FINAL VALIDATION REPORT

Transcription

1 FINAL VALIDATION REPORT ATMOSFAIR GGMBH EFFICIENT FUEL WOOD STOVES FOR NIGERIA Report No: /303 Date: TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstraße, Essen, Germany Phone: Fax: S01-VA010-A1 Rev.1 /

2 P-No.: /303 Date of first issue: Project No.: /303 Final Approval by: Organisational unit: TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program E. Krupp Client: Atmosfair ggmbh Client ref.: F. Zerzawy Summary: positive validation opinion negative validation opinion Atmosfair ggmbh has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to validate the project: Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria with regard to the relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria include article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakech Accords), and the relevant decisions by COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. In the course of the validation 15 Corrective Action Requests (s), 12 Clarification Requests (CLs) and 1 Forward Action Request (FAR) were raised and successfully closed. The review of the project design documentation and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring methodology; the subsequent background investigation, follow-up interviews and review of comments by parties, stakeholders and NGOs have provided TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP with sufficient evidence to validate the fulfilment of the stated criteria. In detail the conclusions can be summarised as follows: - The project is in line with all relevant host country criteria (Nigeria) and all relevant UNFCCC requirements for CDM. Project activity approval has been obtained from DNA of Nigeria vide the Letter of Approval /HCA/. - The German DNA issued the Letter of Approval (LoA) and authorization on The correction of notification, LoA of the German DNA due to an incomplete request for registration was issued on /CLOA/. - The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD. - The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate. - The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions of 313,092 tco2e are most likely to be achieved within the fixed crediting period of 10 years. The conclusions of this report show, that the project, as it was described in the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation. Report No.: Subject Group: /303 Climate Protection Indexing terms Report title: Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria Work carried out by: K. Beyer, R. Winter (TL) A. Blarr, M. Ikokwu A. Richter Final technical review by: E. Krupp - Local technical review by Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages: Climate protection Kyoto Protocol CDM Validation No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit Limited distribution Unrestricted distribution Page 2 of 101

3 P-No.: /303 Abbreviations BAU CA CDM CER CO 2 CO 2e CP CR DNA EB EIA FAR GHG IPCC PDD QC/QA UNFCCC VVM Business as usual Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Certification Program Clarification Request Designated National Authority CDM Executive Board Environmental Impact Assessment Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Project Design Document Quality control/quality assurance United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Manual Page 3 of 101

4 P-No.: /303 Table of Contents Page 1 OBJECTIVE / SCOPE GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Characteristics Involved Parties and Project Participants Project Location Technical Project Description 8 3 METHODOLOGY AND VALIDATION SEQUENCE Validation Steps Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Consideration of Public Stakeholder Comments Validation Protocol Review of Documents Follow-up Interviews Project comparison Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests Definition Draft Validation Final Validation Technical review Final approval 15 4 VALIDATION FINDINGS VALIDATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY General Description of the Project Activity Participation Contribution to Sustainable Development PDD editorial Aspects Technology to be employed Small Scale Projects Project Baseline, Additionality and Monitoring Plan Application of the Methodology Project Boundary Baseline Identification Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Additionality Determination Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan 38 Page 4 of 101

5 P-No.: / Project Management Planning Crediting Period Environmental Impacts Comments by Local Stakeholders 39 6 VALIDATION OPINION REFERENCES...41 ANNEX 1: VALIDATION PROTOCOL...48 ANNEX 2: ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE IDENTIFICATION...95 ANNEX 3: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL PARAMETERS...96 ANNEX 4: ASSESSMENT OF BARRIER ANALYSIS...97 ANNEX 5: OUTCOME OF THE GSCP...99 ANNEX 6: APPOINTMENT CERTIFICATES OF TEAM MEMBERS Page 5 of 101

6 P-No.: /303 1 OBJECTIVE / SCOPE The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In particular the project s baseline, the monitoring plan (MP), and the project s compliance with - the requirements of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol; - the CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in the Marrakech Accords under decision 3/CMP.1 (17/CP7); - the annex to the decision; - subsequent decisions made by COP/MOP & CDM Executive Board and - other relevant rules, including the host country legislation and sustainability criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. Validation is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders on the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission reductions (CERs). The validation scope is given as a thorough independent and objective assessment of the project design including especially: the correct application of the methodology, the project s baseline study, additionality justification, local stakeholder commenting process, environmental impacts and monitoring plan, which are included in the PDD other relevant supporting documents, to ensure that the proposed CDM project activity meets all relevant and applicable CDM criteria. The information included in the PDD and the supporting documents were reviewed against the requirements as set out by the UNFCCC. The validation team has, based on the requirements in the Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/, carried out a full assessment of all evidences to assess the compliance of the project with the key areas as outlined in section V.E. and F. of the VVM (version 1). The validation is based on the information made available to TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP and on the contract conditions. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP can not be held liable by any entities for making its validation opinion based on any false or misleading information supplied to it during the course of validation. The validation is not meant to provide any consulting to the project participants. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design. Page 6 of 101

7 P-No.: /303 2 GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Characteristics Essential data of the project is presented in the following Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Project Characteristics Item Data Project title Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria Project size Large Scale Small Scale 1 Energy Industries (renewable- /non-renewable sources) 2 Energy distribution 3 Energy demand 4 Manufacturing industries 5 Chemical industry Project Scope (according to UNFCCC sectoral scope numbers for CDM) 6 Construction 7 Transport 8 Mining/Mineral production 9 Metal production 10 Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) 11 Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and hexafluoride 12 Solvents use 13 Waste handling and disposal 14 Afforestation and Reforestation 15 Agriculture Applied Methodology AMS II.G version 1: Energy efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass Crediting period Renewable Crediting Period (7 y) Fixed Crediting Period (10 y) Start of crediting period (or the date of registration) 2.2 Involved Parties and Project Participants The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity (Table 2-2). Table 2-2: Project Parties and project participants Characteristic Party Project Participant Host party Nigeria Developmental Association for Renewable Energies Other involved party/ies Germany (1) Atmosfair ggmbh (2) Lernen-Helfen-Leben e.v. 2.3 Project Location The details of the project location are given in table 2-3: Page 7 of 101

8 P-No.: /303 Table 2-3: Project Location No. Host Country Region: Project location address: Latitude: Longitude: Project Location Nigeria Guinea Savannah Zone (incl. the Federal States: Benue, Enugu, Kaduna, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba, Federal Capital Territory (FCT). DARE Office Address: 97/98 Kachia Road N E 2.4 Technical Project Description The proposed project activity involves the dissemination of up to 12,500 efficient fuel wood stoves of the type SAVE80 in households within the Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria. The emission reductions are due to a more efficient use of non-renewable biomass in comparison to the baseline situation. The key parameters of the project are given in table 2-4: Table 2-4a: Technical data of the cooking stoves Parameter Unit Value Manufacturer - D.A.R.E. Type - SAVE80 Stove material - Stainless Steel Fuel(s) - Fire wood Installed capacity kw 1,5 Design efficiency % 50 Pot capacity l 8 Recommended pot content l 6 Design fuel wood consumption per cooking kg 0,250 Table 2-4b: Data of the project implementation Parameter Unit Value No. of units planned (average values for the year) : : : Page 8 of 101

9 P-No.: /303 3 METHODOLOGY AND VALIDATION SEQUENCE 3.1 Validation Steps The validation of the project consisted of the following steps: Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Publication of the project design document (PDD) A desk review of the PDD submitted by the client and additional supporting documents with the use of customised validation protocol /CPM/ according to the Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/, Validation planning, On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer and its contractors, Draft validation reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any) Final validation reporting Technical review Final approval of the validation. The sequence of the validation is given in the table 3.1 below: Table 3.1: Validation sequence Topic Time Assignment of validation Submission of PDD for global stakeholder commenting process On-site visit to Draft reporting finalised Technical review on draft reporting finalised Final reporting finalised Technical review on final reporting finalised Page 9 of 101

10 P-No.: / Contract review To assure that the project falls within the scopes for which accreditation is held, the necessary competences to carry out the verification can be provided, Impartiality issues are clear and in line with the CDM accreditation requirements a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed. 3.3 Appointment of team members and technical reviewers On the basis of a competence analysis and individual availabilities a verification team, consistent of one team leader and 2 additional team members, were appointed. Furthermore also the personnel for the technical review and the final approval was determined. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the table (3-2) below. Table 3-2: Involved Personnel Name Company Function 1) Qualification Status 2) Sectoral competence Technical competence Host country Competence Controlling competence Mr. Ms. Beyer, Katja Mr. Ms. Blarr, Annika Mr. Ms. Krupp, Eric TÜV NORD CERT, Germany TÜV NORD CERT, Germany TÜV NORD CERT, Germany TM A - x - x TM E - x - - TR, FA SA x x - x Mr. Ms. Richter, Alexander TÜV NORD CERT, Germany TM T - x - - Mr. Ms. May A. Ikokwu Mr. Ms. Winter, Rainer Simzoil & Gas Consult Ltd. TÜV NORD CERT, Germany ETE N/A - - x - TL SA x x - x Page 10 of 101

11 P-No.: /303 1) TL : Team Leader; TM : Team Member, TR: Technical review; FA: Final approval; ETE Technical Expert 2) GHG Auditor Status: A : Assessor; E : Expert; SA: Senior Assessor; T : Trainee Certificates of appointment for the above mentioned team members are enclosed in annex 4 of this report. 3.4 Consideration of Public Stakeholder Comments Acc. To the modalities and procedures the draft PDD, as received from the project participants, has been made publicly available on the dedicated UNFCCC CDM website prior to the validation activity commenced. Stakeholders have been invited to comment on the PDD within the 30 days public commenting period. In case comments were received, they are taken into account during the validation process. The comments and the discussion of the same are documented in annex 3 of this report. 3.5 Validation Protocol In order to ensure consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a validation protocol is used. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means of validation and the results from pre-validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol reflects the generic CDM requirements each CDM project has to meet as well as project specific issues as applicable. The validation protocol serves the following purposes: - It organises, details and clarifies the requirements that a CDM project is expected to meet; - It ensures a transparent validation process where the validating entity will document how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the determination. The validation protocol as described in Figure 1. Page 11 of 101

12 P-No.: /303 Validation Protocol Table A-1: Requirement checklist Checklist Item Validation Team Comment Reference Draft Conclusion Final Conclusion The checklist items in Table A-1 are linked to the various requirements the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections. Each section is then further subdivided as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity. The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the assessment of the validation team and how the assessment was carried out. The reporting requirements of the VVM shall be covered in this section. Gives reference to the information source on which the assessmen t is based on Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is fulfilled (), or a, CR or FAR (see below) is raised. The assessment refers to the draft validation stage. In case a corrective action or a clarification the final assessment at the final validation stage is given. Figure 1: Validation protocol tables The completed validation protocol is enclosed in Annex 1 to this report. 3.6 Review of Documents The draft PDD and supporting background documents related to the project design and baseline were reviewed. Furthermore, the validation team used additional documentation by third parties like host party legislation, technical reports referring to the project design or to the basic conditions and technical data. 3.7 Follow-up Interviews The validation team has carried out interviews in order to assess the information included in the project documentation and to gain additional information regarding the compliance of the project with the relevant criteria applicable for CDM. During validation the validation team has performed interviews to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Interviewed persons and interview topics Interviewed Persons / Entities Project proponent representatives Project consultant Interview topics - Chronological description of the project activity with documents of key steps of the implementation. Page 12 of 101

13 P-No.: /303 Interviewed Persons / Entities Interview topics - Technical details of the project realization, project feasibility, designing, operational life time, monitoring of the project - Host Government Approval - Approval procedures and status - Monitoring and measurement equipment and system. - Financial aspects - Crediting period - Project activity starting date - CER allocation / ownership - Baseline study assumptions - Additionality - Sustainable development issues - Monitoring - Analysis of local stakeholder consultation - Roles & responsibilities of the project participants w.r.t. project management, monitoring and reporting - Gold Standard requirements - Editorial issues of the PDD DNA of Nigeria - Approval procedures and timelines - Allocation of DNA responsibilities Employees - Assembly of the SAVE80 - Employment creation SAVE80 users - Wood savings - Baseline situation - Economical aspects - Affordability of the equipment Stakeholders - Stakehoder involvement procedure - Effect on professionals (wood loggers and traders) - Additional effects (health, economy, environment) - Baseline Situation A comprehensive list of all interviewed persons is part of section 7 References. 3.8 Project comparison Though the project activity is the first one to apply AMS-II.G the validation team has compared the proposed CDM project activity with similar projects or technology that Page 13 of 101

14 P-No.: /303 have similar or comparable characteristics and with similar projects in the host country in order to achieve additional information esp. regarding: Project technology Additionality issues, esp. regarding the common practice analysis and/or the barriers due to prevailing practice. Reasons for reviews, requests for reviews and rejections within the CDM registration process. 3.9 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests Definition A Corrective Action Request () will be established where: mistakes have been made in assumptions, application of the methodology or the project documentation which will have a direct influence the project results, the requirements deemed relevant for validation of the project with certain characteristics have not been met or there is a risk that the project would not be registered by the UNFCCC or that emission reductions would not be able to be verified and certified. A Clarification Request (CR) will be issued where information is insufficient, unclear or not transparent enough to establish whether a requirement is met. A Forward Action Request (FAR) will be issued when certain issues related to project implementation should be reviewed during the first verification Draft Validation After reviewing all relevant documents and taken all other relevant information into account, the validation team issues all findings in the course of a draft validation report and hands this report over to the project proponent in order to respond on the issues raised and to revise the project documentation accordingly Final Validation The final validation starts after issuance of the proposed corrective action (CA) of the s CRs and FARs by the project proponent. The project proponent has to reply on those and the requests are closed out by the validation team in case the response is assessed as sufficient. In case of raised FARs the project proponent has Page 14 of 101

15 P-No.: /303 to respond on this, identifying the necessary actions to ensure that the topics raised in this finding are likely to be resolved at the latest during the first verification. The validation team has to assess whether the proposed action is adequate or not. In case the findings from s and CRs cannot be resolved by the project proponent or the proposed action related to the FARs raised cannot be assessed as adequate, no positive validation opinion can be issued by the validation team. The (s) / CR(s) / FAR(s) are documented in chapter Technical review Before submission of the final validation report a technical review of the whole validation procedure is carried out. The technical reviewer is a competent GHG auditor being appointed for the scope this project falls under. The technical reviewer is not considered to be part of the verification team and thus not involved in the decision making process up to the technical review. As a result of the technical review process the validation opinion and the topic specific assessments as prepared by the validation team leader may be confirmed or revised. Furthermore reporting improvements might be achieved Final approval After successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of the complete validation will be carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of TÜV NORD. Only after this step the request for registration can be started. Page 15 of 101

16 P-No.: /303 4 VALIDATION FINDINGS In the following table the findings from the desk review of the draft PDD, visits, interviews and supporting documents are summarised: Table 4-1: Summary of s, CRs and FARs issued Validation topic 1) No. of No. of CR No. of FAR General description of project activity (A) - Project specification - Technical project description - Participation - Contribution to sustainable development - PDD editorial aspects - Technology to be employed Project Baseline, Additionality and Monitoring Plan (B) - Application of the Methodology - Project Boundary - Baseline identification - Calculation of GHG emission reductions Project emissions Baseline emissions Leakage - Additionality determination - Monitoring Methodology - Monitoring Plan - Project management planning Duration of the Project / Crediting Period I Environmental impacts (D) Stakeholder Comments (E) SUM The letters in brackets refer to the validation protocol The following tables include all raised s, CRs and FARs. For an in depth evaluation of all validation items it should be referred to the validation protocols (see Annex 1). Page 16 of 101

17 P-No.: /303 General A1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Chapter A.4.2: The project category is not stated correctly. Corrective Action #1 The project category, as stated under Section A.4.2. of the PDD has been changed from D to G. DOE Assessment #1 Editorial error has been corrected. Project category is stated correct. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements General A2 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The projects latitude and longitude are not mentioned in the PDD. Corrective Action #1 The coordinates of DARE s main office in 97/98 Kachia Road, Kaduna, have been included in the PDD under Section A to represent the physical location of the project activity. DOE Assessment #1 Longitude and latitude statement is correctly amended. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements General A3 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The letter of Approval of both involved parties are pending Corrective Action #1 The Letter of Approval of the German DNA can only be issued once the Validation Report is submitted to the DNA. The Letter of Approval from Nigeria was issued on 24 th of January 2009 and was submitted to the DOE. DOE Assessment #1 The Nigerian LOA was submitted for validation and is deemed adequate in order to fulfil relevant UNFCCC and validation requirements. Since the German LOA is issued on the basis of this report an assessment of the same will be performed after receipt. Corrective Action #2 The DNA of Germany issued the German LoA on 19 th of June 2009 on the basis of the Draft Final Validation Report. DOE Assessment #2 The German Letter of Approval was submitted for validation. The German DNA (DEHSt) authorizes Atmosfair ggmbh as Project Participant and approves the project activity by this LoA. Page 17 of 101

18 P-No.: /303 General Conclusion A3 To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements General A4 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding In some parts of the PDD the decimal points are not correctly given. Corrective Action #1 The decimal points were changed to be in line with the Anglophone standards. DOE Assessment #1 Appropriate action was taken, however, insufficiently. Inter alia page 17, 18, 35, 37, 39 still need corrections. Corrective Action #2 All detected mistakes within the PDD related to decimal points were corrected in the PDD. DOE Assessment #2 The PP revised the PDD in accordance with the DOE Assessment #1 and could finally resolve detected editorial errors in the PDD. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The fulfilment of applicability criterion No. 3 of AMS II.G (Ver.1) is not justified sufficiently. Corrective Action #1 FAO Data was used for extrapolation: The share of non-renewable biomass in the Guinea Savannah Zone in 1995 was as high as 65%, so it is highly likely that the share of non-renewable biomass was above 0% already in Further indirect evidence is given through a more detailed explanation of the decline of forestry areas and increase in CO 2 emissions from the forest sector. Additional charts, references and quotations were added to the PDD (provided in Annex 3D) that show the decline in forestry areas and the increase of CO 2 emissions and the wood fuel deficit in the region. Page 18 of 101

19 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion B1 Sources used to pose compliance with criterion 3 of AMS II.G are valid and applicable; however do not state explicitly that nonrenewable biomass has been used since in Guinea- Savannah region of Nigeria. Nonetheless the line of argumentation in section B.2 and B.4 of the PDD is convincing with regard to likeliness of non-renewable biomass (i.e. wood fuel) utilisation for the purpose of cooking and heating since R. A. Cline- Cole particularly focused on wood fuel consumption in 1980s in the federal state of Kano, Nigeria that partially belongs to the Guinea Savannah zone. Further arguments as posed in the above mentioned sections are referring to sources which clearly highlight the decline of forest in Nigeria due to population pressure on land, intensity of agricultural activities and other wood products extraction activities. FAO data, moreover, show that the share of nonrenewable biomass increased continuously since Validity of information and applicability of source is confirmed and data at the time of submitting the final PDD to DOE is conservative and hence verified. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B2 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Some mismatches between the original filled forms used in the survey study and the calculation database for the determination of the average wood consumption were detected. Corresponding corrections are necessary. Page 19 of 101

20 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion B2 The original filled forms used in the survey study were checked again by atmosfair and corresponding corrections in the calculation database were made. As a result of the re-check, a slightly higher value for the mean annual wood fuel weight was found, 5,157 kg instead of 4,956 kg. However, to account for outliers, the 5% highest and 5% lowest values were removed from the survey results. Correspondingly, the mean annual wood fuel weight was determined as kg. Further, to determine a conservative value for the mean annual wood fuel consumption in the baseline scenario, the confidence interval width for a confidence level of 95% was calculated and deducted from the mean annual wood fuel weight as determined in the baseline survey. Therefore, the mean annual wood fuel weight used in the baseline scenario is now 4,653 kg. The corrected database and the original filled forms were submitted to the DOE. Different sheets showing the corrected database with comments of the reviewers, the final corrected database as used for the calculations, the database where the outliers were removed, results for the two survey phases (showing that Phase II had a lower average biomass consumption though SAVE80 users were interviewed) and calculation of the confidence interval width was included in the calculation database and submitted to the DOE. The new value for the mean annual wood fuel consumption in the baseline scenario was subsequently applied to all relevant calculations in the PDD. A document explaining all corrective actions carried out by the project developers was submitted to the DOE. The corrected database (baseline survey sheet) and PDD has been checked in detail and the corrective action taken by the PP as set out is verified. The corrective action taken by the PP proves accurately the elaboration in PDD and is in compliance with relevant scientific sampling approaches. The approach followed in calculating the mean annual wood fuel weight is hence deemed correct and conservative. This conclusion is based on detailed review of all parameters used in order to determine this weight, i.e. mean weekly / annual wood fuel weight (incl. Charcoal) per household, representativity of number of households, 95% confidence level, standard deviation of mean weekly wood fuel weight and mean weekly wood fuel weight, taking into account the 95% confidence level to arrive at 4653 kg / year. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 20 of 101

21 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring B3 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The efficiency assumption for the stoves in the baseline situation needs to be backed up by additional evidences to prove that it is conservative for all cases. Corrective Action #1 From the Water Boiling Test the efficiency of the three-stone fire was found to be 7.75%. The Renewable Energy Master Plan of Nigeria states that even an already improved stove, the metallic tripod, has an efficiency of below 10%. However, as other stoves that may have a higher efficiency than the three-stone-fire were found to be in use in the baseline scenario, an efficiency of 10% (instead of 7.75%) is now used for ηold. The overall assumptions for the baseline scenario are deemed to be conservative by the project developer, taking into consideration that a) as per the methodology AMS II G the de facto emission reduction cannot be taken into account as the Emission factor of the fossil fuel most likely to be used by similar consumers has to be applied instead of the emission factor for wood (71,5 t CO2/TJ for Kerosene, instead of 112 t CO2/TJ for wood). b) Emission reductions stemming from the use of the heat retaining device Wonderbox (can save up to another 50% of the required fuelwood of the SAVE80) are not considered. DOE Assessment #1 The plausibility of efficiency values determined by the efficiency test on has been further demonstrated by comparisons of efficiency values of metallic tripod stoves as per the Renewable Energy Master Plan of Nigeria. This reference shows that the traditional tripod metallic stove s efficiency is below 10%. It is assumed that the referenced tripod stove entails a higher efficiency compared to the three stones fire (baseline stove) and therefore the increase from 7.75% to 10% is deemed appropriate. As the PP, additionally does not account for fuel wood savings due to the utilisation of the heat retaining devise (wonderbox) the SAVE80 appliance s efficiency is deemed appropriate and conservative. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B4 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Other baseline situations, such as usage of Kerosene are not accounted for. Page 21 of 101

22 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion B4 Kerosene consumption was determined in the baseline survey. Many households are using Kerosene as a means to start the three-stone-fire, or for lighting. Kerosene consumption is reflected in the baseline scenario, as the mean annual wood fuel consumption was determined in all households that were found to use wood fuel, even if they also use Kerosene. Hence, if households are using Kerosene for cooking, they may use less wood fuel which can be saved by introducing the SAVE80. Only in case households only use Kerosene, LPG or electricity for cooking, the biomass consumption would actually increase if they are to receive a SAVE80 system. Hence, these households will not be included in the CDM project activity. To ensure that exclusive users of Kerosene, LPG or electricity cannot participate in the CDM project activity, users have to confirm in the Purchase contract that they were using wood fuel before. The purchase contract was amended correspondingly and submitted to the DOE. The exclusion of Kerosene, LPG and electricity users from the CDM project activity is now also explained in the PDD under Section A.2. Now, by exclusion of households using Kerosene, LPG or electricity only for the respective house hold purposes, the PP introduced a means to account only for households with wood fuel use in the pre-project scenario. In accordance with AMS II.G the PP accounts only for the fraction of non-renewable biomass, i.e. wood fuel and charcoal in order to calculate annual biomass savings. Kerosene, LPG, electricity users are therefore excluded from the CDM project activity. Purchase requests for SAVE 80 appliances by non-fire wood users are consequently rejected by DARE. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B5 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The procedure to determine the representative sample as requested in AMS II.G should be described in detail for a) the efficiency measurement (for each vintage) b) the annual spot checks to determine the amount of stoves within the project boundary which are still in operation (in line with the baseline assumptions) Furthermore the frequency and means to carry out the sampling shall be described in detail. Page 22 of 101

23 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Corrective Action #2 DOE Assessment #2 Conclusion B5 The procedure to determine the representative sample for the efficiency measurement and for the number of systems in use as requested in AMS II. G. for each vintage was added to the PDD under Section B.7.2. The frequency will depend on the length of the monitoring period, but the efficiency measurement and the annual spot checks will be carried out at least annually as requested by AMS II. G. A manual for DARE with instructions how to carry out the efficiency measurements for each vintage and how to conduct the spot checks was developed by atmosfair and LHL and submitted to the DOE. The validity of this sampling approach should be further justified with focus on its representativity. 1.) Telephonic approach is the basis (as the Telephone number is obtained from the purchase contracts), however, to confirm the results, 25% of the people approached by phone will also be visited. 2.) This approach (selection of a sample from a sample) is common e.g. by election polls. Sample polling places are selected where e.g. every fourth voter is asked how he voted. 3.) atmosfair has rechecked the statistical approach used for determination of the number of spot checks and considers this approach to be in line with the Draft General Guidelines on Sampling and Surveys (EB 47, Annexe 27, see i.a. 31, p. 6f.) The proposed sampling approach in order to obtain information on the continuous utilisation of cookers in the project scenario is deemed adequate considering paragraph 12 of EB 47, Annex 27. Taking also into account project specific circumstances such as the beneficial utilisation of stoves in terms of the energy bill of households or time savings the DOE is convinced that the reliability of this approach is sufficiently given to achieve plausible results. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B6 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The discussion of leakage effects (as per No. 8 of AMS II.G) should be part of the ex-ante determination of emission reductions. Corrective Action #1 The discussion of leakage effects was shifted to Section B.6.1. Page 23 of 101

24 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring DOE Assessment #1 Corrective Action #2 DOE Assessment #2 Conclusion B6 Potential leakage source under (a) is now discussed in section B.6.1. The baseline survey revealed that utilisation of renewable energy sources in the household energy sector can be neglected. This knowledge is consistently backed up by REMP /REMP/ with elaborations to renewable energy use in the household sector in Nigeria. Nevertheless, in order to account for any minor uncertainties a leakage correction factor of 0.99 was introduced. The DOE is convinced that the necessity of this factor is not given; while can be used for a conservative leakage assessment. The elaboration, however, does not reflect the potential leakage sources as per the structure of No. 8 of AMS.II.G. Further elaboration is requested. There is no other CDM project activity within the project boundary that uses non-renewable biomass to justify a baseline for the project activity. As of May 2009, there was only one registered CDM project activity in Nigeria Recovery of associated gas that would otherwise be flared at Kwale oil-gas processing plant, Nigeria using methodology AM0009 ver. 2. Therefore potential leakage sources under (b) and (c) can be excluded. The leakage assessment is deemed in compliance with AMS.II.G as potential leakage sources are sufficiently discussed or excluded. The leakage correction factor is applied for conservativeness, even though this is not required by AMS.II.G or the validation team. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B7 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The monitoring requirements of the methodology AMS II.G regarding leakage are not fully addressed in the monitoring section of the PDD. Page 24 of 101

25 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion B7 As described under Section B.6.3. of the PDD, potential leakage sources can be neglected. However, to account for uncertainties a Leakage Correction Factor of 0.99 was introduced The Leakage Correction Factor will be applied throughout the crediting period and hence ex-post surveys to identify potential leakage are not necessary. The factor will remain fixed throughout the crediting period. As per AMS II. G., if Leakage is considered B y has to be adjusted. Therefore, in the table provided in Section B.6.4. Leakage is already part of the Baseline Emissions (i.e. there is a 1% discount on B y ), and the column Estimation of leakage is not applicable, and estimation of emission reductions are equal to the estimation of baseline emissions (the result is the same as if the discount was made afterwards). Leakage assessment is accepted as B6 is closed in a sufficient manner. Leakage assessment is now in compliance with AMS.II.G. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B8 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding It has to be clarified and reflected in the formulae to be applied that η new has to be determined for each vintage of the SAVE80 production. Furthermore it is also necessary to monitor the total number of SAVE80 stoves for each production vintage. Corrective Action #1 The formula has been amended to reflect the fact that η new has to be determined for every vintage and that the total number of SAVE80 stoves for each vintage can be monitored. See the formulae provided in Section B.7.1. DOE Assessment #1 Formula has been checked and deemed. Monitoring approach is precisely explained in section B.7.1 and deemed adequate with respect to the vintages and total systems in use. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Additionality B9 Page 25 of 101

26 P-No.: /303 Additionality B9 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Submission of supporting documents is requested in order to allow for adequate assessment of the investment barrier and serious consideration of CDM. This includes evidences concerning the original and the reduced sales price as well as the management decision to implement this project. Corrective Action #1 Supporting documents regarding the project history were submitted to the DOE, showing that - the first container shipment from LHL in 2007 was financed by private loans and donations as there was no contract with a carbon investor in place at that time - the sales figures for the first container shipment show very few sales (less than 60) in the first months where DARE had to sell at full price - Growing interest in the SAVE80 stoves after the price could be reduced due to upfront carbon investment from atmosfair. DOE Assessment #1 Relevant supporting documents were submitted to the DOE. The assessment of the same resulted in the closure of this as the figures could prove with out doubt that elaboration on additionality is correct and justified. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring B10 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding η new occurs in chapter B. 6.2 and B.7.1. It has to be made clear that the value given in section B.6.2 only applies for purpose of ex-ante calculation and for the first vintage. Corrective Action #1 η new was removed from B as the efficiency of the new appliance will be determined ex-post for each vintage, as described in Chapter B.7.1. and B.7.2 (the parameter is hence η new,i ). The parameter is thus not available at validation (i.e. will not remain fixed throughout the crediting period). However, as for the ex-ante calculation in Section B.6.3., η new remained, and the value used was the one determined from the Water Boiling Test conducted in Düsseldorf on October, 15 th, 2008, DOE Assessment #1 Annual efficiency tests as well as the sampling approach as described in section B.6.4 or B.7.1, respectively is deemed adequate in order to receive accurate efficiency results for ex-post ER calculation. Please also refer to DOE Assessment of B5. Page 26 of 101

27 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring Conclusion B10 To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Crediting Period C1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The starting date as stated in C is not realistic and needs adjustment to recent expectations. Furthermore, the estimation of annual emission reductions (PDD & xls-sheet) needs to be revised according to the corrected starting date of the crediting period. Corrective Action #1 The starting date was adjusted to recent expectations. The new starting date is August, 1 st The new starting date was considered in all related calculations. DOE Assessment #1 The starting date has been amended and is deemed applicable. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements General CR A1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding On page 4 of the PDD it should be made clear for which time within the year (beginning, end, average) the figures for the No. of Cookers are given. Corrective Action #1 The figures for the number of Cookers refer to the average number of cookers operating within one year resp. period. This is now explained in the PDD. DOE Assessment #1, clarification adequate. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 27 of 101

28 P-No.: /303 General CR A2 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding It should be clarified whether LHL still intends to be project participant. In case not, a letter of voluntary withdrawal should be provided. Corrective Action #1 LHL will remain project participant. The distinction between LHL and atmosfair as two different project participants was made clearer in the PDD (Section A.3). DOE Assessment #1, clarification adequate and in compliance with supporting documents. However, German LoA is pending and review of the same is going to be undertaken subsequent to its receipt. Corrective Action #2 DNA of Germany issued the German LoA on 19 th of June 2009 on the basis of the Draft Final Validation Report. DOE Assessment #2 The German Letter of Approval was submitted for validation. The German DNA (DEHSt) authorizes Atmosfair ggmbh as Project Participant and approves the project activity by this LoA. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding It should be clarified how to deal with dropout participants esp. w.r.t. to the possibility of substitution. Corrective Action #1 The procedure how to deal with drop-outs, replacement within the household and owner changes is now explained in Section A.2. of the PDD, and in Section B.7.1. and B.7.2. The project database was changed accordingly. In addition, a manual was developed by atmosfair and LHL for DARE, explaining in detail how to deal with the different cases (drop-out, replacement within the household, change of ownership) and how to edit the database records. DOE Assessment #1 The PDD was amended correspondingly and in addition the manual was submitted for validation. The approach how to deal with drop outs is transparent and easily verifiable in the course of verification. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B2 Page 28 of 101

29 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring CR B2 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The procedure how to deal with owner changes should be reflected in the PDD and such cases should be traceable in the project documentation esp. in the project database. Corrective Action #1 See CR B1. DOE Assessment #1 Clarifications and manual provide sufficient information to close CR B2. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B3 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The text in section B.4 needs revision: (1) the term efficiency in the first paragraph of step 1 and (2) the justification of conservativeness in the last paragraph of step 1 (3) The values chosen to calculate the NRB (on page 17) do not match with the table above (4) The way of identifying the number and the selection of the individual interviewees should be described more in detail. Corrective Action #1 The corresponding changes were made. In addition, the Conversion Factor used in the table to compare results from other biomass surveys, provided in step 1 of Section B.4., was changed to t/m³ (instead of 0.6 t/m³, which was mistakably taken). This conversion factor was used in the FAO studies (see p. 57 of the FAO-Wisdom document). Other survey results that became available to LHL after submission of the PDD v01 to the DOE were added to the table to underline the appropriateness of the results of the baseline survey carried out by DARE. The new documents were submitted to the DOE. DOE Assessment #1 Changes in PDD are made in order to comply with this request. However, since the scientific approach of the baseline survey is insufficiently described further justification on the same is requested by the PP. Corrective Action #2 Scientific proof can be provided by the institute ICEED (International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development), an experienced research institute of Nigeria and author of the REMP. Page 29 of 101

30 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring DOE Assessment #2 Conclusion CR B3 The respective document was submitted to the validation team and further proves the validity of the survey method and its results. The DOE considers the baseline survey results as correct and conservative taking into account the guidance on reliable minimum sample sizes according to EB 47, Annex 27 as well as the confirmation letter by ICEED. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Additionality CR B4 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Source No. 16 on page 20 of the PDD is not accessible. Please provide evidence to back up that potential SAVE80 users do not have access to credits. Corrective Action #1 The table with the updated figures regarding the per-capita-income was submitted to the DOE. Since the figures for 2007 have become available, the footnote 16 in Section B.5. now states the per-capitaincome from 2007 (930 USD, as compared to 620 USD in 2006). DOE Assessment #1 According to those key data provided by the world bank the percapita-income from 2007 in Nigeria is 920 USD. This justifies the statement that the cook stoves are not affordable to an average Nigerian household. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Additionality CR B5 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Parts of the text to justify additionality should be modified: Sub-Step 1 b: It should be made clear that there are no general regulations in place. Only certain forest areas are protected under law. Corrective Action #1 The text was revised accordingly. DOE Assessment #1 Amendments are correct and confirmed. Assessment bases on information obtained on site. Page 30 of 101

31 P-No.: /303 Additionality Conclusion CR B5 To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B6 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The procedure to determine the number of spot checks to user households should be specified in the PDD. Corrective Action #1 The procedure to determine the number of spot checks to user households is now explained under Section B.7.1. and B.7.2. of the PDD. In addition, a manual was developed by atmosfair and LHL for DARE, explaining in detail how to deal with the spot checks. DOE Assessment #1 PDD is amended and the manual submitted. Approach is deemed adequate to account for accurate monitoring. Please also refer to B5. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B7 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The monitoring diagram in annex 4B needs revision. Corrective Action #1 The monitoring diagram was revised accordingly, and it was clarified that this diagram only refers to the procedure how to determine the number of SAVE80 users. DOE Assessment #1 Monitoring diagram is revised and serves the purpose of determining the number of SAVE80 systems in use in order to alleviate the preparation of MRs. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B8 Page 31 of 101

32 P-No.: /303 Baseline+Monitoring CR B8 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding It should be made clear how the PP(s) will ensure that the baseline equipment will be disposed off as per para. 12 of AMS II. G. Corrective Action #1 The buyer confirms in the Purchase Contract that he will dispose his traditional fireplaces. This will be checked when the SAVE80 system is delivered. DOE Assessment #1 This approach is acceptable even if positive results may not be guaranteed as the disposal of stones cannot be enforced. However, the utilisation of the traditional fireplaces is deemed implausible as this causes issues related to the baseline, i.e. additional financial or time efforts and health problems in terms of smoke development. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring CR B9 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The purchase contract should also include the address of the SAVE80 user if existent. Corrective Action #1 The Purchase Contract was revised accordingly. And submitted to the DOE DOE Assessment #1 Revisions are appropriate. CR is closed. Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Crediting period CR C1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding Different information regarding the operational lifetime of the SAVE80 is given within the PDD. Furthermore the operational lifetime needs to be backed up by additional evidences. Page 32 of 101

33 P-No.: /303 Crediting period Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CR C1 The lifetime of the SAVE80 was changed to 13 years in all parts of the PDD, as further evidence for the lifetime was provided by the manufacturer: The most sensitive part of the SAVE80 cooker is the burning chamber. The burning chamber of a SAVE80 which was in daily use for four years in Kaduna was tested by the German Material Testing Institute ( Staatliche Materialprüfamt für den Maschinenbau ), Technical University Munich, for corrosion and damages on the steelplates. Only minor damages were found: The lifetime of the burning chamber under frequent usage conditions (2,5 hours per day) was calculated to be at least 13 years. The test certificate and the corresponding calculations to estimate the lifetime of the burning chamber were submitted to the validation team. CR can be closed. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Baseline+Monitoring FAR B1 Classification FAR CR None Description of finding The project database should include the exact date of the purchase contract and (if different) the delivery date. Corrective Action #1 The project database was revised accordingly and submitted to the DOE. DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action is proposed Additional action should be taken Page 33 of 101

34 P-No.: /303 5 VALIDATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 5.1 General Description of the Project Activity Participation LOA The Nigerian Letter of Approval has been received, with a clear reference to the supporting documentation. The letter was provided by the project participants. The letter confirms that the Party is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, that participation is voluntary, and that the project contributes to the sustainable development of the country (for the host Party). The LOA refer to the precise project title in the PDD being submitted for registration. The letter of approval is assessed as valid. The German Letter of Approval was submitted for validation. The German DNA (DEHSt) authorizes Atmosfair ggmbh as Project Participant and approves the project activity by this LoA Contribution to Sustainable Development The sustainable development indicators are in line with the Host Country requirements according to the Millennium Development Goals Report of Nigeria. The project contributes to mitigation of forest decline in the sub Saharan Guinea Savannah zone due to reduction of fire wood consumption for house hold purposes. This further leads to recovery of natural forests and/or reforestation, diminish indoor air pollution from wood smoke and avoid its harmful health consequences. Moreover, expenses for fuel wood are going to be reduced for households and inter-religious conflicts over resources may be mitigated PDD editorial Aspects The PDD is in line with the structure and guidance given in the latest relevant PDD template /PDD-T/ for type of project and the latest version of the guidelines for completing the PDDs /GCP/. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section A3 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic. Page 34 of 101

35 P-No.: / Technology to be employed. The description of the project as contained in the PDD is complete and accurate and provides the reader with a clear understanding of the nature of the project activity. The technology and know-how used in the project activity is assessed to be environmentally safe and sound. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section A4 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic Small Scale Projects The project activity qualifies as a small-scale project activity and is within the thresholds of the three possible types of small-scale CDM project activities. The project applies the approved small-scale categories AMS-II.G (version 01) Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass. The project is not a debundled component of a large scale project in accordance with the rules defined in appendix C of Annex II to Decision 4/CMP.1; For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section A4 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic. 5.2 Project Baseline, Additionality and Monitoring Plan Application of the Methodology The project applies to a valid version of a CDM Methodology approved by the board. By means of cross check it can be confirmed that the applied methodology is directly derived from the methodologies section on the CDM website /unfccc/. The project activity, meets all applicability conditions of the applied methodology and all methodology components referred to in the applied methodology. Beyond this, the proposed project activity meets all the other possible requirements or stipulations mentioned in all sections of the selected methodology. Furthermore the project activity is not expected to result in significant emissions, related to both project and leakage, other than those listed in the methodology. Summarised it is assessed that the project applies a valid version of an approved CDM methodology and the methodology is applicable to the project. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section B1 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic. Page 35 of 101

36 P-No.: / Project Boundary The PDD correctly describes the project boundary including the physical delineation of the project activity and the description of the emission sources and GHGs that are included in the project boundary for the purpose of calculating project and baseline emissions for this project activity. No emission sources which are impacted by the project activity and are not addressed by the approved methodology are detected during validation. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section B2 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic Baseline Identification The procedure to identify the most plausible baseline scenario derived from the methodology / methodology tools has been applied correctly and is transparently and sufficiently documented in the PDD. Summarised it can be assessed that the identified baseline scenario reasonably represents what would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity and the approved methodology used is applicable to the identified baseline scenario. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section B3 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions The PDD applies steps and equations to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per the requirements of the methodology. For the calculation of the GHG emission reductions the correct equations have been used reflecting the methodological choices. Furthermore all equations are applied correctly. For the data and parameters not to be monitored throughout the crediting period (i.e. they are determined only once and thus remain fixed throughout the crediting period), it is assessed that all data sources, assumptions and calculations are correct, applicable to the project and contribute to a conservative estimate of the emission reductions. For the data and parameters subject to monitoring it is confirmed that the emission reduction estimates provided in the PDD are reasonable and conservative. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section B4-B7 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic. Page 36 of 101

37 P-No.: / Additionality Determination Consideration of CDM in decision making The starting date given in the PDD is before validation start. It is confirmed that this date has been reported in accordance with the CDM glossary of terms. The incentive of the CDM was considered by the PP within the decision making process to go forward with the project. This consideration is based on the evidences transparently described in the PDD. These evidences were made available to the validation team and are assessed to be adequate for the purpose. Further it is confirmed that the decision was made by an authorised person. During validation it could be assessed that the person has the authority to taking corresponding decisions on behalf of the company. Beyond this the consideration is assessed as serious (i.e. the project activity would not be undertaken without the incentive of the CDM) Application of methodology / methodological tools The additionality was justified in accordance with the requirements derived from the applied approved CDM methodology and the applied methodological tools referred to therein. Alternatives Realistic alternatives to the proposed project activity are defined in section B.5 of the PDD. The elaboration is in accordance with the methodological tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. Investment analysis The barrier analysis approach has been utilised. Barrier analysis The barriers of the project activity are demonstrated in a clear and accurate manner in relevant sections of the PDD. Pre-financing the equipment by Atmosfair and granting discounts from the actual sales price of the SAVE80 system is the only way to make it affordable for local households and to disseminate the stoves in the in the Guinea Savannah zone. The SAVE80 system has not been disseminated in Nigeria before and the validation team deems the prevailing practice, technological and financial barriers to be real and significant. The elaboration is sufficiently backed up by supporting documents. The project activity is not to be considered as the least alternative. Common practice analysis Page 37 of 101

38 P-No.: /303 Since the project activity is the first of its kind it is not considered to be common practice in Nigeria to utilise efficient fuel wood stoves for house hold purposes. Summary The procedure to justify the additionality of the project activity derived from the methodology or required methodological tools has been applied correctly and is transparently and sufficiently documented in the PDD. Considering all statements above, it is confirmed that the project activity is additional because anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity. For an in depth evaluation of these topics, please refer to section B8 of the table 1 of the annex. This section also contains the s, CLs and FARs related to this topic Monitoring Methodology The monitoring parameters are identified as follows: Total Number of SAVE80 systems in use per vintage, operation time per SAVE80 system per vintage and efficiency of the SAVE80 system for each vintage. The ex-post emission reduction calculation bases on the above mentioned monitoring parameters and data and parameters that are available at validation. The PDD especially the monitoring plan in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology and validity of the monitoring plan is therefore confirmed Monitoring Plan The monitoring plan covers all monitoring parameters given in the applied monitoring methodology and relevant for the project activity taking into account the limitation of the project boundary. The monitoring plan can be implemented and all monitoring arrangements are feasible within the project design. This could be sufficiently demonstrated during the site visit Project Management Planning The project management planning is appropriate for the purpose of the project monitoring. Atmosfair and LHL are the responsible organisations for project management and DARE is the appointed organisation responsible for monitoring and data preparation. Page 38 of 101

39 P-No.: / Crediting Period The start of the fixed crediting period is unambiguously stated in the PDD, i.e. 01/08/2009 and this is deemed applicable. Since the operational lifetime of the most sensitive parts of the stoves is 13 years the crediting period does not extent the operational lifetime of stoves Environmental Impacts No negative environmental impacts are expected during dissemination and operation of the cook stoves. Rather only positive environmental and social impacts are expected as described in detail in the PDD and Gold Standard Documentation /GSD/. Nigeria does not require an EIA for this kind of projects Comments by Local Stakeholders Local stakeholders (local politicians, religious leaders, traditional rulers, and local NGOs,) have been invited before publishing the PDD. A public consultation event (based on Gold Standard stakeholder consultation criteria) was held on 17 th September, 2007 the Women Multipurpose Centre in Kaduna. No critical comments by attendances were received during the above mentioned stakeholder process. This was confirmed by stakeholder interviews /IM04/ - /IM06/. Page 39 of 101

40 P-No.: /303 6 VALIDATION OPINION Atmosfair ggmbh has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to validate the project: Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria with regard to the relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria include article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakech Accords), and the relevant decisions by COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. In the course of the validation 15 Corrective Action Requests (s), 12 Clarification Requests (CLs) and 1 Forward Action Request (FAR) were raised and successfully closed. The review of the project design documentation and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring methodology; the subsequent background investigation, follow-up interviews and review of comments by parties, stakeholders and NGOs have provided TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP with sufficient evidence to validate the fulfilment of the stated criteria. In detail the conclusions can be summarised as follows: - The project is in line with all relevant host country criteria (Nigeria) and all relevant UNFCCC requirements for CDM. Project activity approval has been obtained from DNA of Nigeria vide the Letter of Approval /HCA/. - The German DNA issued the Letter of Approval (LoA) and authorization on The correction of notification, LoA of the German DNA due to an incomplete request for registration was issued on /CLOA/. - The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD. - The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate. - The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions of 313,092 tco 2e are most likely to be achieved within the fixed crediting period of 10 years. The conclusions of this report show, that the project, as it was described in the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation. Essen, Essen, Rainer Winter TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Verification Team Leader Eric Krupp TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Senior Assessor Page 40 of 101

41 P-No.: /303 7 REFERENCES Table 7-1: Reference Documents provided by the project participant Document /A3/ Annex 3 to GS Passport: CO emissions SAVE80 as of /ACA/ /AM/ /BS/ Evidences w.r.t. the Atmosfair Climate Award Assembly Manual for the SAVE80 stoves Baseline Survey Study, carried out by D.A.R.E. /CLOA/ Corrections to the German Letter of Approval, dated /EMC/ /FP/ /GBS/ /GSD/ Franz-Jürgens Berufskolleg: Efficiency measurement certificate as of Investment and finance plan of the project activity DARE: Guidance for the baseline survey Gold Standard documentation for this project Gold Standard Passport Initial Stakeholder Consultation Report /HCA/ Host Country Approval (Nigeria) as of 24th January, 2009 /ICEED/ /ISCR/ ICEED confirmation letter Atmosfair: Initial stakeholder consultation report /LDNA/ Letter from Atmosfair to the Nigerian DNA as of /LIT1/ Joe Obueb: Using a household energy technology to promote small scale enterprises in rural communities in Nigeria The egaga stove experience /LIT2/ Obioh, Imoh B.: Trends in Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Nigeria: /LIT3/ FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; Forestry Department: Global Forest Resources Assessment Country Report Nigeria (Rome, 2005) /LIT4/ Cline, Cole et.al: Wood fuel in Kano (Kano, 1987) Page 41 of 101

42 P-No.: /303 Reference /LIT5/ /LIT6/ /LIT7/ /LIT8/ /LIT9/ Document FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Experience of implementing National Forest Programmes in Nigeria (Accra, 2003) Mbugua, D.K.: The Forest Revenue System and Government Expenditure on Forestry in Kenya (Accra, 2003) Boiling Point No. 52, 2006: Health, safety and household energy FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; Forestry Department Wood Energy: WISDOM East Africa: Woodfuel Integrated Supply / Demand Overview Mapping Methodology Spatial woodfuel production and consumption analysis of selected African Countries Muoghalu; J.I.; Obioh, I.B.: Savanna Burning: Its effect on the Phytomass and nutrient content of herbaceous materials and contribution to greenhouse effect. /LOA/ German Letter of Approval, dated /LOI/ /LOP1/ /LOP2/ /MM/ /ODA1/ /ODA2/ /OCS/ /PC/ /PD/ Letter of Invitation for the initial stakeholder consultation List of participants of the initial stakeholder consultation meeting in Kaduna on List of participants of the stakeholder feedback round meeting in Kaduna on Monitoring Manual for DARE D.A.R.E: Declaration of Non-use of Official Development Assistance by Project Proponent Atmosfair: Declaration of Non-use of Official Development Assistance by Project Proponent Offer SAVE 80 cook stoves Purchase Contracts for the SAVE80 stoves D.A.R.E.: Project Database (Excel file) Project Design Document entitled Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria Page 42 of 101

43 P-No.: /303 Reference /PIC/ /REMP/ /RSSWG/ /SDI/ /SMAN/ /SMP/ Document Confirmation letter by Presidential Implementation Committee on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) ECN + UNDP: Renewable Energy Masterplan for Nigeria Recommendation of the Small Scale Working Group regarding the applicability of the energy threshold value as of Sustainable Development Indicators of Nigeria (Draft document) SAVE80 Manual Power Point Presentation as used during the stakeholder meeting /VSCC/ Verification Statement Combustion Chamber as of /VSOL/ Verification Statement Operational Lifetime as of /XCS/ Emission reduction excel calculation sheet Table 7-2: Reference /AMS-IIG/ /CPM/ Background investigation and assessment documents Document Energy efficiency measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass (Version 01: EB 37) TÜV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) /GCP/ UNFCCC: Guidelines for completing CDM-SCC-PDD (Version 05) /GSR/ /IPCC/ Gold Standard Requirements 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Page 43 of 101

44 P-No.: /303 Reference /MA/ /MT-AT/ Document Decision 3/CMP.1 (Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol) Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 05.2; EB 39). /PDD-T/ PDD Template for small scale project activities (version 03) /VAL-GS/ TÜV NORD Draft Validation Report for Gold Standard Registration No: /303GS /VVM/ Validation and Verification Manual (version 1; EB 44) Table 7-3: Websites used Reference Link Organisation /cd4cdm/ UNEP Riso Centre /cpn/ Carbon Positive /dare/ DARE Website /fao/ FAO /unfccc/ UNFCCC /wb/ World bank Page 44 of 101

45 P-No.: /303 Table 7-4: List of interviewed persons Reference MoI 1 Date Name Organisation / Function V to Mr. Ms. Ahmed, Yahaya D.A.R.E, Chairman V to Mr. Ms. Ali, Habiba D.A.R.E., National Coordinator V to Mr. Ms. Zerzawy, Florian CDM Project Developer to Mr. Ms Prof. Imoh Obioh Local GHG Expert /IM02/ V Mr. Ms. /IM02/ V Mr. Ms. /IM03/ V Mr. Ms. /IM03/ V Mr. Ms. /IM03/ V Mr. Ms. /IM04/ V Mr. Ms. /IM05/ V Mr. Ms. /IM05/ V Mr. Ms. /IM05/ V Mr. Ms. Dr. Gardner, Collins Olisa-Emeka N.H. Alhassan Mamman, Sufiyan Mega, Elisha Gajere, Auta Mai Faskare, Ibrahim Ladan, Bawa Dauda, Abubakar Mathew, Sarah Presidential Implementation Committee of the CDM Ministry of Environment (Special Climate Change Unit) Tech. Assistent Tech. Assistent Engineer Stakeholder SAVE80 User SAVE80 user SAVE80 user /IM06/ V Mr. Rapp, Peter Joseph Ward Head Wholshe Page 45 of 101

46 P-No.: /303 Reference MoI 1 Date Name Organisation / Function Ms. /IM06/ V Mr. Ms. /IM06/ V Mr. Ms. /IM06/ V Mr. Ms. Pam, Eliah Kwakfut, Joan Goar, Esther SAVE80 user SAVE80 user SAVE80 user 1) Means of Interview: (Telephone, , Visit) Page 46 of 101

47 P-No.: /303 ANNEX A1: Validation Protocol A2: Assessment of Financial Parameters A3: Outcome of the Global Stakeholder Consultation Process A4: Appointment Certificates of Team Members Page 47 of 101

48 ANNEX 1: VALIDATION PROTOCOL Table A-1: Requirements Checklist Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final A. General Description of Project Activity A.1. Approval The written approval of the parties involved is a mandatory requirement A.1.1. Has the project written approvals of all parties involved? Indicate whether a letter of approval has been received, with a clear reference to the supporting documentation. Indicate whether this letter was provided to it by the project participants or directly by the DNA No, no letters of approval have been received so far. Pl. refer to A3 In order to identify potential issues that have led to the fact that no LoA has been issued so far, discussions with representatives of the DNA were held during the site visit. The Government officials expressed that the project is most likely to achieve the LoA. Nevertheless internal procedures have to be completed before the LoA will be issued. Nigerian LoA received. German LoA issued on the basis of this final validation report. Subsequent assessment by TÜV NORD. A.1.2. Are the approvals issued from Yes, DNA official representatives issued the HCA. /unfccc/ See /HCA/ /LOA/ A3 /IM02/ Page 48 of 101

49 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final orgainsations listed as DNAs on the UNFCCC CDM website? Indicate the means of validation employed to assess the authenticity above A.1.3. A.1.4. A.1.5. A.1.6. A.1.7. Does the written approvals confim that the corresponding party is a party to the Kyoto protocol? Does the written approvals confim that the corresponding party is a party to the Kyoto protocol? Does the written approvals confim that the participation is voluntary? Does the written approval from the host country confim that the project contributes to the sustainable development in the country? Does the written approvals refer to the precise project title in the PDD submitted for registration? Both parties involved (Nigeria and Germany) are parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC website has been checked. Please refer to A.1.1. Yes, confirmation is provided. Yes, confirmation is provided. Yes, confirmation is provided. Yes, confirmation is provided. /unfccc/ /HCA/ /LOA/ /unfccc/ /HCA/ /LOA/ /unfccc/ /HCA/ /LOA/ /unfccc/ /HCA/ /LOA/ /unfccc/ /HCA/ See above See above See above See above See above Page 49 of 101

50 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final A.1.8. Is the information regarding the project participants listed in section A3 and in Annex 1 of the PDD internally consistent to each other? A.1.9. Are all project participants listed in the PDD approved at least by one Party involved? Indicate whether the participation of the project participant(s) has been approved by a Party to the Kyoto Protocol A Are any other project participants approved but not listed in the PDD? Yes, information is consistent. So far no LoA has been issued for this project. Nevertheless during the site visit the issue was raised if LHL is (still) willing to claim the PP status. A corresponding Clarification Request (CR A2) has been raised. Please refer to A.1.1. It was confirmed by D.A.R.E and Atmosfair that (apart from LHL) no other project participants are involved in this project activity. /LOA/ /unfccc/ /HCA/ /LOA/ /HCA/ /LOA/ See above CR A2 See above CR A2 See above A.2. Contribution to Sustainable Development The project s contribution to sustainable development is assessed. A.2.1. Has the host country confirmed that the project assists it in achieving sustainable development? Contain a statement confirming whether the contribution of the project to the sustainable development of the Host Party No letter of approval has been issued so far by the Nigerian DNA. Thus this issue is still pending. Pl. refer to A3 LOA is received from Nigerian DNA, SD contribution is /HCA/ /LOA/ A3 Page 50 of 101

51 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final has been confirmed by the Host Party DNA. confirmed. A.2.2. Will the project create other environmental or social benefits than GHG emission reductions? Describe the other positive aspects not related to GHG emission reduction on the environment The project will create other environmental and social benefits than GHG emission reductions such as: - Improvement of air quality - Access to affordable and clean energy services /GSD/ - Quantitative employment and income generation. The project is designed to claim the status of Gold Standard Registration. A detailed elaboration regarding the project s contribution to sustainable development will be presented in a separate report as per the Gold Standard requirements. A.3. PDD editorial aspects Is the PDD established using the latest procedures and forms and the latest guidance by the EB A.3.1. Has the latest version of the PDD form been applied? The latest version of the CDM-SSC-PDD (version 03) has been applied. No deviations thereof have been observed. /PDD-T/ /unfccc/ A.3.2. Has the PDD been duly filled in accordance with the latest guidance(s)? The PDD has in general been filled in accordance with the PDD guidelines. Minor editorial issues have been discussed with the PPs /GCP/ Page 51 of 101

52 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final during the site visit. Nevertheless the following deviations from the requirements have been observed and issued as s or CRs: /unfccc/ Chapter A.4.2: The project category is not stated correctly. The PDD is revised in accordance with all validation requirements. A1 The projects latitude and longitude are not mentioned in the PDD. The PDD is revised in accordance with all validation requirements. A2 The discussion of leakage effects (as per No. 8 of AMS II.G) should be part of the ex-ante determination of emission reductions. B6 In some parts of the PDD the decimal points are not correctly given. The PDD is revised in accordance with all validation requirements. The text in section B.4 needs revision: (1) the term efficiency in the first paragraph of step 1 and (2) the justification of conservativeness in the last paragraph of step 1 (3) The values chosen to calculate the NRB (on page 17) do not match with the table above CR A3 CR B3 The way of identifying the number and the selection of the individual interviewees should be described more in detail. Sufficient explanation has been provided and the PDD is revised in accordance with all validation requirements. Page 52 of 101

53 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Source No. 16 on page 20 is not accessible CR B4 Accessible source is provided. The monitoring diagram in annex 4B needs revision. CR B7 Revised in the final PDD. Different information regarding the operational lifetime of the SAVE80 is given within the PDD. Furthermore the operational lifetime needs to be backed up by additional evidences. CR C1 Verification Statement Operational Lifetime as of was provided for validation. The validity and reliability is confirmed. A.4. Technology to be employed Validation of project technology focuses on the project engineering, choice of technology and competence/ maintenance needs. The validator should ensure that environmentally safe and sound technology and know-how is used. A.4.1. Does the PDD contains a clear, accurate and complete project description? The PDD shall contain a clear description of the project activity which provides the reader with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the project activity and the technical The project description is given in various parts of the PDD (esp. In sections A.2 and A.4.2). In general the project description can be assessed as clear, accurate, complete and sufficient to provide the reader with a profound understanding of the project activity. to /IM06/ Page 53 of 101

54 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final aspects of its implementation. Pl. consider esp. chapters A.2, A.4.2 and A.4.3 (in case of LSC PDD) for assessment. Describe the process undertaken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description. For assessment the validation team has (1) reviewed the PDD in detail (2) carried out a site visit and (3) carried out interviews with the PPs and local stakeholders. No major areas of incompleteness, inconsistencies or misleading information have been observed. Nevertheless issues that need further improvements have been discussed with the project participants. A.4.2. Is this description in accordance with the real situation or (in case of greenfield projects) is it most likely that the project will be implemented acc to the project description? Describe the process undertaken to assess that the description complies with the real situation. The real situation has been investigated during the site visit. It could be observed that the project activity has (in parts) been implemented as described in sections A.2 and A.4 of the PDD. However, the following s / CRs have been raised. B3, B4, B6, C1, CR A1, CR B1, CR C1 (see above). The efficiency assumption for the stoves in the baseline situation needs to be backed up by additional evidences to prove that it is conservative for all cases. to /IM06/ B3 Efficiency assumption is further justified with independent, scientific sources. Nevertheless, the efficiency assumption was changed from 7.75% to 10% in order to be more conservative. Other baseline situations, such as usage of Kerosene are not accounted for. All relevant baseline situations observed B4 Page 54 of 101

55 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final during the site visit are accounted for in the baseline survey. The purchase contract excludes non-biomass users from the project activity and the respective is successfully closed. The starting date as stated in C is not realistic and needs adjustment to recent expectations. C1 Amended. On page 4 it should be made clear for which time within the year (beginning, end, average) the figures for the No. of Cookers are given. CR A1 PDD amended. It should be clarified how to deal with dropout participants esp. w.r.t. to the possibility of substitution. CR B1 Supporting documents /MM/ provided and PDD amended. A.4.3. In case the project involves alteration of the existing installation or process, is a clear description available regarding the differences between the project and the pre-project situation? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project involves the dissemination of highly efficient wood fired stoves instead of traditional stoves. The prevailing practice so far is the usage of the so-called 3 stone fire. In some cases Kerosene is used for cooking (and other household purposes). Very seldom LPG is used. Electrical cooking systems are not in place. Earlier attempts to implement solar cooking systems have widely failed so that almost no such systems are currently in operation in the region in question. /LIT2/, /LIT3/ /BS/ The assessment of the baseline situation is based on literature studies and sample checks of the project baseline Page 55 of 101

56 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final survey study (as carried out by the D.A.R.E) during the site visit. A.4.4. Does the project design engineering reflect current good practices? Describe the process undertaken to assess the engineering. The SAVE80 stove is especially designed for efficient use of fire wood with regard to the needs of developing countries (in which firewood is still the prevailing practice). It is designed and prefabricated in Germany. The efficiency level which is achieved by this system is far beyond of what has been prevailing so far in the area in question. The assessment is mainly based on professional experience, literature, manufacturer specification, efficiency tests performed with the SAVE80 system (and other systems) as well as experience reports from current users. /LIT4/ /SMAN/ IM01/ to IM06/ A.4.5. Does the project use state of the art technology or would the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country? Describe the process undertaken to assess the state of the art technology. The SAVE80 system is a comparatively new construction. It reflects an adapted technology for developing countries. It results in a significantly better performance than any of the equipment which is in use so far in the region. Thus the validation team is convinced that the SAVE80 technology reflects the state of the art for the appliance in question. For the assessment the above mentioned (see A.4.4) were considered. /SMAN/ IM01/ to IM06/ A.4.6. Does the project make provisions for meeting training and maintenance needs? Describe the process undertaken to assess the maintenance and training needs. As part of the disseminating programme initial demonstrations how to use the SAVE80 system are planned. Some demonstrations have already been carried out. In general the SAVE80 system does not need special training and maintenance as the technology introduced is quite simple. Nevertheless it was evidenced that due to cultural to /IM06/ Page 56 of 101

57 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final reasons the population in the region is quite reluctant to shift to any other technologies different from what has been used so far and thus esp. the women have to be convinced that the new cooking system will be beneficial to them with regard to financial and health aspects and furthermore reduces the cooking time significantly. With regard to the assembly of the SAVE80 system, which is done in the region itself, intensive trainings for the workers have been carried out. Nevertheless the assembly process is quite simple and needs only very basic technology so that a worker is able to carry out the assembly after very few hours. A.5. Small scale project activity Is it assessed whether the project qualifies as small-scale CDM project activity A.5.1. Does the project qualify as a small scale CDM project activity as defined in paragraph 6 (c) of decision 17/CP.7 on the modalities and procedures for the CDM? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project activity is designed to be implemented within the permissible limit of 180 GWh annual energy savings according to the SSC methodology AMS.II.G. The number of stove units to be disseminated within this project activity of 12,500 in the final implementation stage will not violate the threshold value for small scale project activities. The corresponding estimation as provided in the PDD was checked and assessed to be. /RSS WG/ The applicability of the threshold value of 180 GWh for AMS II.G has been confirmed upon request by the CDM Small Scale Working Group Page 57 of 101

58 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final A.5.2. Does the project applies to one of the approved small scale categories and any methodology and tool referred therein? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project falls under category II (energy efficiency improvement projects). As a first CDM project the methodology AMS II.G is applied. As the project meets the applicability criteria of this methodology the selection is appropriate. No tools are referenced within this methodology. /unfccc/ A.5.3. Is the small scale project activity not a debundled component of a larger project activity? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. As evidenced by check of the UNFCCC website and the CDM pipeline the project is the first of its kind in Nigeria and therefore can not be a debundled component of a larger project activity. /unfccc/ /cd4cdm/ B. Project Baseline, Additionality and Monitoring Plan B.1. Application of the Methodology B.1.1. Does the project apply an approved and applicable CDM methodology and a valid version thereof? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project activity applies the SSC methodology AMS II.G. version 1. The applicability has been confirmed by the SSC working group upon request from Atmosfair w.r.t. the threshold for annual energy savings. /AMS- IIG/ /RSSWG / B.1.2. Is the applied CDM methodology Yes, the methodology applied by the PPs is identical with the Page 58 of 101

59 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final identical with the version available on UNFCCC website? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. version available on UNFCCC website. This has been checked during validation. /AMS- IIG/ /unfccc/ B.1.3. Are all applicability criteria in the methodology, the applied tools or any other methodology component referred to therein fulfilled? Describe for each applicability criterion listed in the selected approved methodology the steps taken to assess the information contained in the PDD. (1) The dissemination of wood fuel efficient cook stoves within the project boundary could be ascertained beyond doubt as a result of the document review and site visit. (2) No similar project activities are existent since it is the first of its kind. As per the CDM pipeline this project activity is the first one to apply AMS II.G worldwide /AMS- IIG/ /LIT4/ /cd4cdm/ B1 (3) Supporting documents were provided proving the use of non-renewable biomass before December 1987 in Kano, northern Nigeria. Nevertheless further justification was requested. Thus B1 was raised. Further justification was incorporated in the PDD and is deemed adequate in order to close the respective successfully. Validity of information and applicability of source is confirmed and data at the time of submitting the final PDD to DOE is conservative and hence verified. B.1.4. Is the project in accordance to every other stipulation or requirement mentioned in all sections of the methodology? Describe the steps taken to check whether the proposed Generally the project follows all applicability criteria, baseline calculation approach, leakage and monitoring requirements of AMS II.G. Nevertheless, mistakes in realizing methodological requirements have occurred and need correction. In order to do so s and CRs have been /AMS- IIG/ B1 B6 CR B1 Page 59 of 101

60 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final project activity meets all the other possible stipulations and or limitations mentioned in all sections of the approved methodology selected. addressed to the PP. Please refer to B1, B6 and CR B1 mentioned above as well as B5, B7, CR B6 and CR B8. B1, B6 and CR B1 concerning the methodological applicability criterion, leakage sources and monitoring of drop outs could be closed successfully. The procedure to determine the representative sample as requested in AMS II.G should be described in detail for a) the efficiency measurement (for each vintage) b) the annual spot checks to determine of the amount of stoves within the project boundary which are still in operation (in line with the baseline assumptions) B5 Furthermore the frequency and means to carry out the sampling shall be described in detail. Comprehensive explanation w.r.t. B5 has been provided. The explanation was cross checked with UNFCCC guidance (EB 47, Annex 27) and is deemed sufficient in order to achieve reliable results. The monitoring requirements of the methodology AMS II.G regarding leakage are not fully addressed in the monitoring section of the PDD. B7 Leakage assessment is accepted in final PDD as B6 is closed in a sufficient manner. Leakage assessment is now in compliance with AMS.II.G. The procedure to determine the number of spot checks to user households should be specified in the PDD. CR B6 Page 60 of 101

61 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Revised PDD and monitoring manual has been reviewed and the DOE concludes that both the documents provide sufficient information in order to close CR B6. It should be made clear how the PP(s) will ensure that the baseline equipment will be disposed off as per para. 12 of AMS II. G. CR B8 PDD is amended. The approach described in the PDD is deemed adequate under consideration of the project specific circumstances. B.2. Project Boundaries Project Boundaries are the limits and borders defining the GHG emission reduction project. B.2.1. Are the project s spatial boundaries (geographical) clearly defined? Provide information on how the validation of the geographical boundary has been performed either based on reviewed documented evidence or by describing what was observed/viewed during a site visit. The project boundaries encompass 11 states in the Guinea Savannah zone (middle belt) of Nigeria. This is clearly defined in chapter A of the PDD and is assessed to be adequate as per UNFCCC requirements. B.2.2. Are all sources and GHGs included in the project boundary as required in the applied methodology? Provide information on how the validation of the GHGs and sources has been performed either based on reviewed documented evidence or by describing what was The major GHG occurring due to the combustion of wood is CO 2 in the baseline scenario as well as in the project activity. In accordance with AMS II.G other GHGs are not accounted for since they can be considered as negligible. CO 2 is included by calculating the tons of CO 2 occurring in the /XCS/ Page 61 of 101

62 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final observed/viewed during a site visit. baseline as well as in the project activity within the ER calculation sheet. This is in accordance with the stipulations of the methodology. B.2.3. In case the methodology allows to choose whether a source and/or gas is to be included, is the choice sufficiently explained and justified? Confirm if the justification provided by the PPs is reasonable, based on assessment of supporting documented evidence provided by the PPs or by onsite observations. Not applicable, since the methodology does not allow such choices. /AMS- IIG/ B.3. Baseline Identification The choice of the baseline scenario will be validated with focus on whether the baseline is a likely scenario, and whether the methodology to define the baseline scenario has been followed in a complete and transparent manner. B.3.1. What is the baseline scenario? Describe the chosen BL scenario B.3.2. What other alternative scenarios have been considered? The baseline scenario is the traditional way of cooking, i.e. the usage of the so-called 3 stone fire or as observed during the site visit in some cases the usage of kerosene for the purpose of cooking (and other household purposes). Very seldom LPG is used. There are two plausible alternatives to the project activity existing. Page 62 of 101

63 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Describe the alternatives to the project activity and describe how it was validated that all of these alternatives are plausible and no plausible alternative is excluded from the consideration. The project activity implemented without applying for the CDM-project status and the continuation of the current situation, i.e. using the 3 stones fire, kerosene and seldom LPG. In the course of document review it could be validated that no other alternatives for cooking are available, which are comparable in design and efficiency to the SAVE80 system in the relevant region. B.3.3. Has the baseline scenario been determined according to the methodology? Describe how it is validated that the identification of the most plausible baseline scenario is carried out in accordance with the applied methodology and applied methodological tools. According to AMS II.G. in the absence of the project activity, the baseline scenario would be the use of fossil fuels for meeting similar thermal energy needs. The baseline survey revealed that kerosene is widely used in 88% of all households in the project region. In calculating the emission reductions the substitution fuel likely to be used by similar consumers is kerosene and the corresponding EF is correctly taken as 71.5 tco 2 /TJ. However, B3 regarding efficiency assumptions of stoves in the baseline situation and B4 regarding the BAU scenario, covering the kerosene use have been raised. /AMS- IIG/ B3, B4 Adequate amendments were performed in the project documentation and the respective s are successfully closed. B.3.4. In case alternatives have to be considerered, are all scenarios supplemental to those provided in the methodology reasonable in the According to AMS II.G. no alternatives have to be considered. However, in terms of baseline choice, please see comment above. /AMS- IIG/ See s above Page 63 of 101

64 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final context of the project activity? Describe how it is validated that all scenarios that are supplementary to those provided in the methodology are reasonable in the context of the project activity. B.3.5. In case alternatives have to be considerered, is no plausible alternative scenario excluded in the baseline identification in the PDD? Describe how it is validated that no plausible alternative scenario has been excluded. Please see comment above. /AMS- IIG/ See s above B.3.6. Has the baseline scenario been determined using conservative assumptions where possible? Describe whether the choice of the identified baseline scenario is reasonable by validating the key assumptions, calculations and rationales used in the PDD. Describe whether these are conservatively interpreted in the PDD. The baseline scenario determination, i.e. using the 3 stones fire for meeting thermal energy needs like cooking and heating up water is based on efficiency tests in Germany according to the information gained in the course of document review and on-site interviews. The validation team deemed it necessary to request for additional evidences in this matter to prove that the efficiency assumption for the stoves in the baseline situation is conservative in all cases. Thus the respective B3 has been raised during validation. to /IM06/ B3 B.3.7. Does the baseline scenario sufficiently take into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies, macro-economic trends and political aspirations? Describe whether the PP has shown that all relevant policies During the site visit information could be obtained that Nigeria has implemented profound forest policies. Forest preserve areas are implemented and afforestation projects are part of sectoral policies of Nigeria s federal states as well. Due to lack of affordable alternatives for citizens, lack of power in enforcement of the above mentioned programs clearing /IM02/ Page 64 of 101

65 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final and circumstances have been identified and correctly considered in the PDD in accordance with the guidance by the Board. protected forests is prevailing practice in the Guinea Savannah zone. In order to carry out an sufficient assessment with respect of national and/or sectoral policies, macro-economic trends and political aspirations CR B5 was addressed to the PPs. Parts of the text to justify additionality should be modified: Sub-Step 1 b: It should be made clear that there are no general regulations in place. Only certain forest areas are protected under law. CR B5 Clarification is provided in the final PDD. B.3.8. Is the baseline scenario determination compatible with the available data and are all literature and sources clearly referenced? Describe whether the documents and sources referred to in the PDD are correctly quoted and clearly referenced. The baseline scenario determination is compatible with the available data and literature sources are clearly referenced. The PDD provides references to all relevant literature sources (sources were submitted for validation, too) and data. Additionally, official confirmation from the International Centre for Energy, Environment & Development /ICEED/ is provided that further justifies baseline assumptions. /LIT1/ to /LIT9/ /REMP/ /ICEED/ Page 65 of 101

66 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.4. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Project emissions It is assessed whether the project emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.4.1. Are the equations applied correctly according to the applied approved methodology? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether The methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions. Generally the formulas applied are in accordance with the methodology. Formula (1) of AMS II.G allows for direct calculation of ERy without determining baseline and project emissions explicitly. Thus the following sections refer to the ER calculation directly. For correct calculation η new has to be determined for each vintage of the SAVE80 production and should be reflected through the formula. The respective B8 has been raised in order to provide for adequate monitoring of ERs. /XLS/ B8 Formula is revised and in accordance with validation requirements. B.4.2. In case the methodology allows for different methodological choices, are the equations applied properly justified and have they been used reflecting the other methodological choices (i.e. baseline identification)? The methodology does not allow for different methodological choices. Not applicable. /AMS- IIG/ /XLS/ Page 66 of 101

67 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Describe whether proper justification has been provided (based on the choice of the baseline scenario, context of the project activity and other evidence provided) and whether the correct equations have been used reflecting the relevant methodological choices. B.4.3. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the project emissions? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether all the assumptions and data used by the PP are listed in the PDD including references and sources and are conservatively interpreted in the PDD. The project emissions calculation is based on the efficiency test of the SAVE80 conducted in Germany on The project emission calculation is correct and conservative, due to the fact that the so-called wonderbox (heat retaining devise), which is commonly in operation saves additionally fire wood, since the cooking process continues for certain duration without combustion of wood. Nevertheless, the approach intended to apply for calculating η new is inappropriate and B8 was addressed to the PP for appropriate changes in the formula. /XLS/ /SMAN/ /IM05/ /IM06/ B8 Formula is revised and in accordance with validation requirements. B.4.4. Are all data and parameters which remain fixed throughout the crediting period correct, applicable to the project and will lead to a conservative estimation of emission reductions? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the fixed parameters are considered reasonable, correct and applicable in the context of the project activity η new occurs in chapter B. 6.2 and B.7.1. It has to be made clear that the value given in section only applies for purpose of ex-ante calculation and for the first vintage. A corresponding ( B10) was raised. All other data which are foreseen to remain fixed throughout the crediting period are related to the baseline situation or to parameters unlikely to vary within the crediting period. Section B.6.2 and B.7.1 are now consistent and correct. Thus B10 is closed. /XLS/ B10 Page 67 of 101

68 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.4.5. Is the choice of the value for the data and parameters which have to be monitored reasonable? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the monitoring parameters are considered reasonable, applicable and conservative in the context of the project activity The choice of values for the data and parameters to be monitored is reasonable but insufficient. Thus, with respect to the choice of values and parameters for the data which have to be monitored the following s / CRs have been addressed to the PPs: B5, B6, B7, B8, CR B1. The above mentioned s could be closed and the choice of the value for the data and parameters which have to be monitored is deemed reasonable. Monitoring approach is sufficiently described in PDD and backed up by supporting documents submitted for validation. /XLS/ B5, B6, B7, B8, CR B1 B.5. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Baseline emissions It is assessed whether the baseline emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.5.1. Are the equations applied correctly according to the applied approved methodology? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether The methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions Same as in section B.4 /XLS/ Page 68 of 101

69 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.5.2. In case the methodology allows for different methodological choices, are the equations applied properly justified and have they been used reflecting the other methodological choices (i.e. baseline identification)? Describe whether proper justification has been provided (based on the choice of the baseline scenario, context of the project activity and other evidence provided) and whether the correct equations have been used reflecting the relevant methodological choices. Same as in section B.4 /AMS- IIG/ /XLS/ B.5.3. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the baseline emissions? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether all the assumptions and data used by the PP are listed in the PDD including references and sources and are conservatively interpreted in the PDD. B.5.4. Are all data and parameters which remain fixed throghuout the crediting period correct, applicable to the project and will lead to a conservative estimation of emission reductions? The efficiency assumption in the baseline situation needs to be justified to prove that a conservative approach is applied in calculating baseline emissions. Kerosene, representing another baseline situation should be addressed when defining the baseline situation. Respective s ( B3 and B4) were opened and issued to the PPs. Clarification and/or corrective action was provided by the PP. the baseline emission calculation is adequate and conservative. This conclusion is based on the elaboration in the PDD, on-site investigations, follow up interviews as well as responses to the raised s/crs. Same as in section B.4 /XLS/ /XLS/ B3, B4 See s above Page 69 of 101

70 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the fixed parameters are considered reasonable, correct and applicable in the context of the project activity. B.5.5. Is the choice of the value for the data and parameters which have to be monitored reasonable? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the monitoring parameters are considered reasonable, applicable and conservative in the context of the project activity Monitoring of baseline parameters is not foreseen in the methodology. Hence, baseline parameters (η old, mean annual wood fuel consumption (incl. Charcoal) [t/a]) were set fixed over the crediting period. /XLS/ B.6. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Leakage It is assessed whether leakage emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.6.1. Are the equations applied correctly according to the applied approved methodology? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether The methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions Leakage is not yet considered in the emission reduction calculation. Since potential leakage effects are relevant in computing ERs B6, B7 and CR B8 have been opened for corrective action. Sufficient clarification with respect to potential leakage sources and leakage monitoring is provided B6, B7 and CR B8 were closed. /XLS/ B6, B7, CR B8 Page 70 of 101

71 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.6.2. In case the methodology allows for different methodological choices, are the equations applied properly justified and have they been used reflecting the other methodological choices (i.e. baseline identification)? Describe whether proper justification has been provided (based on the choice of the baseline scenario, context of the project activity and other evidence provided) and whether the correct equations have been used reflecting the relevant methodological choices. The methodology does not allow for different methodological choices. Not applicable. /AMS- IIG/ /XLS/ B.6.3. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the leakage emissions? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether all the assumptions and data used by the PP are listed in the PDD including references and sources and are conservatively interpreted in the PDD. Please refer to B.6.1. /XLS/ B6, B7, CR B8 B.6.4. Are all data and parameters which remain fixed throughout the crediting period correct, applicable to the project and will lead to a conservative estimation of emission reductions? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the fixed parameters are considered reasonable, correct and applicable in the context of the project activity. Please refer to B.6.1. /XLS/ B6, B7, CR B8 Page 71 of 101

72 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.6.5. Is the choice of the value for the data and parameters which have to be monitored reasonable? Describe clearly the steps taken to assess whether the values used for the monitoring parameters are considered reasonable, applicable and conservative in the context of the project activity Please refer to B.6.1. /XLS/ B6, B7, CR B8 B.7. Emission Reductions The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change. B.7.1. Are the emission reductions real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change. Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The emission reductions are real, measurable and give longterm benefits related to the mitigation of climate change. In the course of validation of the baseline determination, monitoring apporach, ER calculation including respective input values have been reviewed. Though, uncertainties w.r.t. data used for calculation, monitoring of ERs and approach chosen for conducting sample checks of the stoves in use are existing, the overall mitigation of climate change due to real emission reduction can be determined doubtless. Page 72 of 101

73 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.8. Additionality Determination The assessment of additionality will be validated with focus on whether the project itself is not a likely baseline scenario. B.8.1. Did the additionality justification follow the requirements of the applied methodology and/or methodological tools? Describe how it is validated that additionality justification is carried out in accordance with the applied methodology and/or applied methodological tools. AMS II.G. does not provide for the additionality justification. Hence, generally Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities has to be applied in order to justify the project s additionality. Nevertheless, going beyond the simplified requirements of Attachment A and being in accordance with the Gold Standard requirements in terms of additionality, the Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality, version 5.02 has been applied by the PPs. /MT-AT/ Consideration of CDM before project start B.8.2. Is the project starting date reported in accordance with the CDM glossary of terms? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project starting date reported is in accordance with the CDM glossary of terms. The project started dissemination of stoves on This has been confirmed during the site visit. B.8.3. In case the project start date is before commencing of validation, was the incentive from the CDM seriously considered and are details given in the PDD? Describe whether the evidence to support such consideration is adequately and transparently described in The project start date is before commencing of validation. Regardless the fact that (1) A first stakeholder meeting took place in Sep i.e. before the project starting date (2) representatives from the PP have mentioned this planned project in the presence of members of the /IM02/ B9 Page 73 of 101

74 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final the PDD. validation team activity before the starting date, and (3) it is the written policy of atmosfair (which is a nonprofit Carbon Offset provider) only to consider credits out of (Gold Standard) CDM projects for offsetting the PP was requested to provide a project specific additional written evidence to confirm the serious consideration of the CDM before starting the project. In this context a corresponding ( B9) has been raised. Supporting documents as requested in B9 were submitted for validation. The PP could doubtlessly demonstrate and justify the serious consideration of CDM in respect of this project activity. B.8.4. How and when was the decision to proceed with the project taken? Describe the steps taken to validate the starting date. The decision to implement the project was taken in February 2008 after submission of a PIN by LHL to Atmosfair. /ACA/ B.8.5. Is the project start date consistent with the available evidences? Describe the evidence assessed regarding the prior consideration of the CDM (if necessary). Describe whether the evidence to support such consideration is adequately and transparently described in the PDD. Yes, the project data base was checked on site. /PD/ /ACA/ B.8.6. Was the decision to proceed with the project taken by a person entity which has the authority to do so? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. Yes, the managing director was directly involved in the decision making process. /ACA/ Page 74 of 101

75 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B.8.7. How was the CDM involved in the decision making process? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. The project was planned right from the beginning as a CDM Gold Standard project. Respective evidences were submitted for validation. /ACA/ B.8.8. Can the CDM involvement in the decision assessed as serious? Describe whether or not the project would have been undertaken without the incentive of the CDM. Yes, See above /ACA/ Identification of alternatives Step 1 B.8.9. Have all realistic alternatives been identified to the project? Describe whether the list of alternatives is complete. Describe how it is validated that the alternatives are realistic. Yes, all realistic alternatives to the project activity have been identified. There are two plausible alternatives to the project activity existing. The project activity implemented without applying for the CDM-project status and /MT-AT/ the continuation of the current situation, i.e. using the 3 stones fire, kerosene and seldom LPG. It can be assessed that the list of alternatives is complete, because no other opportunities in the provision of cooking services are available, which are comparable in design and efficiency to the SAVE80 system in the relevant region. B Contains the list of alternatives at least the status-quo situation and the project not undertaken as a CDM project? Yes, the mentioned alternatives, i.e. status-quo and the project activity not undertaken as a CDM project are included in the list of alternatives and are representing the only ones. /MT-AT/ Page 75 of 101

76 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. B Do all identified alternatives comply with applicable requlation? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. Refer to the regulations. The continuation of the current situation (BAU scenario) as well as the usage of fuel efficient stoves (being or being not registered under the CDM) does comply with the regulation. However, laws and regulations concerning the protection of forestry areas exist in Nigeria. During the site visit it could be observed that those laws / regulations are not enforced and due to lack of alternative ways of cooking people do not comply with the regulatory framework. In order to assess the extent to which laws / regulations are set by the Nigerian government the DOE requested for clarification by issuing CR B5. /MT-AT/ CR B5 Sufficient clarification is provided. is closed. Investment analysis Step 2 In case the investment analysis as per step 2 is chosen to justify the additionality Annex 2 Assessment of Financial Parameters has to be used to provide additonal details of the the calculation parameters.. B Is an appropriate analysis method chosen for the project (simple cost analysis, investment comparison analysis or benchmark analysis)? Describe why the selected analysis method is appropriate The chosen approach for demonstrating the project s additionality is the barrier analysis. Thus, the analysis methods provided in B.8.12 are not applicable for the project activity. /MT-AT/ N/A Page 76 of 101

77 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final under consideration of potential revenues and costs, potential project alternatives and potential available benchmark values. B Is a clear, viewable and unprotected Excel spreadsheet available for the investment calculation? Describe the steps taken to validate this issue. B Does the period chosen for the investment analysis reflect the technical lifetime of the project activity or in case a shorter period is chosen, is the fair value of the project activity s assets at the end of the investment analysis period (as a cash inflow) included? Describe how the technical lifetime / period chosen for calculating financial parameter(s) is reviewed and which documents were utilised in the course of review. Describe furthermore the approach used to check the inclusion of a potential fair value. B Is the fair value calculated in accordance with local accounting regulations (where available) or international best practice? State the accounting regulations applied for calculating the fair value and describe why these are applicable under the project specific circumstances. Describe potential Please see comment above. N/A Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Page 77 of 101

78 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final mismatches between regulations and the approach applied for calculating the fair value. B Is the book value as well as the expectation of the potential profit or loss included in the fair value calculation? B Are depreciation and other non-cash related items added back to net profits for the purpose to calculate the financial indicator? B Is taxation excluded in the investment analysis or is the benchmark intended for post tax comparisons? B Were the input values used in the investment analysis valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision? Investment comparison and benchmark analysis B In case of project IRR: Are the costs of financing expenditures (loan repayments and interests) excluded from the calculation of project IRR? Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Page 78 of 101

79 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B In case of equity IRR: Is the part of the investment costs, which is financed by equity considered as net cash outflow and is the part financed by debt excluded in net cash outflow? Please see comment under B N/A Benchmark analysis B Is the type of benchmark chosen appropriate for the type of IRR calculated (e.g. local commercial lending rates or weighted average costs of capital for project IRR; required/expected returns on equity for equity IRR)? B Is the benchmark value suitable for the project activity? Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Benchmark analysis / internal company benchmark B Is it ensured that the project cannot be developed by other developers than the PP? B Was the benchmark consistently used in the past for similar projects with similar risks? Please see comment under B N/A Please see comment under B N/A Page 79 of 101

80 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Barrier analysis Step 3 or SSC additionality assessment B Are there any barriers given whose issues have a clear and definable impact on the profitability of the project? The approach of the project, granting discounts from the sales price of the SAVE80 system to make it affordable for local households does have a clear and definable impact on the profitability of the project. Pre-financing the equipment by Atmosfair is the only way to disseminate the stoves in the in the Guinea Savannah zone for this project activity. Thus, it can be clearly assessed that these barriers have a clear and definable impact on the profitability of the project. /MT-AT/ B How is it justified and evidenced that the barriers given in the PDD are real? Some supporting documents proving the investment barrier are pending. The respective B9 is addressed to the PPs. /MT-AT/ B9 Supporting documents were submitted, reviewed and assessed to correct and sufficient to close this. B How is it justified that one or a set of real barriers prevent(s) the implementation of the project activity? In the course of document review and during the site visit it could be validated that the project activity would not have been implemented without carbon financing. Supporting documents are, however, pending to allow for an adequate validation of the project s additionality. /MT-AT/ See above Supporting documents were submitted, reviewed and assessed to correct and sufficient to close this. Common practice analysis Step 4 B Is the defined region for the common practice analysis appropriate for the The defined region is Nigeria. Since the project is the first of its kind in Nigeria and worldwide, considering the high /MT-AT/ Page 80 of 101

81 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final technology/industry type? efficiency of the stove the common practice analysis is deemed to be appropriate. B To what extent similar projects have been undertaken in the relevant region? Please see comment above. /MT-AT/ B In case similar projects are identified, are there any key differences between the proposed project and existing or ongoing projects and what kind of differences are observed? Please see comment above. /MT-AT/ B.9. Monitoring Methodology It is assessed whether the project applies an appropriate baseline methodology. B.9.1. Are all monitoring parameters required by the applied methodology contained in the monitoring plan? No, No. 12 of AMS II.G. is not considered in the project documentation. Hence, CR B8 was raised additionally to B5, B7 and CR B1. All other monitoring parameters are included. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. /AMS- IIG/ B5, B7, CR B1; CR B8 B.9.2. In case different approaches can be chosen acc. to the methodology, is the selection of parameters justified Methodological choices under consideration of project specific circumstances are not possible. Thus, B.9.2 is not applicable. /AMS- IIG/ N/A Page 81 of 101

82 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final and correct? B.9.3. Are the means of monitoring of all parameters contained in the monitoring plan in accordance with the requirements of the applied methodology? No, please refer to checklist item No. B.9.1. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. /AMS- IIG/ B5, B7, CR B1 CR B8 B.9.4. B.9.5. B.9.6. Are all parameters appropriately labelled? Is it likely that the monitoring arrangements described in the PDD can properly be implemented in the context of the project activity? Are the means of implementation of the monitoring plan, including QA/QC procedures sufficient to ensure that emission reductions can be reported without material misstatement? No, please refer to checklist item No. B.9.1. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. The monitoring arrangements are insufficient w.r.t. the necessary extent of detail. Please consider B5, B7, CR B1; CR B8. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. The specification regarding the monitoring of drop out users, dealing with owner changes and definition of spot checks is deemed inappropriate considering the large amount of systems to be disseminated. Thus, CR B1, CR B2 and CR B6 were addressed to the PPs. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related /AMS- IIG/ /AMS- IIG/ See s / CRs above B5, B7, CR B1 CR B8 CR B1 CR B2 CR B6 B5 B7 Page 82 of 101

83 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. B.9.7. Will all monitored data required for verification and issuance be kept for two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, for this project activity, whichever occurs later? All monitored data required for verification and issuance will be kept for two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, for this project activity, whichever is later. B.10. Monitoring of Project Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete project emission data over time. B Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for estimation or measuring the greenhouse gas emissions within the project boundary during the crediting period? The monitoring plan provides in general for the collection and archiving of relevant data necessary for estimation and measuring the GHG emissions within the project boundary during the crediting period. However, uncertainties in this approach have been identified and questions concerning the accuracy of data collection and data processing occurred in the course of validation. Hence, several s, CRs were opened. Please refer to checklist item No. B.9.1. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. CR B1, CR B2, CR B6, B5, B7 Page 83 of 101

84 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B Are the choices of project GHG indicators reasonable and conservative? Yes, the choice of the reasonable GHG to be considered in the framework of the project activity is CO 2. Consideration of other GHGs within the scope of the project s implementation is not required. CO 2 emissions occurring due to the combustion of wood used for household purposes such as cooking. No sources of occurrence of other GHGs have been observed during site visit and document review. B Is the measurement method clearly stated for each GHG value to be monitored and deemed appropriate? The measurement is based on the cook stoves (SAVE80) efficiency (fuel wood consumption in order to heat up water to a certain temperature), the number of stoves in operation, achieved by conducting spot checks as well as on the operating days. With respect to monitoring several s / CRs have been raised. This was already addressed in the checklist items above. Please refer too B.10.1 See s / CRs above All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. B Is the measurement equipment described and deemed appropriate? As the weight of wood used, the time and temperature for heating water is measured in the efficiency test and all other values are default or can be calculated, respectively the measurement equipment is simple and deemed appropriate. B Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements? The measurement accuracy is deemed appropriate. Please see comment above. Erroneous measurements are unlikely to occur, as multiple efficiency tests will be carried out. Page 84 of 101

85 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B Is the measurement interval identified and deemed appropriate? The measurement interval is annual and is deemed appropriate. B Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedure defined? The procedures are defined to a sufficient extent. DARE staff will be responsible for data collection, monitoring, measurement and data processing using the database. However, PPs persons in charge of monitoring as well as the CDM Monitoring Officer from DARE will be defined in the course of verification and mentioned in the monitoring report. B Are procedures identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed? The simple technology of monitoring equipment (thermometer, scales) can easily be replaced in the event of failure. B Are procedures identified for day-today records handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation)? Day-to-day record handling, particular the No. of systems in use as well as the days of operation will be processed using the database. Updated versions of the database will be sent to Atmosfair and back-up measures are going to be taken by saving data on electronic mediums. B.11. Monitoring of Baseline Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete baseline emission data over time. B Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for The monitoring of baseline emissions during the crediting period is not required as the fuel wood consumption remains fixed throughout the crediting period. However, in order to /LIT4/ B3 Page 85 of 101

86 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final determining baseline emissions during the crediting period? achieve reliable and conservative data of fuel wood consumption B3 was opened for provision of additional evidences concerning the efficiency assumption in the baseline. Please refer to B3. All unclear statements / lacking or wrong information related to monitoring, drop outs, leakage, representative samples or disposal of baseline equipment could be clarified and the above mentioned s / CRs closed. B Are the choices of baseline GHG indicators reasonable and conservative? Yes, the only GHG of relevance within the framework of the project activity is CO 2. /LIT4/ B Is the measurement method clearly stated for each baseline indicator to be monitored and also deemed appropriate? The measurement is based on the cook stoves (SAVE80) efficiency (fuel wood consumption in order to heat up water to a certain temperature). Once the efficiency is backed up by evidences it remains fixed over the crediting period. This is deemed appropriate. B Is the measurement equipment described and deemed appropriate? Please refer to checklist question B.10.4 and B B Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements? Please refer to checklist question B.10.5 and B B Is the measurement interval for baseline data identified and deemed appropriate? Please refer to checklist question B Page 86 of 101

87 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedure defined? Please refer to checklist question B.10.7 and B B Are procedures identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed? N/A. Please refer to checklist question B B Are procedures identified for day-today records handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation) Please refer to checklist question B B.12. Monitoring of Leakage It is assessed whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete leakage data over time. B Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for determining leakage? No, B6 and B7 have been opened and addressed to the PPs for corrective action. Please refer to B6 and B7. The above mentioned s concerning potential leakage sources and monitoring of the same could be closed in a sufficient manner on following the PPs clarification to respective s. B Are the choices of project leakage Please refer to the checklist item above. B6 B7 Page 87 of 101

88 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final indicators reasonable and conservative? B Is the measurement method clearly stated for each leakage value to be monitored and deemed appropriate? Please refer to the checklist item B B6 B7 B6 B7 B.13. Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators/ Environmental Impacts It is assessed whether choices of indicators are reasonable and complete to monitor sustainable performance over time. B Is the monitoring of sustainable development indicators/ environmental impacts warranted by legislation in the host country? The monitoring of sustainable development indicators/ environmental impacts is not warranted by legislation in the host country. The Nigerian DNA will check the project activity against certain sustainability indicators; however these are in the draft status, not yet published and a mandatory requirement for application could not be observed. /IM02/ B Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of relevant data concerning environmental, social and economic impacts? A separate monitoring plan has been developed according to the requirements of the Gold Standard Foundation. It covers the monitoring of air quality, access to affordable and clean energy services and quantitative employment and income generation. /SDI/ /IM02/ Page 88 of 101

89 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final B Are the sustainable development indicators in line with stated national priorities in the Host Country? The sustainable development indicators are in line with the Host Country requirements according to the draft sustainability indicators issued by the Nigerian DNA. /SDI/ /IM02/ B.14. Project Management Planning It is checked that project implementation is properly prepared for and that critical arrangements are addressed. B Is the authority and responsibility of overall project management clearly described? Yes, the operational structure for the project activity is described in section A.2 and B.7.2 of the PDD. Remarks made in the PDD concerning project management could be justified during the site visit discussions with the PPs. B Are procedures identified for training of monitoring personnel? Yes, capacity building w.r.t. training staff for tasks such as monitoring or assembling is established. This could be observed by visiting the assembling site and DARE offices in Kaduna and Jos. B Are procedures identified for emergency preparedness for cases where emergencies can cause unintended emissions? Such emergency cases cannot occur unless the stoves are damaged or stolen. In case such events are going to happen SAVE80 users will claim for the replacement of the stove. Detailed procedures for dealing with drop out candidates are not sufficiently described. Thus, please refer to CR B1 which was raised in order to address this matter. CR B1 Clarification has been provided in necessary extent of detail. Page 89 of 101

90 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final Thus, the CR B1 closed. B Are procedures identified for review of reported results/data? Yes, data will be sent to Atmosfair and LHL and is going to be reviewed on a frequent basis (every 3 months). In the event of inconsistencies between database entries and purchase contracts Atmosfair and LHL will guide the CDM Monitoring officer for appropriate action to be taken in order to resolve the issue. B Are procedures identified for corrective actions in order to provide for more accurate future monitoring and reporting? Please refer to the comment above. C. Duration of the Project/ Crediting Period It is assessed whether the temporary boundaries of the project are clearly defined. Page 90 of 101

91 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final C.1. C.2. D. Environmental Impacts Are the project s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and evidenced? Is the start of the crediting period clearly defined and reasonable? Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts will be assessed, and if deemed significant, an EIA should be provided to the validator. The project s starting date was verified against the project database during the site visit. For the expected operational lifetime inconsistent information is given in the PDD. Therefore CR C1 has been raised. Clarification and supporting documents were submitted to the validation team. Validation of the those documents resulted in a positive assessment and hence CR C1 is closed. The expected start of crediting period ( ) is deemed unrealistic and corrective action was requested in form of C1. PDD is amended. CR C1 C1 Page 91 of 101

92 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final D.1. Has an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity been sufficiently described? The document review and the investigation on site has doubtlessly revealed that negative impacts on the environment due to the project activity are very unlikely are going to occur. /IM02/ D.2. Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if yes, is an EIA approved? The host government does not request for an EIA. Sufficient evidence has been achieved during discussions held with representatives of the DNA. /IM02/ D.3. Will the project create any adverse environmental effects? No adverse environmental effects are expected due to the project activity. Rather positive contribution to sustainable development in the project region in terms of lower GHG emissions, improvements in local air quality and braking desertification are expected. /IM02/ D.4. Are transboundary environmental impacts considered in the analysis? No transboundary effects are expected due to the project activity. Please see comment above. /IM02/ D.5. Have identified environmental impacts been addressed in the project design? Please refer to D.3. /IM02/ D.6. Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country? Yes, the project fully complies with environmental legislation in the host country. /IM02/ Page 92 of 101

93 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Ref. Draft Final For Small-scale projects D.7. Does host country legislation require an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity? Please refer to D.2 /IM02/ D.8. Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country? Please refer to D.6. /IM02/ D.9. Will the project create any adverse environmental effects? Please refer to D.3. /IM02/ D.10. Have environmental impacts been identified and addressed in the PDD? Please refer to D.3. /IM02/ E. Stakeholder Comments The validator should ensure that stakeholder comments have been invited with appropriate media and that due account has been taken of any comments received. E.1. Have relevant stakeholders been Yes, two official stakeholder consultations have been held. Page 93 of 101

94 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the validation team) E.2. E.3. E.4. E.5. invited to consultation? Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders? If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such regulations/laws? Is an appropriate summary of the stakeholder comments received provided in the PDD? Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received? Validation Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) The Initial Stakeholder Consultation was held on 17 th September 2007 and the second Stakeholder Consultation on 4 th December 2008 in the presence of members of the validation team. Local people, wood sellers and local NGOs were invited. In the mean time several cooking demonstrations have been carried out in order to show the benefits, the handling of the stoves and to collect further information for improvements. Such demonstrations will continue to assure the citizen s awareness of the stove. Appropriate media have been used to invite comments by local stakeholders. Invitations were made by the Muslim- Christian Dialogue Forum (MCDF), DARE itself via cooking demonstrations and posters at strategic points in Kaduna. The host government does not require a stakeholder consultation. Ref. /GSD/ /GSD/ /IM02/ Draft Yes, please refer to section E.2 in the PDD. Due account has been taken by discussing opportunities of diversion of income for wood sellers. The opportunity to register as sales agent or to chop wood into small pieces usable in the SAVE80 has been made. Final Page 94 of 101

95 ANNEX 2: ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE IDENTIFICATION Table A-2: Assessment of Baseline Identification Baseline is not identified Assessment of baseline see below Baseline Alternatives identified Project activity implemented as Non-CDM Continuation of current situation: Firewood, charcoal from non-renewable sources and fossil fuels would continue to supply thermal energy for the users. Inline with the Method ology? Elimi nated Reasons for elimination / nonelimination from list of alternatives No financial support for price discounts, pre-financing and other costs related to marketing and delivery of stoves. Lack of alternatives to affordable house hold energy supply, poor governed forest protection measures of 10% of Nigeria s total forests would lead to its massive decline. Evidence used /ACA/ /FP/ /PC/ /ODA2/ /OCS/ /ODA1/ /dare/ /fao/ Appropriaten ess of eliminat ion DOE Assessment Assessment of validation team (results and means of assessment) The line of argumentation is transparently elaborated in relevant sections of the PDD. No opposing or contradictory information were obtained during the site visit or in following validation steps. Sufficient clarification concerning s & CRs raised were provided in order to arrive at the opinion that the project activity would not have been implemented with financial support from the CDM. The elaboration as set out in the PDD is confirmed by means of background investigation of scientific sources, interviews with PPs and Prof. Obioh and local stakeholder. The validation team is convinced that the description of this baseline alternative is correct sufficiently backed up by evidences or public sources. In accordance with the methodology AMS.II.G, it is assumed that in the absence of the project activity, the baseline scenario would be the use of fossil fuels for meeting similar thermal energy needs. Page 95 of 101

96 ANNEX 3: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL PARAMETERS Table A-3: Assessment of Financial Parameters No financial parameters are used for additionality justification Assessment of all financial parameters see below Parameter Value applied Unit Source of Information (please indicate document and page) Reference Correctness of value applied Appropriateness of information source DOE ASSESSMENT Comment Page 96 of 101

97 ANNEX 4: ASSESSMENT OF BARRIER ANALYSIS Table A-4: Assessment of Barrier Analysis No barrier parameters are used for additionality justification Assessment of barriers see below Kind of Barrier (invest, tech, other) Investment Barrier Description of Barrier SAVE80 at its original price is not affordable to average Nigerian households. Therefore additional financial means are necessary in order to disseminate the SAVE80 systems in the sub Saharan Guinea Savannah zone for an affordable sales price. Evidence used /wb/ /FP/ /OCS/ /PC/ Appropriat eness of information source Assessment of validation team Explanation of final result On the basis of referenced supporting documents, interviews with PPs and local stakeholders the validation team concludes that the investment barrier description in section B.5 of the final PDD is correct and sufficiently proved in the course of validation. The approach of the project, granting discounts from the sales price of the SAVE80 system to make it affordable for local households does have a clear and definable impact on the profitability of the project. Pre-financing the equipment by Atmosfair is the only way to disseminate the stoves in the in the Guinea Savannah zone within the framework of this project activity. Thus, it can be clearly assessed that these barriers are real and significant to prevent the project from implementation without additional financial means from the CDM. Page 97 of 101

98 Technologic al Barriers Prevailing Practice SAVE 80 system is not available in Nigeria and comparable cook stoves available in Nigeria are having a much lower fire wood reduction potential. The project is the first of its kind. /REMP/ - /IM06/ /BS/ /ICEED/ /LIT1/ /LIT2/ /LIT4/ /fao/ /PIC/ /REMP/ - /IM06/ /BS/ /ICEED/ /LIT1/ /LIT2/ /LIT4/ /fao/ /unfccc/ /PIC/ Due to the fact that SAVE80 systems are not available in Nigeria additional efforts (shipping, assembling, marketing) is necessary in order to disseminate the stoves as planned in the framework of this project activity. The validity of this barrier is confirmed by the validation team. This conclusion is based on investigation of supporting documents, interviews with PPs and local stakeholders. There is no other project activity as this proposed CDM project in Nigeria. Thus, awareness building, networking, marketing etc. is necessary in order to overcome this barrier. The DOE confirms that this barrier is real and significant to prevent the project from implementation without additional financial means from the CDM. Page 98 of 101

99 ANNEX 5: OUTCOME OF THE GSCP Table A-5: Outcome of the Global Stakeholder Consultation Process Com ment No.: No comments were received during the global stakeholder consultation period Comments were received during the global stakeholder consultation period. The comments (in unedited form) and the consideration/response of the validation team are presented below: Comment by: Inserted on: Subject Comment *) Response validation team *) (incl. s CLs or Conclusion FARs) *) In case clarifications have been requested by the validation team corresponding rows shall be added Page 99 of 101

100 ANNEX 6: APPOINTMENT CERTIFICATES OF TEAM MEMBERS Page 100 of 101

101 Page 101 of 101