Verification and Certification Report

Transcription

1 Verification and Certification Report of Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria GmbH Brooktorkai Hamburg Germany Handelsregister Hamburg, Abt. B., Nr

2 Organisational Unit GmbH (GLC), Greenhouse Gas Services Client Atmosfair ggmbh Client reference person Xaver Kitzinger Summary: UNFCCC Ref Project Name: Project Country: Sectoral Scope, Technical Area Methodology(ies) / Version(s): Efficient fuel wood stoves for Nigeria Nigeria CDM Sectoral Scope 3, Technical Area 3.1 AMS-II.G., version 01: Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass Project Size: Large Scale Small Scale Number of verification: 2 nd Dates of monitoring period (incl. both days) to Verified emission reductions 17,320 t CO2 Included post registration changes yes no Project Assessment Team: Technical Review Team: Approval by: Karunakar Avuram Johnbosco Ihemedu Jose-Emilio Moreno Markus Weber Markus Weber Date of this revision: Revision No. Number of pages Mode of Distribution: No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit Limited distribution Unrestricted distribution Page 2

3 History of report revisions: Rev. Date Person (short sign or name) Function Action Karunakar Avuram Assessment team leader Draft report Jose-Emilio Moreno Reviewer / review expert Review with comments Karunakar Avuram Assessment team leader Addressing review comments Jose-Emilio Moreno Reviewer / review expert Review with comments Karunakar Avuram Assessment team leader Addressing review comments and final report Markus Weber Final Reviewer / Approver Final Review and approved Karunakar Avuram Assessment team leader Review of the report to address incompleteness queries Jose-Emilio Moreno Reviewer / review expert Review with comments Karunakar Avuram Assessment team leader Addressing review comment Markus Weber Final Reviewer / Approver Final Review and approved Page 3

4 Abbreviations CAR CDM CDM-EB CER CL CMP CO2 CO2e COP/MOP DARE DNA DOE ER FAR GHG GLC ICS MP MR PDD PP QA/QC UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism CDM Executive Board (the board) Certified Emission Reduction Clarification request Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol Developmental Association for Renewable Energies Designated National Authority Designated Operation Entity Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) GmbH Improved Cook Stove Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Standard Page 4

5 Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope VERIFICATION TEAM Assessment Team Technical Review Team and Approval METHODOLOGY Verification Process Desk review On-site assessment Resolution of Findings and Reporting VERIFICATION REPORTING Verification of Compliance Compliance of the Project implementation in Accordance with the Registered Project Design Document Compliance of the Monitoring Plan with the Monitoring Methodology Including Applicable Tools Compliance of Monitoring Activities with the Registered Monitoring Plan Compliance with the Calibration Frequency Requirements for Measuring Instruments Assessment of Data and Calculation of Emission Reductions Application of Materiality Guidelines Post Registration Changes VERIFICATION STATEMENT REFERENCES ANNEX A: RESOLUTION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CLARIFICATION REQUESTS (LIST OF FINDINGS) Page 5

6 1 INTRODUCTION Atmosfair ggmbh 1 has commissioned the GmbH (GLC) to carry out the 2nd verification of the project, Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria, registered by the UNFCCC as CDM project 2711 with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The project activity registered with UNFCCC on The verifiers have reviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan (MP) as described in the registered PDD 2 /2/ and the Monitoring Report (version 2.3, dated ) /4/. GHG data for the monitoring period was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the Validation and Verification Standard /1/ of the UNFCCC. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of the 2nd verification of the above mentioned UNFCCC registered project activity. 1.1 Objective The objective of the verification is the review and ex-post determination by an independent entity of the GHG emission reductions. It includes the verification - that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place; - that the monitoring report and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with applicable CDM requirements; - that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan and the approved methodology; - that the data is recorded and stored as per the monitoring methodology. 1.2 Scope The verification of this registered project is based on the registered project design document /2/, the monitoring report /4/, emission reduction calculation spread sheet /10/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the on-site assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. The verification is carried out on the basis of the following requirements, applicable for this project activity: 1 It is to be noted that Atmosfair ggmbh, atmosfair ggmbh, Atmosfair and atmosfair represent the same entity 2 The PDD has been revised by the PP in order to apply for the post-registration changes (PRC). The changes are small corrections to the registered PDD. The changes are mentioned in the respective sections of the report and a separate PRC assessment document is submitted by GLC along with the request for issuance. GLC clarifies that unless explicitly mentioned as revised PDD, there is no difference between registered PDD and revised PDD. Therefore, the registered PDD refered in the report can also be treated as revised PDD as applicable. Page 6

7 - Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol /8/, - guidelines for the implementation of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol as presented in the Marrakech Accords under decision 3/CMP.1 /9/ and subsequent decisions made by the Executive Board and COP/MOP, - other relevant rules, including the host country legislation, - CDM Validation and Verification Standard /1/, - monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD /2/, - Approved CDM Methodology; AMS-II.G, (version 01) - Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass /5/. 2 VERIFICATION TEAM 2.1 Assessment Team A competent team with relevant knowledge and experience in the specific sectoral scopes and project activity was appointed by GLC. Furthermore the appointment of the team takes into account the required knowledge of the host country and general project activity knowledge requirements for verifying the project activity design and the relevant CERs achieved. The assessment team can be composed of an Assessment Team Leader (ATL), auditors (A) and host country or technical expert (E). Table 1 below shows the composition of the assessment team, the qualification of the team members and their functions. Table 1: Verification team Name Function 1) Sectoral scope specific knowledge Technical area specific knowledge Local knowledge Desk review Type of involvement On-site visit / interviews Reporting Supervision of work Expert input Karunakar Avuram ATL/TE X X X X X X X Johnbosco Ihemedu LE X X X X A ATL Auditor Assessment team leader FE LE Financial expert Local expert T-ATL T-A TE Trainee ATL Trainee auditor Technical expert Page 7

8 2.2 Technical Review Team and Approval Before submission of the final verification report to the CDM EB of the UNFCCC, a technical review of the whole verification and the draft report was carried out by an appointed technical review (TR) team. The TR team is composed of persons competent to the technical area the project activity falls under. Each person involved in the reviewer is independent to the verification assessment. The complete assessment prepared by the verification team is checked, if required adjusted and finally confirmed by the TR process. The TR team and the person responsible for approval of the report are found in the table below: Table 2: Technical review team and approval Name Function 2) Technical area specific knowledge Sectoral scope specific knowledge Supervision of work Jose-Emilio Moreno R/TE X X X Markus Weber FR/AP X AP FR Approver Final reviewer TE T-R R Technical expert Trainee reviewer Reviewer Page 8

9 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Verification Process The verification process is based on the guidelines described in the Validation and Verification Standard. In addition to that standard auditing techniques have been applied. The verification team performs first a desk review, followed by an on-site visit to review the project realisation. The findings will be collected and described in a questionnaire. In case of lack of clarity or inconsistencies related findings will be raised. The next step is to close out the findings through direct communication with the PPs and finally prepare the final verification report. This verification report and other supporting documents then undergo a technical review by the GLC GmbH prior to the submission to the CDM-EB. 3.2 Desk review From to , GLC conducted a desk review of all documents initially provided by the client and publicly available documents relevant for the verification. The main reviewed documents are listed below: The registered PDD /2/, including the monitoring plan and the corresponding validation report; Previous verification report /11/ ; The applied monitoring methodology /5/ ; The monitoring report /4/ and the corresponding emission reduction calculations /10/ Relevant decisions, clarifications, guidance and standards from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board; Any other information and references relevant to the project activity s resulting emission reductions (e.g., IPCC reports). Addressing of FARs identified during previous verifications. Page 9

10 3.3 On-site assessment From to , Mr. Karunakar Avuram and Mr. Johnbosco Ihemedu of GLC s verification team carried out an on-site visit. The main tasks covered during the on-site visit included, but were not limited to: Verifying whether the project activity was implemented as described in the registered PDD and is in operation as anticipated Physical inspection to the end users of cook stoves in order to verify the monitoring information presented in the monitoring report The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check the risks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures Assessing the competency levels of the operating team to implement and monitor the project activity as described in the registered PDD Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to check their proper application The monitoring data were checked completely The data aggregation trails were checked The interviewed persons during the site visit are summarized in the Table 3. The main topics of the interviews were: - General aspects of the project - Technical equipment and operation - Changes since validation - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Remaining issues from verification and validation - Quality management system - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Implementation of the monitoring plan - Monitoring data management - Data uncertainty and residual risks - GHG calculation - Procedural aspects of the verification Page 10

11 - Maintenance - Environmental aspects - Realized benefits and acceptability of the equipment Table 3: Interviewed persons Name Organization/Function Maren Kugler Dietrich Brockhagen Danjuma Tanko Yahaya Ahmed Adeso Paul Danjuma Abdul Aziz Aliyu Safiya Lawaz Ayuba Abdul Razaq Brodrick Michaelakoh Implementation & controlling +QA/QC, atmosfair Database Manager, atmosfair Database officer, DARE Monitoring Officer, Chairman/CEO, DARE Accountant, DARE Distributor (Zaria and Katsina regions) General Assistant, DARE Distributor (Makarfi area) Technician, Assembler and Driver Admin Officer, DARE Apart from the above mentioned interviewed persons, 68 users of SAVE80 cook stoves 3 were visited and interviewed during the onsite assessment. List of interviewed persons along with their signatures and the information collected in the form of questionnaires are available in original with GLC. Scanned copies of the same can be provided upon requirement. 3.4 Resolution of Findings and Reporting On the basis of the desk review, the on-site visit, follow-up interviews and further background investigation the verification questionnaire is completed. In case any inconsistencies or lack of clarity were identified during the verification the team has raised a Corrective Action Requests (CARs), if: the project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission reductions; the CDM requirements have not been met; 3 It is to be noted that the phrases SAVE80 cook stove, SAVE80 stove, SAVE80 system or the improved cook stove mentioned in this document represent the same i.e. the efficient fuel wood stoves of type SAVE80 deployed under the project activity. Page 11

12 there is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated. Clarification Request (CL), if: Information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. In case the team has identified essential risks for further verifications or the actual status requires a special focus on this item for the next consecutive verification, or an adjustment of the monitoring plan is recommended a Forward Action Request (FAR) was raised. All CARs, CLs and FARs raised have been sent to the client with the request to address the findings. After the findings have been answered by the client in an appropriate manner, the CARs, and CLs are closed out. The verification team also reviewed validation report and the 1 st verification report to find out if there are any open issues or FARs to be addressed. There are no pending issues or FARs from the validation. However, during the 1 st verification, a FAR was raised regarding procedures to be adopted in case of change of ownership. It is confirmed from the document review that the PP has already addressed the FAR. No further pending issues are there. For a detailed list of all CARs, CLs and FARs raised in the course of the verification please refer to Annex A of this report. Page 12

13 4 VERIFICATION REPORTING 4.1 Verification of Compliance Compliance of the Project implementation in Accordance with the Registered Project Design Document The project activity involves the dissemination of efficient fuel wood stoves of the type SAVE80 in households within the Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria. Based on this on-site verification and the reviewed project documentation, the verification team confirms that the realized technology, the project equipment, as well as the monitoring plan has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD. Nevertheless, there was a delay in implementation of the project activity. By the end of the 2 nd monitoring period, only 5401 SAVE80 cookstoves have been deployed against an anticipated number of up to 12,500 as per the registered PDD. The delay in implementation of the project activity, as understood from the onsite interviews, is due to longsome custom clearance procedures at Lagos port (Nigeria) which resulted in delayed arrival of cookstove parts shipped from Germany. Besides, not all SAVE80 cookstoves supplied by the end of the monitoring period have yet been recorded in the project database due to delay in getting the purchase contract from the local distributors (please refer to CL4 in Annex A). The cookstoves sold in a month are accounted for emission reduction calculation from the following month. Therefore, the total number of cookstoves supplied until the end of the monitoring period corresponds to the cookstoves delivered to end user on or before since the monitoring period covers the period from to The SAVE80 cookstoves are manufactured in Germany and they are supplied by Atmosfair ggmbh to Nigeria. The cookstoves are assembled by Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (DARE) at their own factory located in Kaduna state, Nigeria. The cookstoves are sold by DARE through local distributors at subsidised price. The SAVE80 is a portable stove made of stainless steel, developed and prefabricated by a German manufacturer and assembled locally to create employment and income. As per specification of the manufacturer, the SAVE80 needs only about 250 g of small brittle sticks of wood to bring 6 litres of water to the boil, 80% less than traditional fire places /45/. It is also confirmed from the average efficiency of SAVE80 stoves determined during the monitoring period (assessed in later sections) being over 40% compared to the baseline stove efficiency of 10%. The design ensures preheating of the air and a complete combustion with no visible smoke and only small amounts of ash. The SAVE80 system also consists of custom-fit pots, pans and a heat retaining box (called Wonderbox ), where food can be transferred after reaching the boiling temperature, and where it will continue to simmer until it is well cooked. The Wonderbox also allows considerable energy savings in addition to the savings by the SAVE80. However, the energy savings on account of Wonderbox are not taken into account for calculating emission reductions which results in conservativeness of the Emission Reduction calculations. In the baseline scenario, households were using a traditional 3-stone fireplace for cooking. Both the 3- stone fireplace and the project stoves utilize non-renewable firewood. The emission reductions are due to a more efficient use of non-renewable biomass in comparison to the baseline situation. However, Page 13

14 during the onsite verification, few users revealed that they were also using kerosene stove and gas stove before purchasing SAVE 80. Therefore, a clarification request (please refer to CL1) was raised. During the site visit it was also found that in few cases, the cook stoves were not use. Few of the cook stoves were not in regular use and the users informed that they also used 3-stone cookstove, kerosene stove etc. Therefore, corrective action requests were raised. Please refer to CAR1 and CAR2 in the enclosed Annex A for detailed resolution. On the whole it can be confirmed that the project s implementation is in accordance with the registered PDD. Involved Parties and Project Participants The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity (Table 4). Table 4: Project Parties and project participants Party(ies) Host party Other involved party/ies Nigeria Germany Project Participant(s) Developmental Association for Renewable Energies Atmosfair ggmbh Lernen-Helfen-Leben e.v. Project Location The project activity is located in the states belonging to Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria. The GPS coordinates mentioned in the registered PDD corresponds to former office of DARE. It was learnt that the office was shifted to another location in the same state (Kaduna) during the monitoring period. In response to a CAR (please refer to CAR 10), the PP has revised the PDD to correct the address to new office location. The revised PDD was submitted to GLC to notify UNFCCC in the form of post registration changes (PRC). It is confirmed that there is no change in project location. The cook stoves were distributed in Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria as described in the registered PDD. The proposed corrections represent only the changes in office address and the corresponding GPS coordinated. Therefore, the GLC s verification team is of the opinion that the revised PDD /46/ can be submitted for PRC along with the request for issuances since the changes fall under category 1 Corrections according to Appendix 1 of the Project Standard (ver. 02.1) /47/ which do not require prior approval by the Board. It was informed to the verification team during the onsite verification that the present location of the office would be permanent. Assessment on PRC and validation opinion is provided in a separate assessment report. Present office location details of DARE are given in Table 5. The location details correspond to factory where the stoves are assembled and an office where all the data is stored in hard and soft format. Page 14

15 Table 5: Project location details Project Location Details Host Country Nigeria Project location address: KM 38, Kaduna-Zaria Expressway (after JAJI Military Cantonement), Sabon Yelwa - Kaduna State Latitude: Longitude: N E From the onsite verification the location details provided in the MR are confirmed as correct. Through document review and on site interview GLC is able to confirm that the project has started on and no outstanding events or situations occurred during this monitoring period (from to ). The emission reductions being claimed for the 2 nd monitoring period from to are nearly 71 % less than the estimated emission reductions in the registered PDD, as given in the table below: Table 6: Emissions Reduction claimed in comparison to the estimates as per PDD Period As per PDD Monitoring report Emission Reductions 60,737* 17,320 % Deviation (+/-) 0 (-) 71.4% (* The estimated emission reduction as per the PDD was 19,327 tco2e in 2010 and 34,027 tco2e from 2011 onwards. Since the monitoring period covers 24 months consisting of 6 months (184 days) in 2010, 12 months in 2011 and 6 months (182 days) in 2012, it has been calculated as 60,737 tco2e for the corresponding monitoring period.) As presented in the table above, the reported emission reductions during the verification period are 71.4% less than the ex-ante estimated amount of annual emission reductions. The actual emission reductions can be accepted by GLC based on the two reasons as follows: 1. The number SAVE80 stoves deployed were less than the anticipated number in the PDD 2. The drop-outs were not assumed in the ex-ante calculation The estimated emission reduction as per the PDD was 19,327 tco2e in 2010 and 34,027 tco2e from 2011 onwards assuming that all the 12,500 Save80 systems would be deployed by the end of However, according to the monitoring report and as verified from the database only 5401 numbers of cook stoves were deployed till which were considered for the calculation of emission Page 15

16 reductions. Besides, the number of drop outs (which was 15.2% for part-1 and 21.8% for part-2 of the monitoring period) was not considered during the estimation in the registered PDD. Therefore, the achieved emission reduction is deemed appropriate Compliance of the Monitoring Plan with the Monitoring Methodology Including Applicable Tools GLC s verification team has reviewed the application of the implemented monitoring plan vis-à-vis the monitoring requirements of the registered PDD /2/ along the whole monitoring period from to Moreover, the application of the monitoring plan during the monitoring period was also assessed by taking into account the applicable monitoring requirements of the monitoring methodology AMS II.G (version 1) /5/. Based on this review the verification team confirms that the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /2/ is in compliance with the monitoring methodology AMS II.G (version 1) /5/ Compliance of Monitoring Activities with the Registered Monitoring Plan Organisational structure Description of monitoring system has been sufficiently provided in section C of the monitoring report. From the document review and onsite assessment, the GLC s verification confirms that the information provided in the MR is correct. The project activity Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria was implemented by Nigerian Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (DARE), Lernen-Helfen- Leben e.v. (LHL) and atmosfair ggmbh (atmosfair). DARE is primarily responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the project activity. DARE receives the shipment of SAVE80 material from the SAVE80 manufacture in Germany and sells to end users through local distributors. DARE has an office and a factory near Kaduna (KM 38, Kaduna-Zaria Expressway, JAJI, Kaduna state) where the material received from the manufacturer is folded to required shape and assembled. The assembled stoves are sold to end users by DARE and some through local distributors. The responsibilities of the three project participants are as below: DARE: Supervision of purchase contracts and project database recording, supervision of efficiency tests and spot checks LHL: Efficiency tests data assessment, project database records assessment and review of monitoring report Atmosfair: Data quality control, CER calculation and preparation of monitoring report Page 16

17 The GLC s verification team has collected the details of DARE s employees, free lancers work for assembling stoves and local distributors as part of verifying gold standard sustainability parameters. Therefore, verification team can confirm that a sound organisational structure is in place to carry out the implementation and monitoring activities of the project Data collection, Storage and QA/QC procedures When a SAVE80 system is sold a purchase contract /18/ is signed between the user (or buyer) and the DARE s employee or the distributor (whoever sells the stove). The purchase contracts are submitted at the office of DARE. The administrative staff of DARE transfers the data into electronic database in MS- Excel format (called Project database ) /19/20/. The data in MS-excel format is also copied into memory sticks at the same time as a backup data. The primary data i.e. the purchase contracts is also stored in original format at DARE s office. The original purchase contracts are photocopied, sorted out on a group basis (for easy identification and coordination with the local distributors), while the original purchase contracts are sorted out on stove number basis, and stored in separate files. The photo copied sheets also act as back up data. The purchase contract consists of the following information: Name of the buyer Address and Contact number Name and contact details of the user (if different from buyer) Stove ID Declaration Price and payment mode Signature of buyer / user Signature and name of sales person Date and place of delivery Photo copies of the original purchase contracts and the electronic database are sent to LHL and atmosfair once in three months. atmosfair checks for consistency of data between the purchase contracts and the electronic database and in case of any inconsistency, it either corrects or instructs the monitoring team 4 in Nigeria to correct the database. The corrected database is further transferred electronically and stored in central database at atmosfair in Germany. The other monitored data from monitoring spot checks is also handled in similar way. The monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation sheets are prepared with the help of corrected database available with atmosfair. Therefore, the PPs have back up of data in both soft format and hard format. The monitoring team was interviewed by the GLC s verification team during onsite verification. The verification team confirms that the monitoring team has received training internally and also from external agencies /36/38/39/ and the team is competent enough to follow all the required monitoring procedures. Besides, an operating manual /37/ and user manual on database /42/ were also developed by the PP which contain all the instructions for monitoring and storing of data. The verification team is of the opinion that a robust monitoring system is in place with the PP to monitor the project activity inline with the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. 4 The staff of DARE who are involved in distribution, data collection and monitoring activities are referred as monitoring team Page 17

18 It is therefore confirmed that the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reduction and it is also confirmed that all the required QA/QC procedures are in place. It is worth to note that as per the monitoring plan, annual monitoring is required i.e. the monitoring campaign shall be carried out annually (this has been made clear in the revised PDD version 3 submitted along with the request for issuance). Therefore, PP split the total monitoring period into parts; Part-1 covering the period from to and Part-2 covering the period from to Two monitoring campaigns were carried out, one after and the other after It was understood from the onsite and follow-up interviews with the PPs that the database was compiled separately for each part of the monitoring period and the purchase contracts that were not received by the time of completing the database for monitoring campaign were not considered for the calculation of emission reduction in the corresponding part of the monitoring period. It is also worth to note that, due to this delay in obtaining the purchase contracts, the number of systems delivered by the end of June 2010 was considered as 2032 for part-1 of the monitoring period and the same was considered as 2070 for part-2 of the monitoring period. The numbers were verified with the two separate database documents received; one for part-1 and the other for part-2 of the monitoring period. The approach is deemed appropriate as it would result in conservative calculation of emission reduction Sampling approach The monitoring period for the 2 nd verification consists of 2 years; from to The project participants (PP) have conducted annual monitoring spot check to 100 users as required by the applied methodology and as described in the registered PDD /2/. The monitoring period has been split into two parts by the PP; Part-1 from to and Part-2 from to and carried out monitoring spot check to 100 households /34/35/ of SAVE80 users separately for each part of the monitoring period. The PP has recorded monitoring information in a questionnaire. All the 200 spot check documents /32/33/ were provided to the verification team. Some of the users were physically visited and some of the users were interviewed through telephone. As per the registered monitoring plan, at least 25% of the users shall be physically visited for monitoring check. However, in part-1 of the monitoring period, 41% were physically visited and in part-2, 62% were physically visited. The questionnaire was signed by the user and the monitoring team member for which physical visit was conducted. Therefore, it is confirmed that PP s sampling approach for monitoring is inline with the sampling approach described in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. For onsite verification, the GLC s verification team opted for an acceptance sampling based on the guidelines provided in Annex 5 of EB 69 report /16/. The verification team proposed to visit 61 users of SAVE80 assuming an acceptance quality level of 1% and unacceptable quality level of 10% for an acceptance number of 2 inline with Para 296 of EB 69, Annex 5 document. The verification team has thus randomly selected 61 users from the PP s monitoring list of 200 before going to the site visit. It was also planned through GLC s professional judgment, that in case the 61 users could not be visited because of safety issues 5 a smaller sample of 30 could be accepted with an acceptable quality level of 1% and unacceptable quality level of 15% and an acceptance number of 1, if the smaller sample is complemented by a cross-check sample of other randomly selected users in safer areas which were not 5 Security warnings were issued by the embassies in Nigeria (see e.g. US State Department, about safety issues in northern part of Nigeria, near Jos. Page 18

19 part of the monitoring spot check to judge the appropriateness and conservativeness of PP s monitoring information. The Save80 stoves were distributed in Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria and the stoves were predominantly distributed in northern part of Nigeria (In Kaduna state alone 58% of the stoves were distributed). Overall, the verification team visited 68 households, among 31 from the PP s monitoring sample 6, during the verification site visit and interviewed the users. The interview sheets with the user signatures are available with GLC and they can be provided on demand. Materiality guidelines /14/ have also been considered while revising the verification sampling approach. Besides, after verifying the PP s monitoring system, the verification team is of the opinion that robust monitoring mechanism is in place. All the monitoring activities are carried out by the trained staff of DARE under the supervision of senior executive. The monitored data is crosschecked by atmosfair. Though the verification sampling approach was deviated from the initial plan, sufficient number of households were visited and interviewed by the verification team to provide reasonable level of assurance on appropriateness and conservativeness of PP s monitoring. Out of 68 users visited, 31 were from the PP s monitoring spot check list. When the results of PP s monitoring check were verified with the verification results, only one record was found to be deviating. The user corresponding to stove ID 3678 informed during the verification visit that he did not use the stove during the monitoring period while the PP s monitoring record indicates the stove was in operation (CAR1 may please referred for further details). The verification team has again applied the sampling guidelines /16/ to check if the PP s monitoring data can be accepted. As per the guidelines, with an acceptable quality level of 1% and unacceptable quality level of 15%, acceptance number has been determined to be 1 for a verification sample size of 30. Therefore, the verification team is of the opinion that the PP s monitoring data can be accepted. Even when the verification results of remaining 37 users (that were not part of the monitoring sample) analysed and compared with the PP s monitoring results, the PP s monitoring results were found to be conservative compared to onsite verification results as only one drop out of 37 users was detected and hence drop out rate determined to be much lower (1 out of 37; 3%) compared to PP s monitoring check results. PP calculated the drop out rate as 12% during part- 1 of the monitoring period and 18% during part-2 of the monitoring period. Therefore, it can be confirmed that the emission reductions calculated for the monitoring period are appropriate and conservative Monitored Parameters During the verification, GLC was able to verify through document review and onsite interviews that the monitoring plan was implemented as described in the PDD. The following parameters for the project activity Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria were monitored during the monitoring period covering from to GLC s verification team was able to confirm that all monitoring parameters of which appropriate monitoring is required by the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /2/ were indeed monitored during the 6 During on site visit it was realised that the security in Kaduna was tightened due to repeated communal violence and foreign personnel were not allowed to visit some of the areas. The police have even detained the verification team travelling to Jos in Kaduna state for one hour and warned not to travel in that area since there was an aggression couple of days before the site visit in one of the villages Page 19

20 considered monitoring period. The table below summarizes all the parameters (of which monitoring is required as per the monitoring plan of the registered PDD) which were monitored during the considered monitoring period. Table 7: Monitored Parameters Parameter N y,i t y,j # ηnew,i Description Total Number of SAVE80 systems in use per vintage Operation time per SAVE80 system per vintage (months/months per year) Efficiency of the SAVE80 system for each vintage ( # An editorial correction has been made in the PDD. The parameter representation has been changed from t j,i to t y,j in response a CAR and the revised PDD has been submitted to GLC in order to submit for PRC.) According to the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /2/, the maximum length of one monitoring period is one year. However, the length of the 2 nd monitoring period is 2 years; from to Though annual monitoring was carried, the length of the monitoring period was not in accordance with the statement in the registered PDD. Therefore, GLC raised a CAR (please refer to CAR 11 in Annex A of the report). In response to the CAR, the PP has revised the wording in the PDD and submitted to GLC proposing post registration changes. The revised PDD /46/ states that the frequency of the monitoring would be one year and the monitoring campaign (spot checks to user households and efficiency tests) would be conducted annually as per the requirements of the methodology (AMS II.G., ver. 1). It is confirmed that the revised statements are inline with the requirements of the applied methodology, AMS-II.G (version 01) /5/. As per the methodology, monitoring of the parameters shall be carried out annually. The revised PDD avoids ambiguity and it does not have any impact on the monitoring plan. The changes in the PDD are considered to be corrections which fall under Corrections according to Appendix 1 of the Project Standard /47/. Therefore, GLC is of the opinion that the revised PDD can be submitted for PRC along with the request for issuance since the changes do not require prior approval by the Board. A separate assessment document on PRC is prepared and submitted by GLC along with the revised PDD. Since the 2 nd monitoring period covers the period of 2 years, from to , the project participants have split the monitoring period into two parts. Part-1 covers the period from to and part-2 covers the period from to Two monitoring campaigns were conducted; one after part-1 of the monitoring period (cut-off date: ) and the other after part-2 of the monitoring period (cut-off date: ). From the document review and onsite interviews it is confirmed that PPs have followed annual monitoring for all the parameters. The monitoring plan of the registered PDD /2/ requires spot checks to at least 100 households as part of the monitoring. A sample monitoring group was selected through a computerized randomizer in the project database to create the monitoring list /19/20/. This exercise was carried out by the PP twice during the monitoring period; one after part-1 of the monitoring period (cut-off date: ) and the other after part-2 of the monitoring period (cut-off date: ). Sufficient evidence documentation was provided to the verification team. It is therefore confirmed based on the evidence documents and onsite verification the approach followed is inline with the requirements of the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. The information has been transparently provided in the latest version of the monitoring report. Page 20

21 Separate monitoring list for each annual monitoring has been provided to verification team. The monitoring list for part-1 /21/ of the monitoring period consists of 120 users and 142 users for part-2 /22/. During the onsite interviews with the PPs, it was clarified that there were some non-responses (some of the users did not respond to the phone calls) and therefore, additional set of users were selected to fulfill the required number of 100. The monitoring plan of the PDD also states, The selected households are contacted, usually via phone. In addition, for at least 25% of the monitoring sample, an On-Site-Visit is mandatory to collect the required monitoring information. They are selected by taking every 4th user in the monitoring list. However, the webhosted monitoring report (version 1) does not contain sufficient information how many were contacted by phone and how many were physically visited. Therefore, a clarification request was raised (please refer to CL3 in Annex A). Besides, scanned copies of all the spot check data sheets /32/33/ have also been provided to GLC. It has been clearly indicated in the data sheet whether the user was contacted by phone or physically and the users who were physically contacted have also signed the data sheet. Therefore, it is the contention of GLC that all the requirements of the monitoring plan have been sufficiently followed. The application of the monitoring plan for the verification period is summarized in this section. Table 8 presents the assessment for monitoring details of all parameters monitored during the monitoring period from to Table 8: Assessment of monitoring parameters Data / Parameter (as per monitoring plan in the PDD): Type of monitoring equipment: Assessment activities Ny,i Total number of SAVE80 systems in use per vintage (number) Not applicable The parameter is calculated based on number of SAVE80 systems operating per year and vintage and fraction of operation time of SAVE80 system per vintage. Therefore, the monitoring parameter in this case is the number of SAVE80 systems sold or delivered to the users. The parameter is monitored through an electronic database. The stoves are locally assembled and sold to the users by local distributors. When a SAVE80 system is sold, a purchase contract is signed between the distributer and the user. After delivering the stove to the end user, the distributor submits the purchase contract at the office of DARE. The administrative staffs of DARE then enter the details into electronic database. The database consists of the following information /19/ /20/ : Page 21

22 Stove number Name of the user Address of the user Contact number Purchase / delivery date Verification of data generation: Measuring frequency: Is measuring frequency in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology? (Yes / No) Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the accuracy of the monitoring equipment, does the monitoring equipment represent good monitoring practise? Verification of data aggregation: In order to determine the number of SAVE80 systems in use, PPs have carried out annual spot check to 100 households. Based on the annual spot checks, the percentage of SAVE80 stoves in use (some stoves were found to be not in operation) has been calculated which is then multiplied to the number of SAVE80 systems delivered during the given vintage. The number of SAVE80 systems delivered is determined on the basis of electronic database. The entries in the database were crosschecked with the purchase contracts /18/ during the onsite assessment. All the spot checks data sheets have also been checked by the verification team. Besides, users of the SAVE80 were visited and interviewed using a sampling approach by the verification team to confirm the appropriateness of data generation. GLC s verification team is of the opinion that the data generation is correct and the procedures applied by the PPs are appropriate. The sampling approach applied by the verification team is described in section The data was recorded as and when the cook stoves were sold. There was no fixed frequency of measurement. No specific frequency has been mentioned either in the monitoring plan or in the monitoring methodology. However, the monitoring approach can be confirmed to be inline with the monitoring plan. No equipment is used to monitor the parameter. Therefore, accuracy is not applicable. Data aggregation was verified by means of electronic database /19/20/, purchase contracts /18/, spot check data sheets /32/ 33/ and onsite interviews. Page 22

23 Verification of data recording: Verification of data calculation and reporting The verification team confirms that the data aggregation performed by PPs is correct. As assessed above, whenever a SAVE80 system is sold, a purchase contract is signed between the user and the distributor. The information from purchase contracts is transferred to electronic database. During the onsite assessment, the database was crosschecked with the purchase contracts and the information was found to be consistent. The calculation has been transparently done in an excel spread sheet by the PPs and provided to the verification team. Number of systems delivered, drop-out, number of appliances in use and fraction of operation time have been clearly mentioned in the spread sheet. After thorough checking of the calculation, the verification team confirms that the total number of SAVE80 systems in use has been correctly calculated. It is confirmed from the electronic database and purchase contracts that the total number of SAVE80 systems delivered to the users is 3546 /19/ by the end of part-1 of the monitoring period and is 5401 /20/ by the end of the part-2 of the monitoring period. However, from the monitoring campaigns, PP found out that the drop out rate during the first monitoring campaign of this monitoring period i.e. after is 12% /34/ and that of during the second monitoring campaign of this monitoring period i.e. after is 18% /35/. PP took a sample size of 100 during each monitoring campaign inline with the monitoring plan and the data from monitoring campaigns was recorded in data sheets. PP has provided all the 200 monitoring campaign data sheets to GLC s verification team. The drop out rate for part-1 and part-2 of the monitoring period is confirmed to be correct from the monitoring campaign sheets. In the calculation to arrive the number of systems in use, PP has also considered standard error as per the CDM guidelines and the calculation has been provided transparently in the ER sheet. Besides, as explained in section , the verification team visited the households using a sampling approach to verify appropriateness and conservativeness of drop out rate determined by the PP. A sample was drawn for verification from the PP s total monitoring sample list of 200 covering the whole monitoring period (100 for part-1 of the monitoring period and 100 for part-2 of the Page 23

24 Reporting frequency: monitoring period). It is to be noted that the verification team carried out an acceptance sampling in order to verify if the PP s monitoring information is appropriate and the PP s monitoring sample is acceptable. The emission reduction calculation is based on PP s monitoring sampling results and not based on GLC s acceptance sampling results. The verification team visited 68 households in total and found that only 2 out of 68 were not in use. The drop out rate corresponds to 2.94% which is very less compared to drop out rate during PP s monitoring check. The reason could be that some users have started using after PP s monitoring check. The PP has recorded the reason for not using the stove in the monitoring campaign data sheets. Some of the users mentioned that they were waiting to get married and then use and some mentioned that they did not receive enough information on how to use it. It was learnt from onsite interviews that where the user mentioned don t know how to use, the monitoring team demonstrated the operation of SAVE80 and the user started using. However, it was considered as drop-out since it was not in use during the monitoring period. For example, the stoves corresponding to ID numbers 3052, 3201 and 3307 during PP s first monitoring campaign in this monitoring period and stove ID 5091 during second monitoring campaign in this monitoring period were found to be not in use while they were found to be in use during DOE s verification check. Therefore, the verification team confirms that the drop out rate of 12% for part-1 of the monitoring period and 18% for part-2 of the monitoring period is correct. The verification team understands that the drop out rate determined by the PP is appropriate and will result in conservative calculation of emission reductions. Therefore, the reported total number of SAVE80 systems in use and respectively during part-1 and part-2 of the monitoring period are deemed correct. It is worth to note that there have been delays in receiving the purchase contracts and therefore the number of stoves considered in the calculations (Ny,i) are slightly different for each vintage because of this delays as explained in above sections. There is no defined frequency to be followed for Page 24