VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification for the CDM Project Activity

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification for the CDM Project Activity Efficient Wood Fuel Stove- Cooking-Sets, Lesotho (UNFCCC Reference Number: 5482) in Lesotho Report No ST VE Version 01.6, Designated Operational Entity (DOE) TÜV Rheinland (China) Ltd Unit 707, AVIC Building, No. 10B, Central Road, East 3 rd Ring Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing , People s Republic of China. Tel.: (ext.169) FAX: ghg-doe@bj.chn.tuv.com

2 Team leader Team member Local Expert Technicla Expert TR Expert Technical Reviewer Verification report I. Project data: Project title: Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho Report No.: st VE Registration No. / Date: 5482 / Current revision No.: 01.6 Monitoring period: (first and last days included) Date of current revision: Methodology: AMS-II.G./Version 03 Date of first issue: Publication of MR: Average emission reductions: GHG reducing measure/technology: The monitoring report (Version 1, ) was published at UNFCCC website on Estimated 1 : 3,350 tco 2 e Verified: 3,266 tco 2 e Efficiency Improving on Woody Biomass Combustion Party Project participants Party considered a project participant Lesotho (Host) Solar Lights No Contract party Germany atmosfair ggmbh No Germany Deutsche Post AG No II. Verification team: Validation Team Role Full name Affiliation TÜV Rheinland Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical Areas) Mr. Harold Hai Hong Kong 1.2, 3.1, 6.1, 13.1 X Mr. Feng Hu Hong Kong 1.2, 3.1, 13.1 X Mr. Murali Ramalingam India 1.2, 3.1 X Mr. Mosala Letuka n/a n/a X Ms. Cuiping Deng China 1.2, 4.1, 4.5, 5.1, 8.2, 10.2, 11.1, 12.1, Dr. Lixin Li China 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.5 X X Verification Phases Desk Review Follow up interviews Resolution of outstanding issues Verification Status Corrective Actions / Clarifications Requested Full Approval and Submission for Issuance Rejected III. Verification Report: Final approval Released Distribution By: Mr. Henri Phan No distribution without permission from the Client or 1 According to the registered PDD /2.1/, the estimated emission reductions during the period 20/05/ /12/2012 are 8,054 tco 2 e. Thus the estimated emission reductions during the indicated monitoring period of 29/08/2012 to 30/11/2012 (i.e. 94 days) could be calculated as 3,350 tco 2 e (= 8,054 tco 2 e x 94/226). Version No.: 01.6 Page 2

3 Date: responsible organizational unit Unrestricted distribution Version No.: 01.6 Page 3

4 Abbreviations CAR CDM CER CL CO 2 CO 2 e DNA DOE DR EB ER FAR GHG GWh I IPCC IRR kw kwh LoA MoV MW MWh NGO OSV PDD t UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Clarification Request Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide equivalent Designated National Authority Designated Operational Entity Document Review Executive Board Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse Gas Giga Watt Hours Interview Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Internal Rate of Return Kilo Watt Kilo Watt Hours Letter of Approval Means of Verification Mega Watt Mega Watt Hours Non Government Organisation On Site Visit Project Design Document Tonne United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Standard Version No.: 01.6 Page 4

5 Verification opinion summary The verification team assigned by the DOE (TÜV Rheinland (China) Ltd.) concludes that the CDM Project Activity Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho in Lesotho, as described in the registered PDD (Version 3, 25 th August 2012) and the registered validation report (25 th August 2012), meets all relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. The document review of the registered project design documentation, registered validation report, and monitoring reports; and the subsequent follow-up interviews via on-site visit have provided DOE with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria. Verification methodology and process The verification has been performed as described in the VVS version 03.0 and constitutes the following steps: - Publication of the MR on the UNFCCC website on 09/02/ Desk review of the MR and the relevant documents - On-site assessment (04/03/ /03/2012) - Issuance of Verification Report The on-site visit from 4 th March 2013 to 7 th March 2013 was carried out two weeks after the global publication of the MR on 9 th February 2013, which is in conformity with the requirement in paragraph 13 of EB 52 meeting report. The project activity is a bilateral CDM project with three project participants (PPs), i.e. Solar Lights (as the project owner) from host country, and atmosfair ggmbh and Deutsche Post AG (as the CER Buyers) from Germany. The project has been registered as a CDM project (Registered No. 5482) 2 with the approved fixed crediting period from 29 th August th August The project activity is to disseminate efficient fuel wood stoves called SAVE80 and heat retaining polypropylene boxes in several districts of Lesotho. Until the end of the indicated monitoring period (1 st monitoring period) from 29 th August 2012 to 30 th November 2012 (first and last days included), in total 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs were delivered and installed. According to the PDD & the validation report, the project activity applies the monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version 03 in connection with Attachment A of Appendix B (Version 8, EB 63 Annex 24). The project activity was correctly implemented according to the selected monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan, while collected monitoring data allowed to verify the amount of achieved GHG emission reductions. 2 CARs and 2 CLs are raised in the verification process and subject to resolution by the PP. The DOE therefore is pleased to issue a positive verification opinion expressed in the attached Certification statement. 2 UNFCCC, Project registered, Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho, ( Version No.: 01.6 Page 5

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Objective Scope METHODOLOGY Desk review On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders Resolution of outstanding issues Internal quality control VERIFICATION FINDINGS Project implementation Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology Compliance of the monitoring with PDD and monitoring plan Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions Issues remaining from the previous verification period Appendix A: Verification Protocol Appendix B: Certification statement Appendix C: Certificates of Competence Version No.: 01.6 Page 6

7 1. Introduction atmosfair ggmbh has commissioned the DOE TÜV Rheinland (China) Ltd. to perform the 1 st periodic verification of the CDM Project Activity Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho (UNFCCC ref. no.: 5482) in Lesotho (hereafter called the project activity ). This report summarises the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of paragraph 62 of the CDM modalities and procedures, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board. Verification is required for all registered CDM project activities intending to confirm their achieved emission reductions and proceed with request for issuance of CERs. 1.1 Objective Verification is the periodic independent review and ex post determination by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions that have occurred as a result of the registered CDM project activity during a defined monitoring period. Certification is the written assurance by a DOE that, during a specific period in time, a project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified. The objective of this verification was to verify and certify emission reductions reported for the Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho in country Lesotho for the period 29/08/2012 to 30/11/2012. The purpose of verification is to review the monitoring results and verify that monitoring methodology was implemented according to monitoring plan and monitoring data, used to confirm the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources is sufficient, definitive and presented in a concise and transparent manner. In particular, monitoring plan, monitoring report and the project s compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria are verified in order to confirm that the project has been implemented in accordance with previously registered design and conservative assumptions, as documented. 1.2 Scope The scope of the verification is: To verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan. To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement. To verify that reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence. The verification shall ensure that reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified. Version No.: 01.6 Page 7

8 The verification comprises a review of the monitoring report over the monitoring period from 29 th August 2012 to 30 th November 2012, based on the registered PDD, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet, monitoring methodology and all related evidence provided by project participant. On-site visit and stakeholders interviews are also performed as part of the verification process. Version No.: 01.6 Page 8

9 2. Methodology The verification consists of the following four phases: 1. Completeness check and webhost of the Monitoring report for publication; 2. Desk review of the monitoring plan, monitoring report, monitoring methodology, project design document, applicable tools in particular attention to the frequency of measurements, quality of metering equipment s including calibration requirements, QA/QC procedures and other relevant documents; 3. On-site visit (including follow-up interviews with project stakeholders, when deemed necessary). The on-site assignment includes the following; An assignment of implementation and operation of project activity with respect to registered PDD or approved revised PDD; Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; Interview with relevant personals to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented and in accordance with monitoring plan of the PDD; Cross check of information and data provided in the monitoring report with plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources; Check of monitoring equipment s, calibration frequency and monitoring practice in-line with methodology and PDD; Review of assumptions made in calculating the emission reduction; Implementation of QA/QC procedure in-line with the PDD and methodology requirement. 4. Resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final Verification report and Certification statement. The following sections outline each step in more detail. 2.1 Desk review Table 1: The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the verification: /1/ /2/ /3/ /4/ /1.1/ Monitoring Report (MR), Version 1, 7 th February 2013 /1.2/ MR, Version 4.1, 2 nd July 2013 /2.1/ Registered PDD (registered no.: 5482), Version 3, 25 th August 2012 /2.2/ Registered Validation Report (Ref. no.: /493) by TÜV NORD CERT GmbH, 25 th August 2012 UNFCCC, Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard (VVS), Version 03.0, EB 70, Annex 3 UNFCCC, AMS-II.G./Version 03 Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass, EB 60, Annex 21 /5/ UNFCCC, Attachment A of Appendix B, Version 8, EB 63 Annex 24 /6/ UNFCCC, Guideline on the application of materiality in verifications, Ver. 01.0, EB 69 Annex 6 /7/ /7.1/ UNFCCC, Monitoring report form (F-CDM-MR), Version 03.1, 2 nd January 2013 Version No.: 01.6 Page 9

10 /7.2/ UNFCCC, Guidelines for completing the monitoring report form, Version 03.2, EB 70 Annex 11 /8/ Emission reductions calculation spreadsheet /9/ CDM Monitoring Manual, version 1.0, September 2012 /10/ Monitoring survey questionnaires (84 sets), January 2013 Note: in total 85 samples were randomly selected. /11/ atmosfair ggmbh, Monitoring staff assignment letter, 7 th January 2013 /12/ Standard Operating Procedure Sampling, Version 1, 1 st December 2012 /13/ List of involved villages in the project activity /14/ Water Boiling Test (WBT) Data Management Forms and Test Results /14.1/ atmosfair ggmbh, WBT Instruction and Data Entry Form (9 sets) /14.2/ atmosfair ggmbh, WBT Preparation Form (9 sets) /14.3/ atmosfair ggmbh, WBT Test Entry Form (9 sets) /14.4/ WBT Data Calculation Spreadsheet (test results) (9 sets) /15/ Database of Sale Records of all ICSs (including sampling process) /16/ Database of Sample Users for the 1 st monitoring period /17/ Calculation spreadsheet of the precision of the monitoring parameters /18/ /19/ SAVE80 Stove-Cooking-Set Participation Contracts (i.e. User Agreements) (5,493 sets, including the 84 sample users) Training Certificate of Mr. Michael Hönes for CDM monitoring, issued by atmosfair ggmbh on 7 th January 2013 /20/ SAVE80 ICS User Training Manual /21/ /22/ /23/ /24/ UNFCCC, Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and Programme of Activities, Version 03.0, EB 69 Annex 4 UNFCCC, Guidelines for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities, Version 02, EB 69 Annex 5 Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, Water Boiling Test (WBT) Protocol, Version 3.0, /24.1/ /24.2/ WBT training confirmation and testing agreements of 5 testers, 19 th January 2012 MALEFETSANE, Pitso KOSIE, Itumeleng SETSABI, Maseabata PHATSOANE, Motsamai RAPOPO, Majemina Training certificates of Operator Skills and Safety Procedures, 1 st February 2013 HÖNES, Michael MOTSEKI, Mohau Version No.: 01.6 Page 10

11 /25/ /26/ MOTJO, Matli Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, Water Boiling Test (WBT) Data Calculation Sheet, Version 3.0, /26.1/ /26.2/ UNFCCC, Information note: Default values of fraction of non-renewable biomass for least developed countries and small island developing States, Version 01.0, EB 67, Annex 22 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Country Tables Lesotho, Table 3b Special designation and management categories /27/ Manual of the scale KD-8000 /28/ Manual of thermometer /29/ UNFCCC, CDM Project Standard, Version 03.0, 12 th April On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders TÜV Rheinland verification team carried out an on-site visit dated (04/03/ /03/2013) and performed interviews with the project representatives and stakeholders. Prior to the interview salient points to be discussed were planned. Date of interview, interviewee and points discussed are given in the following table. Date Name Organization Topic /i/ /ii/ /iii/ /iv/ /v/ /vi/ 04/03/ /03/201 3 Mr. Michael Hönes (Manager, also as management representative) Mr. Itumeleng Kosie (Field operation manager) Mr. Malefetsane Pitso (Accountant) Mr. Maseabata Setsabi (Field worker) Mr. Majemina Rapopo (Field worker) Mr. Xaver Kitzinger (CDM Project manager) Solar Lights (i.e. PP in host country) atmosfair ggmbh (i.e. CER buyer) Project design and implementation Project related legal issues Equipment Installation and starting of operation Crediting Period for this verification Monitoring plan and Procedures QA and QC Training history and records Data collection and record keeping Operation and Maintenance records Missing Data handling Management system Crediting Period for this verification Monitoring plan and Procedures QA and QC Version No.: 01.6 Page 11

12 /vii/ /viii/ 47 SAVE80 users randomly sampled by the DOE from the PP s 85 sample households 34 SAVE80 users additionally checked by the DOE Lesotho local SAVE80 users Training history and records Missing Data handling Monitoring report Monitoring plan and Procedures QA and QC Training history and records Missing data handling Data collection and record keeping Operation and maintenance records Operation situation Verification Team along with onsite observation, objective evidence collections, data generation and recording analysis also considered the views obtained in these interviews while arriving at Verification Opinion. 2.3 Resolution of outstanding issues The objective of this phase of the verification is to resolve any outstanding issues which have to be clarified prior to final DOE s conclusions on the project implementation, monitoring practices and achieved emission reductions. In order to ensure transparency a verification protocol is completed for the project activity. The protocol shows in transparent manner criteria (requirements), means of verification and resulting statements on verification actual project activity against identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: It organises in a table form, details and clarifies the requirements, which CDM project is expected to meet; It ensures a transparent verification process where the DOE will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification. The verification protocol consists of two tables. Table 1 reflects the verification requirements and reference to the materials used to verify the project activity against those requirements, as well as means of verification, reference to Table 2 and preliminary and final opinion of the DOE on every particular requirement. The completed verification protocol for this project is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings during the verification can be interpreted as a non-compliance with CDM criteria or a risk to the compliance. Corrective action requests (CARs) are raised, in case: (a) Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; (b) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; Version No.: 01.6 Page 12

13 Supervising the work Desk review Site Visit + Interview Report and protocol Writing Technical Expert Input Reporting Support Technical Reviewer Verification report (c) Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants. Requests for clarification (CLs) are raised, if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. 2.4 Internal quality control The final verification report underwent a technical review by a qualified independent reviewer before requesting issuance of the project activity. The technical review was performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with TÜV Rheinland s qualification scheme for CDM validation and verification that meets the criteria of EB guidelines for qualification. 2.5 Verification Team Before the assessment begins, members of the verification team are ensured to cover the technical area(s), sectoral scope(s) and relevant host country experience including local language ability for evaluating the CDM verification activity. The qualification of the team is as per the criteria defined by the EB guidelines for qualification. Verification Team Full name Affiliation TÜV Rheinland Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical Areas) Type of Involvement Mr. Harold Hai Hong Kong 1.2, 3.1, 6.1, 13.1 X X X X Mr. Feng Hu Hong Kong 1.2, 3.1, 13.1 X X Mr. Murali Ramalingam India 1.2, 3.1 X X X Mr. Mosala Letuka n/a n/a X Ms. Cuiping Deng China 1.2, 4.1, 4.5, 5.1, 8.2, 10.2, 11.1, 12.1, Dr. Lixin Li China 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.5 X X 3. Verification findings The findings of the verification are described in the following sections. The verification criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results of verification are documented in detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A. Version No.: 01.6 Page 13

14 3.1 Project implementation The implementation of the project activity Verification Opinion: Through document review (e.g. monitoring report /1/, the registered PDD /2.1/, and the registered validation report /2.2/, etc), on-site observation and interviews with the management representative /i/, the verification team can summarize the implementation of the project as below, Project Participants: Project Parties: Title of project activity: Solar Lights (as the project owner) atmosfair ggmbh Deutsche Post AG Lesotho (host Party) Germany (Annex I Party) Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Lesotho UNFCCC registration No: UNFCCC registration No Baseline and monitoring methodology: Location of the project activity: AMS-II.G./Version 03 Project s crediting period: 29/08/2012 to 28/08/2022 Period verified in this verification: parts of the districts Berea, Maseru, Leribe, Mohale s Hoek, Mafeteng and Butha-Buthe, Lesotho 29/08/2012 to 30/11/2012 As part of the site visit the verification team was able to confirm that the project implementation is in accordance with the project description contained in registered PDD of 25/08/2012. The verification took cognizance of 184, 185 & 187 of CDM Project Standard. The project activity is to disseminate efficient fuel wood stoves called SAVE80 and heat retaining polypropylene boxes in several districts of Lesotho. As per the registered PDD /2.1/ and the validation report /2.2/, the first order of ICSs was made on 25/10/2010. Until the end of the indicated monitoring period (1 st monitoring period) from 29 th August 2012 to 30 th November 2012 (first and last days included), in total 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs were delivered and installed. The user agreements /18/ were checked and confirmed valid. Moreover, the type of deployed ICS is also checked and confirmed consistent with the descriptions in the registered PDD /2.1/ (i.e. SAVE80 cook stove). As per the registered PDD /2.1/, the geographic location of the project site is described as the socalled foothills region of the country, limited by the highlands in the east and the lowlands in the west. In the north the boundary stretches out from the village of Thabong (28 55 W, S), near to the border of South Africa, to the village of Ha Phala (27 58 W,29 99S), which is located close to the city of Mohale s Hoek in the southern part of Lesotho. The project location includes parts of the districts Berea, Maseru, Leribe, Mohale s Hoek, Mafeteng and Butha-Buthe. During the on-site visit, the verification team visited in total 81 SAVE80 ICS users (47 users who are Version No.: 01.6 Page 14

15 selected based on acceptance sampling from PP s samples, and 34 users who are randomly selected from the whole project activity) and also checked samples of the user agreements of the 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs /18/. It is confirmed by checking the location information in the Database of Sale Records of all ICSs /15/ that all the 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs are installed within the geographic range indicated in the registered PDD. Moreover, the verification team also confirms that there was no change of the project implementation during this monitoring period. Table 6: Summary of generation units of the project activity Physical Features of Items Amount of SAVE80 ICS Units being deployed Described in the registered PDD 5,000 (Number of SAVE80 ICSs being deployed until 31/12/2012) Implementation of the project activity 5,493 (Number of SAVE80 ICSs being deployed until the end of the monitoring period, i.e. 30/11/2012) Verification team s opinion During the on-site visit (OSV) from 4 th March to 7 th March 2013 for 1 st periodic verification, the verification team checked the user agreements of the SAVE80 ICSs /18/ and confirmed that in total 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs were delivered and installed until the end of the indicated monitoring period (1 st monitoring period) from 29 th August 2012 to 30 th November 2012 (first and last days included) Efficiency 52% 41.92% The verification team checked the Water Boiling Test (WBT) results of 9 sampled ICSs /14/ and confirms that the average efficiency of the SAVE80 system being deployed is 41.92%. Through on-site observation, interviews, and document checking, the verification team considers that the implementation of project activity including equipment installation is consistent with the registered PDD. Herewith, the verification team summarizes major changes between webhosted MR and final version of MR for submission as follows: Subject Webhosted Monitoring Report (MR) Consistency MR ( project title / participants involved/ project location / reference numbers / report date and version etc) Methodologies ( title and version numbers) PDD and its version As summarized in the beginning of section Please see above. AMS-II.G./Version 3 PDD (Version 3, 25/08/2012) Correction to webhosted MR in the final MR submission for issuance with DOE assessment and reason of acceptance. The report version and date have been updated. No change Version No.: 01.6 Page 15

16 CER calculations (formula applied/ amount of emission reduction) Registration date, crediting date, consistent/logical sign -off dates Monitoring (period dates / parameters / frequency ) Crediting period ( type / start date) 3,290 tco 2 e 3,266 tco 2 e As summarized in the beginning of section Please see above. 29/08/2012 to 30/11/2012 Please refer to section below for the assessment of monitoring parameters. Fixed 10-year crediting period: 29/08/ /08/2022 The calculation of emission reductions has been validated and confirmed to be valid and traceable. No change No change No change Please refer to Appendix A of this report for details of each change between webhosted MR and the final MR for submission. The Verification Team has carried out the verification process based on the Webhosted MR and raised a CL against the project by issuing the verification protocol. With the updated information and corrections done on final MR, the PP has addressed all the CARs /CLs that were raised by the Verification Team. It is concluded that the Verification Team has reviewed the project in line with the VVS (version 03.0) and all the evidence, corrections, justifications and updating done on the final MR with respect to the CL raised are accepted and closed by the verification team, issuing the positive verification opinion for project registration. TÜV Rheinland verification team considers the project description of the project contained in the registered PDD to be complete and accurate. The PDD complies with the relevant methodology, tools, forms and guidance at the time of PDD submission for registration The actual operation of the CDM project activity Project physical features ( During on-site visit (OSV), it was confirmed that in total 5,493 technology, project equipment, SAVE80 ICSs were deployed until the end of the indicated monitoring and metering monitoring period, i.e. 30/11/2012, which is also confirmed from equipment) the user agreements of the 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs /18/. It is also confirmed that there was no special event which may impact the applicability of the applied methodology during this monitoring period, and no replacement happened during this monitoring period. Any Project Design Change been sought and approved by EB for the project? Any Revision in Monitoring plan is sought and approved by EB for the project? Does the monitoring report provide line diagram showing all relevant monitoring points? Yes No Yes No Yes No applicable Not There is no project design change for the proposed project. There is no revision in monitoring plan for the proposed project. The project is the installation of 5,493 SAVE80 ICSs for the participating households in Lesotho, all of which are the target population of the sampling during monitoring. Thus it is not applicable to Version No.: 01.6 Page 16

17 present all relevant monitoring points in form of line diagram. The timeline of the project s implementation is summarized as below: Milestone of the Timeline Assessment by the verification team project activity Operation commission date of the project activity 04/06/2011 According to the user agreements /18/ and the Database of Sale Records of all ICSs /15/, the 1 st batch of SAVE80 ICSs (39 sets) were delivered on 4 th June 2011, which is thus considered as operation commencement date of this project activity. For the whole month of June 2011, in Registration of the project activity total 139 sets of SAVE80 ICSs were delivered. 29/08/2012 Confirmed from UNFCCC website ( /view) Crediting period 29/08/ /08/2022 According to the definition of crediting period in the Glossary of CDM terms, it states, the crediting period may only start after the date of registration of the proposed activity as a CDM project activity. Since the project activity was registered on 29 th August 2012, the verification team confirms that the starting date of the crediting period indicated in the UNFCCC project page is 29/08/ st monitoring period 29/08/2012 to 30/11/2012 Confirmed from the monitoring report /1/. In summary, the monitoring period is reasonable and the actual implementation of the project activity is appropriate to its CDM development. The verification took cognizance of 188,189 and 190 of CDM Project Standard. 3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology Verification Opinion: According to the registered PDD /2.1/ & the validation report /2.2/, the project activity applies the monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version 03 in connection with Attachment A of Appendix B (Version 8, EB 63 Annex 24). By reviewing the registered PDD /2.1/ and the monitoring report /1/, they comply with the requirement of applied monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version 03. Simple random sampling was conducted annually, applying 90/10 confidence/precision, according to the Guidelines for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities /22/, which complies with the requirement of representative sampling methods in the applied monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version 03. According to the PDD /2.1/, the emission reductions (ER y ) are calculated using the following equation: ER y = B y,savings f NRB,y NCV biomass EF project_fossilfuel Version No.: 01.6 Page 17

18 According to the registered PDD /2.1/, there are four monitoring parameters required to be monitored as per AMS-II.G./Version 03. Please refer to section below for detailed assessment. The verification team confirms that the monitoring plan in the registered PDD /2.1/ complies with the applied monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version Compliance of the monitoring with PDD and monitoring plan Verification Opinion: The verification team reviewed the description of monitoring system in the monitoring report /1/ and conducted an on-site visit so as to (i) verify the compliance of the monitoring with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD /2.1/, and (ii) confirm the emission reductions during the indicated monitoring period. The verification team confirms that the actual monitoring is consistent with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD /2.1/ and thus confirmed traceable and valid Monitored parameters Verification Opinion: The verification team assessed the monitoring techniques and each monitoring value; and provide a short summary on the verification of every parameter listed in the monitoring plan in the registered PDD /2.1/ and used for calculation of emission reductions. According to the registered PDD /2.1/, the following four parameters are monitored, which have been assessed as below: Monitoring Prameter Requirment Assessment/ Observation by the DOE Data / Parameter: ƞ new (as in monitoring plan of PDD): Adjusted average efficiency of the SAVE80 system being deployed Measuring frequency: Annually Reporting frequency: Annually Is measuring and reporting frequency in Yes accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology? (Yes / No) Type of monitoring equipment: Water Boiling Test (WBT) Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the accuracy of the monitoring equipment, does The accuracy of the monitoring equipment is not specified in the registered PDD and the applied monitoring methodology. The WBT follows the the monitoring equipment represent good standard procedures using simple measurement monitoring practice? equipment (e.g. weighing scale and thermometer). The accuracies of the equipments are indicated in the MR as below Weighing Thermometer Equipment Scale Accuracy +/- 1 g +/- 1 C Version No.: 01.6 Page 18

19 It is confirmed that the accuracy of the weighing scale is accordance with the WBT Protocol (Version 3.0) /23/; while, for thermometer, the accuracy level is lower than that indicated by the WBT Protocol, i.e. 1/10 of a degree.. As per the 9 WBT Data Calculation Spreadsheet /14.4/, PP has adjusted the measured temperature values in all the 9 WBT tests by adding 0.9 C (i.e. the difference between the accuracy level of the installed monitoring equipment and the accuracy required by the WBT protocol, since the accuracy of the monitoring equipment is not specified in the registered PDD and the applied monitoring methodology AMS-II.G./Version 3) to the initial water temperature and deducting 0.9 C from the boiling temperature water. As per the applied methodology AMS-II.G./Version 3, the calculation of emission reductions does not involve separate calculations of baseline emissions and project emissions, the above deduction is considered equivalent to the one in Clause 4 (a) & (b) of Appendix 1 of the CDM Project Standard (Version 03.0, 12 th April 2013). Thus the deduction is considered conservative and no prior approval is required for the difference between the accuracy level of the installed monitoring equipment and the accuracy required by the WBT protocol. Calibration frequency /interval: Therefore, the verification team confirms that such difference in the accuracy level of the thermometer has been taken into consideration in the calculation of emission reductions and the monitoring equipments still represent good monitoring practice. Not applicable. As per the registered PDD /2.1/, the WBT follows the standard procedures using simple measurement equipment (e.g. weighing scale and thermometer). However, neither the monitoring methodology nor the monitoring plan specifies any requirements for calibration frequency for measuring equipments. There is no local/national standard regarding the calibration frequency of the weighing scale and thermometer. By checking the WBT Protocol /23/, there is also no specific requirement of calibration. As per the manual of weighing scale /27/ and thermometer /28/, the weighing scale was professionally factory calibrated before shipment and does NOT need to be recalibrated before use and will not usually require calibration during lifetime, while the thermometer was manufactured according to requirements of current European and national guidelines and also does not require calibration Version No.: 01.6 Page 19

20 Is the calibration interval in line with the monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the frequency of calibration, does the selected frequency represent goo d monitoring practice? Company performing the calibration: Did calibration confirm proper functioning of monitoring equipment? (Yes / No): Is(are) calibration(s) valid for the whole reporting period? If applicable, has the reported data been crosschecked with other available data? How were the values in the monitoring report verified? Does the data management (from monitoring equipment to emission reduction calculation) ensure correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and are necessary QA/QC processes in place? In case only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, has the most conservative assumption theoretically possible been applied or has a request for deviation been approved? Monitoring Prameter Requirment Data / Parameter: (as in monitoring plan of PDD): Measuring frequency: Reporting frequency: Is measuring and reporting frequency in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology? (Yes / No) Type of monitoring equipment: before use. As confirmed by the PP, both equipments will be checked before each monitoring to ensure them in good conditions. Not applicable. Not applicable. As assessed above, the verification team confirms that there is no need to perform calibration during monitoring and the monitoring equipments represent good monitoring practice. Not applicable. As assessed above, the verification team confirms that there is no need to perform calibration during monitoring and the monitoring equipments represent good monitoring practice. Not applicable. As assessed above, the verification team confirms that there is no need to perform calibration during monitoring and the monitoring equipments represent good monitoring practice. Yes. Crosschecked with WBT test results /14/. The verification team checked the values against Water Boiling Test (WBT) Standard Procedures and Test Results /14/ and confirmed valid. Yes. As per on-site inspection and document review /14/, the verification team confirms that all visited households are using the stoves in good conditions and the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and necessary QA/QC processes are also in place. The verification team also confirms that the data management and QA&QC processes are in accordance with the registered PDD and the MR. Not applicable. The monitoring data are complete and traceable. N y Assessment/ Observation by the DOE Adjusted total number of SAVE80 deployed Continuously Calculated annually Yes. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment Version No.: 01.6 Page 20

21 Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the accuracy of the monitoring equipment, does the monitoring equipment represent good monitoring practice? Calibration frequency /interval: Is the calibration interval in line with the monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the frequency of calibration, does the selected frequency represent good monitoring practice? Company performing the calibration: Did calibration confirm proper functioning of monitoring equipment? (Yes / No): Is(are) calibration(s) valid for the whole reporting period? If applicable, has the reported data been crosschecked with other available data? How were the values in the monitoring report verified? involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Yes. Crosschecked with user agreements. The verification team checked the values against the Database of Sale Records of all ICSs /15/. Does the data management (from monitoring equipment to emission reduction calculation) ensure correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and are necessary QA/QC processes in place? In case only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, has the most conservative assumption theoretically possible been applied or has a request for deviation been approved? Monitoring Prameter Requirment Data / Parameter: (as in monitoring plan of PDD): Measuring frequency: Reporting frequency: Is measuring and reporting frequency in accordance with the monitoring plan and Yes. As per on-site inspection and document review /15/, the verification team confirms that the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and necessary QA/QC processes are also in place. The verification team also confirms that the data management and QA&QC processes are in accordance with the registered PDD and the MR. Not applicable. The monitoring data are complete and traceable. DO y Assessment/ Observation by the DOE Statistically adjusted drop out from total population of SAVE80 in period y Annually Calculated annually Yes. Version No.: 01.6 Page 21

22 monitoring methodology? (Yes / No) Type of monitoring equipment: Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the accuracy of the monitoring equipment, does the monitoring equipment represent good monitoring practice? Calibration frequency /interval: Is the calibration interval in line with the monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the frequency of calibration, does the selected frequency represent good monitoring practice? Company performing the calibration: Did calibration confirm proper functioning of monitoring equipment? (Yes / No): Is(are) calibration(s) valid for the whole reporting period? If applicable, has the reported data been crosschecked with other available data? How were the values in the monitoring report verified? Does the data management (from monitoring equipment to emission reduction calculation) ensure correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and are necessary QA/QC processes in place? In case only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, has the most conservative assumption theoretically possible been applied or has a request for deviation been approved? Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Yes. Crosschecked with user agreements. The verification team checked the values against the Database of Sample Users for the 1 st monitoring period /16/. The verification team also conducted acceptance sampling to check the sample results done by PP. No discrepancy was found between DOE result and PP s result. Furthermore, the verification team randomly sampled another 34 users outside the PP s sample users, and confirmed that almost all the users were using the SAVE80 continuously and no maintenance or equipment transfer was required. The applied dropout rate is confirmed to be traceable and valid. Please also refer to section 3.4 below for detailed assessment. Yes. As per on-site inspection and document review /15/ /16/, the verification team confirms that all visited households are using the stoves in good conditions and the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and necessary QA/QC processes are also in place. The verification team also confirms that the data management and QA&QC processes are in accordance with the registered PDD and the MR. Not applicable. The monitoring data are complete and traceable. Version No.: 01.6 Page 22

23 Monitoring Prameter Requirment Data / Parameter: (as in monitoring plan of PDD): Measuring frequency: Reporting frequency: Is measuring and reporting frequency in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology? (Yes / No) Type of monitoring equipment: Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the accuracy of the monitoring equipment, does the monitoring equipment represent good monitoring practice? Calibration frequency /interval: Is the calibration interval in line with the monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the frequency of calibration, does the selected frequency represent good monitoring practice? Company performing the calibration: CB y Assessment/ Observation by the DOE Adjustment factor for continued use of baseline appliance of SAVE80 users in period y Annually Calculated annually Yes. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Did calibration confirm proper functioning of monitoring equipment? (Yes / No): Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment involved. Is(are) calibration(s) valid for the whole Not applicable. There is no monitoring equipment reporting period? involved. If applicable, has the reported data been crosschecked Yes. Crosschecked with user agreements. with other available data? How were the values in the monitoring report The verification team checked the values against verified? Database of Sample Users for the 1 st monitoring period /16/. The verification team also conducted acceptance sampling. Only one discrepancy was found regarding the higher usage frequency compared with PP s results, which is still within the required acceptance number. Thus the applied value is confirmed to be acceptable and valid. Please also refer to section 3.4 below for detailed assessment. Does the data management (from monitoring equipment to emission reduction calculation) ensure correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and are necessary QA/QC processes in place? Yes. As per on-site inspection and document review /15/ /16/, the verification team confirms that all visited households are using the stoves in good conditions and the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and necessary QA/QC processes are also in place. The verification team also confirms that the data management and QA&QC processes are in accordance with the registered PDD and the MR. In case only partial data are available because Not applicable. The monitoring data are complete and Version No.: 01.6 Page 23

24 activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, has the most conservative assumption theoretically possible been applied or has a request for deviation been approved? traceable. As per on-site interview with the PP /i/ and document review of the monitoring records /15/ /16/, electronic databases were operated and maintained by the PP, which include stove records database (updated continuously) and sample database (updated every monitoring period). Thus, for the whole monitoring period of 29/08/ /11/2012, the data of the four monitoring parameters are confirmed to be traceable and credible. All the data listed in the Emission reductions calculation spreadsheet /8/ are confirmed by the verification team from above mentioned monitoring records /15/ /16/. The verified values are listed as below: Parameter Description Data source Value ƞ new Adjusted average efficiency of the SAVE80 system being Sample survey 41.92% deployed N y Adjusted total number of SAVE80 deployed Sales Records Database 4,927 DO y Statistically adjusted drop out from total population of SAVE80 Sample survey 9.52% in period y CB y Adjustment factor for continued use of baseline appliance of SAVE80 users in period y Sample survey 88.17% In summary, verification team confirms that all the ex-post parameters are monitored in accordance to the approved monitoring plan in the registered PDD and the applied methodology. The verification took cognizance of 191,192 and 193 of CDM Project Standard Monitoring responsibility Verification Opinion: In the monitoring report /1/, the CDM monitoring organization of the project was described. It can be classified into 2 categories as following, 1. Database administrator: The database administrator is responsible for updating and maintaining all electronic databases. 2. Monitoring team: The monitoring team conducts the user interviews and efficiency tests during the periodic sampling and reports the results to the database administrator. Before the monitoring, the PP had conducted the following to ensure the proper implementation of CDM monitoring, Training Certificate of Mr. Michael Hönes for CDM monitoring was issued by atmosfair ggmbh on 7 th January 2013 /19/; Version No.: 01.6 Page 24

25 WBT training confirmation and testing agreements of 5 WBT testers /24.1/ as well as training certificates of Operator Skills and Safety Procedures /24.2/ are provided; SAVE80 ICS User Training Manual /20/ was prepared for household users; Therefore, the monitoring personnel perform tasks with high levels of awareness for the monitoring of emission reductions. Since the monitoring was carried out after the end of this monitoring period, thus relevant monitoring training was also conducted after the end of this monitoring period and before the monitoring, which is confirmed to be acceptable. All relevant personnel had access and knowledge of documented instructions and acted in accordance to the project s management system. The personnel are qualified and well trained. All relevant personnel have the appropriate competences, capabilities and qualifications to ensure the required data quality, as confirmed from relevant certificate /19/ and training records /20/ checked on site Accuracy of equipment Verification Opinion: As assessed in section above, the accuracies of the equipments are confirmed to be: Equipment Weighing Scale Thermometer Accuracy +/- 1 g +/- 1 C As assessed in section above, regarding the difference between the accuracy level of the installed monitoring equipment and the accuracy required by the WBT protocol, PP has adjusted the measured temperature values in all the 9 WBT tests by adding 0.9 C to the initial water temperature and deducting 0.9 C from the boiling temperature water. The verification team confirms that the deduction is conservative and no prior approval is required for the difference between the accuracy level of the installed monitoring equipment and the accuracy required by the WBT protocol. The verification took cognizance of 192 of CDM Project Standard Deviation from and revision of the registered monitoring plan Verification Opinion: There is no deviation from or revision of the registered monitoring plan of the project activity. In summary, based on the above verification results, the monitoring of the project activity has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD /2.1/. 3.4 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions Assessment of default data In accordance with the requirements of the Guidelines for Completing the Monitoring Report Form (Version 03.2, EB 70 Annex 11) /7.2/, "Data that are fixed before registration and/or at the renewal of crediting period and are used during this monitoring period should be included here under section D.1. The following factors and default values are confirmed from the registered PDD /2.1/ and listed as below. Version No.: 01.6 Page 25