Can Clean Cooking Developers Convince Credit Buyers the Carbon Maths Add up?

July 04, 2026

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Ben Payton A 2024 study found cookstove projects over-estimated carbon benefits by 1,000%; Bangladesh project cut emissions reduction claims from 84% to 39% under new rules; Fears that conservative standards now exclude viable projects with real benefits; In Kenya, KOKO's 'D' rating made it hard to sell credits, contributing to its collapse; Without carbon revenue no alternative funding exists for clean cooking at scale

More than one million households in Kenya had an unpleasant shock in February when they received news that KOKO Networks, a provider of cookstoves and cooking fuel, had suddenly gone out of business.

KOKO had been among the largest developers of clean cooking solutions in Africa. From a social and environmental point of view, there is little dispute that its activities brought real benefits.

Cooking with dirty fuels is a major public health concern, causing almost 3 million deaths worldwide each year. On top of that, the collection of biomass for use in cooking – a task that largely falls to women and children – is a significant driver of deforestation.

The shock waves from KOKO’s demise reached far beyond Kenya. To make clean cookstoves and cooking fuel affordable, KOKO, like most of its competitors, had to rely on another ingredient: income from carbon credits, sold on the basis of claims that cookstove projects reduce deforestation and supply households with less-emitting cooking fuels.

Historically, clean cookstove credits have been popular with corporate buyers and impact investors, because of their alignment with meeting other sustainable development goals beyond cutting CO2 emissions.

...

A peer-reviewed study published in 2024 found a sample of clean cookstove projects had over-estimated their carbon removal benefits by almost 1,000%. Later that year, prominent executive Ken Newcombe was indicted for fraud in New York over an alleged scheme to overstate carbon reductions from cookstove projects.

While there are multiple, complex reasons for KOKO’s collapse, the company, which had issued more credits that any other cookstove project developer in Kenya, struggled to convince the market that it could achieve the carbon reductions it claimed it could deliver.

...

This made it more difficult for KOKO to convince the Kenyan government to issue the letter of authorisation it needed to sell its credits under CORSIA.

The credits issued by KOKO would have taken up a large swathe of the credits that Kenyan projects could offer to international buyers, and the seemingly poor quality of the credits would pose a threat to Kenya’s own reputation.

...

In March 2025, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market approved a set of clean cooking methodologies under its Core Carbon Principles, meaning project developers that use these methodologies can claim the coveted CCP label. “Since those methodologies were approved, we've seen projects move into those methodologies, and 3.9 million credits with the CCP label have been issued,” says Jessica Wade-Murphy, co-chair of the expert panel at the ICVCM,

...

The ICVCM CCP label requires developers to use the modelling fuelwood savings scenario (MoFuSS) model for calculating fNRB, while also using more rigorous methods for estimating baseline fuel use and for monitoring cookstove usage. Improved monitoring is widely seen as key to providing reassurance that cookstove projects are delivering on promises of reducing emissions.

...

Some projects using newer methodologies have achieved impressive ratings with BeZero. Last July, clean cooking company EcoSafi announced it had achieved an AA rating for a project in Uganda.

Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, carbon markets investment firm Climate Impact Partners is supporting the Bondhu Chula Project, which is working to distribute 500,000 improved cookstoves. These cookstoves are installed as permanent appliances in homes, and are designed to burn fuel more efficiently to reduce firewood consumption.

...

Many clean cooking advocates believe the swing to a more conservative approach has gone too far. The non-profit Clean Cooking Alliance is working with several partner organisations to develop a new methodology, known as the Comprehensive Lowered Emissions Assessment and Reporting (CLEAR) Methodology for Cooking Energy Transitions.

“With CLEAR, what we've really tried to do is prioritise accuracy, so we don't have these arbitrary conservative defaults,” says Elisa Derby, senior director of climate impacts and standards at the CCA.

There is a larger question over whether the non-carbon co-benefits associated with clean cookstoves, such as improved health from reduced indoor air pollution, and social benefits of more girls staying in education, are properly valued, particularly in the compliance market.

BeZero does not take co-benefits into account in its ratings, but does publish separate analysis on co-benefits for interested purchasers.

...

Renat Heuberger, CEO of investment firm Terra Impact Ventures and former CEO and co-founder of consultancy South Pole, says even with methodologies that are objectively less likely to result in over-crediting, some buyers are cautious of the real and perceived risks around cookstoves.

“I know a lot of buyers who would, in principle, be totally willing to buy the credits and be absolutely willing to support African households,” says Heuberger. “But what they don't want is to end up in the newspaper with a greenwashing topic. They're scared – rightfully so.”

Ultimately, however, Heuberger says no viable alternative to the carbon markets has emerged as a solution for funding clean cooking interventions at scale.

In fact, he points out that the “additionality” of clean cooking projects is proven by the fact that companies like KOKO cannot survive without carbon-credit revenues.

“This is a horribly imperfect mechanism with a horrible amount of paradoxes,” says Heuberger. “Yet if you really want to make a difference in the world, it's probably better to unify behind this system.” READ MORE

Related articles