Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the A6.4 Methodological Expert Panel Comprehensive Lowered Emission Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions

Carbon Market Watch argues that the proposed CLEAR Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions contains shortcomings and optionalities that risk overcrediting. The organization recommends replacing arbitrary downward adjustments for the Hawthorne effect with scientific evidence, adopting a conservative 4:1 wood-to-charcoal conversion factor, and implementing the annual downward baseline adjustments required by the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) Standard. Additionally, it suggests increasing the default leakage adjustment factor to 5%, updating fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) values more frequently, and strengthening additionality testing by lowering the common practice threshold to 20%.

• The methodology's use of optionalities, specifically allowing non-Continuously Tracked Energy Consumption (non-CTEC) projects, undermines robustness because directly tracking stove and fuel use is a more reliable method for monitoring adoption, usage, and stacking.
• The current 25% default downward adjustment for the Hawthorne effect in projects relying on Kitchen Performance Tests (KPTs) may be insufficient; scientific evidence suggests a 35% adjustment is more appropriate based on a 53% increase in project stove usage and a 29% decrease in stacking.
• The CLEAR methodology should adopt a 4:1 wood-to-charcoal conversion factor as the default, as the 6:1 option is not conservative enough and contradicts recommendations from the Methodological Panel (2022) and the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles label.
• The methodology fails to apply the annual downward adjustment required by the PACM Standard, which mandates an annual increase in the adjustment corresponding to at least 1% of the baseline emissions from the start date of the first crediting period.
• The proposed 2% default leakage adjustment factor is less conservative than the 5% standard used in CDM cookstove methodologies (such as AMS-II-G), and should be increased to 5% given inconclusive research on leakage risks.
• The methodology's approach to additionality is criticized for relying on a standalone barrier analysis, which is viewed as more subjective than financial analysis, and for using a 30% common practice threshold instead of the more conservative 20% used by the CDM.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2025). Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the A6.4 Methodological Expert Panel Comprehensive Lowered Emission Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/06-07-25-PACM-CLEAR-methodology-submission.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the A6.4 Methodological Expert Panel Comprehensive Lowered Emission Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions. 2025. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/06-07-25-PACM-CLEAR-methodology-submission.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the A6.4 Methodological Expert Panel Comprehensive Lowered Emission Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions |date=4 July 2025 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/06-07-25-PACM-CLEAR-methodology-submission.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2025carbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the A6.4 Methodological Expert Panel Comprehensive Lowered Emission Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2025}, month = jul, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/06-07-25-PACM-CLEAR-methodology-submission.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }