VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Project Activity

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Project Activity Envirofit International, Inc. Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania In Tanzania (Gold Standard ID Number GS 850) Monitoring Period: 17 May 2013 to 31 December 2014 (inclusive both dates) Report No: CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ Revision number: 07 Report Date: 28 July 2015 Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. 209, 2 nd Floor, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCIPL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ Rev. 07 1

2 Team leader Acting/trainee Team Leader Local Expert Team Member (Auditor) Technical Expert Acting/Trainee Tech. Expert Trainee Auditor Technical Reviewer Expert to TR Trainee TR I. PROJECT DATA Project title: Registration No. / Date: Monitoring period: Methodology: Final Monitoring Report: Average emission reductions: Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania GS850 / 20/11/ /05/2013 to 31/12/2014 Scale: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1 Version 06, 27/07/2015 Estimated: 176,263 tco 2 e (for the corresponding monitoring period) Monitoring Period Number: Large 2 Sectoral Scope/Technical Area: Verified: 1, 3, 13 / 1.1, 3.1, ,026 tco 2 e (for the monitoring period) GHG reducing measure/technology: Distribution of improved cook-stoves and water treatment technologies that reduce the use of non-renewable biomass for cooking and water boiling. Party Project participants Party considered a project participant Tanzania Envirofit International, Inc. No Contract party II. VERIFICATION TEAM Verification Team Full name Affiliation Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical Areas) Role Sanjay Agarwalla India 1.1,1.2, 2.1,3.1, 4.1,5.1, 5.2,9.1, 9.2,13.1 Amit Anand India 1.2,3.1, 8.1,13.1,14.1 Gaurav Sharma India 1.2 X Adam Simcock South Africa Anubhav Dimri India 1.1, 1.2, 3.1,13.1 X -- X X X X X III. VERIFICATION REPORT Verification Phases and Status: Desk Review Follow up interviews, On Site Assessment FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 2

3 Resolution of outstanding issues Corrective Actions / Clarifications Requested Full Approval and Submission for Issuance Rejected Final Approval Date Approval Distribution Date: By: Vikash Kumar Singh No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organizational unit Limited Distribution Unrestricted distribution FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 3

4 Abbreviations BAU CA CDM CER CAR CCIPL CDM CL CO 2 CO 2e CREEC DO DOE DVR EB EF FA FAR FVR GS GHG GSPP GWh HH ICS IPCC KPT KS MP MR MWh OSV PDD PM QC/QA RMP TA TR UNFCCC VER VerR VVS Business As Usual Corrective Action / Clarification Action Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Corrective Action Request Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. Clean Development Mechanism Clarification Request Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation Distributing Organizations Designated Operational Entities Document review Draft Verification Report CDM Executive Board Emission Factor Final Approval Forward Action Request Final Verification Report Gold Standard Greenhouse gas(es) Gold Standard Passport Giga Watt Hour House hold Improved Cooking Stove Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Kitchen Performance Test Kitchen Survey Monitoring Plan Monitoring report Mega Watt Hour On Site Visit Project Design Document Particulate Matters Quality control/quality assurance Revised Monitoring Plan Technical Area Technical Review United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Verified Emission Reduction Verification Report Validation and Verification Standard FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 4

5 Verification Opinion summary Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. (CCIPL) has performed 2 nd periodic verification of the GS project Dissemination of fuel efficient biomass stoves and water purification systems in Tanzania having GS registry number GS 850 for the period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014. The verification team assigned by the DOE concludes that the GS Project Activity as described in the registered GS PDD (version 3.1, dated 14/12/2012) and revised PDD (version 6, dated 18/08/2014) and revised Passport (version 7 dated 18/08/2014) and the monitoring report (version 06, dated 27/07/2015), meets all relevant requirements of the Gold Standard, UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and paragraph 56 and 62 of CDM M & P, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. The verification has been conducted in-line with the UNFCCC VVS requirements version 07.0 as well as the Gold Standard Version 2.1. Verification methodology and process The Verification team confirms the contractual relationship signed on the 03/11/2014 between the DOE, Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. and the Project Participant, (Envirofit International, Inc. 1 ). The team assigned to the verification meets the Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. internal procedures including the UNFCCC requirements for the team composition and competence. CCIPL has conducted a thorough contract review as per UNFCCC and Carbon Check procedures and requirements. The verification has been performed as per the requirements described in the Gold Standard Requirements; Gold Standard Toolkit and VVS and constitutes the review and completion of the following steps: - Reviewing the approved PDD (version 6, dated 18/08/2014), including the monitoring plan and the corresponding validation report and the Gold Standard Passport (version 7, dated 18/08/2014), the Sustainability Matrix and monitoring data; - Confirm the monitoring report has been made available to the Gold Standard Registry - Desk review of the MR, previous verification report and other relevant documents including documents related to the projects activities in emission reductions - Review of the applied monitoring methodology; Gold Standard Voluntary Methodology Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1; - Review of any CMP and EB decisions, clarifications and guidance and the Gold Standard Secretariat; - On-site assessment (15/12/2014 and 16/12/2014) - Resolution of CARs and CLs raised during verification - Confirmation that 4 FARs raised during previous verification and GS issuance review were raised as CARs and resolved. - Issuance of Verification Report In Carbon Check s opinion the project activity was correctly implemented according to selected monitoring methodology monitoring plan and the approved PDD. The monitoring equipment was installed, calibrated and maintained in a proper manner, while collected monitoring data allowed for the verification of the amount of achieved GHG emission reductions. Through the review and on site visit the verification team confirms that the project has resulted in the 80,026 tco 2 e emission reductions during the 2 nd monitoring period. The GHG emission reductions and non-ghg parameters were correctly calculated/monitored on the basis of the approved monitoring methodology Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1 and the monitoring plan contained in the Project Design Document (version 6, dated 18/08/2014). 1 This project was sold to Envirofit International in 2013, after registration, thus the project participants listed in the PDD are different from those in this monitoring report. The project was transferred to Envirofit s account by the Gold Standard Registry and the project participants are listed as requested by Gold Standard ( 29/05/13). FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 5

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 Objective Scope Project Activity Description 8 2. METHODOLOGY Desk review Background documents: On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders Resolution of outstanding issues Internal quality control Verification Team VERIFICATION FINDINGS Project implementation The actual operation of the CDM project activity Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) Compliance of the Actual monitoring with monitoring plan in the PDD Monitored parameters Monitoring responsibility Deviation from and/or Revision of the registered monitoring plan Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions Assessment of actual emission reductions with the estimate emission reductions in PDD Compliance with the sustainability monitoring plan Monitoring of Gold Standard Sustainability Indicators Issues remaining from the previous verification period or during validation Quality and Management System Assurance 35 APPENDIX A 36 APPENDIX B 37 APPENDIX C FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 6

7 Introduction The Envirofit International, Inc. has commissioned Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. to perform an independent verification of the GS Project Activity Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania in non Annex 1 host country Tanzania (hereafter referred to as project activity ). This report summarises the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of Gold Standard requirements and toolkit and paragraph 62 of the CDM M & P, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board and Gold Standard Secretariat. Verification is required for all registered GS project activities intending to confirm their achieved emission reductions and proceed with request for issuance of VERs. This report contains the findings and resolutions from the verification and a certification statement for the certified emission reductions. 1.2 Objective Verification is the periodic independent review and ex post determination of both quantitative and qualitative information by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions that have occurred as a result of the registered GS project activity during a defined monitoring period. Certification is the written assurance by a DOE that, during a specific period in time, a project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified. The objective of this verification was to verify and certify emission reductions reported for the Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania in country Tanzania for the period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014. The purpose of verification is to review the monitoring results and verify that the monitoring methodology was implemented according to the monitoring plan and monitoring data, and used to confirm the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources, is sufficient, definitive and presented in a concise and transparent manner. Other non-ghg parameters shall also be assessed as per the requirement of GS. Verification of emission reductions for Gold Standard crediting is only for eligible gases. In particular the, monitoring plan, monitoring report and the project s compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria are verified in order to confirm that the project has been implemented in accordance with the previously registered project design and conservative assumptions, as documented. It is also to confirm that the monitoring plan is in compliance with the registered PDD and approved monitoring methodology. 1.3 Scope The scope of the verification is: To verify the project implementation and operation with respect to the registered PDD or approved revised PDD To verify the implemented monitoring plan with the registered PDD or approved revised PDD and applied baseline and monitoring methodology. To verify that the actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan. To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data / and express a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement. To verify that reported GHG emission data and other non-ghg parameters as per the requirement of GS is sufficiently supported by evidence. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 7

8 Carbon Check s scope of verification as a third party verifier is to verify project s emission reductions and sustainable development impacts against the requirements set out by the Gold Standard. The verification shall ensure that the reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified. The verification comprises a review of the monitoring report over the monitoring period from 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014 and based on the registered PDD in part of the monitoring parameters and monitoring plan, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet, monitoring methodology and all related evidence provided by project participant. On-site visit and stakeholders interviews are also performed as part of the verification process. 1.4 Project Activity Description The project activity, Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, curb deforestation and improve air quality by manufacturing or importing and disseminating charcoal / wood fuel fired improved cooking stoves (ICS) and water purification systems to households and other users throughout Tanzania. The project has disseminated 62,612 2 numbers of Envirofit wood stoves during the monitoring period which was confirmed through stove distribution database /6/ /7/. Charcoal Stoves type disseminated are CH 2200 & CH 5200 and Wood fuel type stoves are G 3300 and M Also 72 numbers of Z 3000 model cook stoves were distributed but PP is not claiming any emission reductions for them for the current monitoring period because of the high cost involved in monitoring of these low numbers of stoves vis a vis realization of carbon revenues from it. Though the PDD contemplates distribution of both ICS and water filtration systems, the project has not currently sold any water filtration systems. At present the viability of disseminating water filtration systems is being scrutinized by the PP with a view to disseminating these in 2015/2016. During this monitoring period, only efficient charcoal / wood based biomass stoves were distributed within the project boundary. The stoves covered in the current monitoring period were distributed in Tanzania by two Distributing Organizations (DO), viz., L s Solution and ARTI Energy. For the current monitoring period, an independent third party, Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation (CREEC) was hired by Envirofit to monitor the various monitoring parameters through kitchen performance tests (KPT) and kitchen surveys (KS) of the sample households /10/. The GHG offset during this monitoring period are 80,026 tco 2 e. The Envirofit cook stoves are efficient cooking stoves that use small diameter wood fuel which is burned in a simple, high-temperature combustion chamber containing an insulated vertical chimney ensuring complete combustion prior to the flames reaching the cooking surface. The value of f NRB (fractional non-renewability) is taken as from Tanzania NRB study which is in line with the applied methodology. As per applied GS methodology, option (b) of Annex 1 (Non-renewable biomass (NRB) assessment opted for NRB assessment which is similar to CDM approved methodology AMS II.G, v02) f NRB value is fixed at the time of validation. Verification team confirmed that NRB assessment is based on publicly available and verifiable data. The value of NRB can be re-assessed voluntarily at any time and is compulsory on each renewal of crediting period which is in line with registered PDD. These Improved biomass cook stoves are built to reduce use of wood and therefore related indoor air pollutants from incomplete combustion of fuel wood (CO and PM). This project reduces greenhouse gas emissions by disseminating efficient biomass cook-stoves that have been proven through testing and also verified during onsite observation and interview with house hold users to be more efficient than traditional three stones & traditional stoves models in the host country Tanzania. 2 This excludes 72 numbers of Z3000 stoves which are not considered in emission reduction calculation for this monitoring period FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 8

9 Envirofit Improved Cookstove provides the following benefits: Reduce unsustainable wood harvest and hence reduce the rate of deforestation Reduces fuel wood cost for households and communities and save fuel/fodder collection time. Contributes to the preservation of wood resources so as to avoid inter-communal conflict over resources. Provides employment with regards to local monitoring survey, distribution of cook-stoves etc. Provides health benefits e.g. coughing and irritation of eyes as well time saving during the cooking process. The verification team confirm that the project is in line with the plans contained in the registered PDD. 2. METHODOLOGY The verification consists of the following four phases: 1. Completeness check of the Emission Reductions Monitoring report and Gold Standard Sustainability Monitoring Report, and submission to the Gold Standard Registry and Project Administration System; 2. Review of project documentation (monitoring plan, monitoring report, monitoring methodology, project design document, applicable tools in particular attention to the frequency of measurements, quality of metering equipment s including calibration requirements, QA/QC procedures and other relevant documents and regulations); 3. On-site visit (including follow-up interviews with project stakeholders, when deemed necessary). The on-site assignment includes the following; An assignment of implementation and operation of project activity with respect to registered PDD or approved revised PDD; Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; Interview with relevant personals to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented and in accordance with monitoring plan of the PDD; Cross check of information and data provided in the monitoring report with plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources; Check of monitoring equipment s, calibration frequency and monitoring practice inline with methodology and PDD; Review of assumptions made in calculating the emission reduction; Implementation of QA/QC procedure in-line with the PDD and methodology requirement. 4. Resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final Verification report and Certification statement. The following sections outline each step in more detail. Duration of Verification: Signing of Letter of Engagement: 03/11/ On Site Visit 15/12/ /12/2014 Issuance of DVR 21/12/2014 Reporting/Calculations/Technical Review and QA/QC:03/07/ Addendum 1: Signed because of transfer of accredition from Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd (Johannesburg, South Africa) to succeeding entity Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. (Delhi, India), dated 02/12/2014 Addendum 2: Tripartite Agreement Signed between Envirofit International Ltd., Envirofit International, Inc. and Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., dated 09/03/2015 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev. 07 9

10 2.1 Desk review The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the verification: Ref no. Reference Document /1/ Initial Monitoring report, version 01, 27/11/2014; version 02, 19/01/2015; version 03, 20/02/2015; version 04, 18/04/2015; version 05, 12/06/2015 /2/ Final Monitoring report, version 06, 27/07/2015 /3/ Emission reduction calculation spread sheet version 1, dated 27/11/2014 /4/ Emission reduction calculation spread sheet version 6, 27/07/2015 /5/ E mail communication in between PP and GS for the approval of revised PDD, version 6, dated 18/08/2014 and revised Passport version 7 date 18/08/2014 on 18 th August 2014 and 22 nd August 2014 /6/ Evidence for 62,612 ICS distributed for the project activity till May 2014 along with date, model numbers and other relevant details like sample warranty cards /7/ Sales order / Invoice raised by Envirofit to L s Solution and ARTI Energy for the ICS /8/ Evidence of the records maintained within the Envirofit ERP system /9/ End user data base used for sampling survey /10/ Contract in between Envirofit and CREEC to carry out monitoring survey /11/ Sampling surveys and tests done by CREEC along with final report and spread sheet, summary raw KPT data sheet /12/ Evidence for employment by ARTI and L s Solution as 52 and 66 numbers employees respectively /13/ Training procedures and records of the personnel involved in GHG monitoring /14/ Technical specifications for the ICS stove models used in the project activity for : 1. CH CH M G 3300 /15/ Sample evidence of transfer of emission reduction ownership /16/ E mail communication dated 4 th August 2014 in between Envirofit and GS for no need to conduct efficiency tests for various ages of stoves and KPTs carried out once every two years shall automatically cover for ageing effect. /17/ Letter of Engagement in between DOE and PP dated 03/11/2014 Addendum 1: Signed because of transfer of accredition from Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd (Johannesburg, South Africa) to succeeding entity Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. (Delhi, India), dated 02/12/2014 Addendum 2: Tripartite Agreement Signed between Envirofit International Ltd., Envirofit International, Inc. and Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., dated 09/03/ Calibration certificates for the weighing machines (performed by Uganda National Bureau of Standards) using during KPT: Weighing machine serial number Calibration date CRC/BL/20 13/05/2014 CRC/BL/099 13/05/2014 CRC/BL/100 13/05/2014 CRC/BL/101 13/05/2014 Moisture Meter Calibration date FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

11 /04/ communication from GS to PP on 27/07/2015 allowing for the HHs, which have reported not using any baseline stove and at the same time use the ICS only once a week/less than weekly, to claim ERs for one day a week for each of these HHs, i.e. for a maximum of 52 days/hh/year. 2.2 Background documents: During the desk review, Carbon Check applied the standard auditing techniques to assess Ref no. /B01/ /B02/ /B03/ /B04/ /B05/ Reference Document 1. Validation and Verification Standard version Project Standard version 07 Gold Standard specific rule/guidelines/standard: 1. Gold Standard tool kit (GSv2.1_Toolkit) 2. GSv2.1-Requirements 3. GS-annexes to toolkit Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1 Template of MR version 04.0 available on UNFCCC website along with guidelines for completing the MR 1. Registered PDD (version 3.1, dated 14/12/2012) and its corresponding validation report version 03, dated 08/06/ Approved revised GS PDD (version 6, dated 18/08/2014) and Passport version 7 dated 18/08/ st verification report for the project activity, version 4, dated 19/11/2013 /B06/ Guideline on the application of Materiality in verifications (version 01.0) /B07/ /B08/ /B09/ Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and Programme of Activities, version 04.1 Review comments by GS during 3 weeks review period for the first monitoring period Web sites: sed.pdf the quality of information provided. 2.3 On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders An OSV was performed by the verification team of Carbon Check on (15/12/ /12/2014) and the following activities were performed: i. An assessment of the implementation and operation of the registered project activity as per the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD; ii. A review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

12 iii. Interviews with relevant personnel to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan in the PDD; iv. A cross check between information provided in the monitoring report and data from other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources; v. A check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance and observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PDD and the selected methodology and corresponding tool(s), where applicable; vi. A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions; vii. An identification of quality control and quality assurance procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters. viii. Verification of the monitoring of sustainable development indicators The project representatives and stakeholders interviewed: 1 Rohit Lohia 2 David Kigima 3 Nachiket Potnis Name Organization Topic Means of interview Envirofit International Envirofit International ARTI Energy 4 Daniel Code ARTI Energy 5 John Jackson ARTI Energy Dennis Tessier Sulaya Yusufu Kazimoto ARTI Energy Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) MR, GHG and non-ghg parameters, project implementation/operation, compliance of monitoring plan with monitoring meth, registered PDD, ER calculation. MR, GHG and non-ghg parameters, project implementation/operation, compliance of monitoring plan with monitoring meth, registered PDD, ER calculation. Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

13 Tamarie (Mama Joshua) Mama Mwita Lightness Agnessfesto 13 Elizabeth Leonard 14 David Salim 14 Kuruthum Mwinchum 15 Mama Mbando Mama Mujuni Mama Mwita 18 Dada Josephine 19 Aneth Marandu 20 Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Mama Ashura Local Stakeholder (end user) 21 Faraja Kishimbo Mama Shya Mr Yonna 24 Mwalimu Mpangala 25 Mwalimu Edith Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person In person FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

14 26 Isabela Mkumbo Mama Victoria Christina Peter Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Local Stakeholder (end user) Grace Saguti Local Stakeholder (end user) Mbuugwa Local Stakeholder (end user) Mary Kinawo Local Stakeholder (end user) Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview Onsite inspection and Interview In person In person In person In person In person In person Standard auditing techniques has been applied by CCIPL to assess and verify the quality of information provided during the course of verification. Carbon Check's sample size of 25 households for onsite visit is deemed to be appropriate with the reasoning discussed below: Project Proponent had taken sample size of 102 (51 each from charcoal and wood fired cook stoves). DOE used sampling during verification for checking the stoves. A sample size of 25 households was chosen. A sample size of 25 was required, based on an AQL of 0.5 % and UQL of 15 %, the producer risk used is 5 % and consumer risk used was 10 %. Acceptance number (c) thus determined for the sample is 1. It was observed that all the stoves were in working condition and thus c=0, i.e. no discrepant records were observed. Thus PP s set of records have been accepted in line with paragraph 28 of the sampling standard, version 04.1 /B07/. Hence, CCIPL confirms that PP's survey/sampling records to be acceptable and assessment of acceptance of PP s sampling has been conducted in line with the requirements of the Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and Programme of Activities, version 04.1 /B07/. Through the above-mentioned activities the verification team confirmed the following Gold Standard project aspects in relation to the project activity: The implementation and operation of the project activity is as described in the monitoring plan in the registered PDD. The operational and data collection procedures are implemented as per the monitoring plan in the PDD The information flow for generating, grouping and reporting of the monitored parameters Procedures to avoid double counting are in place. 2.4 Resolution of outstanding issues The objective of this phase of the verification is to resolve any outstanding issues (issues that require further elaboration, research or expansion) which have to be clarified/corrective action done prior to final DOE s conclusions on the project implementation, monitoring practices and achieved emission reductions. In order to ensure transparency a verification protocol is completed for the project activity. The protocol shows in transparent manner criteria FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

15 (requirements), means of verification and resulting statements on verification actual project activity against identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: It organises in a table form, details and clarifies the requirements, which the GS project is expected to meet GS requirements; It ensures a transparent verification process where the DOE will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification. It ensures that the issues are accurately identified, formulated, discussed and concluded in the validation report. It ensures the determination of achieving credible emission reductions from the project activity. The verification protocol consists of two tables. Table 1 reflects the verification requirements and reference to the materials used to verify the project activity against those requirements, as well as means of verification, reference to Table 2 (i.e. tables of findings) and preliminary and final opinion of the DOE on every particular requirement listed in table 1. Verification Protocol Table 1: Requirement checklist Checklist question Verification Team Comment/MoV Reference Findings comments references, data source / Draft Conclusion Final Conclusion The checklist items in Table 1 are linked to the various requirements the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections. Each section is then further subdivided as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity. The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the assessment of the Verification team and how the assessment was carried out. The reporting requirements of the VVS and Project Standard shall be covered in this section. Gives reference to the information source on which the assessment is based on Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is fulfilled (), or a CAR, CL or FAR is raised (see below). The assessment refers to the draft verification stage. In case a corrective action or a clarification request the final assessment at the final verification stage is given. The findings of verification process are summarized in the tables below. Finding (reference section of table 1) Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

16 Finding (reference section of table 1) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed In Table 2 FAR, shall reflect the forward actions initiated by the verification team if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period. The completed verification protocol for this project is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings during the verification can be interpreted as a non-compliance with CDM criteria or a risk to the compliance. Corrective action requests (CARs) are raised, in case: (a) Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting and has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; (b) Modifications to the implementation, operation and monitoring of the registered project activity has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants; (c) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; (d) Issues identified in a FAR during validation/previous verification(s) that are not been resolved by the project participant(s) to be verified during current verification. Requests for clarification (CLs) are raised, if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. A forward action request (FAR) is raised during verification to highlight issues related to project implementation/monitoring that require review during the subsequent verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM requirements for issuance. 2.5 Internal quality control The final verification report has passed a technical review before being submitted to the project participant. The technical review was performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with CCIPL s qualification scheme for CDM validation and verification. 2.6 Verification Team Carbon Check has appointed a competent team as per the Accreditation Standard and Carbon Check internal procedures, the team is outlined below: FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

17 Supervising the work Desk review Site Visit + Interview Report and protocol Writing Technical Expert Input Reporting Support Technical Reviewer Expert to technical reviewer Verification Team Full name Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical Areas) Type of Involvement Sanjay Agarwalla 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 9.1, 9.2,13.1 X X X X X Amit Anand 1.2, 3.1, 8.1, 13.1, X X 14.1 Gaurav Sharma 1.2 X Adam Simcock -- X Anubhav Dimri 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 13.1 X 3. VERIFICATION FINDINGS The findings of the verification are described in the following sections. The verification criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results of verification are documented in detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A. 3.1 Project implementation The implementation of the project activity Project Participants: Envirofit International, Inc. Title of project activity: Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania. GS registration No: GS 850 Applied Baseline and Gold Standard Voluntary Methodology Technologies and monitoring methodology: Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1 Project Scale: Large Scale Location of the project Tanzania activity: Project s crediting period: 07/01/2011 to 06/01/2018 Reported monitoring Period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014 verified in this verification: As part of the site visit the verification team was able to confirm that the project implementation is in accordance with the project description contained in the approved PDD of 18/08/2014 /B05/ (although the final revised PDD is not visible on GS website, but PP has submitted mail communication with GS wherein the revised PDD has been accepted by GS). Project physical features ( technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering equipment) The project activity, Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania is to replace conventional/traditional three stones stoves throughout Tanzania with the fuel-efficient cook stoves. During the 2 nd monitoring period (17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014), project activity has disseminated 62,612 cook stoves and thus replaced conventional three stones in Tanzania. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

18 The project activity has disseminated 62,612 4 Envirofit cook stoves (CH 2200, CH 5200, M 5000 and G 3300) during the monitoring period, with an estimated GHG offset during this monitoring period of 80,026 tco 2 e. Also 72 numbers of Z 3000 model cook stoves were distributed but PP is not claiming any emission reductions for them for the current monitoring period because of the high cost involved in monitoring of these low numbers of stoves vis a vis realization of carbon revenues from it. They may be included in subsequent monitoring period. Number of stoves distributed confirmed with sales records /7/. These are efficient cooking stoves that use small diameter wood / charcoal fuel burned in a simple, high-temperature combustion chamber containing an insulated vertical chimney that ensures complete combustion prior to the flames reaching the cooking surface. The technical specifications for the ICS stoves were matching with that mentioned in the PDD /14/. As per the cluster / scenario definitions established in the PDD as per the baseline survey, the project has to date focussed on the non-institutional biomass users: rural cluster which was confirmed with usage survey. The value of f NRB is taken from Tanzania NRB study which is in line with applied methodology. As per applied GS methodology, option (b) is opted for NRB assessment which is similar to CDM approved methodology AMS II.G, version 02. f NRB value was fixed at the time of validation. Verification team confirmed that NRB assessment based on publicly available and verifiable data. Value of NRB re-assessed voluntarily at any time and compulsory on each renewal of crediting period which is in line with registered PDD. Apart from reduction in greenhouse gases, the project offering cobenefit to user to relief from high fuel cost, save time for fuel collection and/or improved health due to less indoor pollution during the cooking process. Any Project Design Change been sought and approved by EB for the project? During the on-site visit, verification team checked the design and technology of stoves of different users, which are in line with the description provided in registered PDD. There is no change observed from the registered monitoring plan of the registered PDD. Yes No change sought No The verified timeline of the project s implementation is as follow: Milestone of the project activity Timeline Assessment by the verification team Starting date of operation: 07/01/2011 The start date of operation for the project is 07/01/2011, which is the date of first sale of improved cook stoves (it may be noted that 18/11/2010 is date of invoicing to DO and the date of sale to 4 This excludes 72 numbers of Z3000 stoves which are not considered in emission reduction calculation for this monitoring period FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

19 Milestone of the project activity Timeline Assessment by the verification team end user by the DO is 07/01/2011. The project applies a 120 day default to the invoice dates as a conservative measure which in-effect means that the start date has been conservatively delayed to 18 March 2011 instead of 07 Jan 2011) Registration of the project activity Crediting period 1 st monitoring period 07/01/2011 to 16/05/ nd monitoring period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/ /11/2012 Verification team verified the registration of the project activity from the GS registry and found appropriate. The same can be accessed from the link provided below: (although the final revised PDD is not visible on GS website, but PP has submitted mail communication with GS wherein the revised PDD has been accepted by GS). Cross checked with the GS website Registered PDD, sales records were checked, which was further substantiated during the on-site visit and interviews with local stakeholders and end users of the project stoves (households). The project activity was implemented and stoves installed as described in the approved revised PDD dated 18/08/2014 /B05/. On the basis of the on-site visit, interview and the reviewed project documentation along with documentary evidences, it can be confirmed that the project implementation is in accordance with realized technology. The project has been implemented and operated as described in the approved revised PDD dated 18/08/2014 with GS secretariat. The monitoring and sustainable development indicators parameters are also monitored as per the PDD and GS guideline and found to appropriate. Further it may be noted that the monitoring data are reported based on the monitoring survey conducted by an independent third party, Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation (CREEC) /11/. The survey was conducted during the period September and October 2014 based on which the monitoring parameters are reported and emission reduction calculation done for the monitoring period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014. The cookstoves covered for this monitoring period were distributed within May 2014 /6/ (i.e. before the survey period and also before the end of the monitoring period). Hence the verification site visit conducted on 15/12/2014 and 16/12/2014, which is before the end date of the monitoring period, does not affect verification conclusion. During first issuance, two FARs carried forward from validation /B05/ and four FARs raised by GS during review /B08/ are addressed in this periodic verification (Please refer to Appendix B Table 2 for further details). Verification Team summarizes major changes between webhosted Monitoring Report and final version of Monitoring Report for submission as follows: Subject Initial/Webhosted Monitoring Report (MR) /01/ Verified Monitoring Report /02/ FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

20 MR (project title / participants involved/ project location / reference numbers / report date and version etc.) Consistency Project title: Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania; Project participant: Envirofit International Ltd.; Project location: Tanzania; GS reference number: GS580; Project title: Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania; Project participant: Envirofit International, Inc.; Project location: Tanzania; GS reference number: GS850; CER calculations (amount of emission reduction) Monitoring (period dates and period) Crediting period ( type / start date) Report version and date: 01, Report version and date: 06, 27/11/ /07/ ,808 tco 2 e 80,026 tco 2 e (The reason for increase of emission reductions is that in the initial submission there were some errors in punching the sale date of cook stoves to the DOs which has been corrected) 17/05/2013 to 31/12/ /05/2013 to 31/12/2014 Renewable/ 07/01/2011 Renewable/ 07/01/2011 Any other change NA NA The verification team has also assessed the monitoring and impact on the sustainable development indicators by the project implementation and found to be appropriate as per the approved revised PDD dated 18/08/2014 /B05/. 3.2 The actual operation of the CDM project activity The starting date of the project activity is 01/03/2010 as per the PDD, and the first distribution of stoves took place on 07/01/2011 as verified during the validation and first periodic verification of the project activity /B05/. It may be noted that 18/11/2010 is date of invoicing to DO and the date of sale to end user by the DO is 07/01/2011. The project applies a 120 day default to the invoice dates as a conservative measure which in-effect means that the start date has been conservatively delayed to 18 March 2011 instead of 07 Jan A total of 62,612 5 stoves were distributed in the project during the monitoring period and last one in May 2014 /6/. The project was registered on 20/11/2012 and the starting date of the crediting period is 07/01/2011. Recipient households have signed an acknowledgement (VER waiver forms) that the PP, Envirofit owns the rights to the VERs generated from the project activity /15/. This has been confirmed through the review of actual agreements as evidence. Operation of the devices is confirmed during the site visit by the verification team. Followings were verified at the project site: 1. Stoves numbering system 2. Electronic monitoring system including input procedure 3. Actual distribution / implementation of the stoves 4. Household-representatives were interviewed regarding the usage of stove and improvement in indoor air quality 5 This excludes 72 numbers of Z3000 stoves which are not considered in emission reduction calculation for this monitoring period FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

21 5. Whether or not baseline technology was still in use 6. Process of data collection during installation of stove 7. Agreements between households and the DO Carbon Check s verification team confirms that the project activity is implemented within the boundary as described in the approved revised PDD and the implementation and operation of the project activity has been conducted in accordance with the description contained in the PDD. The monitoring report has been submitted for monitoring period 2 (from 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014). In summary, the monitoring period is reasonable and the operation of the project activity is in accordance with the approved revised PDD. The verification took cognizance of 244, 245 and 246 of CDM Project Standard and 262 b (i), 270 (a), 271 (a), (b) and 273 (b) and (c) of VVS version 07 /B01/. 3.3 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) Any Revision in Monitoring plan is sought and approved by EB for the project? Yes No No revision in Monitoring Plan is sought. The verification team determined against all the information provided in MR, whether in-line with the applied monitoring methodology. Verification Requirements Any Deviation been sought and approved by EB for the project. Is complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available Is the required information provided in the monitoring report has been crosschecked with other sources (ex plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis) Criteria fulfilled Yes No Yes No Yes No Assessment by the verification team No deviation from methodology is found. Complete set of data for the specified monitoring period i.e. 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014 was provided by the PP, which was verified on sample basis by the verification team and found to be appropriate. Verification team has verified the data submitted by PP during onsite inspection and document review. 25 random selected samples of cook stoves (end users) were checked and all the relevant information was verified, including the interview of the local households. Sales records /7/ containing all the required mentioned information, e.g. serial number, date of sale, name of the end users etc. were verified to be appropriate. In addition to the sales record, the survey report prepared by CREEC /11/ was assessed. Total number of the stoves sold, KPT, baseline survey and user survey data along with the emission factor which was verified from the IPCC report are FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

22 Verification Requirements Is the calculation of baseline emissions and project activity emissions and leakage been in accordance with the formulae and methods described in monitoring plan and the applied methodology? Is all assumptions used for emission calculation have been justified Is appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values have been correctly applied Does the monitoring methodology provides any provision of verification for parameters other than monitoring of GHG data and shall be specific to the applicability criteria of applied methodology. Criteria fulfilled Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Assessment by the verification team the main parameters based on which the real ERs are accrued during this applied monitoring period and verified to be accurate by the verification team. Assessment of sampling /survey done by PP has been discussed in sec. 2.3 above. The formulae and methods used in calculation of emission reduction are consistent with the registered PDD /B05/ and the applied GS methodology /B03/. All the assumptions used for emission calculation were justified in the MR and registered PDD. Default values taken in the calculation of ERs are cross-verified from the registered PDD and the IPCC default values and found to be appropriate. NA Based on above, the verification team confirms that the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD /B05/ is appropriately followed in the monitoring report by the project activity and also in accordance with the applied approved monitoring methodology, i.e. Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption version 1 /B03/. The monitoring plan along with sampling & survey of the cook stoves for baseline as well as the project case is described in the registered PDD /B05/. The baseline survey was performed by an independent third party Berkeley Air Monitoring Group and project survey are also performed by an independent third party, Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation (CREEC), College of Engineering, Design, Art & Technology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda /11/. The project survey reports along with Kitchen Performance Test and Kitchen Survey report have been submitted by the PP. The verification team has cross checked these information and survey method during onsite visit. During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in the PDD) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation /4/, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The verification took cognizance of 249 of CDM Project Standard and 274 to 277of VVS version 07/B01/. 3.4 Compliance of the Actual monitoring with monitoring plan in the PDD FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

23 Any Revision in Monitoring plan is sought and approved by EB for the project? Does the monitoring report provide line diagram showing all relevant monitoring points? Yes No Yes No No revision in Monitoring Plan is sought. Line diagram for monitoring point is not applicable as the project monitoring is based on the sales data of cook stoves and third party survey report. There is no monitoring equipment applied as per the registered PDD and applied methodology. The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD /B05/ and applied approved GS methodology /B03/. During the course of verification, all relevant monitoring parameters have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, and applied QA/QC procedures. According to the methodology, a total sales records, detailed customer database and project database are maintained. Envirofit International contracted CREEC /10/ who performed several field-based assessments to determine the effect of improved cooking stoves on fuel consumption in households. In multiple locations throughout Tanzania, fuel savings and other aspects related to usage of project stoves were measured by CREEC and presented in a detailed report /11/. The verification team reviewed the monitoring plan in the PDD /B05/ and compared it against the requirements of the applied methodology /B03/ and confirms that appropriate provisions are included for the monitoring and reporting procedures, data management, and QA/QC procedures, including maintaining the detailed customer database and project database and found in line with the 271 of the VVS version 07 /B01/. The sampling plan implemented by the PP (third party sampling and survey company, CREEC) is in accordance with the applied approved monitoring methodology /B03/ and registered PDD /B05/. The third party sampling and survey company appropriately performed cluster-sampling inline with the applied methodology and best suited for this type of project. CCIPL confirms that the monitoring plan has been properly implemented by the PP in accordance with the registered PDD and applied methodology. Following are the assessment points as follows: Monitoring and Usage Survey: The monitoring survey is conducted with usage survey as the participants are currently using the same project technology i.e. efficient cook stoves. CREEC has covered total of 102 stoves. This monitoring and usage survey was performed during the month of September / October Monitoring survey is to be conducted one year after registration i.e. 20/11/2012 in accordance with the requirement of the applied approved GS monitoring methodology /B03/ of page 23 and 24 of section C, as per methodological conditions, monitoring survey shall be conducted after 20/11/2013. Accordingly PP monitoring survey was conducted by third party CREEC in September / October 2014 for the current monitoring period. Verification team assessed the monitoring and usage survey report read with applied methodology by CREEC which was found to be in line with the onsite visit observation after interview with the end users (HHs) and also the interview with the PP. Methodology and procedure followed to calculate the usage rate is assessed to be appropriate by the verification team as the number of sample taken randomly selected where FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

24 Envirofit stoves were distributed at the time of survey. For this assessment a total of 102 samples were taken. Leakage Assessment: Based on publicly available information /B09/ PP has demonstrated that there has not been any leakage at this verification (assessment period). Assessment of leakage is performed in line with requirement of applied GS methodology section II.6. Verification team also observed during onsite visit and interview that there has not been any leakage associated with this project during this monitoring period. All end users receive a warranty card /06/ upon the purchase of their stove which explains that ownership rights over carbon credits are being claimed by Envirofit. This warranty cards has been reviewed both during the site visit as well as in electronic form after the site visit. Kitchen Performance Test: Kitchen performance test (KPT) and Kitchen survey (KS) /11/ was performed by CREEC /11/. Kitchen performance test (KPT) is to determine the effect of improved cook stoves on fuel consumption in households along with other socio economic impact such as time of fuel collection, time for cooking and money savings due to reduced fuel consumption along with the health benefits etc. There has not been any change in the baseline KPT as the baseline for the first crediting period (project applied for 7 year renewable crediting period) is fixed. KPT is performed in line with the requirements of Annex 4 of GS methodology Kitchen Performance Test: Procedure for fuel consumption measurements for improved cook stove activities. All the work sheet where values are used for emission reduction calculation along with sustainable development indicators were verified to be in accordance with the onsite observation and interview with the HHs and PP. NRB Assessment: The NRB is fixed by the PP at the time of validation as 93.3% for the first crediting period, which has not been changed and hence is acceptable to the verification team. Total Sales Record: CCIPL has reviewed the sales records /6/ /7/, which the PP has maintained in both electronic and paper records i.e. sales receipts and warranty cards. The records include all data required by the monitoring plan. Furthermore, CCIPL crosschecked randomly selected electronic records to ensure that they accurately reflected the respective paper records of each sale and further verified a sample of these paper sales receipts/warranty cards while conducting the site visit. Data recording and maintenance and archival was assessed and verified during the site visit and interview with Envirofit International personnel. Continuous data entry and recording is maintained by entering each stove type on daily basis along with paper receipt, which is monthly verified by the country manager and quarterly assessed by the CEO of the Envirofit International. The accuracy of maintaining sales record is found to be adequate by the verification team. Project Database: FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

25 The Project Database includes all information required by the methodology, including sales by cluster, results of the KSs and KPTs, factors affecting emission reductions and adjustments to emission reduction calculations. Mechanism to avoid double counting: PP has an effective system to maintain the records of every particular stove sold in the project activity both in electronic and paper forms. Stoves has an individual unique serial number, which avoids any chance of double counting in the entire crediting period which was verified with cook stoves sales database /6/ and also verified during OSV. During OSV, randomly stoves serial number in stove data base cross checked with sale receipts stored as hard copies and found to be correct. Based on above CCIPL can confirm that the characteristics of the HH sampled for this verification do not differ from the characteristics of the HH sampled for the KPT. Further, the stoves assessed during the site visit were all found to be properly labeled and the PP has ownership right on emission reductions accrued from this project activity which was confirmed by stove delivery slip /15/. Therefore, it is concluded that the project is not double-counting emission reductions. DOE used sampling during verification for checking the stoves. A sample size of 25 households was chosen (no non-responses). A sample size of 25 was required, based on a AQL of 0.5 % and UQL of 15 %, the producer risk used is 5 % and consumer risk used was 10 %. Acceptance number (c) thus determined for the sample is 1. It was observed that all the stoves were in working condition and thus c=0, i.e. no discrepant records were observed. Thus PP s set of records has been accepted in line with paragraph 28 ofthe sampling standard, version 04.1 /B07/. The threshold of materiality was evaluated based on 10 and 17 of Guideline on the application of materiality in verification Version 01.0 (Annex 6, EB 69) /B06/. It was concluded that the materiality threshold applicable to the project activity based on actual emission reductions achieved is 2% of 49,174 tco 2 e per year 6, which is equal to 983 tco 2 e. In planning the verification, verification team took cognizance of paragraph 16 and 17 of Guideline on the application of materiality in verification Version 01.0 (Annex 6, EB 69) /B06/. A materiality threshold of 983 tco 2 e is determined in line with paragraph 10 and paragraph 16(a) of the above guideline. Based on the above, activities in which risks were assessed were: 1. Monitoring system including the data input procedure 2. Sample copies of the agreements between the households and the DOs (origin of data) 3. Stove unique ID system 4. ER sheet (application of data) 5. Data flow 6. Data control procedures 7. KPT and KS records conducted by independent third party CREEC In conducting the verification, DOE took cognizance of paragraph of Guideline on the application of materiality in verification Version 01.0 (Annex 6, EB 69) /B06/ and based on the input of data from different sources checked through sampling of records during OSV observed that no records were found to have inconsistent data from hand written (Copy of the agreement between household and DO) to the electronic monitoring database. Data flow was checked through comparison of data in hand written forms, electronic database and ER sheet. The data recording input device was also checked and the data compared with the 6 Calculated on prorate basis for one year based on 80,026 tco 2e for the monitoring period from 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014 (594 days) FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

26 monitoring database and found to be correct. The risks identified were mitigated through cross check with all sets of documents. Based on the review of PDD, monitoring report, emission reduction calculation workbook and the data provided and the assessment carried out above, CCIPL confirms with a reasonable level of assurance that the claimed emission reductions or removals are free from material errors, omissions or misstatements. 3.5 Monitored parameters PP engaged an independent third party, Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation (CREEC) /10/ who performed cluster sampling in line with applied methodology /B03/. In multiple locations throughout Tanzania, fuel savings and other aspects related to usage of Envirofit CH 2200, CH 5200, M 5000 and G 3300 stoves were measured in September and October CREEC considered 102 samples (51 from CH 2200 and CH 5200 which are charcoal fired stoves and 51 from M 5000 and G 3300 which are wood fired stoves). The sample size was determined in accordance with Table 3 of the applied methodology /B03/. The chosen sample size for KPT and KS meets the margin of error requirement (the 90/10 rule) with COV of 0.4 and measure fuel savings with a sample size of 45 (whereas PP has taken a sample size of 51 for both charcoal and wood fired stoves). The results were presented in the final report to Envirofit International which summarizes findings from the assessment of the Envirofit wood stoves. Verification team confirms that, sample size taken by CREEC were ample and appropriate and during OSV. The Centre for Research in Energy and Energy Conservation (CREEC) is a not-for-profit organization incorporated in December 2010 with prime objective to enhance access to modern types of energy through research, training and consultancy in East-Africa. CREEC has a stoves and fuels testing laboratory, the Regional Testing and Knowledge Centre (RTKC) which is an internationally recognized stove and fuel laboratory working in partnership with the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC). The objective of the RTKC is to provide stove and fuel testing services through globally accepted testing procedures for the East-African region; with a knowledge hub in bio-energy technologies, research, design and development. EX-Post Parameters: The monitored parameters of the project are in line with the approved revised PDD /B05/ and the applied GS methodology /B03/. Brief descriptions of the monitored parameters are listed below: (i) Quantity of fuel that is consumed in project case p during year y (P p,y ): Daily firewood consumption was measured by Kitchen Performance Test (KPT) in units of kilograms per household-day (kg/hh-day). The sampling and survey of household for the KPT was done by a third party CREEC which is verified by review of the report submitted by CREEC /11/ and interview during on-site visit with the end users. Based on KPT, quantity of fuel consumed in project case p during year y (P p,y ) is as follows: kg/hh/day for wood-fuel stoves and kg/hh/day for charcoal stoves /2/ /4/ (ii) Usage rate in project scenario p during year y (U p,y ): FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

27 The usage survey provides a single usage parameter that is weighted based on drop off rates that are representative of the age distribution for project technologies in the total sales record. The monitoring frequency of the usage rate (U p,y ) is annually or at the time of request for issuance, which is in compliance as this survey is conducted before the second verification period, hence, it is concluded that measuring and reporting frequency is in accordance with registered monitoring plan and applied approved monitoring methodology. The value of usage rate calculated for this monitoring period is 64.43% /2/ /4/. (iii) Technologies in the project database for project scenario p through year y (N p,y ): The source of the data for N p,y is the total sales record. The value measured through continuous monitoring is total 62,612 Envirofit stoves sold. The monitoring equipment of the sales records are, manual warranty cards and Microsoft Excel which was checked and verified by the verification team during onsite visit. Verification team assessed and verified the total sales record of technologies in the project database (electronic and paper records, i.e. sample sales records/warranty or sales receipt) on the sample basis, which are monitored on continuous basis and found to be appropriate. (iv) Leakage in project scenario p during year y (LE p,y ): The purpose of the leakage estimation is to determine and quantify the sources of leakage and account in the emission reduction calculation. Based on the publicly available information, PP has demonstrated that no leakage in involved for the project activity during the monitoring period. Monitoring frequency of this parameter is every two years as per the registered monitoring plan which is found to be in compliance applied monitoring methodology. (v) Kitchen Survey (KS ): The monitoring frequency of the Kitchen Survey is annually starting one year after registration, which is in compliance as the survey for the current monitoring period was conducted in October 2014, after the first verification period (which ended on 16/05/2013). Hence, it is concluded that measuring and reporting frequency is in accordance with registered monitoring plan and applied approved monitoring methodology. This survey identifies any changes in any project scenarios over time by surveying end users with project technologies. The monitoring survey is to begin following the anniversary of the project registration date, which is 20 November (vi) Detailed customer database: The Project Database includes all information required by the methodology, including sales by cluster, results of the KSs and KPTs, factors affecting emission reductions, and adjustments to emission reduction calculations. Verification team assessed and verified customer data base which also includes the total sales record of technologies in the project (electronic and paper records, i.e. sample sales records/warranty or sales receipt) on the sample basis, which are monitored on continuous basis and found to be appropriate. (vii) f NRB : FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

28 The NRB is fixed by the PP at the time of validation as 93.3% for the first crediting period, which has not been changed for this verification and hence is acceptable to the verification team. Ex-ante Parameters: Parameter: EF b,co2 : CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario Default values used: Purpose of data For calculation of baseline emissions Source and Verification of the source 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Tables 1.2/1.4 Parameter: EF p,co2 : CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in project scenario Default values used: Purpose of data For calculation of project emissions Source and Verification of the source 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Tables 1.2/1.4 Parameter: EF b,nonco2 : Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario Default values used: Purpose of data Source and Verification of the source For calculation of baseline emissions CH 4 and N 2 O: IPCC 2006 GL for emission factors and NCVs, IPCC SAR 1996 for GWPs. Parameter: EF p,nonco2 : Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in project scenario Default values used: Purpose of data Source and Verification of the source For calculation of project emissions CH 4 and N 2 O: IPCC 2006 GL for emission factors and NCVs, IPCC SAR 1996 for GWPs. Parameter: EF ch,prod,co2 : CO 2 emission factor arising from production of charcoal Default values used: Purpose of data Source and Verification of the source For calculation of baseline emissions Emissions of greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from charcoal making in Kenya and Brazil, David M. Pennise, Kirk R. Smith, Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 106 October Parameter: EF ch,prod,non-co2 : Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from production of charcoal Default values used: Purpose of data For calculation of baseline emissions Source and Verification of the source CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O GWPs from (IPCC SAR 1996) Parameter: EF ch,use,co2 : CO 2 emission factor arising from consumption of charcoal Default values used: Purpose of data For calculation of baseline emissions FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

29 Source and Verification of the source Product of NCV ch (IPCC 2006 GL default 29.5 MJ/kg) and Emission factor (energy basis) for charcoal (IPCCC 2006 GL default 112 tco 2 /TJ) x 10-3 Parameter: EF ch,use,non-co2 : Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from consumption of charcoal Default values used: Purpose of data Source and Verification of the source For calculation of baseline emissions CH 4 and N 2 O: IPCC 2006 GL for emission factors and NCVs, IPCC SAR 1996 for GWPs. Parameter: Default values used: Purpose of data Source and Verification of the source P b,i : Quantity of fuel that is consumed in baseline scenario during year y 2.86 tons/hh-yr, or 7.83 kg/hh/day (woodfuel) tons/hh-yr, or 2.02 kg/hh/day (charcoal) For calculation of baseline emissions Study Parameters for water treatment activities have not been included in the report as water treatment systems have not been disseminated under the project activity yet. In summary, the verification team confirms that all the ex-ante and ex-post parameters are monitored in accordance with the approved monitoring plan /B05/ and applied methodology /B03/. The verification took cognizance of 260, 268 to 281 of VVS version Monitoring responsibility Verification team evaluated the management systems in place to implement the monitoring of the project activity. This included the organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, data collection, transfer and aggregation procedures, training of personnel, data storage and archiving and emergency procedures for the monitoring system. On the basis of onsite interview with the employee of Envirofit International and ARTI Energy involved in the project monitoring and data collection, inspection of data storage log book & equipment s and document review. ARTI Energy is local partner of Envirofit who is handling stove distribution in Tanzania. Carbon Check can confirm that the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are appropriate and effective for the project type and hence in accordance with monitoring plant of the registered PDD and applied monitoring methodology Accuracy of equipment There is no particular monitoring equipment under purview of PP for monitoring of this project type, hence assessment of accuracy and calibration of the monitoring equipment is not applicable. Furthermore neither the approved revised PDD (= registered monitoring plan) nor applied GS monitoring methodology for this particular project technology, describes the requirement of calibration of monitoring equipment s. However, the verification team checked the calibration certificates of the four weighing machines and one moisture meter used for the project activity during KPT and found to be valid as per the following /18/: Equipment type Weighing machine Manufacturer Serial Number Calibration date Calibrating agency Hanson CRC/BL/20 13/05/2014 Uganda National Calibration certificate number FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

30 Weighing machine Weighing machine Weighing machine Moisture meter Bureau of Standards Globe CRC/BL/099 13/05/2014 Uganda National Bureau of Standards Globe CRC/BL/100 13/05/2014 Uganda National Bureau of Standards Globe CRC/BL/101 13/05/2014 Uganda National Bureau of Standards Protimeter /04/2014 Uganda National Bureau of Standards The calibrating agency, Uganda National Bureau of Standards is a Government Institution involved in providing standardisation services and hence deemed credible Deviation from and/or Revision of the registered monitoring plan There are no deviations from and/or revisions to the monitoring plan during the monitoring period. 3.8 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions The Project Proponent submitted all the relevant data and parameters required to be monitored to the verification team along with the monitoring report. All the parameters required to monitored are as per the approved revised PDD /B05/ have been monitored and reported in the monitoring report. CCIPL reviewed the calculation worksheet /2/ for the emission reduction calculation for the monitoring period 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014. CCIPL confirms that the formulas, conversions, aggregations and factors are consistent with the monitoring plan in the PDD. The reported data was checked as follows: - All the necessary data and all the parameters required to be monitored in the registered PDD /B05/ were reviewed to ensure accuracy; - The Project Sales Database kept electronically was reviewed along with an interview with the person responsible for data entry and data review from the Envirofit and ARTI Energy, to confirm the number of stoves sold during the monitoring period. Sample sales receipts were also assessed for further check. In this project, the baseline and project fuels are the same, as are baseline and project emissions factors. Hence PP has used equation (1) in the methodology, which combines the calculation of baseline, project and leakage into one equation and consolidated emission reduction calculated which is in line with applied methodology. The overall GHG reductions achieved by the project activity in year y are calculated as follows: 7 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

31 ER y = Σ b,p (N p,y * U p,y * P p,b,y * NCV b,fuel * (fnrb,b,y * EF fuel,co2 +EF fuel,nonco2 )) Σ LE p,y Where: Σ b,p N p,y U p,y P p,b,y f NRB,b,y NCV b,fuel EF b,fuel,co2 EF b,fuel,nonco2 LE p,y Sum over all relevant (baseline b/project p) couples Cumulative number of project technology-days included in the project database for project scenario p against baseline scenario b in year y Cumulative usage rate for technologies in project scenario p in year y, based on cumulative adoption rate and drop off rate revealed by usage surveys (fraction) Specific fuel savings for an individual technology of project p against an individual technology of baseline b in year y, in tons/day, as derived from the statistical analysis of the data collected from the field tests Fraction of biomass used in year y for baseline scenario b that can be established as non-renewable biomass (drop this term from the equation when using a fossil fuel baseline scenario) Net calorific value of the fuel that is substituted or reduced (IPCC default for wood fuel, TJ/ton) CO 2 emission factor of the fuel that is substituted or reduced. 112 tco 2 /TJ for Wood/Wood Waste, or the IPCC default value of other relevant fuel Non CO 2 emission factor of the fuel that is reduced Leakage for project scenario p in year y (tco 2 e/yr) The above consolidated equation used for estimation of emission reduction is in line with methodology /B03/ and registered PDD /B05/ In accordance with the applied methodology, annual emission reductions are calculated as follows: Step 1 Calculate stove-days, or the number of days that each stove is operational based on stove sales date and monitoring and usage survey report. Step 2 To account for potential declines in stove usage over time, stove-days is discounted based on the length of time the stove has been in operation; drop-off rates of 9.09% have been applied for this verification period based on latest CREEC report. Step 3 Stove-days are aggregated, and converted to stove-years. Step 4 Emission reductions are calculated as stove-years multiplied by the appropriate stove emission factor. Total verified emission reductions during the reported monitoring period (i.e. 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014) is 80,026 tco 2 e, this is based on the total number of 62,612 stoves disseminated during this monitoring period Baseline emissions Please refer to the above section Project emissions Please refer to the above section Leakage emissions Leakage was reassessed during the most recent monitoring kitchen performance test and kitchen surveys, which concluded that there are no sources of leakage. It was assessed through analysis of both monitoring survey results and kitchen performance test results. This includes assessment following leakage sources: FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

32 a) Displaced technologies being used outside project boundary, b) Biomass saved is used by non-project users, c) Project significantly impacts non-renewable biomass fraction, d) Compensation for loss of space heating and e) Successful marketing leading to substation of cleaner technologies. There is no evidence that additional leakage is present beyond that which is already incorporated in the paired KPT approach to measuring fuels savings. Also PP has provided evidences from different web sites for demonstration of the below mentioned five points which proves that no leakage are involved: a) The displaced baseline technologies are reused outside the project boundary in place of lower emitting technology or in a manner suggesting more usage than would have occurred in the absence of the project. b) The non-renewable biomass or fossil fuels saved under the project activity are used by non-project users who previously used lower emitting energy sources. c) The project significantly impacts the NRB fraction within an area where other CDM or VER project activities account for NRB fraction in their baseline scenario. d) The project population compensates for loss of the space heating effect of inefficient technology by adopting some other form of heating or by retaining some use of inefficient technology. e) By virtue of promotion and marketing of a new technology with high efficiency, the project stimulates substitution within households that commonly used a technology with relatively lower emissions, in cases where such a trend is not eligible as an evolving baseline. 3.9 Assessment of actual emission reductions with the estimate emission reductions in PDD Estimated emission reductions in the PDD and actual accrued emission reduction in the MR over the applied monitoring period was comprehensively assessed by the verification team, through documents review; onsite visit to the house-holds end users of project technology i.e. cook stoves and interview with them. The comparison of estimated/ex-ante value with monitored value of the parameters for emission reductions covering the applied monitoring period from 17/05/2013 to 31/12/2014: Parameters Total Number of VER Ex-ante value 176,263 tco 2 e Monitored actual value 80,026 tco 2 e Change (Yes/No) Yes Conclusion The PDD estimates are based on the sales of Water Purification Systems and Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves. As no Water Purification Systems have been sold, the PDD emissions reduction estimate is considerably higher than those ERs actually achieved through only selling stoves. In summary, verification team confirms the actual emission reduction is lower than the estimate of the registered/approved PDD for the current monitoring period. Based on above, verification team concludes that, the cause for the decrease of accrued CER s for the current monitoring period (17/05/ /12/2014) is appropriately justified by the PP, which has, been verified and accepted by the Verification team. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

33 The verification took cognizance of 263 (c) of VVS version 07 /B01/ Compliance with the sustainability monitoring plan Sustainability monitoring plan in the registered PDD and GS passport is completely followed by the PP and the same is followed in the Monitoring report. No changes are found from the sustainability-monitoring plan of PDD and GS passport. The same was assessed and verified by the verification team during on site visit and review of the survey report submitted by CREEC /11/. All the non-neutral indicators were monitored and verified by the verification team which were found to be in line with onsite observation finding and also the third part survey report /11/ Monitoring of Gold Standard Sustainability Indicators Indicator Monitoring Source Variables, Unit and Frequency of measurement Assessment Air Quality Survey records Annual This was monitored via surveys conducted by a third party, CREEC personnel /11/. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 27,500 deaths can be attributed to cooking with solid fuels in Tanzania every year. Moreover, cooking with these dangerous fuels results in 885,600 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year (DALYs combine the years of life lost due to disability with the years of life lost due to death, and allows us to more accurately quantify the adverse effect on public health). Indeed, more than 95% of Tanzania s population relies on dangerous and inefficient means of cooking their daily meals (World Health Organization. Indoor Air Pollution: National Burden of Disease Estimates. WHO, 2007.) /B09/ The DOE checked the field and laboratory test results of the stoves being implemented in the project to confirm that they significantly reduce particulate matter and other health damaging particulates, so the conclusions drawn by the third party surveys are consistent with other sources FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

34 separate from the project. The verification team checked the relevant table of the CREEC report and found the information in the MR to be consistent. Soil Conditions Survey report Annual This parameter is monitoring of decreased non-renewable fuel consumption used as a proxy for deforestation. For this monitoring period it was found from the survey report of CREEC that 85% respondents accepted reduced fuel consumption from the project stoves over traditional stove. Livelihood of the poor Access to affordable energy services Human and Institutional Capacity The verification team checked the relevant table of the CREEC report and found the information in the MR to be consistent. Survey report Annual This was monitored via surveys conducted by a third party, CREEC. The survey results indicated both time and money savings. During the OSV, the most common response among stove users was that they appreciate that the stove saves them time for now collecting wood and money because they don t have to buy wood. Therefore the survey results were found credible. Sales Records Continuous This monitoring parameter is related to number of households served. For the current monitoring period 62,612 8 numbers of coostoves were considered under the project. This was verified from the sales records submitted by the PP /6/. Envirofit Continuous This parameter refers to the number of DOs with whom the PP has partnered for the distribution of cook stoves. For the current monitoring period there were two DOs, i.e. L s Solution and ARTI Energy which was verified from the sales records /7/. 8 This excludes 72 numbers of Z3000 stoves which are not considered in emission reduction calculation for this monitoring period FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

35 Quantitative employment and income generation Distributers records Annual During the OSV and document review /12/ it was checked by verification team that so far 118 jobs created due to implementation of the project activity. Stoves are being imported and not manufactured at project site Issues remaining from the previous verification period or during validation 4 FARs were raised during 1 st monitoring period review by GS /B08/ which required to be addressed during this monitoring period. Accordingly CAR 01 to CAR 04 were raised against each of the four FARs and the four CARs were successfully resolved. Also there were two FARs raised during validation which were carry forwarded in first verification as FARs which are raised as CAR 05 and CAR 06 and have been subsequently resolved. Please refer to Appendix B table 2 for further details Quality and Management System Assurance The project s management system was reviewed to determine the effectiveness of its implementation. The monitoring plan has clearly prescribed the management and operational procedures for monitoring, recording, data management, and training in accordance with the approved revised PDD /B05/ dated 18/08/2014. CCIPL verified the same through document reviews and site visit interviews the management system and quality assurance procedures and has found them to be appropriate and effective. The verification team confirms that the management system of the project is in place; with the responsibilities properly identified and in place. A monthly check of data and record monitored continuously is monthly cross verified by the country manager and then by CEO of the Envirofit after every three months and also an internal audit for data accuracy and recording an archival practice is performed by the CEO of the company. The same was confirmed during on-site visit and the verification team found it sufficient in order to achieve quality management system in place for this project type. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

36 APPENDIX A CARBON CHECK Certification statement for the Verification Report CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ Carbon Check India Private Ltd., the DOE, has performed the verification of the registered GS project activity GS Registration Number GS850, Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania. The project activity is designed to generate emission reductions by dissemination and use of efficient cook stoves, which minimises the fuel wood consumption and hence resulting in social benefits such as money savings, time saving and health benefits etc. The project participants are responsible for the collection of data in accordance with the monitoring plan and the reporting of GHG emissions reductions from the project. It is DOE s responsibility to express an independent verification statement on the reported GHG emission reductions from the project. The verification is carried out in-line with the VVS and Gold Standard requirements. The verification was performed to identify the compliance of the project activity with implementation and monitoring requirements, and to verify the actual amount of achieved emission reductions, through obtaining evidence and information on-site that included i) checking whether the provisions of the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan were consistently and appropriately applied and ii) the collection of evidence supporting the reported data. This statement covers verification period of 594 days between 17/05/2013 and 31/12/2014 (including both the dates). The DOE has raised 08 clarification and 6 corrective action requests, all of which have been closed out before finally issuing this statement. Six FARs have been raised which need to be assessed during the next verification. The DOE considers it necessary to give reasonable assurance that reported GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan in the registered PDD are fairly stated. The DOE, hereby certifies that the project activity, achieved emission reductions by sources of GHG equal to 80,026 tco 2 equivalent and all monitoring requirements have been fulfilled and is substantiated by an audit trail that contains evidence and records. Carbon Check is of the opinion that the project activities is in line with the Gold Standard principles and certify 80,026 tco 2 e emission reductions Date Date Date Vikash Kumar Singh Final Approver Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. Anubhav Dimri Technical Reviewer Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. Sanjay Kumar Agarwalla Team Leader Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

37 APPENDIX B Carbon Check Gold Standard Verification Protocol Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

38 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources 1. Project implementation 1.1 Have all physical features proposed in the registered PDD been implemented at the project site? /GSPP/ /PDD/, OSV As per Passport and PDD, project activity involves distribution of efficient wood / charcoal stoves and water treatment technology. However, project description as mentioned under PDD, MR and also as per the site visit observation and interview, dissemination of water treatment technology was not observed by the verification team. Till 2 nd verification, only efficient wood /charcoal stoves technology are implemented which is explained explicitly in MR. However, CL 01 is raised for some editorial errors in the MR. Draft conclusion CL 01 CL 02 Final conclusion Also CL 02 is raised for the PP to provide the calculation details for the estimated emission reductions for the monitoring period as stated in the MR. Please refer to list of findings sections below for details. 1.2 Has the project activity been operated in accordance with the project scenario described in the registered PDD and relevant guidance? /GSPP/ /PDD/, OSV As per Passport and PDD, project activity involves distribution of efficient wood / charcoal stoves and water treatment technology. However, project description as mentioned under PDD, MR and also as per the site visit observation and interview, dissemination of water treatment technology was not observed by the verification team. Till 2 nd verification, only efficient wood /charcoal stoves technology are implemented which is explained explicitly in MR. CL 01 CL 02 Subject to closure of CL 01 and CL MoV = Means of Verification, = Document Review, I = Interview, www = internet search. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

39 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 1.3 If the project activity is implemented on a number of different locations, has the Monitoring report provided the verifiable starting dates for each site? /GSPP/ /PDD/, OSV Project activity promotes the sale of improved energy-saving biomass stoves and hence multiple locations are involved in the project. PP provided the usage start dates of the stoves in the usage record worksheet. These dates were checked during the site visit. 1.4 Is the diagram provided of the project layout (including a diagram of the project boundary and the labelling and location of each meter and other equipment) included and consistent with what was found at site? Is the description in the MR consistent with the registered PDD? /GSPP/ /PDD/ OSV Project description provided under section A.1 of the MR is as per the registered PDD, metering is not involved in the project as this is a cook-stove project. 1.5 Is the start date of monitoring period consistent? /PDD/ Start date of the monitoring period is 17/05/2013 which is consistent considering the end date of the first monitoring period was 16/05/ Is the monitoring report consistently filled with respect to all sections as required by its guideline of filling the monitoring report? As there is no specific guidelines stipulated and mandated by Gold Standard hence PP has used UNFCCC template for monitoring report with all required information for verification and monitoring. PP has followed the UNFCCC Guidelines for completing the monitoring report form version 4.0. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

40 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 1.7 Does the CER s obtained for the monitoring period within the limit of estimate in the registered PDD? Is the claimed CER s justifiable? Monitoring report does provide the comparison of estimated emission reduction and achieved emission reduction. However, actual CERs in the monitoring period are much lesser than estimated CERs in the registered PDD. 1.8 Is the monitoring system provided in line diagrams showing all relevant monitoring points? OSV No line diagram is provided to present monitoring system in the monitoring report as this is a cook stove project, however, a rigorous monitoring of the other purposes related to the project activity like Sales, Kitchen Surveys, Kitchen Performance Test, Non-Renewable Biomass Study and Monitoring Kitchen Surveys has been done through Establishing sales database to track number of stoves sold and determine clusters for kitchen surveys. Determining project level wood / charcoal consumption, percentage of non-renewable biomass and if clusters are still representative respectively. This is provided in the monitoring report and was confirmed during the site visit. CL 03 However, CL 03 is raised requesting PP to submit the evidence for the population size from which the sample for monitoring survey was drawn (please refer to footnote 3 in the MR). Also PP needs to clarify appropriateness of calculating average shelf time for stove as 96 days considering that fact that out of the 97 samples, only 20 ICS have got the shelf time data. 2. Monitoring plan and methodology 2.1 Is the monitoring plan established in accordance with the monitoring methodology? // /OSV/ Monitoring plan as provided in the MR is as per the registered PDD and applied monitoring methodology. It was also verified during the site visit that the mentioned monitoring plan is being followed. 2.2 In case the implemented // Implemented Monitoring plan is as per registered PDD and applied FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

41 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources monitoring plan defers from the monitoring methodology, has any requests for revision to or deviation from the monitoring methodology been officially communicated to the CDM EB? Deviations are required to be approved by the UNFCCC. Deviations need to be registered with the GS foundation as per GS Toolkit 1.6 Additionality and conservativeness deviations. monitoring methodology. Draft conclusion Final conclusion Have the above changes to the monitoring plan been approved by the GS? // Checklist question holds not applicable for the project activity as there is not any revision/deviation in the monitoring plan from the registered PDD Monitoring and the monitoring plan 3.1 Is monitoring established in full compliance with the monitoring plan, contained in the registered PDD (or new monitoring plan approved by the CDM EB /GS)? // /OSV/ Monitoring is being done as stipulated in the registered PDD. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

42 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources 3.2 Are all baseline emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB/GS decisions? Are there any differences between the methodology and the monitoring plan in the registered PDD? Under section D.1 monitoring parameter tables, the monitored values of the monitoring parameter for GHGs emission reduction calculation, source of data along with details of monitoring equipment, frequency and their calibration information etc. are provided. However, CL 04 is raised due to some of the missing parameters in section D.1 and D.2 of the MR and some inconsistencies. Draft conclusion CL 04 Final conclusion Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity. - No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity Are all project emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions? Please refer to section 3.2 above CL 04 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

43 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? Draft conclusion Final conclusion No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity Are all leakage emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB/GS decisions? Yes, all leakage emission parameters monitored by 3 rd party, CREEC and referred from some web sites in the monitoring plant which is in line with registered PDD, monitoring methodology. However, CL 05 is raised. CL Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity. - No monitoring equipment was involved in the project activity FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

44 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 3.5 Were all monitoring parameters available and verifiable through the whole monitoring period? OSV Yes all the monitoring parameters were available and verifiable through the whole monitoring period In case, only partial monitoring data is available and PP(s) provide estimations or assumptions for the rest of data, was it possible to verify those estimations and assumptions? OSV Not applicable Was management and operation system established and operated in accordance with the monitoring plan? MR OSV Management and operation system is established and operated in accordance with the registered monitoring plan. 3.7 Was is it possible to verify that involved management and operation personal is fully aware of the responsibilities and perform all operations according to the registered monitoring plan and internally developed manuals? MR OSV Management and operational personal were fully aware of the responsibilities and perform all operations according to the registered monitoring plan. 3.8 Does the monitoring system provide organizational structure, role and responsibilities, emergency procedures? MR OSV Yes the monitoring system provides organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, emergency procedures. 3.9 Have any uncertainties identified being addressed? MR ER OSV Subject to closure of all the CARs/CLs raised. CARs CLs FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

45 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 3.10 Has there being any deviation from the Sustainable Development Matrix? What is the Carbon Checks opinion of the severity of the deviation? The GS will then inform on the required action. /GSPP/ There is no deviation found in the monitoring report from the sustainable development matrix of the passport. 4. Parameters 4.1 Monitored parameter Title: Title: Quantity of fuel that is consumed in project scenario b during year y Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): Measured value (ex-post): /PDD/ Indication: P p,y Units: kg/hh/day Estimated value (ex-ante): mentioned Measured value (ex-post): kg/hh/day for wood-fuel stoves; CL kg/hh/day for charcoal stoves 4.2 Monitored parameter Title: Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): Measured value (ex-post): /PDD/ Title: Usage rate in project scenario p during year y Indication: U p,y Units: Percentage Estimated value (ex-ante): mentioned Measured value (ex-post): 75.5 CL 04 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

46 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 4.3 Monitored parameter Title: Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): Measured value (ex-post): /PDD/ Title: Technologies in the project database for project scenario p through year y Indication: N p,y Units: Project technologies credited (units) Estimated value (ex-ante): - Measured value (ex-post): CL 04 CH 2200 CH 5200 M 5000 G ,568 25,336 3,220 32,488 Total 62, Monitored parameter Title: Leakage in project scenario during year y Title: Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): /PDD/ Indication: LE p,y Units: t_co 2 e per year Estimated value (ex-ante): - Measured value (ex-post): 0 CL 05 Measured value (ex-post): 4.5 Monitored parameter Title: Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): Measured value (ex-post): /PDD/ Title: Kitchen Survey Indication: Kitchen Survey Units: Not applicable Estimated value (ex-ante): - Measured value (ex-post): No new scenarios identified CL 04 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

47 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 4.6 Monitored parameter Title: Indication: Units: Estimated value (ex-ante): Measured value (ex-post): /PDD/ Title: Detailed Customer Database Indication Detailed Customer Database Units: Contact details Estimated value (ex-ante): - Measured value (ex-post): Available in the survey sheet CL Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario Indication: EF b,co2 Units: tco 2 /t_biomass Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in project scenario Indication: EF p,co2 Units: tco 2 /t_biomass Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario Indication: EF b,nonco2 Units: tco 2 /t_biomass Default/Used value: FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

48 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 4.10 Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuel in project scenario Indication: EF p,nonco2 Units: tco 2 /t_biomass Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: CO 2 emission factor arising from production of charcoal Indication: EF ch,prod,co2 Units: tco 2 /t_ch Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from production of charcoal Indication: EF ch,prod,non-co2 Units: tco 2 /t_ch Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: CO 2 emission factor arising from consumption of charcoal Indication: EF ch,use,co2 Units: tco 2 /t_ch Default/Used value:3.304 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

49 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 4.14 Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: Non-CO 2 emission factor arising from consumption of charcoal Indication: EF ch,use,non-co2 Units: tco 2 /t_ch Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Title: Non-renewability status of woody biomass fuel in baseline scenario i during year y Indication: f NRB,i,y Units: Fraction Default/Used value: Default parameter Title: Title: Quantity of fuel that is consumed in baseline scenario during year y Indication: Units: Default/Used value: /PDD/ Indication: P b,i Units: kg/hh/day Default/Used value: 7.83 kg/hh/day (wood-fuel) 2.02 kg/hh/day (charcoal) 5. Calculations FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

50 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 5.1 Have all the calculations related to the baseline emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? MR ER OSV Yes, all the calculations related to the baseline emission been carried out according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology transparently in the monitoring report so that reader can be able to replicate the accrued emission reduction over the applied monitoring period. However, CL 06, CL 07 and CL 08 are raised. For further details for the CLs, please refer to the list of findings in table 2 below this report. CL 06 CL 07 CL Have all the calculations related to the project emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? MR ER OSV Subject to closure of CL 06, CL 07 and CL 08 CL 06 CL 07 CL Have all the calculations related to the leakage emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? MR ER OSV Subject to closure of CL 06, CL 07 and CL 08 CL 06 CL 07 CL Sustainability Monitoring 6.1 Have all non-neutral indicators been monitored as per the sustainability monitoring plan? /GSPP/ Yes, all non- neutral indicators has been monitored as per the sustainability monitoring plan. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

51 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources 6.2 Have the methods to monitor data changed? And are they suitable to the project scale and type? /GSPP/ OSV No methods to monitor data are found to be changed in the current monitoring period. Methods to monitor the data in the monitoring report is cross checked from the gold standard passport, also same were verified during the site visit. Draft conclusion Final conclusion 6.3 Has the way of monitoring been followed? With the inclusion of dates and parameters? /GSPP/ OSV Way of monitoring is being followed in the current monitoring period; same is checked during site visit from the registered PDD. Monitoring report is also in conformity with the registered PDD and actual situation at site. 6.4 Have mitigation measures been put in place to prevent the risk of the violation of the safe guarding principle of Do No Harm assessment or to neutralise a Sustainable Development Indicator that is being monitored? /GSPP/ Being a type of efficient cookstove project especially in the country like Tanzania is a real sustainable development program by Envirofit International. As per onsite verification interview with the local stakeholders (end users of stoves) it is confirmed that mitigation measures is in place to prevent the risk of violation of the safe guarding principle and mentioned sustainable development indicator being correctly monitored and found to be appropriate by the project activity. 6.5 Has all the data in the Sustainability development matrix been verified and cross checked against available sources of project data? Has it been described how sustainable development would be affected if a variance occurred? /GSPP/ Yes, all the data in the sustainability development matrix been verified and cross checked against available sources of project data. 7. Other FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

52 9 Findings, comments, Carbon Check s Checklist question Ref. MoV references, data sources Draft conclusion Final conclusion 7.1 Are there any issues from the previous validation/verification? (ie FARs, requests/approvals for RMP) VerR There are four FARs from the previous verification against which CAR 01, CAR 02, CAR 03 and CAR 04 are raised. Also there were two FARs raised during validation which were carry forwarded in first verification as FARs which are raised as CAR 05 and CAR 06. CAR 01 CAR 02 CAR 03 CAR 04 CAR 05 CAR Has the project ever received any requests for reviews or incompletes from the UNFCCC or GS Secretariat? VerR Subject to closure of CAR 01 to 04 CAR 01 CAR 02 CAR 03 CAR The evaluation of the status of mitigation and compensation measures have been verified. VerR Subject to closure of CAR 01 to 04 CAR 01 CAR 02 CAR 03 CAR 04 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

53 Table 2 List of findings Finding (reference section 1 of table 1) CL 01 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The following editorial errors are identified in various sections of the MR and ER spread sheet version 01 dated 27/11/2014: i. Reference number of the project activity stated as GS580 on page 1 of the MR and the ER spread sheet. ii. Unit of emission reductions have been stated as Tons in various sections of the MR and ER spread sheet iii. Emission reductions for 2014 are stated as 01 Jan Dec 2014 on page 1 and 15 of the MR. iv. Unit for actual GHG emission reductions missing on page 1 of the MR. v. In section A.6 of the MR, e mail id stated as Nick.marshall@envirogit.org vi. On page 8 of the MR, symbol of the parameter P b,y is not as per approved PDD. Corrective Action or clarification #1 The following revisions have been made to the Monitoring Report version 2 and ER (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further calculator version 2: information for clarification as per finding) i. GS reference number revised to GS850 in the revised MR and ER calculator. ii. ER units have been revised to tonnes throughout the revised MR and ER calculator iii. The MR has been revised to mention the correct monitoring duration for year 2014 as 01 Jan Dec iv. ER unit (tco 2 e) has now been specified on page 1 of MR and other relevant places as well wherever observed missing. v. Section A.6 of the MR has been revised to mention the correct id as nick.marshall@envirofit.org vi. Page 8 of the MR has been revised to specify the correct symbol of the parameter as P b,i FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

54 Finding (reference section 1 of table 1) CL 01 DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox i. Reference number of the GS project activity has been corrected as GS580 in the revised MR and the ER sheet. ii. Unit of emission reductions have been corrected to tonnes or t in the revised MR and ER spread sheet. iii. Emission reductions for 2014 have been corrected as 01 Jan Dec 2014 in the revised MR. iv. Unit for actual GHG emission reductions has been stated in the revised MR. v. E mail id has been corrected as Nick.marshall@envirofit.org vi. The symbol of the parameter quantity of fuel consumed in baseline has been corrected to P b,i in the revised MR. The CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 1 of table 1) CL 02 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) PP is requested to provide the calculation details for the estimated emission reductions for the monitoring period. Corrective Action or clarification #1 The estimated emission reductions as specified in the PDD have been pro-rated for the (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further concerned monitoring period. A calculation for the same has now been incorporated in the information for clarification as per finding) revised ER calculator in the worksheet PDD tables. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox In the revised ER sheet submitted, PP has provided the ex-ante estimation of the emission reduction for the monitoring period. The CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

55 Finding (reference section 1.8 of table 1) CL 03 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) PP needs to submit the evidence for the population size from which the sample for monitoring survey was drawn (please refer to footnote 3 in the MR). Also PP needs to clarify appropriateness of calculating average shelf time for stove as 96 days considering that fact that out of the 97 samples, only 20 ICS have got the shelf time data. Corrective Action or clarification #1 The end user database from which the samples have been drawn is being submitted. The (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further total number of records in the end user database is around 9900 which is much more than information for clarification as per finding) the minimum number of records stipulated in the PDD The end user date of sale has been calculation for more samples and the same is now reflected in the revised ER calculator. The shelf life is obtained as 88 days. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox PP has submitted the population data base based on which the sample size was drawn. Also the actual sample size is 102 and the shelf life is now calculated from these sample size which is 88 days and the considered value is 120 days which is deemed acceptable. Hence the CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 3.2 of table 1) CL 04 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) i. In section D.1 of the MR, the parameter Charcoal to biomass conversion factor is missing. ii. Similarly in section D.2 of the MR, the parameters Kitchen Survey, Detailed customer database and fnrb,i,y are missing. iii. For the monitoring parameters in section D.2 of the MR, Additional comment have not been stated in accordance with the latest approved PDD. iv. For the monitoring parameter Np,y although the break up of stove and vintage wise is provided, but the total values of the stoves is not provided. v. Value of the parameter Up,y is stated as in MR whereas in the ER spread FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

56 Finding (reference section 3.2 of table 1) CL 04 Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. sheet it is shown as Similarly for Pp,y values do not match in between MR and ER sheet. i. Charcoal to biomass conversion factor has not been mentioned in the MR as this parameter is only required in case of emission factor for wood is being used for ER calculations. As emission factor for charcoal is being used directly hence this is not required. ii. Section D.2 of the MR has been revised to incorporate the parameters Kitchen Survey and Detailed customer database. f NRB,I,y has been added. iii. The Additional comment in the PDD are only for indicative purposes. The additional comments pertaining to the current monitoring period, if any, have been specified for each monitoring parameter in its table. iv. The total value of the monitoring parameter Np,y has been provided in the revised MR. v. Value of the parameter Up,y is has been corrected to in the revised MR. Pp,y values have also been corrected in the revised MR. i. As the parameter Charcoal to biomass conversion factor is not used in the emission reduction calculation and the charcoal emission factor is directly used for ER calculation. ii. The parameters Kitchen Survey and Detailed customer database have been included in the revised MR. The parameter and f NRB,i,y has been included in the MR. iii. For the monitoring parameters in section D.2 of the MR, Additional comment have been stated in accordance with the latest approved PDD as per relevance. iv. Total values of the parameter Np,y has been provided in the revised MR. v. Value of the parameters Up,y and Pp,y have been made consistent in between the revised MR and ER sheet. The CL is closed. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

57 Finding (reference section 3.2 of table 1) CL 04 Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 3.2 of table 1) CL 05 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The monitoring parameter LEp,y is stated to be measured. Further in the row Calculation method for this parameter it is stated Surveys and kitchen performance tests. PP is requested to clarify. Source of data is missing. Corrective Action or clarification #1 The table for monitoring parameter has been revised in the MR. LE p,y is not applicable in (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further the project activity as substantiated in section E.3 of MR, hence there is no information for clarification as per finding) measurement/calculation involved. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The monitoring parameter LEp,y is determined based on qualitative assessment and the source of data has been stated in the revised MR. Hence the CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 5.1 of table 1) CL 06 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) In section E.1 of the MR, methodological equation (1) has been referred for emission reduction calculation and then emission reduction spread sheet has been referred for the calculation. But neither in the MR or the ER spread sheet, the methodological equation has been shown. PP is requested to provide the equation for the calculation of the emission reductions. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

58 Finding (reference section 5.1 of table 1) CL 06 Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The ER calculation equation has been inserted in the revised MR in section E.1. Methodological equation for the calculation of emission reduction has been referred in section E.1 of the revised MR. Hence the CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 5.1 of table 1) CL 07 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) In the ER spread sheet in the sheet parameters, symbols of the parameters in cell C6 and C7 do not match with the PDD and MR. Also values as provided in the cells E6 to E11 are inconsistent with MR. PP is requested to provide the source of data. Corrective Action or clarification #1 The symbols have been rectified for cell C6 and C7. Please note that values in E6 to E11 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further are correct. However their respective symbols in C6 C11 were not correct. The same has information for clarification as per finding) now been corrected in the revised calculator being submitted. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox PP has submitted revised MR with correct symbols of all the parameters and their units. Values are also correct and in line with the PDD. Hence the CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 5.1 of table 1) CL 08 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

59 Finding (reference section 5.1 of table 1) CL 08 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) In regards to the two tables in Annex 2 of the MR, following clarifications are requested: i. Why serial number and stove type of the ICS have not been provided in the second table? ii. In the column Stove Type, Charcoal and Wood have been stated for some of the users. Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox Annex 2 has been revised to remove table 1. The KPT data and KS data has been mentioned separately with serial numbers for each sample. The column stove type has been revised to mention the correct stove model instead of fuel type for relevant stoves. PP has submitted revised MR in which serial numbers and stove types are stated for all the samples correctly. Hence the CL is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 01 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) PP shall include the monitoring of air quality improvement into the annual monitoring survey. Households/other users should be asked about whether/whether not an air quality improvement has occurred by using the ICS compared to the baseline stove. The GS passport should be revised accordingly prior to next issuance request. Corrective Action or clarification #1 This was a FAR issued during previous issuance review by GS. The passport was duly (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further revised and submitted to GS. PP has received approval on the revised passport version 7 information for clarification as per finding) dated 18/08/2014 from GS. The measurement of improvement in air quality by means of assessment of reduction in smoke and soot while cooking with project stoves which are direct indicators of emissions of PM and black carbon. Refer question 28 and 29 of the kitchen survey questionnaire in annex 1 of revised MR. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

60 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 01 DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox PP has submitted revised GS Passport which consists of the monitoring of air quality. Also the kitchen survey questionnaire form contains this parameter which was covered during the current monitoring period survey and reported. This was further cross-checked by the verification team during the on-site visit interview with the sample households. Hence the CAR is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 02 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) An age test/project field test shall be carried out and submitted to GS for the next verification. The fuel savings for each vintage year (i.e. age 0-1, age 1-2, age 2-3 etc) shall be determined in this age test/project field test and applied accordingly to the ICS in operation for each of the years. If the test reveals overestimated fuel savings in the 1st verification period, the difference related to this 1st verification period shall be compensated by reducing the amount of credits issued in the 2nd verification period. Note however that no compensation of the amount of credits issued for the 1st verification period should occur in case of underestimation of fuel savings. Corrective Action or clarification #1 This was a FAR received from GS during last issuance request. As per discussions by GS, (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further no separate age test was required. KPTs conducted again were deemed to cover the information for clarification as per finding) ageing effect on stove performance automatically. The tests do not reveal an overestimated fuel savings. In the initial assessment (last monitoring and verification) the project consumption was taken as 4.8 kg/hh/day. The lower bound consumption value during this verification is kg/hh/day hence any compensation on the amount of credits issued DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. for the first verification period is not applicable. E mail communication in between Envirofit and GS on 1 st August 2014 for no need to conduct efficiency tests for various ages of stoves and KPTs carried out once every two years shall automatically cover for ageing effect being has been provided by PP /16/.The KPT conducted during the current monitoring period reveals that the fuel savings value used in the last monitoring was not overestimated. Hence there is no requirement of compensation of emission reductions for the first verification. The CAR is closed. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

61 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 02 Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 03 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) PP shall include the monitoring of improvement of livelihood of the poor into the annual monitoring survey. Households/other users should be asked about whether/whether not less money for purchasing firewood/less time is spent for collecting firewood by using the ICS compared to the baseline stove. The GS passport should be revised accordingly prior to next issuance request. Corrective Action or clarification #1 This was a FAR received from GS during last issuance request. The revised passport has (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further been submitted to the DoE. The sampled users were asked if less money is spent on information for clarification as per finding) purchasing fuel (in case of purchase) or less time is spent on collecting fuel (in case of collection from nearby areas) due to reduced fuel consumption. Refer questions 24, 25 and 26 of the KS questionnaire in annex 1 of the revised MR. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox PP has submitted revised GS Passport which consists of the monitoring of livelihood of the poor. Also the kitchen survey questionnaire form contains this parameter which was covered during the current monitoring period survey and reported. Hence the CAR is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 04 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) A usage survey shall be carried out and submitted to GS for the next verification. If the usage survey reveals an underestimated drop-out rate, the difference related to the 1st verification period would be compensated by reducing the amount of credits issued in the second verification period accordingly. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

62 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 04 Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. This was a FAR received from GS during last issuance request. The drop-out rate has been found as 9.09% (9 out of 99 users have dropped out on stove usage). This is more than the value assumed during the previous monitoring period (0%). As a result, the ERs are being reduced accordingly by 6,857 tco 2 e (equivalent to the overestimation that has occurred in last issuance by considering 0% drop out rate). Please refer the ER calculator for details. As the drop-out rate found during the current monitoring survey is more that the value used during the first verification, PP has reduced the overestimated emission reductions in the last verification for the current monitoring period which is deemed acceptable. Hence the CAR is closed. Corrective Action or clarification #2 DOE Assessment #2 Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The CAR is being reopened against the GS review comment 2, issue 4 and review comment 4, issue 8. As per GS issuance review finding, the calculation of the overestimated credits issued in the 1st verification has been compensated in this verification using a revised non-utilization rate (35.57%) instead of drop-off rate (9.09%). The MR and ER calculator have been revised accordingly. In response to the issue raised, PP has deducted the emission reductions for the previous monitoring period by 35.57% (which is 100% - Utilization rate of 64.43%). This is acceptable to the verification team. As a result, the ERs are being reduced accordingly to 11,159 tco 2 e and the ER reduction is 26,834 tco 2 e (equivalent to the overestimation that had occurred in last issuance by considering 100% utilization rate). This is conservative and deemed acceptable to the verification team. Hence the CAR is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 05 Classification CAR CL FAR FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

63 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 05 Description of finding (DOE) Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The difference in fuel consumption during wet and dry season will be further assessed during annual field tests and project surveys. The surveys and KPTs were conducted in Sep and Oct During the last monitoring activity also, the survey were conducted in the same months. The period of October to December in Tanzania is a moderately rainy season. The survey conducted in Sep and Oct ensured that any wet season effect is covered in same monitoring event along with dry season effect. The fact that this period is neither the driest nor the wettest is deemed most appropriate for conducting the KPTs as it shall provide results which are not constrained/skewed by the extreme season effects. The same approach was also adopted in the previous monitoring activity and no signification variation in fuel usage was identified. The monitoring survey was carried out during the months of September and October. The verification team confirms by its local and sectoral expertise that as this period in the country is not of extreme weather, the fuel consumptions is also not extreme and considered to be optimum. Hence this is deemed acceptable. The CAR is closed. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 06 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The project proponent will clearly articulate ownership rights over emission reductions in the future agreement with Vestergaard, due to the commercial benefit consideration Corrective Action or clarification #1 This FAR refers to water purification systems only. Since no water purification systems (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further have been implemented under the project activity so far hence this is not applicable. information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. As the water purification systems have still not been distributed, agreement with Vestergaard is not applicable for this monitoring period. However, the agreement needs to be done and provided when the water purification systems are distributed. Hence this CAR is carried forward as FAR for next verification. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

64 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) CAR 06 Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 01 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) Question 22 asks about the use of traditional stoves in addition to the ICS. The PP shall ensure for future KS that the question will contemplate the use of other additional ICS too. Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox Ok, the FAR is accepted. In the next monitoring, the KS shall include assessment of other ICS in the project households. The FAR will be reviewed during next verification. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 02 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The PP shall ensure for future monitoring/usage surveys that the same are carried out at the end of the monitoring period without comprising the annual monitoring frequency. Corrective Action or clarification #1 Ok, the FAR is noted. As this monitoring period is till 2014, next monitoring will be (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further conducted only after the monitoring period has ended. information for clarification as per finding) FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

65 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 02 DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The FAR will be reviewed during next verification. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 03 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The PP shall comply with the methodology for the KS/usage survey for the next issuance Note for each technology and/or scenario, the minimum sample size requirement for KS/usage survey shall be met separately. If the usage survey reveals an underestimated drop-out rate, the difference related to this verification period would be compensated by adjusting the emission reductions units at the time of the next verification period accordingly. The PP shall ensure that the usage survey includes a minimum sample size of 30 from each age, i.e. if technologies of age 1-5 are credited, the usage survey must include 30 representative samples from each age for a total of 150 samples (please see Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. footnote 35 of the methodology). Ok, the FAR is noted. In future monitoring the stove population will be categorized as per annual age category and minimum 30 samples will be picked from each age category. In the next monitoring, if the SoF for any annual age category is found to be lesser than the weighted average SoF calculated in this verification (for charcoal and woodfuel separately), correction shall be applied The FAR will be reviewed during next verification. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

66 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 03 Conclusion To be checked during the next periodic verification Tick the appropriate checkbox Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 04 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The PP shall assess in the next verification the relative usage of baseline and project stoves (e.g. through the number of meals cooked on the project ICS vs. number of meals Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox cooked on the baseline stove) wherever both the stoves are in usage. Ok, the FAR is noted. In the next monitoring relative usage of baseline and project stoves will be monitored through the number of meals cooked by the two types of stoves where ever both the stoves are in use. The FAR will be reviewed during next verification. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 05 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The PP shall ensure for the next verification that the component income generation is monitored too. The PP shall demonstrate that the salaries of created jobs are at par or better than the average local/sector wage level. The monitoring plan shall be revised accordingly in order to be in line with GS requirements. FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

67 Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 05 Corrective Action or clarification #1 (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox Ok, the FAR is noted. In the next monitoring income generation will be monitored to demonstrate that the salaries of the created jobs are at par or better than the average local wage level. The FAR will be reviewed during next verification. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed Finding (reference section 7.1 of table 1) FAR 06 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding (DOE) The project proponent will clearly articulate ownership rights over emission reductions in the future agreement with Vestergaard, due to the commercial benefit consideration Corrective Action or clarification #1 This FAR refers to water purification systems only. Since no water purification systems (PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further have been implemented under the project activity so far hence this is not applicable. information for clarification as per finding) DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox As the water purification systems have still not been distributed, agreement with Vestergaard is not applicable for this monitoring period. However, the agreement needs to be done and provided when the water purification systems are distributed. Hence this FAR needs to be assessed during the next verification. To be checked during the next periodic verification Outstanding finding (not closed) The finding is closed FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

68 APPENDIX C Certificates of Competence FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

69 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev

70 FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N CCL311/GS/VER/DFEBSWFST/ , Rev