Gold Standard Verification Report

Transcription

1 Project Title Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya ERM CVS Reference 2118.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS886 Client Name Vestergaard Frandsen Group SA Client Address Chemin de Messidor 5-7, CH Lausanne, Switzerland Gold Standard Verification Report ERM Certification and Verification Services 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court 33 St Mary Axe London EC3A 8AA Version Control Date Version November 2012 (Draft Verification Report) Version January 2013 (Final Verification Report) Version February 2013 (Final Verification Report after GS 3-week review period) Version January 2013 (Final Verification Report after external assessment) ERM Certification and Verification Services Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

2 Table of Contents 1. Project information Verification Opinion and Certification Statement Introduction Verification Objectives Scope and basis of verification work Appointment of Team Members and Technical Reviewer Verification activities Desk review Site Visit Reporting Independent technical review Verification Findings Status of open issues from previous verifications (if applicable) Project Implementation in accordance with the PDD Overview of project design Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan Overview of monitoring system Completeness of monitoring parameters Data and parameters monitored Management and operational system Data and parameters determined at registration and not monitored Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions Comparison of emission reductions with those predicted in the PDD Other observations Assessment of sustainability monitoring Overview of sustainability monitoring system Completeness of sustainability monitoring parameters Sustainability indicators monitored Remediation Requests Clarification Requests Corrective Action Requests Forward Action Requests Minor Issues Annex A: Reference Documents and Interviews ERM Certification and Verification Services Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

3 Abbreviations CAR CDM EB CER CL CO 2 CO 2e DOE ER FAR GHG GS GWP IPCC PDD PP QA/QC UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board Certified Emission Reduction(s) Clarification Request Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Designated Operational Entity Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse Gas Gold Standard Global Warming Potential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change CDM Validation and Verification Standard Project/Host Party specific abbreviations NRB VF Non Renewable Biomass Vestergaard Frandsen ERM Certification and Verification Services Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

4 1. Project information Project Title Gold Standard Project reference Project Location Host Party Annex I Party(s) Project Participants Methodology Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya GS886 Western Province, Kenya Kenya N/a Vestergaard S.A. Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Methodology version number Version 2 Monitoring report version made publicly available Monitoring Report Version 01, dated 28 October 2012 Uploaded on GS Registry on 29 October 2012 Final monitoring report version 10 January 2013 Monitoring Period 2 nd Monitoring Period: 01 December 2011 to 31 October 2012 Date(s) of Site Visit November 2012 Date/version of Registered PDD and monitoring plan Date/version of approved revised PDD (if applicable) Date/version of approved revised Monitoring plan (if applicable) PDD Version 9.0, dated January 2011 Revision to the PDD approved on 28 July 2011 Monitoring plan in the revised PDD dated January 2011 and approved on 28 July 2011 Date of Initial GS Approval 04 February 2011 Crediting Period 01 June 2011 to 31 May 2021 Number of emission reductions certified 1,701,5632,166,388 tco 2e ERM Certification and Verification Services 4 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

5 2. Verification Opinion and Certification Statement ERM Certification and Verification Services (ERMCVS) was commissioned by Vestergaard Frandsen Group SA to verify and certify the emissions reductions reported for the period 01 December 2011 to 31 October 2012 as set out in the monitoring report of the GS project activity Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya, Registration Reference GS886 Basis of verification Responsibilities of ERM CVS Responsibilities of Project Participants ERM CVS Opinion ERM CVS based its verification work on: the approved Gold Standard methodology applied in the project design document (PDD) the approved and revised PDD the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) Gold Standard requirements version 2.1 and guidance ERM CVS is responsible to provide an independent verification conclusion on the reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for the project during the relevant monitoring period. The verification activities included desk review, site visit, close out of open issues, preparation of report and technical review. The Project Participants (PPs) are responsible for the preparation of the information and GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions of the project on the basis set out within the applicable monitoring plan. Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the project activity is implemented and operated as described in the registered Project Design Document. The GHG emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report dated 156 December were found to be appropriately measured and calculated in accordance with the applied monitoring methodology Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version 2 and the monitoring plan set out in the revised Project Design Document, version 09, dated January 2011 and approved on 28 July Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the reported emission reductions for the monitoring period 01 December 2011 to 31 October 2012 are fairly stated. Total GHG emission reductions certified Emission reductions: 1,701,563 CO 2 equivalent Report approved by Signature Name: Melanie Eddis Date: 22 January 2014 ERM Certification and Verification Services 5 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

6 3. Introduction This report sets out the methodology and conclusions of the verification process and the ERM CVS Certification Statement. ERM CVS assessed and verified whether the implementation of the project activity and the steps taken to report emission reductions comply with the Gold Standard criteria and relevant guidance provided by the CMP and the CDM Executive Board Verification Objectives As set out in the Gold Standard Requirements v.2.1, verification means the periodic independent review and ex post determination by a Designated Operational Entity of monitored reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that have occurred as a result of a registered project activity during the verification period. The objective of the verification is to establish whether sufficient evidence exists to confirm, to reasonable assurance: Whether the project activity has been implemented and is being operated as per the PDD /3/ and the GS Passport /7/ and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project activity are in place. Whether the applied monitoring plan /4/ is in compliance with the relevant approved GS monitoring methodology /8/ Whether the monitoring report /1/ and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with the monitoring plan and applicable GS requirements. Whether the emission reductions as set out in the Monitoring Report /1/ have been measured, calculated and reported in accordance with the requirements of the carbon monitoring plan /4/ and the sustainability monitoring plan in the GS Passport /7/. Whether the reported data meet the key principles of data quality and are complete, reliable, consistent, accurate, valid, transparent and conservative Scope and basis of verification work The verification is an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the DOE. Based on the key project information set out on page 2, the verification addresses the implementation and operation of the project activity as set out in the PDD /3/ and the Gold Standard Passport /7/, and the information and reported emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report prepared by the project participant (PP) for this monitoring period. The verification tests the data and assertions set out in the monitoring report prepared for this monitoring period by the PPs and is based on the approved methodology /8/ applied in the PDD /3/ the PDD /3/ and monitoring plan /4/ the GS Passport and its sustainability monitoring plan /7/ previous verification report(s) /6/ Gold Standard Requirements version 2.1 and Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.1 and its Annexes the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) /9/ Other information and references relevant to the project activity s reported emission reductions - refer to Annex 1 for full set of documents The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. The monitoring report is assessed, using a rules based approach, against the principles of accuracy, relevance, credibility, reliability, completeness, consistency, and transparency. Conservativeness is applied throughout the process to ensure that emission reductions are not overstated. ERM CVS conducts all its work under strict rules to safeguard impartiality and ensure the independence of the verification team. ERM Certification and Verification Services 6 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

7 The verification does not provide any consulting or recommendations for the client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the monitoring activities Appointment of Team Members and Technical Reviewer Based on ERM CVS s review of the project, a verification team was established that takes into account the coverage of the technical area(s), sectoral scope(s) and relevant host country experience for verifying the emission reductions achieved by the project activity in the relevant monitoring period for this verification Personnel who undertook this verification were: Verification Team Role CDM Knowledge GS Knowledge Technical Area Host country Participated in site visit? Neringa Pumputyte Team Leader Yes Yes Full Yes Yes Oliver Bain Support Verifier under training Yes No No No Yes Technical Review Role CDM Knowledge GS Knowledge Expertise relevant to Technical Area Host country Participated in site visit? Miguel Cortes Technical Reviewer Yes Yes Yes No No Jonathan Avis Support Technical Reviewer Yes Yes Yes No No Neringa Pumputyte has been working with CDM for over 4 years, initially as a consultant and project developer and now as an assessor and client account manager. Neringa has completed 6 validations and verifications as an assessor in the sectors of renewable energy, energy demand, LFG, and fugitive emissions (oil and gas), and is working on a number of other validations and verifications focusing on African region. This included work on 3 Gold Standard verifications in Kenya and a validation in Kenya. Before joining ERM CVS, Neringa worked on hydro and cook stove projects as well as numerous waste handling projects as a CDM project developer. Neringa has completed the ERM CVS CDM training, GHG Management Institute s training on renewable energy, and attended Gold Standard training webinar on "Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption" as well as beginner and advanced DOE Gold Standard training webinars. Neringa also has a BSc and MSc in Geography, and an MSc in Environmental Change and Management from the University of Oxford. Oliver Bain has joined ERM CVS in He has completed the ERM CVS CDM validation and verification training course and has been working with validation and verification teams supporting them to ensure completeness and consistency of reports. Prior to this he was a consultant at an underwater noise research company. He has a BSc in Marine Biology and Oceanography, and an MSc in Environmental Dynamics and Climatic Change. Miguel Cortes has 7 years of CDM experience, 5 of which was spent working as a project developer and 2 as a Technical Reviewer and Lead Assessor for ERM CVS. Miguel has undertaken 26 validations and 14 verifications in Renewable Energies (Scope 1), Manufacturing (Scope 4), Mineral Production (Scope 8) and Metal Production (Scope 9). Miguel has 9 years direct experience in the Cement industry, which included cement operations and mineral extraction/mining related activities. Miguel also has 5 years experience as a consultant for GHG emission reduction projects in the sectoral scopes of manufacturing, Mining, and metal production, including WHR, Biofuels, Biomass Production and Hydro Power CDM projects. Miguel has completed the ERM CVS CDM training and Gold Standard training. Miguel holds a BSc and MSc in Civil Engineering Jonathan Avis is CDM Business Manager for ERM CVS, and a GHG Assessor and Technical Reviewer with over 6 years experience in the CDM. Since joining ERM CVS Jonathan has worked as a Technical Reviewer or GHG Assessor on more than 30 CDM validations in Renewable Energy (scope 1), more than 10 CDM validations in Manufacturing Industries (scope 04), 6 CDM validations in Mining (scope 8), and 5 CDM validations in Waste Handling and Disposal (scope 13). Jonathan s previous work experience involved screening and due diligence of carbon projects, Project Design Document (PDD) development, quality assurance and technical review of CDM project documentation, the development of carbon monitoring plans, and management of carbon projects through the validation, registration and verification stages. Jonathan has completed the ERM CVS CDM training as well as the GHGMI Renewable Energy training and Gold Standard training. Jonathan holds a BA in Geography and an MSc in Environmental Change and Management from the University of Oxford. ERM Certification and Verification Services 7 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

8 3.4. Verification activities The verification approach is based on the approach depicted in the CDM VVS. The verification activities are designed to evaluate: Whether sufficient evidence is available, both in terms of frequency (time period between evidence) and in covering the full monitoring period; The source and nature of the evidence (external or internal, oral or documented, etc); Cross checks with comparable information available from sources other than that used in the monitoring report Desk review A detailed desk review was undertaken prior to the site visit. This included the PDD /3/, the carbon monitoring plan /4/, the GS Passport and sustainability monitoring plan /7/, the validation report /5/, the applied monitoring methodology /8/, previous verifications report /6/, relevant external data and reports, on-site documents, and relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board. The desk review included A review of the data and information presented to verify completeness and consistency in accordance with relevant GS requirements A review of the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements, quality of metering equipment (including calibration requirements) and the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures An evaluation of data management and the QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions. An external review initiated by The Gold Standard based on comments raised by stakeholders during the issuance review process, and carried out by an expert group /35/. The details of the review process, the findings and recommendations are available in revised monitoring report /01/ A complete list of all documents reviewed is contained in Annex Site Visit A site visit to the project activity was undertaken on November 2012 to assess implementation and operation of the project activity and to review evidence, and interview key personnel to confirm evidence associated with the data generation, aggregation, calculation and reporting of the monitoring parameters. The site visit addressed: An assessment of the project implementation and operation as per the PDD /3/ and the GS Passport /7/ (including visiting households where the project has been implemented); Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; Interviews with relevant personnel to confirm that the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. A list of all interviewees is included in Annex 2. A cross-check between information provided in the monitoring report /1/ and data from other sources such as log books, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources to establish the existence of a clear audit trail and records that validate or invalidate the stated data; A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions; A review of assessment made in determining sustainability indicators; Identification of quality control procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters ERM Certification and Verification Services 8 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

9 During the site visit, the verification team conducted 71 household interviews across the 5 areas of the Western Province included in the project boundary. These household interviews included visits to Lifestraw recipient households previously surveyed by the PP to confirm reliability of the previously collected information and ensure data was collected as per the monitoring plan, as well as households not surveyed to cross check the validity of monitored data across the entire project for key VER parameters and sustainability indicators. The Western Province covers 6 areas and 32 districts. From each area, the verification team selected at least one district for household visits. The districts selected were different from the ones selected in previous verification. During this verification period the PP conducted monitoring surveys (or Spot Checks, as named by the PP) in two phases: Phase 3 during April-May 2012, and Phase 4 during October The verification team selected a sample of households from both surveys for the interviews. A breakdown of the household visits per district is presented in the table below. Area District # households surveyed Percentage of total surveyed Bungoma Bungoma South % 3 Busia Butula % 0 Busia Samia % 0 Kakamega Mumias % 0 Vihiga Vihiga % 0 Webuye Bungoma North % 0 Mount Elgon % 0 Total 74 3 Removed as outliers The table below presents the same of households visited by the DOE that had been surveyed by the PP in this monitoring period PP Monitoring Survey # households Percentage of total VF-MR2-Survey**: % - Phase % - Phase % - Surveyed in both 1 1.4% Non-surveyed by PP* % Removed as outliers % Total 71 * More households among these were surveyed by the PP. However, they were surveyed after 27 October ** PP s monitoring surveys are described in section Out of the 74 visited households, one was non-user, and 3 were removed as outliers from the total sample Reporting After the site visit, a draft report is prepared with the preliminary findings of the verification. Where it is not possible to confirm compliance, the verification team raised findings as follows: Clarification Request (CL): where information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable Gold Standards requirements have been met. Corrective Action Request (CAR): This is issued where: o Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; o Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impair ERM Certification and Verification Services 9 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

10 the estimate of emission reductions; o Issues identified in a Forward Action Request (FAR) during validation (or previous verification) to be verified have not been resolved by the project participants. The verification process may be stopped until this information has been made available to the verifiers satisfaction. Failure to address a CL may result in a CAR. Information or clarification provided as a result of a CL may also lead to a CAR. Forward Action Requests (FAR) may also be raised for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period. These have no impact upon the completion of the current verification activity. After satisfactory close out of CARs and CLs, the final report presents the verification activities undertaken, the issues raised, and explains how these issues have been closed out to enable the final verification conclusions to be made Independent technical review The verification activities and content of the report are subject to a review by an independent technical reviewer. The role of the Technical Reviewer is to provide oversight that all procedures have been followed by the verification team and all conclusions justified and supported by evidence. The Technical Reviewer will either accept or reject the recommendations made by the verification team. ERM Certification and Verification Services 10 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

11 4. Verification Findings 4.1. Status of open issues from previous verifications (if applicable) Forward Action Request Date and document (Validation or verification) Verification activities undertaken to close the FAR Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not FAR 1. Comment: It appears that several questions in the monitoring surveys conducted were presented in a manner that limits the interviewee s response options. Specifically: (a) The EXP-MR1-FAR- Survey asked the question: Before receiving LifeStraw Family, if the time and money it takes to gather or buy wood and boil your water were not a problem, would you have boiled it to make sure it was safe? Yes or no? If No explain. It appears that this question limits household responses to yes or no on water boiling as the preferred method as opposed to an open ended question allowing the household to give any response (e.g., Before receiving LifeStraw Family, if time, money, and resources were limitless, how would you make sure your water was safe?). It should be noted, however, the verification team did ask an open ended question during its household interviews and determined Xboil to be close to 0.8. As such, this value is deemed appropriate by the verification team. 1 st verification report prepared by ERM CVS, 14 February 2012 /6/ ERM CVS reviewed questionnaires used by VF in VF- MR2-Survey, phases 3 and 4 /18/ /19/ as well as notes on questionnaires used for training surveyors (spotcheckers) and general training material for surveyors /12/ /14/ and can confirm that questions on uses of filtered water (part (b) of the FAR comment) were revised. The survey included the following question: What do you use the LifeStraw filtered water for? with the following choices were read aloud to survey respondents: Drinking Washing hands Cleaning fruits and vegetables Feeding livestock Washing linens Cooking Making coffee or tea Other Other questions asked to quantify filtered water used for creditable purposes and if respondents also said that they use filtered water for any of non-creditable purposes quantification of filtered water used for non-creditable purposes. ERM CVS conducted household interviews during the site visit and found that as a result of wide-reaching education campaign (please see description in section 4.2.1), it is inherently difficult to understand during interviews or surveys whether household responses about their uses of filtered water are honest. Among the key aspects of the education campaign was education on health-related uses of safe water (which are the creditable uses, namely drinking, washing hands, and washing fruits and vegetables), as well as correct use of Lifestraw filter. The campaign has resulted in high use of the filters (see validation of usage factor in section 4.4.3) but households may also be tending to respond in way they were educated, i.e. that they use filtered water for these creditable purposes. During ERM CVS s interviews with households, interviewees were often jumping ahead and providing information on the uses of water before they were even asked the question. This also appears to signal the effects of the education campaign. CL 1 (b) In the VF-MR1-Survey questionnaire, the question to get at Lbl,i,y does not ask about other potential uses of filtered water e.g., for cooking and making tea. The question appears to limit responses on other uses of ERM CVS therefore varied the way questions are asked and to what extent the responses are further clarified, especially when households respond also on the quantity on the used water. However, attempts to further clarify and confirm responses often confused the interviewees. The way of asking where various options ERM Certification and Verification Services 11 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

12 treated water. It should be noted, however, the verification team did ask an open ended question during its household interviews and determined that approximately 50% of respondents use 25% of their water for non-creditable purposes. The Project Proponent addressed this by applying a non-creditable usage discount to the carbon emission reduction calculations leading to a reduction in VERs claimed, which was deemed appropriate by the verification team. are read out still appears to be the most suitable option. The parameter X boil was not updated in this verification period, as it has to be updated every two years. It was determined in the previous verification period, and this period lasted 11 months, therefore it is acceptable that the parameter was not updated in this period. However CL 1 was raised as the monitoring report does not discuss how this part of FAR 1 is/will be taken into account. In the revised MR, explanation was included on how the questions will be modified for determining parameter X boil in the next survey when the parameter will have to be updated. The suggested modified wording of the question is not leading and is considered suitable. This addresses the FAR 1 from the previous verification and CL 1 was therefore closed. FAR: Project developers should ensure during the next required surveys that the questions are presented in an open ended manner. FAR 2 Comment: Electronic copies of records that are crucial for the verification process are not stored in a central data bank which is backed up. Electronic copies are kept on the hard drives of laptops of personnel (e.g., District Co-ordinators) who work for the company but do not have VF laptops. Examples of documents and data that are kept in this way include: 1 st verification report prepared by ERM CVS, 14 February 2012 /6/ The verification team interviewed the project s IT coordinator, who showed the system of shared folders stored in a central location accessible from the project staff s computers via a secure link. The information is stored on a server, which is backed up by servers in 3 other countries. The raw distribution data as well as the VF-MR-Survey (spot check) results are stored on a database in back-up servers. The stock management system underwent a change during this monitoring period (please see section for more details). The key documents are also stored on the shared folder. FAR 2 was therefore sufficiently addressed. - Scanned copies of Stock Cards - Distribution Stock Data.xlxs - Raw data of LifeStraw Family units distributed - Stock Control cards FAR: Project developer should compile a register of all documents related to the monitoring parameters that may be used for verification purposes and capture this on a central databank which is ERM Certification and Verification Services 12 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

13 virus protected and backed up. FAR 3 Comment: The monitoring mechanisms that are implemented to conduct internal verification of parameters are the conduct of surveys. The quality assurance and checks for this are the independent surveys that were conducted by EXP. Training records that are available for the MR1 survey were incomplete and did not indicate the date of training as well as the type of training that was conducted. The project proponent did not ensure competency evaluations were conducted for these surveyors based on the fact that it was deemed that researchers were experienced. Training records for the EXP researchers were also not available, although, based on discussions with EXP, steps were taken (e.g., shadowing researchers) to ensure surveys were being conducted correctly. FAR: 1 st verification report prepared by ERM CVS, 14 February 2012 /6/ Surveys were conducted by Vestergaard Frandsen (main survey) and EXP (quality check survey). ERM CVS reviewed a package of materials used for training spot-checkers (surveyors of the VF-MR2- Survey) /12/ /13/ /14/ and interviewed two surveyors during the site visit. The package included a list of spotchecker objectives, an overview of the Lifestraw Family technology, messages regarding the importance of clean water and good kitchen routines, and the repair and replacement service run by Vestergaard. ERM CVS can confirm that the training of the spot-checkers included practical exercises and scenario-based role playing, to encourage proper practice when in the household. Instructions were also provided on how to overcome problems such as if no one is home or the quality of education was poor. There were also detailed notes on how to use the phone to upload and collate all forms each day. The final slides of the training PowerPoint were aimed at improving the spot-checkers assessment of responses on quantification of water usage. It encouraged probing for further answers if usage estimations didn t quite add up. The spot checks were done during the education campaign by quality supervisors and district coordinators. All temporary staff went through the training. During the spot-checks, volunteers were requested not to wear any Lifestraw labelled clothing, and to introduce themselves as an employees of the Ministry of Public Health. Based on interviews with the PP, the quality supervisors of the VF campaign were hired from Public Health Master students and recent graduates from Kenya and from John Hopkins University. However, CL 2 was raised for providing evidence, i.e. a full list of spot checkers and their education/competence or records of training provided. CL 2 Project developer should ensure that complete training and competency records are available for surveyors and researchers for any future surveys to be conducted. Subsequently Vestergaard provided detailed documents regarding surveyor credentials and training /33//34/. The documents provided clearly outlined the training level and competency for all surveyors involved with the VF- MR2 Survey /033/. Training attendance sheets for surveyors were also provided. A summary description of the competence evaluation and training is included in the revised MR. Therefore CL 2 was closed. For the EXP survey (QA/QC), the verification team reviewed a package of training materials and records provided by EXP /13/ /14/ /19/. This includes questionnaire, training curriculum, summary of results of surveyor assessment role play, and training register. EXP representative was also interviewed. ERM CVS can confirm that training included training on how the questions should be asked, and practical exercises as well as role plays to practice how questions are translated and understood. The EXP agency applies education requirements for its staff, and only surveyors with previous experience were used for conducting this survey. ERM Certification and Verification Services 13 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

14 FAR 1 PP shall ensure that the SD indicator Air quality is monitored and provide Kitchen Surveys and relevant academic reports or literature using decreased fuel as a proxy for improved air quality in time for the next issuance Gold Standard s feedback form after 3 week review of 1 st verification, 14 February 2012 Please refer to section where monitoring of the indicator Air quality is verified. CL 8 FAR 2 PP shall demonstrate how the water filters were safely disposed in time for the next issuance Gold Standard s feedback form after 3 week review of 1 st verification, 14 February 2012 ERM CVS visited the project s central warehouse in Kakamega and service centres in 6 districts, and checked stock records. Any broken Lifestraw filters are dismantled and parts sorted into functioning / still-to-beused ones, and broken ones not suitable for further use and stored in the central warehouse. Earlier during the project s implementation, new Lifestraw filters were also dismantled into separate parts. Examples of delivery notes of functioning parts from central warehouse were checked. The broken parts were confirmed to be stored in the central warehouse by visual inspection. Verification team can confirm that no units were disposed of in landfills to date. For details on findings from checking stock records please refer to section Project Implementation in accordance with the PDD As per VVS chapter IX section D.1, ERM CVS evaluated the conformity of the project activity and its operation with the PDD /3/. This assessment was undertaken on the basis of the site visit, review of documents and interviews with relevant personnel. During the site visit, ERM CVS assessed whether all physical features of the project as described in the PDD are in place and that the PP has operated the project in accordance with operational criteria set out in the PDD /3 Based on the information available on the Gold Standard registry, the project was registered on 04 February The date of this monitoring period are 01 December 2011 to 31 October 2012, which is within the crediting period of 01 June 2011 to 31 May No new creditable Lifestraw units were distributed during this period, and this was confirmed by reviewing the database maintained by Vestergaard Fransden and interviewing project staff at different levels. Demonstration units were distributed to institutions such as schools, but these are not included in the project boundary, i.e. the project does not claim emission reductions for these units. This is conservative Overview of project design The project activity involves distribution of 877,505 Lifestraw Family water filters (from herein referred to as Lifestraw units) to rural households in the Western Province of Kenya. The households received Lifestraw units for free during a distribution campaign in April/May 2011, which also involved training recipients on how to use and maintain the Lifestraw filter properly. The units were distributed by around 4,000 distributors from a central location in the Western province and 168 distribution sites. After the units were distributed and recipients trained on the use of the Lifestraw units, some of the distribution sites were transformed into service centres. During this verification period, there were 32 service centres (one per district) run by 40 district coordinators and 6 area coordinators. During the development of the PDD, there were 19 districts in Western Kenya. During the original distribution campaign in April/May 2011, there were 31 Districts that made up Western Province. Between May 2011 and August 2011, the largest district Kakamega Central was split again into 2 districts. These 32 districts make up the same Western Province boundary and include the same population as was originally defined in the PDD. ERM Certification and Verification Services 14 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

15 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not What is the Implementation and operation status of the project? Are all physical features of the project activity in place as per the PDD? Based on the review of documentation provided, and the site visit, ERM CVS evaluated whether the project has been implemented and equipment installed and operated as described in the PDD /3/ and GS Passport /7/. During the ERM CVS site visit, the verification team Visited the central warehouse, and 6 out of 32 Lifestraw service centres Visited a sample of households that had received Lifestraw filters and interviewed them. Interviewed the staff responsible for servicing of the Lifestraw units, running the education campaign, and monitoring of the project The project has been implemented as described in the approved PDD and and GS Passport /3/ /7/. No Lifestraw family units were distributed to new/additional households. In total 1121 Lifestraw units were replaced, i.e. 0.13% of all units distributed. Education campaign Part of the project implementation is running education campaigns. Based on interviews, review of campaign material, and records in the database, during this verification period two phases of education campaign were carried one Phase 3 in April/May 2012, and Phase 4 in October The verification site visit was towards the end of Phase 4 of education campaign, therefore the verification team witnessed how the campaign is run. As confirmed by checking payroll records and an interview with the project s accountant, 1,943 educators were employed in phase 3, and 1,913 educators were used in phase 4 of the campaign. During the campaign, they went door to door to households in the project area and spent between 20 min and half an hour speaking with households on whether and how they use Lifestraw, and educating them about correct use of the units, safe drinking water and other health-related uses of water, as well as other health aspects. The campaign is centred on public health aspects. About 90% of the project households are reached in each campaign. Stock management The verification team visited 6 service centres and checked samples of stock cards, delivery notes and Lifestraw damage checklists. The team also inspected a central warehouse and checked its stock records. A number of small inconsistencies were found either between the delivery notes and stock cards, or between stock cards and damage checklists. There appear to be too many paper forms for staff to fill in and transfer information from one form to another, resulting in transcription errors and inconsistencies. Based on interviews with the project staff responsible for stock management, ERM CVS understands that Vestergaard Frandsen had identified this weakness during the running of the project and initiated a change in the stock management system. The new system includes keeping stock balance sheets, and daily checklists where each repair that results in part replacement, is recorded in a line of the form as opposed to a separate paper form. The balance sheets and daily checklists for ERM Certification and Verification Services 15 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

16 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not October were checked in 6 service centres and the balances were found to be consistent with damage reports and sampled delivery notes. Reporting from service centres is now phone-based and information is consolidated electronically. The new stock management system was tested in July-August and started implementation in September Has there been any variance in the information (data and variables) provided in the monitoring report compared with the PDD and which has caused an increase in emission reductions or likely to increase the estimates in future monitoring periods? The verification team compared emissions reductions stated in the monitoring report with emissions reductions estimated in the PDD taking into account the monitoring period length. The verification team performed the following actions to evaluate the reasons for the difference: Reviewed spreadsheets with raw data of VF-MR2- Survey results /11/ and VER calculations spreadsheet /11/ Compared the emission reductions per Lifestraw unit between the monitoring report and the PDD Compared the monitored parameter values with the values used in ex-ante ER calculations in the PDD During the monitoring period, the emission reductions are higher lower than the emission reductions predicted ex ante in the PDD for an equivalent number of days. Total VERs for the second monitoring period 01 December October 2012 are 1,701,5632,448,139 tco 2e. According to the PDD estimate for the same 336 day period, VERs were estimated to be 1,908,598 tco 2e. I.e., actual emission reductions are 11% lower 28% higher than the ex-ante estimate from the PDD, adjusted for the monitoring period length. As the actual number units distributed is smaller than estimated, ERM CVS compared emission reductions per Lifestraw unit per length of time between actual monitored values and ex-ante estimation in the PDD: actual emission reductions per unit ( tco2e/year) are 502% higher than the estimate in the PDD (2.02 tco2e/year). The verification team compared the monitoring parameter values estimated in the PDD and actual monitored parameters used in this verification period, and found that the differences in emission reductions are due to the following: The biggest effect was from the updated value of non-renewable biomass fraction (X NRB,bl,y) which changed from 65% in the PDD to 93% used in the 1 st and 2 nd verification periods, i.e. increased by 43%. The NRB fraction was updated in the previous verification period and was not updated in this verification period. Usage factor has indecreased from 83% in the PDD to % in this verification period, i.e. an indecrease by of 812%. The value in the PDD was based on a survey of users from a pilot campaign. Usage parameter in this verification period is based on the survey conducted in this period and is validated in section Percentage of beneficiaries who would boil water to make it safe ERM Certification and Verification Services 16 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

17 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not (parameter X boil) increased from 71% to 79.6%, i.e. by 12%. The value in the PDD was based on a baseline survey of only 17 households. This parameter was updated and verified in the first verification period and was not updated in this (second) verification period. L bl, litres of treated water in the baseline, is significantly lower in this monitoring period than in the PDD, dropping from 4.11 to 2.63, a decrease of 36%. Please refer to the section for the validation of this parameter. See Section 4.7 for further discussion of estimated emission reductions compared with those predicted in the PDD Does the monitoring report (sections A and B) correctly state the implementation and operational status of the project activity? ERM CVS carried out the following activities to evaluate whether the Monitoring Report correctly describes the implementation and operational status of the project activity: Review of monitoring report /1/ Interviews with project staff at different levels The description of project implementation was not sufficiently clear and consistent in the first version of the monitoring report: - Description refers to distribution campaign and number of employees from the distribution phase, which was reported in the first verification period is not relevant for this verification period - The report is not consistent on the monitoring period length and is unclear whether education campaign and survey activities done in October 2012 are covered or not, and whether 3 or 2 surveys were conducted. CL 3 - Survey dates are inconsistent and not in line with the dates in the spreadsheet with survey s results - The report says that the project is opening service centres, when they have been operational during the whole of the verification period CL 3 was raised to revise description of the project implementation. The updated monitoring report now clearly refers to two surveys, one conducted by VF and one by EXP, the first of which was conducted in two phases. It also consistently refers to the length of the monitoring period until 31 October 2012, the report clearly presents the education campaign and survey dates, and description of implementation such as functioning of service centres reflects the actual situation of implementation as confirmed based on the site visit. CL 3 was ERM Certification and Verification Services 17 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

18 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not therefore closed. Based on the verifier s site visit, it can be confirmed that all physical features of the project activity have been fully implemented in accordance with the PDD /3/ and the GS Passport /7/ and the monitoring equipment was installed as described in the approved Monitoring Plan /4/. ERM CVS confirmed, through the visual inspection that all physical features of the GS project activity have been implemented in accordance with the PDD. The project activity was also confirmed to be fully operational in accordance with the PDD /3/. ERM CVS confirmed during the site visit that: no component has been added nor the technology has been extended; the scale of the project has not changed; the applicability criteria of the methodology are maintained Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology As per VVS chapter IX section D.2, ERM CVS evaluated whether the monitoring plan complies with the requirements of the applied methodology. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring plan in compliance with the applied methodology? The verification team reviewed the monitoring plan in the PDD /3/ and compared it against the requirements of the applied methodology /8/ ERM CVS confirms that appropriate provisions are included for the monitoring and reporting procedures, data management, and QA/QC procedures. Monitoring processes for the data and parameters, which are required to be monitored by the methodology, are included in the monitoring plan. The application of the monitoring methodology was found to be appropriate and ERM CVS confirms that the monitoring plan is consistent with the requirements of Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version 2 /8/. ERMCVS confirms that the registered monitoring plan is in accordance with the methodology applied for the Gold Standard project activity Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan As per VVS chapter IX section D.3, ERM CVS evaluated whether the monitoring of emission reductions has been implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. The verification team evaluated whether the monitoring plan and the applied ERM Certification and Verification Services 18 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

19 methodology have been properly implemented and followed by the PPs, in particular, whether: All parameters stated in the monitoring plan, the applied methodology and relevant EB decisions have been sufficiently monitored and updated as applicable, including: o Project, baseline and leakage emission parameters (see section 4.4.1); o Management and operational system (see section 4.4.2); The accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is in accordance with relevant guidance provided by the CDM EB and is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ (see section 5) Overview of monitoring system The project monitoring is primarily based on surveys. In addition, stock room count records and third party studies are used for some parameters. There were two surveys conducted in 3 phases that form the data set used in the monitoring report. They were: 1. Survey conducted by Vestergaard Frandsen in two parts; Phase 3 and Phase 4, throughout the months of April-May and October respectively in Although the survey was conducted in two phases, the results are integrated and a single set of mean monitored values is calculated. This survey is the primary data set for several monitoring parameters and is referred to hereafter as VF-MR2-Survey. The survey was conducted to check usage, amount of Lifestraw-treated water used for drinking and washing vegetables, fruits and hands, number of persons per household, as well as some of the sustainability indicators. The data was collected using smartphones and was automatically uploaded to the project database. Export excel file as used for processing the data and calculating parameter values (VF-MR2-Survey_Processed.csv) /11/. The surveys were conducted in conjunction with Education Campaigns throughout all of the districts. The campaigns aimed at reaching 90% of all households where Lifestraw units had been distributed, and focused on checking how households use filters, reminding them correct Lifestraw filter usage, as well as educating about health-related uses of water. 2. Survey conducted in by EXP Agency and reported in August 2012 report Vestergaard Frandsen: Lifestraw Family Monitoring Survey Report Western Province, Kenya 8/4/2012 by EXP Momentum, Kenya. The purpose was third party spot check of VF-MR2-Survey. This survey is referred to as EXP-MR2-Survey. In VF documents, the surveys are called Spot-checks, as they integrate checking effectiveness of health education campaigns as well as monitoring of part of the carbon and sustainability parameters. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Were surveys conducted according to the monitoring plan? The verification team reviewed the monitoring report /3/, raw data spreadsheets from VF and EXP surveys /11/ /26/, and spreadsheets with processed data from VF surveys /10/ Interviewed Vestergaard staff responsible for monitoring, two surveyors (spot-checkers), and a representative of EXP At the time of the draft report, according to the Spreadsheet with processed survey data /10/, the total sample size of Phase 3 of the VF survey was 13,257 households, conducted from 11 April to 19 May However, spreadsheet with raw data included results from interviews conducted earlier and later than those dates /11/. Based on interviews with the project staff, interviews in earlier dates were trials of the questionnaire. However, the discrepancy on the end of the survey period was not clear, and it resulted in a slightly different result when the verification team repeated processing steps for calculating L bl please refer to section Further, the monitoring report referred to the sample size of 14,144, which was not consistent with the processed data spreadsheet. CL 4 FAR 1 A similar discrepancy was found with regard to the sample size from phase 4 of the survey. According to the Spreadsheet with processed survey data /10/, data used in the first version of the monitoring report was based on 5,276 ERM Certification and Verification Services 19 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

20 interviews conducted from 15 to 27 October The monitoring report referred to the sample size of 5,586, which was not consistent with the spreadsheet. Further surveys were conducted in remaining days of the verification period but were not used in ER calculations. CL 4 was raised to clarify the data sets from both VF survey phases that are used in VER calculations. The revised MR and revised workbooks are now consistent with regard to datasets. The dataset from the Phase 3 of the survey includes 14,059 entries dated from 11 April 2012 to 24 May 2012, and from phase 4 it is 7,547 entries dated from 15 to 31 October This forms the raw data set before removing outliers. The outliers were considered households with fewer than 1 person and more than 20 persons another step was added for identifying entries that are unrealistic and are considered outliers. This additional step was previously (in the first version of the spreadsheet) step 7 and in the revised workbook it is step 2. It removes households that indicated rather high daily usage of filtered water and also indicated not frequent filtering, resulting in implied high amount of water filtered in a day when filtering takes place. The PP selected a threshold of 70 litres per day because filtering over 70L per day using a Lifestraw Family unit seems unrealistic considering the flow rate. This assumption is reasonable based on manufacturer specifications /32/. It is useful that questions on the frequency of using the filters and daily usage of filtered water were not following each other in the PP s questionnaires /18//19/. This allowed identifying respondents whose responses are not consistent in the logic. As it is not possible to say which of the answers were over- or underestimations, and it is likely that those households did not provide honest answers, it is correct to remove such entries as outliers. ERM CVS repeated the processing steps for removing outliers and obtained the same number of entries used for analysis: 13, in Phase 3 and 7,1026,912 in Phase 4 datasets. After these revisions ERM CVS can confirm that processing of the dataset to remove outliers is appropriate and those steps were carried out correctly, and therefore CL 4 was closed. As data collection is done on phone applications, there are no transcription errors. The EXP survey was conducted on 252 households, out of which 213 were used for analysis after removing those whose ERM Certification and Verification Services 20 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

21 responses could not be verified. The information on sample size is consistent between the survey report /15/ and the spreadsheet with data /26/. The verification team checked a sample of 10 paper questionnaire forms filled in by EXP against the data in the spreadsheet. Two inconsistencies were found they were on cases where the original value recorded by the surveyor differed from the value recorded by the person who was verifying information by telephone. The forms are not sufficiently clear on which data is confirmed as correct. As this survey is a quality check survey this discrepancy was evaluated not to have a material effect in this verification. However, FAR 1 is raised to ensure that in case data is verified by telephone after conducting face to face interviews, there is clear recording on which data is confirmed to be correct. Both survey sizes sufficiently meet the minimum sample size requirements from the methodology /8/ and the monitoring plan /4/ Completeness of monitoring parameters The verification team evaluated the monitoring of each parameter stated in the monitoring plan /4/. The parameters included in the monitoring plan are listed below and a full description of each parameter and the verification activities associated with monitoring of each one is included in Section Monitored parameter in monitoring plan Parameter Description Included in section D.2 of the Monitoring Report? Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not X nrb,bl,y Non-renewability of woody biomass fuel in year y in baseline scenario Yes, included but not updated during this verification period. This is acceptable as the monitoring frequency is biennial X nrb,pj,y Non-renewability of woody biomass fuel in year y in project scenario Yes, included but not updated during this verification period. This is acceptable as the monitoring frequency is biennial i y Number of LifeStraw units distributed Yes, included LE, y B bl,i,y B pj,i,y Leakage; potential GHG emissions outside project boundary caused by project activity Mass of woody biomass combusted in the baseline in year y Mass of woody biomass combusted in the project in year y Yes, included Yes, included Yes, included U y Usage of water treatment units in place Yes, included W i New stove performance and existing stove performance Yes, included but not monitored during this verification period L bl,i,y Litres of treated water in the baseline Yes, included ERM Certification and Verification Services 21 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

22 L pj,i,y P i,y X boil Litres of treated water still boiled in the project activity Yes, included Average people per LifeStraw Family Yes, included unit Percentage of users that would boil water as a form of water treatment Yes, included but not updated during this verification period AF pj,i,y Alternative fuel consumed in the project Yes, included but not monitored for this verification period. This is acceptable as the monitoring frequency is biennial Data and parameters monitored The verification findings for the monitoring of each parameter are set out below Data / Parameter: X nrb,b,y Baseline Emissions Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default Fraction Non-renewability of woody biomass fuel in year y in baseline scenario Calculated based on a study Calculation of the Non-Renewable Biomass usage for project areas in accordance with the Gold Standard methodology (Version 02), prepared by C4EcoSolutions for co2balance. Not updated in this verification period Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring procedure The NRB fraction was not updated in this verification period. A study conducted in November 2010 is used as a source. ERM CVS checked the third party study /30/ and can confirm that value used in the monitoring report is consistent with the average value of NRB fraction identified in the 5 areas studied in the third party study. b) Monitoring/recording frequency The MR specifies that the NRB fraction needs to be updated at least biannually /1/. The value was updated in the previous monitoring report at the end of The study used as a source was conducted in November Therefore according to the frequency specified in the MR and methodology, it is acceptable that the value was not updated in this verification period. c) Check of QA/QC procedures N/a as it s a third party study d) Cross checks Not applicable, as the parameter was not updated in this verification period. e) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from original study to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirms it is correct. ERM Certification and Verification Services 22 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

23 Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, study has been conducted in accordance with the approved methodology, and study results used appropriately /4/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: X nrb,pj,y Project Emissions Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default Fraction Non-renewability of woody biomass fuel in year y in project scenario Calculated based on a study Calculation of the Non-Renewable Biomass usage for project areas in accordance with the Gold Standard methodology (Version 02), prepared by C4EcoSolutions for co2balance /30/. Not updated in this verification period Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? See verification of X nrb,b,y above. Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, study has been conducted in accordance with the approved methodology, and study results used appropriately /4/.. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. ERM Certification and Verification Services 23 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

24 Data / Parameter: i y Baseline and Project Emissions Data unit: Units/year Description: Number of LifeStraw units distributed Measured/calculated/ default Calculated based on stockroom count Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring procedure The Lifestraw Family units were distributed during a campaign between 28 April June No new units were distributed outside of this distribution campaign. Some demonstration units were donated to certain institutions such as schools. These units are not counted for emission reductions however, to maintain a conservative approach for the project. Replacement units were provided to households whose units were beyond repair or stolen. Spare parts were also available to repair any unit, and accurate records of all stock are kept. Please refer to section for validation of stock management b) Monitoring/recording frequency Not applicable. c) Check of QA/QC procedures Not applicable, as no units were distributed to new / additional households in this verification period. d) Cross checks - Not applicable. e) Check of information flow Not applicable. Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. ERM Certification and Verification Services 24 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

25 Data / Parameter: LE y Leakage Emissions Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default t CO 2e/y Leakage; potential GHG emissions outside project boundary caused by project activity Calculated Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Input values and calculation Leakage associated with the unit production and transport from production site to the project site was correctly calculated using assumptions and values from the approved PDD. CAR 1 In the revised MR, as a result of CAR 1 (see point b below) the PP included leakage emissions from motorcycle transport during extensive education campaigns. ERM CVS checked the assumptions and calculations: assumptions on motorcycle use are in line with payroll records and distances seen during the site visit; calculations were performed correctly b) Monitoring/recording frequency The monitoring plan specifies that the Ley calculation methodology will be reviewed with biennial monitoring frequency. This verification period ends 1.5 years from the date of project registration, therefore evaluation of leakage is not mandatory according to the monitoring plan. However, considering extensive activities of education campaigns which were not described in the PDD, the verification team considers that leakage sources should be reviewed in this verification period. CAR 1 was therefore raised to review leakage sources. In the revised MR, the PP included leakage emissions from motorcycle transport during extensive education campaigns, and CAR 1 was closed. c) Check of QA/QC procedures No QA/QC requirements are specified for leakage assessment. d) Cross checks As leakage emissions represent 0.1% of emission reductions, no cross-check is performed. e) Check of information flow Values in the monitoring report and spreadsheet are consistent but calculations not sufficient please refer to CAR 1. The CAR 1 was closed once leakage assessment was revised to include leakage from transport during education campaigns. Does the monitoring report (section D) Please refer to CAR 1. The CAR 1 was closed once leakage assessment was CAR 1 ERM Certification and Verification Services 25 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

26 correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? revised to include leakage from transport during education campaigns ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: B bl,j,y Baseline Emissions Data unit: t /y Description: Mass of woody biomass combusted in the baseline in year y Measured/calculated/ default Calculated Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Input values i y refer to parameter verification above X boil refer to parameter verification below CL 5 L bl refer to parameter verification below W i refer to parameter verification below P y refer to parameter verification below In the first verification period, a 0.97 discount factor (3%) to account for use of fuels other than woody biomass and charcoal was used in calculation of B bl,i,y. However, this was not used in the first version of the MR in this verification period and the change was not explained in the monitoring report. During household interviews conducted by ERM CVS, 2 of the interviewed households (3%) reported electric or paraffin stove as the primary stove, and further 6 households (about 9%) reported some (secondary) use of fuels other than firewood and charcoal. CL 5 is therefore raised. In the revised MR /01/ and calculation spreadsheet /02/, the discount factor of is now used in calculations. The discount factor is derived from the VF- MR1-Survey, which asked about fuels used for cooking: households that use fuels other than woodfuel and charcoal are discounted. After these corrections were made, CL 5 was closed. b) Calculation Calculation is done by 1) determining the number of litres per person for each surveyed household (L bl), 2) averaging those values across the entire survey population, 3) averaging P y values across the survey populations, 4) calculating average B bl and adjusting it using the discount factor to account ERM Certification and Verification Services 26 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

27 for use of fuels other than woody biomass and charcoal /10/. This is in accordance with the methodology. c) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. d) Check of QA/QC procedures n/a as it is calculation e) Cross checks Please refer to cross-checks done for the input parameters. f) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the information flow is traceable. Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: B pj,j,y Project Data unit: t /y Description: Mass of woody biomass combusted in the project in year y Measured/calculated/ default Calculated Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Input values i y refer to parameter verification above X boil refer to parameter verification below CL 5 U y refer to parameter verification below ERM Certification and Verification Services 27 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

28 L bl refer to parameter verification below L pj refer to parameter verification below W i refer to parameter verification below P y refer to parameter verification below Please refer to CL 5 on the discount factor to account for use of fuels other than woody biomass and charcoal. In the revised MR /01/ and calculations spreadsheet /02/, the discount factor is used in calculations (see above), therefore CL 5 was closed. b) Calculation Calculation is done by 1) determining the number of litres per person for each surveyed household (L oj), 2) averaging those values across the entire survey population, 3) averaging P y values across the survey populations, 4) calculating average B pj /10/ and adjusting it using the discount factor. This is in accordance with the methodology. c) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. d) Check of QA/QC procedures n/a e) Cross checks Please refer to cross-checks done for the input parameters. f) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the information flow is traceable. Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: U y Project Emissions Data unit: Percentage ERM Certification and Verification Services 28 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

29 Description: Usage of water treatment units in place Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring Procedure The VF-MR2-Survey was the primary source of data for this parameter. The survey asked several questions which were used to assess the usage. After recommendations by the external experts on the assessment methods were provided /35/, the following survey s questions were used: What do you use to make your water safe now? (without reading out the choices) Does the safe storage container have LifeStraw filtered water in it? Can the person demonstrate how to filter water using the LifeStraw correctly? Can the person you are interviewing demonstrate how to backwash the LifeStraw correctly? How often do you backwash and clean the pre-filter? (without suggesting choices) Which tap is used for safe water? How many LITERS of filtered water does your family use for drinking, washing fruits and vegetables and hand washing each day? (based on amount of the jerry can used) How often do you use the LifeStraw filter? (without suggesting choices) respondents what they do with water to make it safe. In addition, they were asked to demonstrate how they use the Lifestraw unit and how they backwash it (which is required for correct functioning of the unit). If a household was not able to describe correct usage and was not able to show correct backwashing it was considered as a non-user, as correct usage and backwashing is indicative of routine use. As confirmed by reviewing the spreadsheet with processed data, Usage (Uy) is calculated as a fraction from total number of units distributed, of the number of respondents who: 1) responded LifeStraw when asked what they use to make their water safe 2) reported using filter at least once every two weeks or more frequently (i.e. response is not zero) 3) reported use of at least some volume of filtered water per day (i.e. response is not zero and not blank) 4) were able to properly demonstrate filtering 5) were able to properly demonstrate backwashing 6) reported cleaning the pre-filter and backwashing at least once every two weeks (i.e. response is not zero) 7) were able to correctly identify the blue tap used for safe water 8) Had some water in a safe storage container that they reported as LifeStraw filtered water ERM Certification and Verification Services 29 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

30 9) Did not need a replacement part for their filter 1) successfully demonstrated using or backwashing their Lifestraw unit and 2) who reported using their LifeStraw Family at least once every two weeks 3) reported filtering at least some water quantity b) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring was carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. This was confirmed via interviews with Vestergaard personnel who conducted the interviews and review of the VF-MR2-Survey results. c) Check of QA/QC procedures EXP survey was used as a quality check survey. The survey s result was a slightly higher usage value than VF survey s, therefore it is confirmed to be conservative to use value based on VF survey d) Cross checks ERM CVS visited 73 households, including visiting households randomly selected by the verification team when driving or walking in the villages. As part of interviews, if respondents indicated using the Lifestraw filters, they were asked to describe how they use it. A respondent was considered as a user if they correctly described correct usage as well as backwashing of the unit. Only one visited household, from the ones that had a Lifestraw unit, was not using it. It is ERM CVS s opinion that high usage is a result of the extensive education campaigns. The value used in the monitoring report is therefore deemed to be appropriate. e) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the information flow is traceable Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: W i Baseline and Project Emissions ERM Certification and Verification Services 30 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

31 Data unit: Kg/l Description: New stove performance and existing stove performance Measured/calculated/ default Measured Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Is the monitoring equipment appropriately installed and operated and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? The parameter was measured during Baseline Water Boiling Test (BWBT) performed before project registration. According to the monitoring plan, the tests will be conducted only if the Kitchen Test reveals that the baseline water boiling conditions have changed, necessitating a new BWBT. This parameter was not updated in the Monitoring Report, and no justification for this is provided. Hence, CL 6 was raised. CL 6 In the revised MR, justification was added referring to results of monitoring surveys on the fuels used by the project households for cooking purposes. The results show similar use of fuels as in the BWBT conducted before project registration. CL 6 was therefore closed. Does the monitoring report (section D) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Please refer to CL 6. After justification was included in the revised MR, CL 6 was closed and it is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate. CL 6 ERM CVS confirmed that the parameter did not have to be monitored in this verification period Data / Parameter: L bl,i,y Baseline Emissions Data unit: Litres of filtered water used /person /day Description: Litres of treated water in the baseline Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring Procedure The VF-MR2-Survey was meant to be the primary source of data for the amount of raw water treated, although the EXP s survey performed as a quality check resulted in a more conservative value, which was used in the VER calculations. The VF-MR2-Survey is validated first. CAR 2 CL 4 FAR FAR The sample was selected using random number generators. The sample size comfortably meets confidence and precision requirements. The relevant survey questions were directed first at finding for what purposes households used water, and then quantifying the amount of water used for the creditable purposes drinking, washing hands, and washing fruits and vegetables. ERM Certification and Verification Services 31 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

32 In phase 3, these were: 1) Question 19: What do you use the LifeStraw filtered water for? (Select Multiple): Drinking Washing hands Cleaning fruits and vegetables Feeding livestock Washing linen Cooking Making coffee or tea Other 1) Question 20: How many LITRES of filtered water does your family use for drinking, washing fruits and vegetables and hand washing each day? (based on amount of the jerry can used): More than 60. In this latter case, specify how many In phase 4, the questions were worded the same, only corresponded to numbers 27 and 28. After filtering out respondents who indicated 0 litres, the number of litres consumed per family per day was divided by the number of persons in the household. The resulting numbers were then capped at 6 L/person/day in line with the methodology /10/, and a lower bound value of the 90% confidence range of the resulting set was used for emission reduction calculations, However, ERM CVS found that the data set was not sufficiently analysed for identifying outliers. The questionnaires also included other questions that can be used for sense-checking the quantified usage per day. For example, from Phase 3, these were: 1) Question 7: Observation: How big is the safe storage container in LITRES? Smaller than 5 litres 5 litres 10 litres 20 litres Larger than 20 litres 1) Question 24: How often do you use the LifeStraw filter? (DO NOT READ OUT ANSWERS) Every day 3 times per week 2 times per week Once in a week Once in two weeks Do not filter water In phase 4, the observation about size of safe storage container was question number 21, and question about frequency of using Lifestraw was number 32. It is useful that questions related to water use were not presented in sequence but rather scattered in the questionnaire among other questions related to health. Analyzing the data set, the verification team found that there were cases ERM Certification and Verification Services 32 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

33 when respondents indicated a high quantity of litres used per day but rather rare use of the filter. E.g., a number of respondents said they used the Lifestraw filter twice a week but stated that they use 40, 50 or 60 litres per day. This means that in a day when the filter is used, the family would need to filter 140 litres or more. While high usage gets capped at 6 L/person/day for calculating VERs, such unrealistic responses indicated that some responses were not accurate, and it is not clear which responses are not correct. CAR 2 was therefore raised for the PP to analyse the data set further to identify questionable/unrealistic responses and outliers. The project participants addressed this aspect of CAR 2 by considering responses on the frequency of using Lifestraw and the daily amount of filtered water used: based on these responses, the amount of water filtered in a day when filtering takes place was calculated, and those households who stated filtering over 70L/day were identified as outliers and removed from analysis altogether. Based on specifications of the filter, it is not considered reasonable for a household to filter more than 70 L of water in a day. The DOE did not identify other unrealistic responses, therefore after these corrections, the dataset is deemed reliable. CAR 2 was closed. The processing steps described in the monitoring report for obtaining the value of L bl are confirmed to be in line with the PDD and methodology requirements. When ERM CVS tried repeating processing of the data for calculation of L bl the team obtained different results and it appears the data set in the spreadsheet with processed data and the raw data spreadsheet (export from the database) differ. Please refer to CL 4 to clarify which data set (from which periods) was used to calculate monitoring parameters. CL 4 and CAR 2 were closed after workbooks were corrected for the datasets and steps to identify and remove outliers. b) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. This was confirmed via interviews with Vestergaard personnel who conducted the interviews and review of the VF-MR2-Survey data. c) Check of QA/QC procedures ERM CVS confirmed by reviewing training material that training of VF and EXP surveyors was performed please see section 4.1 for more details. The EXP survey was used to check VF survey s findings. The main questions used about uses of filtered water and quantifying daily use for creditable purposes were worded the same way as in the VF-MR2-Survey /15/. ERM CVS analysed the data set from EXP survey /26/ and also found some cases where respondents indicated high daily usage but rare filtering please refer to CAR 2. The PP subsequently provided revised spreadsheet with EXP survey data, which included the same processing step to exclude outliers as explained above, and CAR 2 was closed. After excluding the outliers the data set is appropriate for calculation of monitoring parameters.. d) Cross checks ERM CVS sampled 29 VF-MR2-Surveyed households and visited them to conduct interviews. In the selection of a sample, ERM CVS selected part of the households randomly from the spreadsheet containing the PP s survey data, and some households were selected non-randomly but rather because in the PP s survey their responses seemed unreasonable for the abovedescribed reasons. The verification team found that households selected for ERM Certification and Verification Services 33 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

34 unreasonable responses indicated lower daily usage in DOE visits than during PP survey. However, part of the randomly selected surveyed households indicated higher usage per day in the DOE interviews than in VF s survey. This suggests that the PP s data set is not systematically over reported. The verification team asked first how often the households used Lifestraw, then asking how many containers they filled with filtered water in a day when they did use Lifestraw; then asking questions about different water uses, and then identifying qualities for creditable and non-creditable purposes. If figures did not add up and further prompting led a household to change their previous answers considerably, such household was removed from analysis as an outlier. As the DOE s sample consisted of randomly selected households as well as households picked up purposefully, the DOE s survey should not be regarded as representative, and quantitative results are only indicative for cross-check purposes. The mean value of L bl from the DOE s sample is 3.43 litres per person per day, which is comparable to the VF s mean value of 3.28 litres per person per day. Please note that for the purpose of VER calculations, the lower bound value of the 90% confidence interval is used. However, the DOE s sample does not meet the required confidence and precision level. e) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the flow is traceable. Does the monitoring report (parameter tables) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the verification period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with the monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: L pj,i,y Project Emissions Data unit: L /person /day Description: Litres of treated water still boiled in the project activity Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not ERM Certification and Verification Services 34 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

35 Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring Procedure The VF-MR2-Survey was the primary source of data for identifying the amount of filtered water that is still treated. CAR 3 CL 4 In phase 3, the questionnaire included questions 22 and 23: 22. Do you do anything else to the LifeStraw filtered water to make it safe before using it for drinking, hand washing or washing fresh fruits and vegetables? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS OUT LOUD) Boil Waterguard Other Nothing else 23. How much LifeStraw filtered do you boil in litres? In phase 4, these corresponded to questions 30 and 31. In phase 3, 65 respondents indicated that they boil some of treated water, and in phase 4 (considering part of the survey used in analysis), and in phase 4 the number of respondents who boiled filtered water was 21. The mean value was used for VER calculations in the first version of the MR and spreadsheet /02/, which is not in line with the methodology. CAR 3 was therefore raised. In the revised spreadsheet, the upper bound value of the 90% confidence interval was used /02/, which is in line with the methodology. Therefore CAR 3 was closed. ERM CVS repeated the processing steps and at the time of the draft report was not able to obtain the same results as the PP please refer to CL 4 for clarification of the data set. Once the data set was corrected and processing steps modified to identify outliers, CL 4 was closed. ERM CVS was able to repeat the processing steps and obtained the same values as the PP. b) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring was carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. This was confirmed via interviews with Vestergaard personnel who conducted the interviews, and by reviewing of the VF-MR2-Survey results. c) Check of QA/QC procedures ERM CVS confirmed by reviewing training material that training of VF and EXP surveyors was performed please see section 4.1 for more details. The EXP survey was used to check VF survey s findings. The question used was the same way as in VF-MR2-Survey /15/. EXP s result was less conservative than the result from the VF-MR2-Survey. d) Cross checks ERM CVS sampled 29 VF-MR2-Surveyed households and 33 randomly selected households. None of the interviewed households responded that they boil filtered water. ERM Certification and Verification Services 35 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

36 e) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the flow is traceable. Does the monitoring report (parameter tables) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the verification period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: P i,y Project and Baseline Emissions Data unit: Persons per household Description: Average people per LifeStraw Family unit Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring Procedure The VF-MR2-Survey was the primary source of data for this parameter. The verification team reviewed the VF-MR2-Survey Questions /10/ /18/. The question was worded How many members are in your household? In the local culture, it is usual for children to eat e.g. at their grandparents house therefore during the site visit interviews with the households, ERM CVS found that this question should be presented by clarifying that this should be a number of persons who sleep in the house on a daily basis, to avoid children to be counted several times where they sleep, and where they eat. While this is not explicitly stressed in the questionnaire with training notes /12/, based on interviews ERM CVS understands that this was communicated to surveyors and was the approach used in the surveys. b) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring was carried out within the required frequency, which is bi-annual monitoring. This was confirmed via interviews with Vestergaard personnel who conducted the survey, and by reviewing of the VF-MR2-Survey project database. c) Check of QA/QC procedures The EXP survey was used as a quality check of the VF-MR2-Survey results. ERM Certification and Verification Services 36 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

37 ERM CVS checked the EXP questionnaire and results /15/ /26/. The EXP result was 2.51% higher than the VF-MR2-Survey result. As VF s result is more conservative, it is correct that VF-MR2-Survey s result was used for the VER calculations. d) Cross checks ERM CVS cross-checked the PP s results with the results from interviews with 29 households surveyed by VF-MR2-Survey and 33 random non-surveyed households. e) Check of information flow ERM CVS checked and verified the flow of information from the input values to the emission reduction calculations spreadsheet and confirmed that the information flow is traceable. Does the monitoring report (parameter tables) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the verification period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring undertaken during the verification period. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/ The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Data / Parameter: X boil Baseline and Project Emissions Data unit: Percentage Description: Percentage of users that would boil water as a form of water treatment Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? a) a) Monitoring Procedure This value was not updated for this Monitoring Period. However, FAR 1 raised in the previous verification report related to the way how questions were asked to obtain this parameter, and the MR does not explain how the FAR has been taken into account. Please refer to CL 1. CL 1 FAR 2 FAR 2 In the revised MR, explanation was provided how the question for this parameter will be modified in the next monitoring survey and CL 1 was closed. b) Monitoring/recording frequency Monitoring frequency stated in the monitoring plan is bi-annual monitoring. Therefore according to this stated frequency, the parameter did not need to ERM Certification and Verification Services 37 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

38 be monitored in this monitoring period. c) Check of QA/QC procedures N/a as the value was not updated in this monitoring period d) Cross checks ERM CVS had interviews with a sample of households and included a question asking what the household would do to make the water safe now, if they did not have Lifestraw filter. The results indicate that 69.8 % would boil water or use a combination of boiling and other forms of treatment. This is slightly lower than the value obtained by the PP in the previous verification period and used in this period. According to the monitoring plan the parameter did not have to be updated in this monitoring period, therefore it is not incorrect that questionnaires did not include relevant questions for estimating this parameter. The DOE s sample size is not sufficient and not all sample is random, and therefore the DOE s value is not necessarily correct but it confirms that the parameter needs to be updated in the next verification period even if next verification is done earlier than 2 years since the last time the parameter was updated. FAR 2 was therefore raised. e) Check of information flow N/a. Does the monitoring report (parameter tables) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the verification period? ERM CVS reviewed the content of the monitoring report section with monitoring parameter tables and evaluated its alignment with the actual monitoring observed during the site visit and document review. It is confirmed by ERM CVS that the presentation of information relating to the monitoring parameter is accurate and consistent with the monitoring ERM CVS confirmed that the parameter did not have to be monitored in this verification period Data / Parameter: AF pj,i,y Project Data unit: T_fuel/year Description: Alternative fuel consumed in the project Measured/calculated/ default Estimated based on a survey Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? This parameter was not monitored during this verification period. The project was registered in February 2011, therefore this monitoring period falls within the period of 2 years since registration. Does the monitoring report (parameter tables) correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the n/a n/a n/a ERM Certification and Verification Services 38 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

39 verification period? ERM CVS confirmed that the parameter did not have to be monitored in this verification period Management and operational system ERM CVS evaluated the management systems in place to implement the monitoring of the project activity. This included the organisational structure, roles and responsibilities, data collection, transfer and aggregation procedures, training of personnel, data storage and archiving and emergency procedures for the monitoring system. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has an appropriate management and operational system for monitoring and reporting, including responsibilities and authorities, been established in accordance with the monitoring plan? ERM CVS carried out the following activities: Reviewed VF and EXP training materials and records /12/ /14/ /16/ /17/ /20/ Interviews during the site visit with two VF surveyors, staff responsible for the education campaign and spot-checks, and EXP representative Reviewed VF organogram Based on document review and interviews undertaken during the site visit, ERM CVS confirmed that surveyors of both the VF-MR2- Survey and the EXP survey were properly trained before conducting surveys. Please refer to section 4.1 of this verification report for more details. Data collection during the VF-MR2-Survey was done based on phone applications, which sent information directly into the database. This avoids potential errors from transcription and manual transfer of data. The database includes checking dataset and removing duplicate entries. Further analysis is then done on the spreadsheet with data exported from the database. Such export file was provided to the DOE /10/ Based on interviews and witnessing of the education campaign, the verification team can confirm that the project monitoring is sufficiently well organised ERM CVS confirmed that the monitoring of all relevant parameters has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. It is confirmed that data acquisition process, data transferring process, archiving process and reporting process occur as required by the monitoring plan. The final monitoring report provides an accurate description of the monitoring for all parameters throughout the monitoring period Data and parameters determined at registration and not monitored The verification team evaluated the status of data and parameters that were determined at registration and not monitored during the monitoring period, including default values and factors, and confirmed whether they were correctly presented in Section D.2 of the monitoring report and applied correctly in the emission reduction calculations. Data and parameters that were determined at registration and not monitored during the monitoring period ERM Certification and Verification Services 39 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

40 Parameter Description Presented correctly in section D.2 of the Monitoring Draft Report and applied correctly in the emission reduction calculations? / CAR/CL Final / Not AF bl,i,y Alternative fuel consumed in the baseline ERM CVS confirms that this parameter was correctly derived from the Baseline Survey described in Annex 3 of the PDD /3/ and validated by a DOE /5/ and did not have to be applied in the emission reduction calculations as its value is zero. EF bl.bio,co2 CO2 emission factor for wood ERM CVS confirms that this parameter was correctly derived from the IPCC Guidelines 2006 /31/ and is applied appropriately in the emission reduction calculations. EF bl.bio,ch4 CH 4 emission factor for wood ERM CVS confirms that this parameter was correctly derived from the IPCC Guidelines 2006 /31/ and is applied appropriately in the emission reduction calculations. EF bl.bio,n2o N 2O emission factor for wood ERM CVS confirms that this parameter was correctly derived from the IPCC Guidelines 2006 /31/ and is applied appropriately in the emission reduction calculations. F y Performance of water treatment units in place ERM CVS confirms that this parameter was correctly derived from the manufacturer guarantee /32/, i.e. due to the manufacturer guarantee the value is 100% and the parameter does not have to be applied in the emission reductions calculations Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions As per VVS chapter IX section D.5, ERM CVS evaluated the calculations applied to determine the emission reductions during the monitoring period resulting from implementation of the project activity. In conducting this evaluation, the verification team evaluated whether: A complete set of data for the monitoring period was available, and whether the most conservative assumption has been applied in any case where only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan unless a deviation has been approved (see section 5). Information provided in the monitoring report has been cross checked with other sources such as log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis (see section 5) Calculations of baseline, project and leakage emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology. Any assumptions used in the emission calculations have been justified Appropriate emission factors, IPCC default factors and other reference values have been correctly applied. ERM CVS reviewed the emission reduction calculations in Section E of the monitoring report. In accordance with the methodology applied in this project, Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version 2, the GHG emission reductions achieved by the project activity are calculated using the following equation: ER y (tco 2e/yr) = BE y -PE y-le y.eqn ER.1a ERM Certification and Verification Services 40 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

41 Where: ER y BE y PE y LE y Baseline emissions in year y (in tonnes CO2e per year) Baseline emissions of in year y (tco2e/yr) Project emissions of in year y (tco2e/yr) Leakage in year y (tco2e/yr) The GHG emission reductions achieved by the project activity are calculated in accordance with the registered PDD as follows: Baseline emissions Approach 1 per the methodology is used to estimate baseline emissions BE y = [B bl,y i X boil ] [X nrb,bl,y EF bl,bio,co2 + EF bl,bio,ch4 + EF bl,bio,n2o]. Eqn B.1a (modified) Where: BE y B bl,y I X boil X nrb,bl,y EF bl.bio,co2 EF bl,bio,ch4 EF bl,bio,n2o Baseline emissions in year y (in tonnes CO2e per year) The mass of woody biomass consumed during cooking in the baseline in year y (tonnes/year). Number of water treatment units in place Fraction of users that boil water as a form of water treatment (additional parameter not identified in the methodology) The non-renewable fraction of the woody biomass harvested in the project collection area in year y in the baseline scenario The CO2 emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel The CH4 emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel (tonnes CH4/tonne biomass) The N2O emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel (tonnes N2O/tonne biomass) In accordance with Annex 3, B bl,y is calculated as follows: B bl,y = L bl,y W 365 days P y for Eqn B1, B2 of the Methodology Where: L bl,y The total amount of treated water for consumption per person per day (in litres) as per the methodology. Note: During the course of validation, the Gold Standard TAC agreed to have two options for defining this parameter: 1. L bl,i,y is defined as the amount of raw water treated plus the amount of raw water boiled after the introduction of the water treatment technology whereby data is collected on raw water boiled after introduction of water treatment technology and a cap of 7.5 l/p/d is applied on the total amount of treated water for consumption per person per day including water needed for cooking. 2. L bl,i,y is defined as total amount of raw water treated with the water treatment technology. Monitoring of the raw water boiled in the project situation is not required and a cap of 6 l/p/d is applied on the amount of water treated by the water treatment technology for drinking water, hand washing and food washing. W P y The PP has chosen the second option. Amount of wood-fuel or fossil fuel (in tonnes) required to boil 1L of water on a three-stone stove to be safe for consumption Members per household in year y ERM Certification and Verification Services 41 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

42 Note: A Fbl,i,y = The mass of alternative fuel i in the baseline in year y in accordance with trends projected throughout the project period, in tonnes. This mass can be set to zero in cases where the KT is appropriately designed to subsume alternative fuels (approach 3). Therefore this parameter is not included in this project activity emissions calculation. Project Emissions Approach 1 is applies values of mass for each fuel in the mix: PE y = [B pj,y i X boil] [X nrb,pj,y EF bl,bio,co2 + EF bl,bio,ch4 + EF bl,bio,n2o]. Eqn P.1a (modified) Where PE y B pj,,y I X boil X nrb,pjy EF bl.bio,co2 EF bl,bio,ch4 EF bl,bio,n2o Project emissions in year y (in tonnes CO2e per year) The mass of woody biomass consumed during boiling of water in the project each year (in tonnes/year). Number of water treatment units in place Fraction of users that boil water as a form of water treatment (additional parameter not identified in the methodology) The non-renewable fraction of the woody biomass harvested in the project collection area in year y in the project scenario The CO2 emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel The CH4 emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel (tonnes CH4/tonne biomass) The N2O emission factor for use of the biomass fuel in the baseline scenario in tonnes CO2 per tonne fuel (tonnes N2O/tonne biomass) In accordance with Annex 3, B p,y is calculated as follows: B pj,y = [W 365 days P y] [[L pj,y U y] + [[1 U y] L bl,y]] for Eqn P1 Where B pj,,y W P y L pj,y U y L bl,y The mass of woody biomass consumed during boiling of water in the project each year (in tonnes/year). Amount of wood-fuel or fossil fuel (in tonnes) required to boil 1L of water on a three-stone stove to be safe for consumption Members per household in year y The total amount of water still boiled per person per day (in litres) as per the methodology. Note: During the course of validation, the Gold Standard TAC agreed to have two options for defining this parameter: 1. L pj,i,y is defined as the amount of raw water and treated water that are boiled after the introduction of the water treatment technology 2. L pj,i,y is defined as the total amount of treated water that is still boiled. This assumes the PP defines L bl,i,y as total amount of raw water treated with the water treatment technology and a cap of 6 l/p/d is applied on the amount of water treated by the water treatment technology for drinking water, hand washing and food washing. The PP has chosen the second option. Usage of water treatment units in place The total amount of treated water for consumption per person per day (in litres) as per the methodology. Note: During the course of validation, the Gold Standard TAC agreed to have two options for defining this parameter: 1. L bl,i,y is defined as the amount of raw water treated plus the amount of raw water boiled after the introduction of the water treatment technology whereby data is collected on raw water boiled after introduction of water treatment technology and a cap of 7.5 l/p/d is applied on the total amount of treated water for consumption per person per day including water needed for cooking. 2. L bl,i,y is defined as total amount of raw water treated with the water treatment technology. Monitoring of the raw water boiled in the project situation is not required and a cap of 6 l/p/d is applied on the amount of water treated by the water treatment technology for drinking water, hand washing and food washing. ERM Certification and Verification Services 42 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

43 The PP has chosen the second option. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Were data available throughout the monitoring period in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology? In order to verify whether data was available throughout the entire monitoring period in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology, the verification team: As shown in the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /2/ and confirmed by ERM CVS during the site visit, data were available throughout the monitoring period in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. Reviewed data presented in the emissions reduction calculation spreadsheets /2/ /10/ Database with distribution and survey records Survey results and records /10/ /11/ Cross checked the survey results with household interviews Has the project participant used appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline, project and leakage emissions? In order to verify whether the project participant used appropriate methods and formulae to calculate the baseline project and leakage emissions in line with the monitoring plan and methodology, the verification team: Reviewed the formulae used in the emissions reduction calculation spreadsheet /2/ against the PDD /3/ and the methodology /8/ Reviewed survey questions to understand how certain parameters were obtained, and road tested several questions during the DOE household site visit to ensure questions were appropriate. Please refer to CL 4 on clarification of datasets used in calculations, CL 5 on application of discount factor to account for baseline fuels other than woody biomass and charcoal, CAR 1 on leakage, CAR 2 on data processing to identify outliers, and CAR 3 on calculation of L pj. After clarifications and corrections to the processed data sets and calculations, these issues were closed please refer to sections above and Appendix for more details. Based on review of the checks performed on the spreadsheets with processed data /10/ and emission reduction calculations /02/ ERM CVS can confirm that the calculation of baseline, project and leakage emissions has been based on appropriate methods and formulae. ERM CVS was able to repeat data processing steps and calculations CL 4 CL 5 CAR 1 CAR 2 CAR 3 Has the project participant justified all assumptions, emission factors and default values that have been applied? ERM CVS evaluated the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /2/ and reviewed all assumptions, emission factors and default factors that have been applied against the registered PDD /3/ and the methodology /8/ After closure of CL 1 on parameter X boil and CL 6 on parameter W i, ERM CVS can confirm that all assumptions are appropriate. No default values have been applied. CL 1 CL 6 Do the monitoring report (section E) and associated emission reduction spreadsheet correctly present the data and formulae used to calculate the reported emission ERM CVS reviewed the emission reduction spreadsheet /2/ and monitoring report /1/ to evaluate whether the data and formulae to calculate the emission reductions have been correctly presented. ERM CVS confirmed that all data and formulae in the final documents have been correctly presented. ERM Certification and Verification Services 43 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

44 reductions? Emission reductions have been calculated in accordance with the monitoring plan and the applied methodology, and it was determined that the data processing and emission reductions calculations resulted in real and measurable emission reductions. Where there was any unavailability of data, conservative assumptions have been made. All assumptions, emission factors and default values have been justified and the information has been cross checked with other sources Comparison of emission reductions with those predicted in the PDD ERM CVS reviewed the monitoring report to confirm that the PP has compared the emission reductions with the number of emission reductions estimated in the PDD for an equivalent number of days as the monitoring period. Emission reductions for this monitoring period predicted in the registered PDD = 1,908,598 tco 2e Emission reductions reported in the monitoring report for this monitoring period = 1,701,563 tco 2e Compliance question Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the PP included (in section E.6 of the monitoring report) a comparison of the emission reductions for this monitoring period with the emission reductions for an equivalent length of monitoring based on the estimates in the PDD? ERM CVS has reviewed the emissions reductions stated in the monitoring report. However, the PP has not presented a clear comparison of the emission reductions during the monitoring period with the prediction in the PDD, and has not discussed reasons for the difference. CL 7 was therefore raised In the revised MR, the PP provided a comparison of predicted and actual emission reductions. CL 7 was closed. There, CL 7 is closed. CL 7 Has the PP provided appropriate explanation for any increase in emission reductions compared with the prediction made in the PDD? Please refer to CL 7. In the revised MR, the emission reductions are lower than the estimate in the PDD. PP provided an explanation on why the emission reduction estimates exceed the baseline, and CL 7 was closed. Analysis of changes to separate parameters, and how they affected emission reductions, is provided in section of the report. CL 7 The PP has appropriately presented the emission reductions for the monitoring period and, where higher than predicted, has provided an appropriate explanation Other observations No other observations Assessment of sustainability monitoring Overview of sustainability monitoring system The monitoring of sustainability indicators is closely linked with carbon monitoring, as number of Lifestraw units distributed and their usage are used as indicators of a number of sustainability indicators. In addition, surveys commissioned by Vestergaard ERM Certification and Verification Services 44 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

45 Frandsen to the EXP Agency and conducted in August 2012 included among its objectives confirming the trend of sustainability indicators /15/ and the questionnaire used by the EXP survey therefore included specific questions on sustainability indicators /15/ Completeness of sustainability monitoring parameters The verification team evaluated the monitoring of each sustainability indicator stated in the Gold Standard passport /6/ and compared with the description in the MR how the indicators were monitored, their results, and scoring.. The parameters included in the Gold Standard passport are listed below and a full description of each parameter and the verification activities associated with monitoring of each one is included in Section Monitored sustainability indicators Number Description Included in Monitoring Report? Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not 1 Air Quality Yes 2 Water Quality and Quantity Yes 3 Soil Condition No, as it does not need to be monitored 4 Other Pollutants Yes 5 Biodiversity No, as it does not need to be monitored 6 Quality of Employment No, as it does not need to be monitored 7 Livelihood of the Poor Yes 8 Access to affordable and clean energy services Yes 9 Human and institutional capacity No, as it does not need to be monitored 10 Quantitative employment and income generation Yes 11 Balance of payments and investment No, as it does not need to be monitored 12 Technology transfer and technological self-reliance No, as it does not need to be monitored Sustainability indicators monitored The verification findings for the monitoring of each sustainability parameter are set out below. Note that only those sustainability parameters monitored for this verification period are presented (see table above). ERM Certification and Verification Services 45 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

46 Number: 1 Indicator: Target: Monitoring: Air Quality Considerable reduction of indoor smoke due to reduced emissions from treating water using LifeStraw Family instead of boiling water using fuel wood. Annual Kitchen Surveys and relevant academic reports or literature using decreased fuel as a proxy for improved air quality. Conducted by the PP. Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? The monitoring report describes results of measuring this indicator by EXP survey. The survey asked the following questions: How many pieces of wood did you use every day before LifeStraw? and How many pieces of wood do you use every day now?. The results indicate the savings of about 20%. CL 8 However, based on review of the VF-MR2-Survey questionnaires, phase 3 of the survey also included questions of quantifying fuelwood use before Lifestraw and now when the households use Lifestraw but results were not reported. CL 8 was raised for the PP to further explain monitoring done for this indicator, including discussing results obtained during the VF-MR2- Survey, and why these were not described in the MR. In the revised MR, both survey results from EXP and VF surveys were presented: the former showing fuel savings of 20% and the latter showing savings of 24%. ERM CVS checked data from the VF-MR2-Survey /11/ and can confirm that the savings figure was calculated appropriately, although based on interviews with project staff the surveyors witnessed that it is difficult to obtain responses that could be comparable between households that buy or collect firewood and obtain them at different frequencies, quantities and shapes (e.g. a whole fallen tree bought and bundles of small branches collected are difficult to compare or estimate total amount). Therefore the revised scoring of the indicator as neutral is considered appropriate. ERM CVS used a more open-ended question in their household interviews during the site visit, asking did you have any savings as a result of having Lifestraw?. The majority of respondents spoke primarily about savings on medical expenses and generally impacts on family health. Savings of firewood were indicated (including not as the main saving) by 20 households from 63 used in the analysis. Based on interviews with the project staff, it is difficult to get quantitative data on fuel savings that can be compared between households, as units (pieces or bundles) are relative and understood differently between respondents. Therefore ERM CVS doubts the accuracy of quantitative assessment of fuel savings although agrees with a qualitative indication of some savings on fuelwood. However, as the savings figure is difficult to quantify, a neutral scoring of the indicator is more appropriate. Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? Please refer to CL 8. Following clarifications provided, ERM CVS can confirm that the trend was assessed appropriately CL 8 ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 2 ERM Certification and Verification Services 46 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

47 Indicator: Target: Water Quality and Quantity An estimated 1 million households will have improved water quality as a result of clean water from LifeStraw Family units. During distribution of the LifeStraw Family water treatment units, and during subsequent monitoring, education, maintenance and repair activities, the recipient residents will be taught proper operation and maintenance of the LifeStraw Family. Additionally, pictorial printed documentation describing proper operation and maintenance will be provided to the residents. This documentation and in-person instruction includes identification of how to monitor filter effectiveness and blockage, through flow rate changes, and how to respond to such degraded performance through filter backwashing, repair and replacement when needed. Monitoring: Quarterly surveys and records for number of households/people served with the LifeStraw Family units Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? The indicator is estimated based on the total number of units distributed, usage factor monitored in this verification period (please refer to validation of this indicator in section 4.4.3), and number of people in the household also monitored in this verification period as part of the carbon monitoring (please refer to section 4.4.3). Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? ERM CVS checked the calculation and can confirm that estimated number of persons served with the Lifestraw filtered water as presented in the monitoring report is correct. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 4 Indicator: Other Pollutants Target: Disposal of all spent LifeStraw Family units in landfill. Monitoring: Replacement and disposal records kept by PP. Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? The monitoring report presents the number of units replaced until 28 August 2012, which is not the end of the monitoring period. Further the monitoring report gives a positive scoring to the indicator but it is not clear how a positive contribution can be claimed for keeping units at a warehouse. CAR 4 is therefore raised for the PP to correct the monitoring of this indicator. CAR 4 The PP updated the number of replaced Lifestraw units to 1,121 in the latest version of the Monitoring Report, which is in line with the figures from records on stock management. CAR 4 was closed. ERM CVS can confirm that none of the replaced units were disposed of, based on review of the stock management system and records (please refer to section for more details), and visual inspection of the central warehouse where replaced parts are stored, as well as interview with the ERM Certification and Verification Services 47 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

48 person responsible for stick management. Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? Please refer to CAR 4. In the revised MR, a neutral scoring was assigned to this indicator, which is appropriate, as activities did not cause any negative impact but also did not cause a positive impact. CAR 4 ERM CVS confirmed that: The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology /4, 8/. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /4/. QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. Number: 7 Indicator: Target: Monitoring: Livelihood of the Poor Decreased firewood and charcoal consumption for cooking (or boiling water) will save time and money for end users. Kitchen Survey and relevant academic reports or literature; Fuel savings from kitchen performance tests multiplied by current market price for charcoal and wood (if purchased). During Kitchen Surveys, residents will be asked if, during the period since receiving the LifeStraw Family, the cost or effort spent gathering fuel wood has been reduced. Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Based on review of the VF-MR2-Survey questionnaires, phase 3 of the survey included questions aimed at identifying savings of costs spent on fuelwood, time spent on collecting firewood, and savings of pieces of firewood. The EXP survey included similar questions. The VF-MR2-Survey s and EXP survey s questionnaires and data were reviewed by the verification team and ERM CVS can confirm that indicators were monitored appropriately, in line with the sustainability monitoring plan. The EXP survey s result (20% savings of wood pieces) is slightly more conservative than VF-MR2-Survey s result (24% savings). Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? The results are presented in the monitoring report in a qualitative way, which ERM CVS confirms to be more appropriate than quantitative assessment of savings. ERM CVS asked households if they had any savings as a result of having Lifestraw. Savings on firewood were indicated (including not as the main saving) by 20 households from 63 used in the analysis. In terms of savings on firewood, it was primarily cost savings that were indicated, rather than savings on time spent gathering fuelwood. The majority of respondents in the DOE s interviews spoke primarily about savings on medical expenses and generally impacts on family health. Although the suggested parameters for monitoring this indicator in the Gold Standard passport do not include medical expenses and health impacts, this ERM Certification and Verification Services 48 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

49 appears to be a key saving as perceived by the interviewed households. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 8 Indicator: Target: Monitoring: Access to affordable and clean energy services An estimated 1 million households served with LifeStraw Family unit will have access to clean water which is more affordable and efficient than boiling water by the traditional method of using firewood Annual kitchen surveys Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? The indicator is estimated based on the total number of units distributed, usage factor monitored in this verification period (please refer to validation of this indicator in section 4.4.3), and number of people in the household also monitored in this verification period as part of the carbon monitoring (please refer to section 4.4.3). Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? ERM CVS checked the calculation and can confirm that estimated number of persons served with the Lifestraw filtered water as presented in the monitoring report is correct. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 10 Indicator: Target: Monitoring: Quantitative employment and income generation The project will generate thousands of jobs during the project distribution, monitoring and replacement phases. Employment records Compliance question Verification findings (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? The description of this indicator in the monitoring report presents employment figures from distribution campaign and Campaign 1, which were carried out during the first verification period. As this was a temporary employment and was reported in the first verification period, it is not correct to present these figures in this verification period for this indicator. The employment figures presented also do not clearly present the length of temporary employment. CAR 5 is raised to correct the description of this indicator in the monitoring CAR 5 ERM Certification and Verification Services 49 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

50 report. In the revised MR, the description of results for this indicator has been correctly revised to show temporary employment during the two education campaigns carried out during this verification period. The figures are consistent with information obtained during the site visit, when payroll records of temporary staff and some billing records to 3 rd party contractors were checked. CAR 5 is closed. Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? Please refer to CAR 5. Following revision in the MR, the CAR 5 was closed. ERM CVS can confirm that the project has created local employment opportunities and the positive scoring to the indicator is therefore appropriate. CAR 5 ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate ERM Certification and Verification Services 50 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

51 5. Remediation Requests 5.1. Clarification Requests Where information was insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met ERM CVS raised a Clarification Request (CL). The CLs raised, and a description of how each was resolved are set out below. CL 1 Comment: FAR 1 raised in the previous verification report included a comment about the way questions were asked for determining parameter X boil. The parameter X boil was not updated in this verification period and the monitoring report does not discuss how this part of the FAR is taken into account. Clarification Request: Please justify why X boil was not updated in this verification period and clarify how the part of FAR 1 related to questions for parameter X boil was taken into account PP Response The questions included in VF-MR2-Survey were revised to address FAR1 and questions were designed in an open ended manner to reduce risk of reporting bias or leading respondent answers. However, Xboil was not included in this survey as the parameter was to be measured biennially and was most recently measured in the EXP-MR1-FAR-Survey. Xboil will be will be revised using a similar process as was used in VF-MR2-Survey to avoid a leading question the next time that Xboil will be measured. With reference to FAR1.a, Xboil will be similarly revised to avoid a leading question the next time that Xboil will be measured. This parameter is included in the Monitoring Plan to be measured once every two years and thus was not included in the VF- MR2-Survey. This question will be surveyed again before two years have expired from the previous survey. The question will be asked as follows, per guidance provided by the DOE after MR1: If you did not have the LifeStraw Family now, and time, money, and resources were limitless, how would you choose to make your water safe? Multiple choice answers will be provided to the enumerator which will NOT be read to the interviewee, including: - Boiling - Filtering - Chlorine - Other (write in) Documentation provided Revised monitoring report Verification activity Review of the revised monitoring report /01/ ERM Certification and Verification Services 51 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

52 The suggested approach for changing the survey questions for obtaining results for calculating parameter X boil is appropriate to avoid leading questions. This addresses FAR 1 from the previous verification report. The parameter X boil was determined in the previous verification period and according to the monitoring plan it has to be updated every two years. This period lasted 11 months, therefore it is acceptable that the parameter was not updated in this period. CL 1 is therefore closed. CL 2 Comment: FAR 3 raised in the previous verification report asked for the PP to ensure that complete training and competency records are available for surveyors and researchers for any future surveys to be conducted. The records for EXP surveyors were presented to the DOE, but for the VF-MR2-Survey, only training materials were presented, and the monitoring report only discussed only the EXP records. Clarification Request: Please provide description in the monitoring report on training and competency records for VS surveyors, and provide a full list of surveyors that conducted the VF-MR2-Survey and evidence that their competence assessments were undertaken, or records of training provided. PP Response Concur- documents updated with more comprehensive description Documentation provided Full list of surveyors is included - Surveyor Credentials.xlsx Training registers Verification activity ERM CVS checked the provided documents (Surveyor Credentials and Training Registers), outlining the education level of all the VF volunteers, the QAS (Quality Assurance Supervisor) employees, District Coordinators and Kenyan-native volunteers. The information provided in the Surveyor Credentials spreadsheet shows that all the Kenya-Educated volunteers are currently completing their Master of Public Health (MPH) at Maseno University. The Vestergaard Fransden American volunteers are made up of students from 6 universities (primarily John Hopkins), and all but two of the volunteers are educated to or are in the process of completing their Master s degree. The information on QAS employees provides background on individual s mean academic grade and any relevant experience they have accumulated prior to the Lifestraw campaign. The tab on the District Coordinators background provides greater insight into the college/university level and subject of study, as well as their overall academic grade. Signed attendance sheets for various training workshops are provided in the Training Registers documents. There are a total of 10 files each identifying the date of the training and for which role it was for. For example, on the 14 th October 2012, a training session was held for all DC&AC employees and each of the LSF volunteers signed the attendance form. There are two files for separate training events held at Golf Hotel for the Maseno University students providing necessary training on spot-checking and surveying. This is also consistent with information provided during interviews with programme management staff, a district coordinator, a quality assurance supervisor, and two volunteers during the site visit. The documents provided clearly outline the training level and competency for all surveyors involved with the VF-MR2 Survey. Records of training for all LSF volunteers are also provided. Summary description of the competence evaluation and training ERM Certification and Verification Services 52 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

53 is included in the revised MR. Therefore CL 2 is closed. CL 3 Comment: Description of project implementation is not sufficiently clear and consistent: - Description refers to distribution campaign and number of employees from the distribution phase, which was reported in the first verification period and is not relevant for this verification period - The report is not consistent on the monitoring period length and whether the education campaign and survey activities done in October 2012 are covered or not, and whether 2 or 3 surveys were conducted. - Survey dates are inconsistent and not in line with the dates in the spreadsheet containing the survey results - The report says that the project is opening service centres, when they have been operational during the verification period Clarification Request: Please clarify the description of project implementation in the monitoring report PP Response Concur- Employee table updated in MR. Dates in the MR updated to reflect Dec 1, 2011 Oct 31, Survey dates include all surveys done between April 11 May 24 th and October 1 October MR updated with notation of active service centres. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report Verification activity The updated Monitoring Report was checked the see if changes to employee number had been made, and whether survey dates had been changed to be in accordance with the identified problems. The updated monitoring report now clearly refers to two surveys, one conducted by VF and one by EXP, the first of which was conducted in two phases, and consistently refers to the length of the monitoring period until 31 October The description of the implementation status and activities carried out during this verification period (including employment figures) now reflects activities that are relevant for this verification period. The survey dates are now consistent with the dates given in the survey s results workbook (11 April 24 May 2012 & October 2012). The report has also been amended to reflect the fact that all service centres are now open and operating. CL 3 is closed ERM Certification and Verification Services 53 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

54 CL 4 Comment: According to the Spreadsheet with processed survey data /10/, the total sample size of Phase 3 of the VF survey is 13,257 households, conducted from 11 April to 19 May However, the spreadsheet with raw data includes results from interviews conducted earlier and later than those dates /11/. Based on interviews with the project staff, interviews in earlier dates were trials of the questionnaire. However, the discrepancy on the end of the survey period is not clear, and it resulted in a slightly different result when verification team repeated processing steps for calculating L bl. Further, the monitoring report refers to the sample size of 14,144, which is not consistent with the processed data spreadsheet A similar discrepancy was found with regard to sample size from phase 4. According to the Spreadsheet with processed survey data /10/, data used in the first version of the monitoring report is based on 5,276 interviews conducted from 15 to 27 October The monitoring report refers to the sample size of 5,586, which is not consistent with the spreadsheet. Further surveys were conducted in remaining days of the verification period but were not used in the ER calculations. Clarification Request: Please clarify the data sets from both VF-MR2-Survey phases that are used in the VER calculations PP Response Concur - MR and emissions calculations are updated to include data from April 11-May 24, 2012 and October The first step of the processing was to remove any outliers with households containing fewer than 1 person and greater than 20 persons. Prior to applying this step, the raw data for the period of Aprill11-May 24, 2012 showed 14,059 entries, and from October 15-31, 2012 showed 7,547 entries. After this step was applied, 37 were removed from the April-May survey and 0 were removed from the October survey. This resulted in a total of 14,022 after step 1 for the April-May dataset and 7,547 after step 1 for the October dataset. Step 2 was also implemented to address outliers, by eliminating households that claimed to be filtering more than 70 litres per day. After step 1 the total number in the dataset for April-May was 14,022 and for October 7, outliers were removed from the April-May dataset and outliers from the October dataset based on step 2. This resulted in 13, remaining in the April-May dataset and 7,1026,912 remaining in the October dataset. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report, VER calculations spreadsheet, and survey processing spreadsheet GS886_Monitoring Report docx VF_VER_Calculations2ndVerification_ xlsx VF-MR2-Survey-Processed xlsx Verification activity Review of the revised MR /01/, workbook with processed survey data /10/, workbook with VER calculations /02/, and workbook with raw survey data ( dump workbooks) /11/ The revised MR and raw data workbooks are now consistent with regard to datasets. Dataset from the Phase 3 of the survey includes 14,059 entries dated from 11 April 2012 to 24 May 2012, and from phase 4 it is 7,547 entries dated from 15 to 31 October This forms the raw data set before removing outliers. Based on interviews with the CDM consultant, the first processing step to remove households with fewer than 1 person and more than 20 persons is a way of removing entries that are unrealistic and are considered outliers. ERM CVS repeated the processing step 1 and found that in phase 4, no such outliers were found, and in phase 3, the resulting dataset after removing outliers, is 14,022 households. ERM CVS understands that this set is used in the analysis ERM Certification and Verification Services 54 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

55 (e.g. used as a denominator for calculating usage rate). Based on review of the data processing workbook /10/, another step was added to further remove outliers. The step that was previously step 7 (removing households that filtered more than 70 litres per day) was moved to step 2. This is because filtering over 70L per day using a Lifestraw Family unit seems inconceivable considering the flow rate. Therefore, they were removed from the overall sample as outliers, rather than simply removed as non-lsf users. ERM CVS replicated the processing steps for each of the Phase 3 and Phase 4 datasets, and attained the same number of households at each interval. The total number of households after analysis is 12,27310,018 for Phase 3 and 6,4755,142 for Phase 4, totalling 18,74815,160. CL 4 is closed. CL 5 Comment: In the first verification period, a 0.97 discount factor (3%) to account for use of fuels other than woody biomass and charcoal was used in the calculation of B bl,j,y. However, this is not used in this verification period and the change is not explained in the monitoring report. During household interviews conducted by ERM CVS, 2 of the interviewed households considered for analysis (3%) reported an electric or paraffin stove as the primary stove, and a further 6 households (about 9%) reported some (secondary) use of fuels other than firewood and charcoal. Clarification Request: Please clarify why the discount factor to account for use of fuels, other than woody biomass and charcoal, is not used in this verification period PP Response Concur, we have revised the VER calculations and reference to MR1 to account for a 7.5% reduction. The VF-MR2-Survey reported that over 97% of respondents are still using 3-stone fires or charcoal fires. An additional discount was taken for those who use crop residue in these stoves, so the Wi is now 92.54%. Wi is further discussed below. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report, VER calculations spreadsheet, and survey processing spreadsheet GS886_Monitoring Report docx VF_VER_Calculations2ndVerification_ xlsx VF-MR2-Survey-Processed xlsx Verification activity Reviewed the revised MR /01/, ER calculations spreadsheet /02/, and data processing spreadsheet /10/. The revised VER calculations workbook /02/ includes the adjustment factor on the Baseline Emissions tab and references the survey VF-MR2-Survey. The survey results were checked by ERM CVS /10/ and the verification team can confirm that the discount factor is calculated appropriately. As the discount factor is now used in the revised calculations, CL 5 is closed. ERM Certification and Verification Services 55 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

56 CL 6 Comment: According to the monitoring plan, the Baseline Water Boiling Test (BWBT) for determining W i will be conducted if the Kitchen Test reveals that the baseline water boiling conditions have changed, necessitating a new BWBT. This parameter W i was not updated in the Monitoring Report, and no justification for this is provided. Clarification Request: Please justify why the parameter W i was not updated in this verification period PP Response The VF-MR2-Survey reported that over 97% of respondents are still using 3-stone fires or charcoal fires, and 94% are using wood or charcoal. The previous MR determined that 97% of stoves were three stone or charcoal. We have removed crop residue from creditable fuels, so the adjustment for alternative fuels is now Therefore, there has been no significant change in the cooking practices to warrant new Baseline Water Boiling Tests. For the sake of clarity, the PP will conduct new BWBT when the combined use of three-stone and charcoal fires drops below 90%, suggesting a significant change in cooking practices. Because the PP discounts VER generation by whatever proportion of people are NOT using three stone fires or charcoal fires, which is evaluated every monitoring period, this is a conservative approach that takes into account changing cooking practices. It is in the PP s interest to evaluate the BWBT periodically to increase VER generation. Should the PP never conduct another BWBT, it would be a conservative approach. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report, VER calculations spreadsheet, and survey processing spreadsheet GS886_Monitoring Report docx VF_VER_Calculations2ndVerification_ xlsx VF-MR2-Survey-Processed xlsx Verification activity Checked revised MR /01/, VER calculations workbook /02/ and survey data processing workbook /10/. The PP provided explanation as to why water boiling tests were not repeated, and the explanation is appropriate: baseline cooking practices have not changed considerably. A few percentage point changes to the share of households that use fuels other than firewood and charcoal are accounted for by using the discount factor. Please refer to closure of CL 5 above on the discount factor. CL 6 was closed. ERM Certification and Verification Services 56 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

57 CL 7 Comment: The PP has not presented a clear comparison of the emission reductions during the monitoring period with the prediction in the PDD, and has not discussed reasons for the difference Clarification Request: Please provide comparison of actual versus predicted emission reductions in the monitoring report PP Response These emission reduction estimates exceed the baseline estimates presented in the registered PDD. There are two primary factors that have driven this increase:. The increase in the NRB fraction from 65% to 93% based on recent literature, The baseline adoption rate decreased from an estimated 83% to 74.98%, largely as a result of increased rigor through additional questions applied to the calculation of Uy.and the increase from a baseline adoption rate of 83% to over 86% as a testament to the education campaigns the project proponent has conducted. There was also an increase in the average family size from to more than 5.5 from 4, and in Xboil from 71% to over 79%. However, Lbl, a significant parameter, is lower in this MR than in the PDD, going from 4.11 to Documentation provided Revised monitoring report Verification activity Checked the updated Monitoring Report /01/. A clear explanation of why the emission reduction estimates exceed the baseline is provided in the updated Monitoring report. For more details, please refer to the validation report sections and 4.7. CL 7 is closed. CL 8 Comment: Based on review of VF-MR2-Survey questionnaires, phase 3 of the survey also included questions of quantifying fuelwood use before Lifestraw and now when the households use Lifestraw but results were not reported when discussing monitoring of the sustainability indicator Air Quality. Clarification Request: Please further explain the monitoring done for the indicator Air Quality, including discussing results obtained during the VF-MR2-Survey PP Response ERM Certification and Verification Services 57 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

58 Concur, section revised, and parameter labelled neutral. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report Verification activity Checked updated monitoring report /01/ and workbook with raw survey results /11/. The section has been revised to include description of the results of the VF-MR2-Survey. The analysis was checked and is found to be correct. As the results of EXP and VF surveys show very differing results it is correct to give a positive scoring to the indicator Air Quality. CL 8 is closed Corrective Action Requests ERM CVS raised a Corrective Action Request (CAR) where: o o o Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impair the estimate of emission reductions; a Forward Action Request (FAR) during validation (or previous verification) to be verified have not been resolved by the project participants CAR 1 Comment: Leakage has not been calculated correctly, as leakage from production was taken into account in the 1 st monitoring period as well as in this one. Leakage resulting from production and delivery of Lifestraw units needs only be considered during the first Verification Period. Further, considering extensive activities of education campaigns which were not described in the PDD, verification team considers that leakage sources should be reviewed in this verification period. Corrective Action Request: Please correct leakage calculations and review leakage sources. PP Response Leakage associated with the initial production, transport and distribution of the LifeStraw units was accounted for in MR1. For MR2, the leakage is associated with the household education and monitoring visits. ERM Certification and Verification Services 58 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

59 The distribution stock count (equivalent to total sales record), parameter i y, is used in combination with the calculations presented in section B.6.1 of the registered PDD for this project, Leakage to determine the ex-post leakage emissions. The approved calculation estimates a conservative leakage of kg of CO2 per LifeStraw distributed (representing a 3 year lifetime). Therefore for 877,505 LifeStraws distributed, the pro-rated (for 11months of the monitoring period out of the 3 year life of the product) production emissions associated are tonnes of CO2. In addition, for the MR2, there is additional leakage associated with the household education and monitoring visits conducted over the verification period. A conservative calculation of this leakage is provided below: For each household visit, one community health worker is transported by one motorbike. During the training and education campaign from April May 2012, there were 2,005 motorbikes contracted for the 26 days of the campaign. Motorbike contracts reflect this. During the Campaign in October, 2014 motorbikes were contracted for a period of 14 working days (reflecting the verification period.) We have made a conservative estimate that each motorcycle travels a maximum of 100 kilometers per day. For the first campaign in the verification period, 2,005 motorbikes *26 days * 100 km = 5,213,000 kms of travel. Using a purpose-built motorcycle emissions calculator 1, and assuming a medium engine size and sometimes of city driving, this equates to tonnes of CO 2 emissions per 100,000 kms and a total of 638 tonnes of CO 2 emissions. Similarly applies, for portion of the 2 nd campaign that fell under the audit period: 2,104 motorbikes * 14 days *100km/day = 2,819,600 kms travelled. Using the carbon emissions calculator, this equates to 345 tonnes of CO 2 emitted. Thus, the total CO 2 emitted from transport activities during the campaign dates that fell in the monitoring period is 983. This is added to the leakage associated with the production of the filters, for a total leakage for MR2 of 1, tonnes. Documentation provided Revised monitoring report and VER calculations spreadsheet GS886_Monitoring Report docx VF_VER_Calculations2ndVerification_ xlsx Verification activity The online calculator used to calculate the CO2 emissions from the motorcycles during the education and monitoring visits was checked, and the calculations performed again to check consistency. The estimated emissions from motorcycles during the second monitoring period were recalculated using the same online calculator and the same figures were obtained and the matching overall associated leakage was calculated. The number of bikes used in education campaigns were checked by ERM CVS based on billing records during the site visit. Assumption on distance travelled is conservative based on the site visit. Leakage represents 0.1% of emission reductions therefore further cross-checks are not necessary. CAR 1 was closed. CAR ERM Certification and Verification Services 59 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

60 Comment: ERM CVS found that the data set from VF-MR2-Survey was not sufficiently analysed for identifying outliers. There were cases when respondents indicated a high quantity of litres used per day but rather rare use of the filter. E.g., a number of respondents said they used the Lifestraw filter twice a week but stated that they use 40, 50 or 60 litres per day. This means that in a day when the filter is used, the family would need to filter 140 litres or more, and it is questionable whether this is realistic. While high usage gets capped at 6 L/person/day for calculating VERs, such unrealistic responses indicate that some responses were not honest or not accurate, and it is not clear which ones are not correct. Corrective Action Request: Please analyse the data set from surveys further to identify outliers before conducting calculations. PP Response The dataset was analysed for outliers and a threshold of a maximum of 70 litres of filtering per day was applied. All responses above this threshold were removed as outliers. The processing steps are outlined as follows for April-May 2012: Step Action Explanation 1 Removed Households less than 1 and greater than 20 2 Removed liters filtered per day larger than 70 3 Removed all non-lifestraw users 4 Removed "do not filter water" 5 Removed "0" and "blank" liters of water per day This step is to account for outliers, by recognizing that households with zero members and more than 20 members are unrealistic. We assumed that those households that reported filtering more than 70 liters per day, were probably unrealistic based on the time that would be required to achieve more than 70 liters with an average flow rate. These households are therefore removed as outliers. Remove those who say they do not use LifeStraw based on the question What do you use to make your water safe now? Even if people reported they are LifeStraw users, if they answered they do not filter for the question that asks about frequency of filtration, they are removed and considered non LifeStraw users If people report using LifeStraw and filtering but in volume filtered per day show zero or blank, they are also removed and considered non LifeStraw users If "more than 60" in Z, made Z equal to AA for May Survey Remove people who were not able to demonstrate how to filter water using the Lifestraw Remove people who answer never to the question asking about frequency of cleaning the pre-filter and backwashing. In the May survey, the number of liters filtered per day had options in 5 liter increments and the final option was more than 60. If a household indicated more than 60, then a second question asked how much. This step is to get an accurate number for those who answered more than 60 We removed any households that were not able to adequately perform a demonstration of the filtration process. To be conservative, we assumed those households that do not clean the filter or backwash were not active users, and they were removed. ERM Certification and Verification Services 60 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

61 9 Removed households that were not able to demonstrate backwashing. We removed all households that were not able to properly demonstrate how to backwash the filter. 10 Remove households that did not answer blue tap to a question about which tap produces safe water. We assumed if households were not able to identify the correct tap, they were not active users. This resulted in very few households being removed, but we used this question that was present on the April-May survey in order to be conservative. 11 Remove households that did not have LifeStraw filtered water in a safe storage container. This question was only asked in the April-May survey. In order to be conservative, we removed all households without filtered water present in a storage container. This question will be revised and asked in future surveys. 12 Removed all households that needed a replacement part on the filter. This question was only assessed in the October survey to get a sense of repair rates, however, to be conservative we removed all households needing a replacement part. In future surveys, we will ask a question more specific to the functioning of the filter at the time of the visit Calculate Uy as ratio of households after step 12 over households after step 2 Calculate Lbl liters per person per day at household level, and capped at 6. Total households are considered the total remaining after outliers have been removed by steps 1&2. Then, the number after all of the non-users have been removed (steps 3-12) is divided by total households to get U y Total liters filtered for creditable purposes/ number of family members in the household 15 Calculate Overall Average Lbl among users Average of all Lbl calculations among users. 16 Calculate Lpj - treated water that is still boiled Number of liters of water reported to still be boiled/ number of family members for each household 17 Calculate overall average Lpj Average of all Lpj calculations among users is taken 18 Calculate average people in household - Py Average of all Py among users 19 Calculated 90% confidence interval for mean values Confidence intervals are calculated and then proper upper and lower bounds are applied to the values for calculations Included creditable stove types (3-stone and charcoal) and creditable fuel types (wood, wood sticks, charcoal) 20 Calculated creditable fuel/stove combination 21 Calculated wood savings parameters Calculated wood savings in sticks per day, Reported fuel use reduction per day in project area, percentage reporting some form of wood savings Step Number of households remaining after each step Explanation ERM Certification and Verification Services 61 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

62 1 14,022 Removed Households less than 1 and greater than ,109 Removed litres filtered per day larger than ,869 Removed all non-lifestraw users 4 12,869 Removed "do not filter water" 5 12,708 Removed "0" and "blank" litres of water per day 6 12,708 If "more than 60" in Z, made Z equal to AA for May Survey 7 12,273 Remove people who were not able to demonstrate how to use AND how to backwash the Lifestraw The processing steps are outlined as follows for October 2012: Step Number of households remaining after each step Explanation 1 7,547 Removed Households less than 1 and greater than ,102 Removed litres filtered per day larger than ,944 Removed all non-lifestraw users 4 6,944 Removed "do not filter water" 5 6,873 Removed "0" and "blank" litres of water per day 6 6,873 If "more than 60" in Z, made Z equal to AA for May Survey 7 6,475 Remove people who were not able to demonstrate how to use AND how to backwash the Lifestraw Documentation provided VF-MR2-Survey-Processed xlsxRevised survey processing spreadsheet Verification activity Checked processed data workbook /10/ and repeated processing results using raw data /11/ ERM CVS was able to fully replicate the results obtained at each step of the analysis. Using responses on frequency of filtering water and quantity of filtered water used per day, the quantity of water filtered in a day when filtering takes place was calculated and lines with over 70L per day were treated as outliers along with families of sizes greater than 20 and less than 1. The outliers were removed from the dataset for calculating monitoring parameters. ERM CVS results are shown belowcorrespond with the results in the spreadsheet with the processed survey data /10/: ERM Certification and Verification Services 62 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya

63 CAR 2 is closed. CAR 3 Comment: Mean value of calculated litres of filtered water still boiled (L pj) was used for calculating VERs, which is not in line with the methodology requirements and not conservative. Corrective Action Request: Please correct calculations of L pj PP Response Concur calculation corrected for the Lpj, calculation the upper 90% confidence interval for mean was taken ( )and used for VER calculations. Documentation provided Revised survey processing spreadsheetvf-mr2-survey-processed xlsx Verification activity Review of the revised data processing workbook /10/ The calculations were revised to use the upper bound value of the confidence interval, which is in accordance with the methodology. CAR 3 was closed. CAR 4 Comment: For sustainability indicator Other Pollutants, the monitoring report presents number of Lifestraw units replaced until 28 August 2012, which is not the end of the monitoring period. Further, the monitoring report gives a positive scoring to the indicator but it is not clear how a positive contribution can be claimed ERM Certification and Verification Services 63 Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya