM Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis
https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-27-v1.pdf
CDM First-of-its-kind tool
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-23-v1.pdf
Common practice
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-24-v1.pdf
Emission factors
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Sta-
tionary_Combustion.pdf

37
fNRB
https://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/fNRB/index.html
Methodologies
CDM methodology booklet
https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/documentation/meth_booklet.pdf
AMS-II.G Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable
biomass Version 7.0
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/KZ6FQOCEEHD1V02ARWTW1W2R9G-
45BX
TPDDTEC
http://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/revised-tpddtec-methodology_
april-2015_final-clean.pdf
GS simplified cookstove methodology
http://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/gs-simplified-micro-
scale-cookstove-meth-2013.pdf
Net Calorific Value (NCV)
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_1_Ch1_Intro-
duction.pdf
Sampling
CDM Sampling Standard
http://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-
file-20151023110717966/meth_stan05.pdf
CDM Sampling Guidelines
https://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-
file-20151023152925068/Meth_GC48_%28ver04.0%29.pdf
Sample size calculator
https://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-
file-20150813144045237/Meth_guid48Calculator.xlsx
Test protocols: Water Boiling Test, Controlled Cooking Test, Kitchen
Performance Test
http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html

38
Annex 2: Fuel Consumption
Estimation Protocol
Fuel consumption estimation protocol
Test Description Strengths Weakness
method
WBT The most basic, standardised, Simple method that can be Reveals technical
easy method of comparing performed on most stove stove performance, not
stove efficiencies under con- types worldwide (stan- necessarily what can
trolled laboratory conditions dardised and replicable). be achieved in actual
households while cook-
Assesses stove performance Provides a preliminary ing actual foods. Relies
while completing a standard understanding of stove on default values for
task (boiling and simmering performance, useful during baseline cookstove bio-
water) design. mass consumption.
CCT Laboratory test, performed Stoves are assessed while Demonstrates what is
by a local cook on location performing a standard possible under ideal
or in-field in a test kitchen: cooking task (more closely conditions, but not nec-
Measures stove performance mimics actual cooking essarily what occurs
using actual local cooking done by local users). under daily use.
methods as a cook prepares
a typical meal intended to Test design helps minimise
be representative of cook- influence of potential con-
ing practices of the target founding factors and allows
population participating in for conditions to be repro-
the project. duced

KPT Field based test that measures Typically conducted in ac- Measurements more
how much fuel is used in ac- tual stove dissemination uncertain as possible
tual households when cooking effort with local cooks. sources of error are diffi-
normally over a few days. cult to control compared
Best way to understand with laboratory tests.
The approach using the KPT stove’s impact on fuel
simply subtracts the quantity consumption, as well as
of woody biomass used by household characteristics
project participants (based on and behaviours as it occurs
a random sample) from the in the user’s household.
amount of biomass used by a
representative sample of non- Provides a consistent ap-
participant households. Both proach for estimating both
are measured over a three- baseline and project bio-
day period. Total biomass mass consumption.
available in the household is
weighed at the start and end
of each day or meal to mea-
sure the weight of fuel used

39
Sources:

• Bailis R. Controlled Cooking Test (CCT). London, UK: Household Energy and Health Pro-
gramme, Shell Foundation; 2004.

• Bailis R, Ogle D, MacCarty N, Still D. The Water Boiling Test (WBT). London, UK: Household
Energy and Heath Programme, Shell Foundation; 2007.

• Bailis R, Smith KR, Edwards R. Kitchen Performance Test (KPT). CLondon, UK: Household
Energy and Health Programme, Shell Foundation; 2007.

40
41
42
43
44
Clean cooking presents an
opportunity for addressing
climate change.

45