UNFCCC's New Cooking Methodologies: What Project Developers Need to Prepare

A clean-cooking programme can have a good product and a committed distributor and still be unready for carbon-project development. The early test is whether the proposed households, technology and monitoring plan fit the same methodology route, and whether the project can keep the records that route requires.

For a developer, this is a design and procurement question, not just a choice of methodology name. The wrong assumption can become expensive once equipment has been ordered or household commitments have been made.

What was adopted, and what is current

At its October 2026 meeting, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body adopted two household-cooking methodologies: A6.4-AMM-004, Cooking energy transitions, and A6.4-AMM-005, Energy efficiency measures in household cooking. It also adopted A6.4-AMT-010, the Sampling and surveys tool. The meeting report asks for future work on institutional users; that request does not extend the adopted household methodologies to institutions. [1]

The Supervisory Body published A6.4-AMM-005, Energy efficiency measures in household cooking, version 01.0, on 14 October 2026. The document says it entered into force on 9 October. The Rules and Regulations page is the official place to check the current list. When we checked it on 15 October 2026, the approved-methodologies table listed A6.4-AMM-001 to A6.4-AMM-003, but not the two new cooking methodologies. It did list A6.4-AMT-010, Sampling and surveys (version 01.0). We can describe AMM-005 version 01.0 while keeping the list status and cross-reference issue clear. Publication does not approve an individual project. [3] [5] [6] [9] The two routes are not interchangeable

AMM-004 covers household cooking transitions through technology-specific pathways, including biomass, electric cooking and LPG. The proposed technology, baseline fuel use and chosen accounting option affect what must be measured. “Clean cooking” alone is not an applicability case. [2]

AMM-005 is narrower: it concerns household energy-efficiency measures in rural, low-income settings and is not a fuel-switching route. The project must substantiate its target population, pre-activity cooking practice and proposed equipment against the method's actual conditions. Calling a programme “improved cookstoves for rural households” does not establish that it qualifies. [3]

Consider two hypothetical programmes. One introduces electric cooking to households that use several fuels. The other distributes more efficient wood stoves while households continue using wood. They may share some outreach work, but they do not automatically share a baseline, monitoring plan or budget. Screen the route before treating the programmes as one design.

Build a short route decision file

Before you order equipment, prepare a short evidence file another technical reviewer can check:

Ask a supplier whether its performance report covers the exact model being procured and the conditions in which it will be used. If the report does not answer that, record the gap; do not turn it into an assumption. “Fuel-supply evidence not yet available” is a useful action for the team, not a reason to fill the box optimistically.

Set the baseline before estimating reductions

The methods do not construct the baseline in the same way. AMM-004 provides different measurement-based approaches. AMM-005 uses an ambitious benchmark and backstop provisions; it is not a licence to assume that every household would otherwise use the least efficient stove. Use the selected methodology's rules rather than building a preferred answer from the general baseline standard. [2] [3] [7]

Keep three questions separate during a pilot: do households use the product; can the monitoring system operate consistently; and does the evidence support the selected accounting route? A successful product demonstration answers the first question, not necessarily the other two.

Some observations need to be collected before distribution. Once household practices or local fuel markets have changed, they may not be reconstructable. Name the person responsible for collecting each baseline item and set a review point before rollout.

Treat sampling as a design, not a headcount

There is no single household count that can be copied across all clean-cooking projects. First identify the parameter being estimated, its target population and sampling unit. Then define the sampling frame, selection method, strata or clusters where permitted, non-response handling, exclusions and quality checks. The applicable methodology and the sampling tool control; a generic sample-size rule or an old KPT spreadsheet does not replace them. [2] [3] [5]

Budget for the actual approved field plan, including repeat visits and quality checks. Agreeing a low monitoring fee before the sample design is settled can leave essential fieldwork unfunded. Keep the planned design, field substitutions and achieved sample distinguishable in the records.

What the SUM clauses actually say

A6.4-AMM-005 version 01.0 sets out three separate dates for SUM-related requirements. There is no single transition date for all of them. [3]

The methodology does not clearly explain how paragraph 13(k)'s 2028 SUM condition relates to the survey option for Psi, which remains available through 2028. That is the specific interpretation question; it does not justify removing the stated dates or combining them into one 2028/2029 deadline.

Planning view: have the programme SUM-ready by 1 January 2028. Size the sample and procurement for the usage parameter, and separately plan SUM coverage for every stove in KPT households. Do not assume a sampled stove lets uncovered stoves earn reductions. The 1 January 2029 date applies to SUM-based determination of Psi; it is not a general start date for sensor monitoring. Because paragraph 13(k) refers to section 7.4.1 without explaining how that reference relates to the survey option, do not budget on surveys as a substitute for SUM capability. This is a risk-management recommendation, not an additional methodology requirement. [3] Keep carbon analysis and the business budget distinct

Where investment analysis is required, the UNFCCC tool calls for justified, reproducible assumptions and excludes transaction costs associated with generating Article 6.4 emission reductions from that analysis. Follow the applicable methodology where it has specific provisions. [4]

Those costs still belong in the programme's commercial budget. A developer should separately plan for equipment, monitoring, field visits, technical services and the period before any project receipts. For example, a programme may need to replace instruments and revisit households even when it is not distributing new stoves. Identify who will fund that work and what happens if revenue is delayed; do not treat the additionality calculation as the full operating budget.

The baseline-setting standard and leakage standard also have distinct jobs. The former differentiates the pre-activity situation, business as usual and the crediting baseline; it is not a standalone PDD preparation procedure. The latter addresses attributable effects outside the project boundary and how remaining negative leakage is accounted for. A lower household fuel reading alone does not resolve either question. [7] [8]

Three internal decisions before expansion

These are Supacare management checks, not UNFCCC approval stages:

1. Design: Does the project have a supported methodology route for this population and intervention? Who owns each remaining evidence gap? 2. Pilot: Can the team collect, reconcile and keep the required records in real operating conditions? 3. Expansion: Are the technical requirements, responsibilities, supplier terms and funding clear enough to expand?

At each stage, record whether to proceed, proceed once named conditions are met, or redesign. Close a condition only when its owner provides the agreed evidence. Passing these internal checks does not guarantee methodology applicability, registration, issuance, financing or revenue.

A useful first conversation

For an initial readiness discussion, share a non-confidential summary of the country and locations, household group, technologies and fuels, rollout stage, available evidence and any decision deadline. Supacare can then scope the questions and specialist inputs for a focused review. Do not send household identities, raw recordings or commercially sensitive agreements through a general enquiry form.

The aim is to find a design problem while it is still affordable to change, not to promise a credit volume before the evidence exists.

Scope

This is Supacare analysis for project planning, not a project-specific eligibility decision, calculation workbook, legal advice or confirmation by the UNFCCC Secretariat or a DOE. Dates above are reported from the final AMM-005 PDF; the Rules and Regulations index and the unresolved cross-reference are stated explicitly so readers can distinguish published wording from operational confirmation.