Cookstove projects are among the most popular carbon credits with buyers who want visible benefits for people as well as the climate. They are also among the most scrutinised, because the tonnes depend on estimates of how much fuel each household really saves. This page explains how the projects work, what went wrong with older methods and what to check now. It is part of our guide to carbon credit project types.
How cookstove projects work
Households get a stove that needs less fuel. The project measures fuel use before and after, converts the saving into tonnes of CO₂e, and has an auditor verify it before credits are issued.
Verra’s VM0050 methodology covers improved cookstoves deployed in households, communities, institutions and small businesses, including stoves that save fuel and stoves that switch to a different fuelSource 8. It allows direct measurement techniques such as stove use monitors, fuel weight sensors and electricity metersSource 8. For credits to carry the CCP label, fNRB must come from the latest CDM Tool 33 for reductions achieved on or before 31 December 2025, or from the MoFuSS modelSource 8.
Two numbers drive most of the result: how much fuel a household saves, and how much of the wood it would have burned was non-renewable, meaning it would not have regrown. That second number is called the fraction of non-renewable biomass, or fNRBSource 4.
Watch for over-crediting
Independent research has found some older cookstove methodologies over-estimated savingsSource 6. Prefer credits issued under newer, CCP-approved methodologies.
Matched shop
Buy clean cooking credits
- Registry serial numbers
- Retirement certificate
- Project documentation
Avoidance, with no stored carbon
Cookstove credits are avoidance credits: they stand for fuel that was not burned. The Oxford Offsetting Principles count clean cookstove distribution among emission reduction or avoidance projectsSource 12. Because nothing is stored, there is no stored carbon to leak back, which is why we show permanence risk as “n/a”. The researchers behind the main over-crediting study note that additionality, leakage, permanence and overlapping claims still need more researchSource 6.
Read removal vs avoidance credits for how avoidance credits fit alongside removals.
Health and social benefits
The co-benefits are real and large. The WHO estimates that around 2.1 billion people, about a quarter of the world’s population, cook using open fires or inefficient stovesSource 10. Household air pollution was responsible for an estimated 2.9 million deaths in 2021, including over 309,000 children under five, and women and children bear the greatest health burdenSource 10.
What did the research find?
- Gill-Wiehl, Kammen and Haya (2024) compared five cookstove methodologies with published evidence. They found misalignment on fNRB, firewood-to-charcoal conversion, stove adoption, stove usage, fuel consumption, stacking (using several stoves), rebound and emission factors, and estimated their sample was over-credited 9.2 timesSource 6.
- The same study found Gold Standard’s metered methodology, which directly monitors fuel use, the most closely aligned with its estimates, at 1.5 times over-creditedSource 6.
- Probst and colleagues (2024) estimated that 11% of cookstove credits in the studies they reviewed were real emission reductionsSource 7.
See do carbon offsets work? for the full evidence review.
Risks and standards
Scrolls sideways to show every column.
| Factor | What to check |
|---|---|
| Fuel-use measurement | Field-measured, not just surveys |
| Stove use over time | Monitoring of ongoing use |
| Methodology | CCP-approved version |
As of Oct 2026
In March 2025 the ICVCM approved three cookstove methodologies: Gold Standard’s Methodology for Metered & Measured Energy Cooking Devices (versions 1–1.2), Gold Standard’s TPDDTEC version 4.0 and Verra’s VM0050 version 1.0Source 4. Credits must meet conditionsSource 4:
- fNRB from the MoFuSS model, or the Clean Development Mechanism default of 0.3 for a limited period;
- fuel consumption from a Kitchen Performance Test or Controlled Cooking Test, or methodology defaults with cross-checks on fuel savings;
- for charcoal, a direct charcoal emission factor or a wood-to-charcoal conversion factor of four to one.
The ICVCM did not approve Gold Standard’s AMS-II.G (versions 1–13.1) or its Simplified Methodology for Clean and Efficient Cookstoves (versions 1–3)Source 4. In June 2025 it approved older TPDDTEC versions 2–3.1 on condition they align with version 4, but said no issued credits met all the conditions, so no existing credits under those versions become CCP-labelledSource 5.
The first CCP-labelled clean cooking credits under VM0050 were issued in February 2026, for a project distributing efficient stoves in NigeriaSource 9. Verra says the project replaces traditional charcoal stoves and lists co-benefits including forest conservation, time savings for women and children and local jobsSource 9.
Standards named in this section
Gold Standard
Verra
Logos identify the organisations named; no endorsement is implied.
What do cookstove credits cost?
Ecosystem Marketplace reports cookstoves within its household and community devices category, which also includes water purification and biogas devices. That category averaged $7.71 per tonne in 2023 and $7.30 in 2024Source 11. Gold Standard credits made up 71% of the category’s 2024 volume, and Africa was the largest source of credits traded, at 43%Source 11. Traded volume in the category halved in 2024, partly because a single developer that sold a large volume of cookstove credits in 2023 ceased operations in the first half of 2024Source 11. See carbon credit prices for the full snapshot.
Buying cookstove credits
- Check the methodology and version on the registry record, and whether the credits carry the CCP label.
- Ask how fuel use was measured: metered or sensor data beats surveys alone.
- Look at stove use over time, not just stoves handed out.
- Verify retirement in your name; see how to verify carbon credits.
Cookstoves pair well with other types in a portfolio approach. Compare them with renewable energy and methane capture, the other main avoidance types.