Gold Standard Verification Report

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Gold Standard Verification Report"

Transcription

1 Project Title Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project ERM CVS Reference 2456.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS966 Client Name The Paradigm Project Client Address 619 N Cascade Ave Suite 110 Colorado Springs The United States of America Gold Standard Verification Report ERM Certification and Verification Services 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court 33 St Mary Axe London EC3A 8AA Version Control Date Version February 2013 ( verification report) Version April 2013 ( Verification Report) Version May 2013 ( Verification report after GS 3-week issuance review period) ERM Certification and Verification Services 1 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

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

3 Abbreviations CAR CDM EB CER CL CO 2 CO 2 e DOE ER FAR GHG GS GWP IPCC PDD PP QA/QC UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board Certified Emission Reduction(s) Clarification Request Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Designated Operational Entity Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse Gas Gold Standard Global Warming Potential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change CDM Validation and Verification Standard Project specific abbreviations BWBT HH ICS KPT MKS PoU WCFT baseline water boiling test household improved cooking stove kitchen performance test monitoring kitchen survey point of use water consumption fuel test ERM Certification and Verification Services 3 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

4 1. Project information Project Title Gold Standard Project reference Project Location Host Party Annex I Party(s) Project Participants Methodology Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project GS966 Kenya Kenya n/a Methodology version number Version 02 Paradigm, Impact Carbon, Blue Source Gold Standard Methodology Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Monitoring report version made publicly available monitoring report version Version 01 Version 06 dated 05 April 2013 Monitoring Period 30 August December 2012 Date(s) of Site Visit January 2013 Date/version of Registered PDD and monitoring plan Date/version of revised PDD (if applicable) Version 12 dated 24 January 2012 Version 17 dated 27 February 2013 Date of Initial Gold Standard Approval Crediting Period 26 April April 2017 Number of emission reductions certified 277,341 tco 2 e ERM Certification and Verification Services 4 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

5 2. Verification Opinion and Certification Statement ERM Certification and Verification Services (ERMCVS) was commissioned The Paradigm Project to verify and certify the emissions reductions reported for the period 30 August December 2012 as set out in the monitoring report of the project activity Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project, Registration Reference GS966. Basis of verification Responsibilities of ERM CVS ERM CVS based its verification work on: the approved Gold Standard methodology applied in the project design document (PDD) the revised PDD accepted by the Gold Standard the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) Gold Standard requirements version 2.1 and guidance ERM CVS is responsible to provide an independent verification conclusion on the reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for the project during the relevant monitoring period. The verification activities included desk review, site visit, close out of open issues, preparation of report and technical review. Responsibilities of Project Participants ERM CVS Opinion The Project Participants (PPs) are responsible for the preparation of the information and GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions of the project on the basis set out within the applicable monitoring plan. Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the project activity is implemented and operated as described in the revised Project Design Document accepted by the Gold Standard. The GHG emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report version 06 dated 05 April 2013 were found to be appropriately measured and calculated in accordance with the applied monitoring methodology Gold Standard Methodology Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes, V.02 and the monitoring plan set out in the revised Project Design Document, Version 17 dated 27 February Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the reported emission reductions for the monitoring period 30 August December 2012 are fairly stated. Total GHG emission reductions certified Emission reductions: 277,341 t CO 2 equivalent Report approved by Signature Name: Melanie Eddis Date 10 May 2013 ERM Certification and Verification Services 5 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

6 3. Introduction This report sets out the methodology and conclusions of the verification process and the ERM CVS Certification Statement. ERM CVS assessed and verified whether the implementation of the project activity and the steps taken to report emission reductions comply with the Gold Standard criteria and relevant guidance provided by the Gold Standard, and the CDM Executive Board where relevant Verification Objectives As set out in the Gold Standard Requirements version 2.1, verification means the periodic independent review and ex post determination by a Designated Operational Entity of monitored reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that have occurred as a result of a registered project activity during the verification period. The objective of the verification is to establish whether sufficient evidence exists to confirm, to reasonable assurance: Whether the project activity has been implemented and is being operated as per the PDD /22/ and the Gold Standard Passport /69/ and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project activity are in place. Whether the applied monitoring plan /22/ is in compliance with the relevant approved Gold Standard monitoring methodology /8/ Whether the monitoring report /1/ and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with the monitoring plan and applicable Gold Standard requirements. Whether the emission reductions as set out in the Monitoring Report /1/ have been measured, calculated and reported in accordance with the requirements of the carbon monitoring plan /22/ and the sustainability monitoring plan in the Gold Standard Passport /69/. Whether the reported data meet the key principles of data quality and are complete, reliable, consistent, accurate, valid, transparent and conservative Scope and basis of verification work The verification is an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the DOE. Based on the key project information set out on page 2, the verification addresses the implementation and operation of the project activity as set out in the PDD /22/ and the Gold Standard Passport /69/, and the information and reported emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report prepared by the project participant (PP) for this monitoring period. The verification tests the data and assertions set out in the monitoring report prepared for this monitoring period by the PPs and is based on the approved methodology /70/ applied in the PDD /22/ the revised PDD and monitoring plan accepted by Gold Standard /22/ the Gold Standard Passport and its sustainability monitoring plan /69/ previous verification report /66/ Gold Standard Requirements version 2.1 and Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.1 and its Annexes the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) /76/ except where Gold Standard rules or procedures are different Other information and references relevant to the project activity s reported emission reductions - refer to Annex 1 for full set of documents The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. The monitoring report is assessed, using a rules based approach, against the principles of accuracy, relevance, credibility, reliability, completeness, consistency, and transparency. Conservativeness is applied throughout the process to ensure that emission reductions are not overstated. ERM Certification and Verification Services 6 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

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

8 3.4. Verification activities The verification approach is based on the approach depicted in the CDM VVS and Gold Standard rules, procedures and guidance where they are different from CDM. The verification activities are designed to evaluate: Whether sufficient evidence is available, both in terms of frequency (time period between evidence) and in covering the full monitoring period; The source and nature of the evidence (external or internal, oral or documented, etc); Cross checks with comparable information available from sources other than that used in the monitoring report, where possible Desk review A detailed desk review was undertaken prior to the site visit. This included the PDD and its carbon monitoring plan /22/, the Gold Standard Passport and sustainability monitoring plan /69/, the validation report /71/, the applied monitoring methodology /8/, previous verifications report /66/, relevant external data and reports, on-site documents, and relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the Gold Standard, and the CDM Executive Board where relevant. The desk review included A review of the data and information presented to verify completeness and consistency in accordance with relevant Gold Standard requirements A review of the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements, quality of metering equipment (including calibration requirements) and the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures An evaluation of data management and the QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions. A complete list of all documents reviewed is contained in Annex 1. It should be noted that the PDD was revised twice: PDD with design chances was submitted to the Gold Standard by the PP prior to the start of verification, and those changes were accepted by Gold Standard in January During verification, ERM CVS found some inconsistencies in the methodological choices and monitoring plan and the PDD and its monitoring plan were revised further to correct those issues please refer to the CAR 2 in the remediation form for more details. This revised PDD was accepted by the Gold Standard on 27 February Site Visit A site visit to the project activity was undertaken on January 2013 to assess implementation and operation of the project activity and to review evidence, and interview key personnel to confirm evidence associated with the data generation, aggregation, calculation and reporting of the monitoring parameters. The site visit addressed: An assessment of the project implementation and operation as per the PDD /22/ and the Gold Standard Passport /69/ (including visiting households where the project has been implemented); Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; Interviews with relevant personnel to confirm that the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan /22/. A list of all interviewees is included in Annex 2. A cross-check between information provided in the monitoring report /1/ and data from other sources such as log books, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources to establish the existence of a clear audit trail and records that validate or invalidate the stated data; A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions; A review of assessment made in determining sustainability indicators; ERM Certification and Verification Services 8 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

9 Identification of quality control procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters The site visit included the following: Visiting the project s central warehouse and office in Nairobi Reviewing electronic sales and monitoring databases and checking against a sample of paper sales receipts Meetings with project s implementation partners, key personnel involved in monitoring and data collection Visiting households, schools and water points where project s units are located and used, and interviews with the end users Cluster Number of end users interviewed Location Household wood stoves 13 Eastern and Central Provinces Institutional stoves 4 Eastern and Central Provinces Community water treatment 6 water points and 14 users Western province Verification team aimed to visit number of units that is square root of the number units surveys by the PP. As the PP used several surveys for the same clusters, verification team used monitoring kitchen surveys as the guiding survey for selecting a sample for site visit: Cluster PP monitoring survey sample size DOE s planned sample DOE s sample visited Household wood stoves Institutional stoves Community water treatment The verification team had also planned to visit a sample of end users from the non-chemical water treatment cluster in the Nyanza province. This was planned to happen on the fourth or fifth day of the site visit. However, as the site visit started primary elections were announced and due to history of election-related violence in and around Kisumu, plans had to be modified due to safety reasons. This resulted in omitting visits to the users of ceramic filters and only visiting the office of the SWAP (entity responsible for this cluster) and interviewing its staff and checking the records. However, this cluster represents only 0.3% of the project s emission reductions in this verification period, and the filters were visited by the DOE during previous verification /66/, therefore skipping visits to the users of this cluster during this verification period is not material Reporting After the site visit, a draft report is prepared with the preliminary findings of the verification. Where it is not possible to confirm compliance, the verification team raised findings as follows: Clarification Request (CL): where information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable requirements have been met. Corrective Action Request (CAR): This is issued where: o o Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impair the estimate of emission reductions; ERM Certification and Verification Services 9 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

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

11 4. Verification Findings 4.1. Status of open issues from validation and previous verification Based on review of the validation report for this project /71/, it raised 8 FARs and specified that FARs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 must be assessed in all future verifications, therefore were assessed by ERM CVS during tis verification as well. The first verification raised two further FARs FAR 9 and FAR 10 /73/ that were also assessed in this verification. In addition, one FAR was raised by the Gold Standard in its review period /74/, which is also assessed in this section. Forward Action Request Date and document (Validation or verification) Verification activities undertaken to close the FAR Not Validation: FAR 1 The PP received a letter of approval to incorporate chemical treatment tablets into the overall project design. However, there is a lack of clarity surrounding appropriate monitoring methodologies for chemical treatment. Emission reductions shall not be claimed for chemical treatment tablets until the Gold Standard issues a chemical treatment directive Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /71/ The monitoring report does not describe how FARs were taken into account. CAR 1 was raised.. In the revised monitoring report, a table was added that explains for each of the FARs how it was taken into account, and CAR 1 was closed. Chemical treatment tablets are not included in the project during this monitoring and verification period. FAR 1 can therefore be closed for this verification period. CAR 1 Validation: FAR 2 Anecdotal evidence obtained from HH surveys during the site visit indicates that stoves are used for space heating during the wet season, and this can lead to leakage. As defined by the methodology, the PP is required to conduct on-going, quarterly monitoring and this will capture whether leakage is a concern. Please ensure that monitoring occurs in the wet season in each region of the country Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /71/ Please refer to CAR 1 that the MR does not describe how FARs were taken into account. In the revised monitoring report, a table was added that explains for each of the FARs how it was taken into account, and CAR 1 was closed. Monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis and is therefore done in both wet and dry seasons. Kitchen surveys included a question on what other uses the stoves are used for (including heating). Furthermore, ERM CVS observed on site that many stoves are used in kitchens which are outside of the house and separate from the living space anyway, hence cooking stoves are rarely likely to be used for space heating. CAR 1 Based on the quarterly monitoring kitchen surveys, stoves are not frequently used for space heating; less than 9% of respondents report using the stove for heating. The project is implemented throughout Kenya and weather conditions vary throughout the country from hotter coastal region and Western and Nyanza provinces to cooler parts of Rift Valley. In some parts of the country, such as around Nairobi, cooler temperatures between July and August may be considered as cooler season, whilst in some parts, it is rainy seasons during April-May and around November that can be considered as cooler seasons. Due to the variety of climates, the DOE considers that conducting kitchen tests around November is overall representative based on kitchen survey results to date as well as climate variations between regions, as this is one of the rainy seasons. ERM Certification and Verification Services 11 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

12 The PP is requested to add additional questions in the monitoring kitchen surveys in order to better understand how and when stoves may be used for heating purposes. The results should then be evaluated if any adjustments to the kitchen tests may be needed. FAR 2 can therefore be closed for this verification period but should be evaluated in the next verification. Validation: FAR 3 In accordance with the methodology requirement that an incentive be put in place to encourage the removal of old stoves, the PP has committed to revising the language on the carbon waiver to inform participants that continued use of traditional stoves reduces the benefits of the project and therefore undermines the benefits that are represented through the stove subsidy. Evidence of this revision should be provided during first verification Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /71/ This issue was assessed during the first verification /73/: The PP has provided revised language for the carbon waiver. /24/ The carbon waivers included in this verification included the pre-validation language because the Gold Standard had not approved the revised language prior to the completion of the monitoring period. This language will be replaced in future carbon waivers, and should be checked during the second verification ERM CVS checked the carbon waivers on the boxes of household wood stoves in the warehouse and can confirm that they include the language to inform the users that continues use of traditional stoves reduces the benefits of the project. Based on interviews with the resellers and a sample of users, the users are also trained about the benefits of the new stoves and are encouraged to use the new stove and stop using old ones. As this could not be checked by the verifying DOE of the first verification, a FAR was raised /73/ please see FAR 9. FAR 3 can therefore be closed and please refer to FAR 9 in this table. Validation: FAR 5 The DOE shall validate the feedback received and actions taken by PP during each verification Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /71/ The issue was assessed during the first verification /73/: During the site visit, DNV asked HHs and stove distributors about the performance of the stove and if they had any complaints or suggestions for improvement. HHs reported a preference for the Envirofit stove because it looked better than the JikoPoa. In response to this feedback, the PP is considering modifications to the design of the JikoPoa to increase market acceptability. As changes to design may impact stove performance, the PP is planning to conduct a series of consumer tests to better understand consumer preferences. The next round of consumer testing is scheduled to take place during the week of 7 November Stove distributors informed DNV that they require more marketing support from the PP in order to increase sales. The PP was well aware of the request and is currently providing demonstration and other marketing support for the distributors (DNV accompanied the PP to a stove demonstration conducted at an agriculture fair during the site visit). The PP is currently considering rebranding their project, including a name change, to increase market recognition, and has assured DNV and stove distributors that marketing materials will be provided when the rebranding is complete. Future verifications should consider the status of the PPs support to stove distributors The issue was therefore assessed by ERM CVS during this verification: ERM Certification and Verification Services 12 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

13 ERM CVS reviewed the support given to stove distributors. Training for last mile entrepreneurs has been carried out. Please refer to section of the verification report. In addition, the design of the JikoPoa stove was modified in response to consumer feedback, and the organisation is also undergoing a rebranding exercise (to Ezylife ) in order to make the project more recognisable, also in response to consumer feedback. Validation FAR 5 could therefore be closed for this verification period. Since the verifying DOE for the first verification requested that Future verifications should consider the status of the PPs support to stove distributors, this issue should be assessed again during future verifications. Validation: FAR 6 As and when new stove or water filters other than those described in the PDD are added to the project activity, PP shall seek Approval for Project Design Changes from registered project activity by Gold Standard Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /71/ Please refer to CAR 1 that the MR does not describe how FARs were taken into account. In the revised monitoring plan, a table was added that explains for each of the FARs how it was taken into account, and CAR 1 was closed. The PP has applied and received approval for a design change to include new types of units in the project activity that were not described in the PDD. This includes new stove technologies as well as the creation of a new cluster for Community Water Treatment. ERM CVS has checked a notification of approval of this design change from the Gold Standard /27/ CAR 1 Verification: FAR 9 In accordance FAR 3, the PP has committed to revising the language on the carbon waiver to inform participants that continued use of traditional stoves reduces the benefits of the project and therefore undermines the benefits that are represented through the stove subsidy. The revised waiver was not used during this verification because the Gold Standard had not approved the revised language prior to the completion of the monitoring period. Future verifications should verify that the correct waivers are in use Verification report, dated 12 December 2011 /73/ The use of carbon wavers has to be checked during each verification. The first verification was conducted together with validation, therefore FAR 9 is essentially the same as FAR 3 from validation. The issue was assessed by ERM CVS during this verification: ERM CVS reviewed the revised wording of the Carbon rights waivers attached to stoves/stove packaging. The revised wording includes the statement: This warranty is given in exchange for user agreement to dismantle any traditional stoves used in the home in order to realize the environmental benefits of the product. FAR 9 can therefore be closed. Verification: FAR 10 During the verification, DNV realized a mistake in the monitoring plan contained in the PDD. As stated in the PDD, the source of data for the percent of HH stoves and water filters assigned to each respective cluster stated in the PDD is records maintained by the wholesaler. However, the wholesaler will Verification report, dated 12 December 2011 /73/ Please refer to CAR 1 that the MR does not describe how FARs were taken into account. Units are assigned to clusters based on the technology type (household stoves, institutional stoves, etc) based on the sales data. However the FAR that was raised is assumed to refer to sub-clusters, e.g. households previously using charcoal vs households previously using wood. The percentage of units assigned to subclusters of baseline wood and baseline charcoal fuel are determined through monitoring kitchen surveys. The CAR 2 ERM Certification and Verification Services 13 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

14 not have this information for HH customers. Instead, the parameter should be determined through surveys. The PP correctly determined the parameter based on surveys for this verification. However, the monitoring plan must be corrected prior to the second verification monitoring plan was not clear on how households will be assigned to the sub-clusters and the definition of subclusters was unclear, since the word clusters was used interchangeably to refer to clusters (e.g. Household stoves, institutional stoves etc) and sub-clusters (e.g. charcoal users vs wood users). Please refer to CAR 2. The PP provided a corrected PDD together with the corrected monitoring plan, where clusters and groups within clusters (or sub-clusters) for the purpose of calculating emission reductions were appropriately described and mistakes and inconsistencies in methodological choices and monitoring plan were corrected /22/. The corrections were accepted by the Gold Standard /27/. The PDD is now correct on how the percentage of units to be assigned to different subclusters is defined. CAR 2 was closed. FAR 10 can therefore be closed. GS Review at registration stage: FAR 1 The Gold Standard takes note of the methodological requirements, however as stated before aging stove KTs will be required to be conducted for stoves in age group 1-2. Hence, as a forward action request, the PP is required to conduct appropriate aging-stove KT in the next verification period and adjust the emissions reductions for the stoves in the age group 1-2 in the next monitoring period Comments and requests from Gold Standard 3-week issuance review period /74/ Please refer to CAR 1 that the MR does not describe how FARs were taken into account. In the revised monitoring report, a table was added that explains for each of the FARs how it was taken into account, and CAR 1 was closed. Ageing stove tests were conducted in all clusters that had sales of units older than 1 year please refer to section for details. FAR 1 raised by the Gold Standard can therefore be closed. CAR 1 GS review for approval of design change: FAR 1 The Kitchen Tests are not carried out for baseline and project scenario (s) for new Cookstoves, Institutional Stoves and Water Treatment system (household and community level). The DOE shall validate the performance test(s) for identified clusters at the time first verification, when new technology (ies) is added to the project activity. Comments and requests from Gold Standard review for approval of design change /77/ The response is provided for each cluster: Household wood stoves: the DOE checked results of the Water Boiling Tests conducted on all stove models to verify if they efficiency is within +/-5% in relative terms. Please refer to the section of the verification report on how this was verified. Institutional wood stoves: no new model was introduced during this verification period Community water: WCFTs were conducted on a sample of chlorine dispensers selected from full installation record. Please refer to the section for details on how they were checked PoU non-chemical water treatment. The DOE checked the following documents: o For the Ceramaji filter manufacturer specifications and a permit issued by the Kenya Breau of Standards to Kenya Ceramics project for the Ceramaji filter together with the laboratory test results /45/ o For the Chujio filter laboratory test results from the Kenya bureau of ERM Certification and Verification Services 14 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

15 standards issued to Chujio Ceramics, Pocket Guide Facilitator s Notes by the Safe Water and AIDS Project (SWAP), and the website of Chujio Ceramics /45/ Both filters use essentially the same technology the filtering part is made of ceramic material (where pores act as filters) treated with a bacteriostatic agent. Both filters have a very similar structure: a ceramic pot is placed in a plastic receptacle, at the bottom of receptacle there is a tap/faucet for clean water, and the receptacle has a cover. According to the manufacturers, the flow rate may vary and it would be around 1-2 liters/hour for Chujio filter and liters/hour for Ceramaji filter. The lifetime depends on quality of water and frequency of use and is given as 2 or up to 3 years. The laboratory test results confirm that both filters achieve the national standard. Specifically, for the Chujio filter the test specifies that Chujio filter s antimicrobial activity efficacy is 100% and that it meets the Kenya standard for microbiological activity (KS 220), and for Ceramaji filter that it s filtration efficiency is 99.99% using test method KS , i.e. referring to the test from the same standard. The laboratory tests did not test flow rate and DOE considers that ranges of flow rate are rather approximate and the values are therefore not suitable for comparing if flow rates are within +/-5% in relative terms. However, it is appropriate to compare filtration efficiency and it is within +/-5% according to the laboratory test results against the Kenyan national standard. As the technology and structure are the same, filtration efficiency within +/-5%, visual appearance similar, and the target group is the same, the DOE concludes that both models of the filter can be clustered together and results of water consumption test (WCFT) performed in the previous period can be used for both models in this period. This FAR can therefore be closed GS review for approval of design change: FAR 2 The survey data to determine Xboil shall be verified at the time of first verification by the DOE. (From registration review document) Comments and requests from Gold Standard review for approval of design change /77/ According to the formula in the PDD after the design change /22/, Xboil is calculated based on parameters X treat, X untreated and C i. According to the PDD, the PP may conduct surveys to identify project-specific values for parameters X untreated and C i or alternatively use national values from published data, and parameter X treat is fixed ex-ante. The PP opted not to conduct surveys during this verification period and used the same values for parameters X untreated and C i that were suggested in the PDD. The DOE checked the PDD and the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics /37/ to validate the values. Please also refer to section of the report, tables on verification of X boil, X treat, X untreated and C i. This FAR can therefore be closed. All FARs raised until this verification were closed for this verification period. As noted by the validating DOE /71/, FARs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the validation report must be assessed in all future verifications. During this verification ERM CVS raised new FARs that will need to be assessed during the next (third) verification please refer to the section 5.3 of this report Project Implementation in accordance with the PDD As per VVS section 9.4.1, ERM CVS evaluated the conformity of the project activity and its operation with the PDD including ERM Certification and Verification Services 15 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

16 design changes that were accepted by the Gold Standard prior to the DOE s site visit /22, 27/. This assessment was undertaken on the basis of the site visit, review of documents and interviews with relevant personnel. During the site visit, ERM CVS assessed whether all features of the project as described in the PDD are in place and that the PP has operated the project in accordance with operational criteria set out in the PDD /22/. The project covers distribution and sales of a number of cooking stoves and water purification devises, and includes possibilities to add new types and models through design changes. The volumes of sales are not projected in the PDD Overview of project design The project consists of 6 clusters: Household wood stoves Charcoal stoves Institutional stoves Point of Use (PoU) non-chemical water treatment PoU chemical water treatment Community water treatment The last cluster, community water purification, was added to the project as design change during this verification period /22, 27/. As part of the design change, also new household stove models were introduced. Two of the above clusters charcoal stoves and PoU chemical water treatment were not yet implemented during this monitoring and verification period. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not What is the Implementation and operation status of the project? Are all physical features of the project activity in place as per the PDD? Review of the monitoring report /01/ and registered as well as revised PDD /22/ Review of project database online and export spreadsheets (sales records) /23-26/ Interviews with The Paradigm Project staff and project partners Visits to a sample of households, institutions (schools), and community water treatment points According to the revised PDD with the design change /22/, the project consists of 6 clusters and the following models can be sold or distributed: 1) Institutional stoves: RTE model stoves of different sizes are built in institutions. Currently institutions covered are primarily schools. For the purpose of calculating emission reductions, this cluster is split into two groups/sub-clusters: stoves with size 400 L and below, and stoves with size >400 L. Based on review of the version 01 of the project database, 870 stoves of 400 L capacity and 102 stoves of >400 L capacity have been installed to date, i.e. 972 stoves (herein, to date means until the end of the verification period, i.e. until 31 December 2012). However, the monitoring report referred to 980 stoves. Please refer to CL 1. CL 1 CAR 2 Once the sales data was finalized, the PP realized that some of the sales were not included in the sales database export file that was provided to the DOE at the time of starting verification. ERM CVS reviewed copies of paper receipts for the stove sales that were added to the database in the revised version /48/. According to the final data, 932 stoves of 400 L capacity and 104 stoves of >400 L capacity have been installed to date and are included in this verification period. The stove numbers are consistent between the database and the monitoring report /25, 01/. CL 1 was therefore closed. 2) Household wood stoves: ERM Certification and Verification Services 16 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

17 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not a) Jikopoa unskirted model: the stove is manufactured in Kenya and sold via distribution partners. b) Jikopoa skirted model: this is a modified model of Jikopoa stove based on feedback from the users. c) Envirofit G3300: the stove is imported into Kenya and sold via distributors d) Envirofit M5000: the stove is imported into Kenya and sold via distributors e) EzyStove: parts are imported into Kenya, stoves are assembled in Nairobi and then sold via distributors Based on the project database, the following number of each stove model has been sold to date: Jikopoa unskirted 16,104 Jikopoa skirted 2,029 (2,025 of which were sold in December 2012, as this model was introduced to the market only at the end of 2012) Envirofit G ,357 Envirofit M5000 7,094 EzyStove 4,353 Total 65,937 However, the MR version 01 referred to 60,512 stoves please refer to CL 1. The sales figures in the revised MR were corrected and are now consistent with the database (in total 65,937 stoves), and CL 1 was closed. The project was originally registered with two models included in the cluster Jiko Poa skirted and Envirofit G3300. According to the PDD, new models had to be tested using water boiling test (WBT) to check if they can be deemed similar, i.e. if they have similar design features and their efficiency is within +/-5% of the stoves included originally, in relative terms. ERM CVS checked the WBT results conducted during this verification period /38/, which tested all 5 stove models, and interviewed Dr. Jacob Kithinji who led the tests, and can confirm that the efficiency was correctly tested and all stoves have efficiency of +/-5% in relative terms. Based on visual inspection of stoves in the central warehouse and interviews with a sample of users, the stoves design features are similar. Therefore all 5 models can be deemed similar and can be included in the same cluster. For the purpose of calculating ERs, household wood stoves are split into two groups/sub-clusters: beneficiaries who before the project intervention used charcoal (small group), and all other users, which essentially are users who used wood or combination of wood and other fuels (largest proportion of all sales in this cluster). The first versions of the PDD and monitoring report available at the start of this verification sometimes referred to these two groups as clusters, which was confusing and not correct, as sales are recorded for all household wood stoves without differentiating between baseline charcoal users and other (wood) users. Please refer to CAR 2 ERM Certification and Verification Services 17 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

18 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Revised PDD and MR included corrections to the description of clusters and sub-clusters, which are in line with the actual implementation of the project, and CAR 2 was closed. 3) Charcoal stoves: the project has not distributed any charcoal stoves to date. Based on interviews with The Paradigm, the reason for this is that the project has not yet found suitable models that would have appropriate combination of user acceptability, efficiency/performance, and manufacturing costs. The verification team has not seen any charcoal stoves in the Paradigm s warehouse. 4) Point of Use Non-Chemical Water Treatment Products: a) Silver-lined ceramic water filters: filters of two brands, Chujio and CeraMaji, have been sold by project partners Life Force Kiosks and SWAP, respectively. Although the brand names are different, the filter model is essentially the same. b) Safi solutions ceramic water filter: this model has not been distributed to date Based on review of the project database, 25 filters of Chujio brand and 700 filters of CeraMaji brand were sold, i.e. 725 filters in total. However, the MR referred to 475 units please refer to CL 1. In the revised version of the database, the sales figure for Ceramaji filters was corrected to 624 units /26/, and the MR was corrected to be consistent with the database (649 units) /01/. CL 1 was closed. 5) Point of use chemical-based water treatment products: distribution of such products has not started yet 6) Community level water treatment: Chlorine dispensers run by two organisations have been included in this project via design change /22, 27/. This verification period is the first period when these units have been included. a) Life Force Kiosks run chlorine dispensers in Kibera slum in Nairobi b) Dispensers for Safe Water (DSW), sometimes referred to as Alethia, run chlorine dispenser programme in Western and Nyanza Provinces and is looking at expanding to other areas Based on review of the project database, 872 points run by DSW (Alethia) are included (they have been installed from 2008 to 2012), and 10 points run by Life Force Kiosks are included all installed in However, the MR referred to a total of 860 units please refer to CL 1. The sales figures in the revised MR were corrected and are now consistent with the database (in total 882 water points), ERM Certification and Verification Services 18 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

19 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not and CL 1 was closed. According to the PDD /22/, Paradigm uses NGOs and CBOs to act as conduits of technologies to penetrate to rural and urban-slum communities, and it actively seeks local partnerships to enable access to communities that previously have had limited exposure to new technologies. According to the PDD, I project also continually assesses technology options with the goal of providing the highest performing, most affordable and most locally appropriate technologies to Kenyans. Based on the site visit interviews and review of project databases /23-26/, it is evident that The Paradigm Project is working with a range of organisations on distribution and technology development. For example this has led to slight modification of the design (appearance aspects) of the Jiko PoA stove see below for more explanation. Household wood stoves constitute the largest segment of the project. As confirmed by interviews, review of the Sales and distribution channel profiles /49/ and distributors logged in the sales system NetSuite (reviewed online during the site visit), the stoves are sold via the following sales channels: 1. aggregator channel, in which distributors introduce products in campaign style programs. ERM CVS interviewed, one of the distributors under this channel 2. dealer channel: sales in small brick and mortar retail stores. Small volumes have been sold via this channel to date 3. sacco channel: community credit organisations that are membership-based banking, loan and credit organisations that provide possibilities to pay for the stoves in instalments. A number of households visited by ERM CVS during the site visit have bought their stoves via such groups 4. NGO channel: NGO buys a large volume and distributes it via its channels. Stoves in this channel may be further subsidised. Considerable volumes have been sold via organisations such as Food for the Hungry, World Vision, Compassion International 5. LME / direct marketing channel: trained direct (door-to-door) marketing independent entrepreneurs managed by Affirm Global Development. 6. Retail chain sales channel: limited sales to date The project has further partnered with the following organisations: Jiko Poa stove manufacturer: the project started implementation with the initial stove model design, which is produced locally in Kenya. Based on feedback from the stove users who bought this stove model, the design was altered to improve suitability for larger pots, visual appeal to consumers, and also to enhance durability. ERM Certification and Verification Services 19 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

20 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Life Force Kiosks: this NGO is running chlorine dispensers in Kibera (slum area of Nairobi) DSW, or Alethia: the organisation runs community water treatment programme in Nyanza and Western provinces and is looking at expanding to the programme to other areas. SWAP sells ceramic water filters conducts monitoring for this cluster Based on interviews and review of marketing information, the project is continuously developing marketing material and initiatives including participating in a TV programme, and is also building a brand Ezy Life to popularise stoves and other products. Does the monitoring report correctly state the implementation and operational status of the project activity? Review of the monitoring report /01/ Interviews with Paradigm and its partners Visits to a sample of households, institutions (schools), and community water treatment points Please refer to CL 1 there are discrepancies between sales/distribution volumes in the monitoring report and total sales record spreadsheets with detailed data. After revised database spreadsheets and revised MR were provided, ERM CVS can confirm that sales figures are consistent, and CL 1 was closed The monitoring report was not sufficiently clear on groups within clusters for the purpose of calculating emission reductions, and on which models/technologies are considered the same and why. This made it confusing to understand the project s structure for calculation of emission reductions. CL 2 was therefore raised to clarify the structure of the project. CL 1 CL 2 The revised PDD now shows clusters and groups within clusters for the purpose of calculating emission reductions, and subclusters are also shown in the revised MR section 2. CL 2 was closed for further details please refer to the remediation requests (section 5). Have provisions been implemented for the transfer of carbon rights to the project developer? The PDD states that All rights to carbon ownership resulting from the sale and use of project stoves and water filters are transferred at the point of sale from the purchaser to the PP Rights to carbon ownership resulting from the use of community level water treatment systems are transferred through community level meetings either when the units are installed or retroactively where local promoters provide training to village leaders and / or households and explain the transfer of carbon rights. Alternatively an explanation of rights transfer is posted publicly near the unit. Units that don t require signatures will display a sign or sticker that simply explains and informs households that their use of the dispensed water treatment relinquishes all future rights to credits, with an understanding that the carbon project will support local development through future carbon revenues (section A.3). ERM CVS checked the implementation of carbon rights transfer as follows: CL 3 FAR 1 FAR 1 Household stoves: each stove is sold with a label or sticker on the box, explaining that the stove is subsidised by the GHG emission reductions that it creates, and that by purchasing the stove, the user agrees that all financial and environmental benefits including GHG emission reductions created through the use of the stove belong to the paradigm ERM Certification and Verification Services 20 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

21 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Project. Please also refer to the section above on how FAR 3 and FAR 9 from validation and previous verification were addressed. ERM CVS checked the wording of the carbon waver stickers. It was noted during the site visit that some stickers had been sent out in English, but that stickers were now being produced in Kiswahili. All distributors are reportedly trained to explain the carbon right waiver to stove purchasers, and ERM CVS reviewed training material provided which included this topic. In addition to the automatic waiving of carbon rights that is implied by users purchasing the stoves, users are also encouraged to complete registration forms/warranty forms (with an incentive to have warranty services), which also function as written carbon rights waivers. However during on site interviews it was reported that such registration/warranty forms have only been obtained for around a quarter of all stove sales since the project started. A software called Carbon keeper has been used to record the detailed customer information gained using these forms. ERM CVS reviewed Carbon Keeper during the site visit. The project developer stated during the on-site interviews that further training has been carried out with stove distributors to try to increase the number of warranty forms filled out. Incentive system for distributors has also been modified: a cash rebate of 50 KES will be given per stove correctly registered on Carbon Keeper, and a cash rebate of 20 KES per stove will be given for paper sales receipts sent to the Paradigm office. Institutional stoves: Installation and payment contracts executed with customers gather this detailed information as well as explain the role of carbon finance in the program. All institutions sign a carbon rights waiver as part of the installation process. PoU Non-Chemical Water Treatment: Carbon Rights Waivers are currently given to end users at point of sale. During the on-site interviews, ERM CVS confirmed that the CRWs are part of the physical receipt that is distributed with the product to inform the end user of his/her participation in the carbon program and received signed consent of the transfer of these rights. The waivers are signed for the products received and all customer information is captured on the receipt with the signature. However, part of sales is in large quantities to distributors. Based on interviews and document review on site, detailed customer data is collected primarily from sales within area reachable by SWAP monitoring team, and excludes sales to remote areas or part of the large quantity sales to distributors such as NGOs or other development groups. CL 3 was raised to justify how such approach ensures all customers are informed about the carbon rights transfer, and how detailed customer database is representative of the total sales population. Further explanation was provided by the PP on the ways to collect user information and revised detailed customer database was provided, which shows that a mixture of users from direct sales and from distributors were surveyed. It is ERM CVS s understanding that not all resellers were easy to work with for data collection but the PP has recognized that incentives have not been always aligned properly for the resellers to collect detailed end user information, and that the PP is looking at changing the system of working with re- ERM Certification and Verification Services 21 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

22 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not sellers, possibly similarly to how it changed incentive scheme for re-sellers of household wood stoves. The number of end user details collected is sufficient and customers from direct sales as well as via distributors is included. CL 3 was closed please refer to remediation requests in section 5 for further details. During the next verification it should be checked whether the system of collecting end user details has been improved please refer to FAR 6. Community Water Treatment: Rights to carbon ownership resulting from the use of community level water treatment systems are transferred through community level meetings either when the units are installed or retroactively where local promoters provide training to village leaders and / or households and explain the transfer of carbon rights. This was confirmed during the on-site interviews including interviews with some of the village elders. Alternatively or in addition, an explanation of rights transfer is posted publicly near the unit, which will display a sticker that explains and informs households that their use of the dispensed water treatment relinquishes all future rights to credits, with an understanding that the carbon project will support local development through future carbon revenues. Not all of the units visited by ERM CVS during the site visit displayed a sticker, and verification team understand based on interviews that stickers are sometimes removed, possibly by children. For new community water purification points, the PP should consider an alternative way of communicating carbon rights transfer to the users of the water points, which would provide a form of evidence that carbon rights were explained to the users FAR 1 was raised. Based on the verifier s site visit, it can be confirmed that physical features of the project activity have been implemented in accordance with the PDD /22/ and the Gold Standard Passport /69/. No specific monitoring equipment had to be installed according to the monitoring plan /22/ ERM CVS confirmed, through the visual inspection that physical features of the Gold Standard project activity have been implemented in accordance with the PDD. The project activity was also confirmed to be fully operational in accordance with the PDD /22/ Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology As per VVS section 9.4.2, ERM CVS evaluated whether the monitoring plan complies with the requirements of the applied methodology. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the monitoring plan in compliance with the applied methodology? Check of the monitoring plan in the PDD against the applied methodology Parameter Xnrb,bl,y will be determined based on the default non-renewable biomass fractions accepted by the DNA of Kenya and published on the CDM website /36/ instead of being determined as per the procedure in annex 1 of the methodology. This change to the monitoring plan for this project has been approved by CAR 2 ERM Certification and Verification Services 22 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

23 the Gold Standard /22, 27/. The monitoring plan (PDD section B.7.2, on page 87) states that for monitoring kitchen surveys for the institutional stoves, 5 institutions per quarter will be selected, and based on the survey report, 25 institutions were selected in a year. This is not in line with the methodology requirement (section III, part A.2, on page 22) that The sample size for a monitoring KS, repeated each 3 months, is not less than 25 customers (or 10% of cluster size if this is less than 250). However the Gold Standard did not raise objections to it during project registration, first issuance, and the design change. Paradigm also specifically mentioned the sample size in a letter to the Gold Standard about intended changes to their tracking/monitoring processes, where reasons for the sample size were also explained, and the Gold Standard s response did not indicate disagreement /75/. The deviation can be explained by the fact that the project so far credits only lunch meals and there is little variation between the end users, i.e. schools, on how they cook lunch, as the rations are regulated nationally. As the monitoring kitchen survey is not used for any quantitative parameters for calculation of emission reductions, this deviation does not have material impact. The verification team noticed some inconsistencies and small errors in the PDD and monitoring plan that were submitted at the time of starting verification. For example: Clusters are not clearly defined in the PDD, and groups within clusters (such as baseline nonwood/charcoal users and all other (wood) users in the household wood stove cluster) are also referred to as separate clusters, although they are not monitored separately There a few discrepancies in parameters and their units between the sections B.6.1, B.6.2 and B.7.1 Monitoring procedures for some of the parameters is not clear in section B.7.1 CAR 2 was raised to correct the inconsistencies in the PDD and monitoring plan. The revised PDD was subsequently provided, which appropriately and unambiguously describes clusters /22/. Discrepancies and inconsistencies between sections B.6.1, B.6.2 and B.7.1 were corrected, which resulted in some changes to the way parameters are denoted. Monitoring procedures were clarified. The revised PDD was accepted by the Gold Standard /27/. Following these corrections, CAR 2 was closed. ERMCVS confirms that the registered monitoring plan is in accordance with the methodology applied for the project activity. ERM Certification and Verification Services 23 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

24 4.4. Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan Overview of monitoring system The monitoring system includes the monitoring of the following aspects: Total sales record: this is designed to record the number of units sold of each technology (e.g. wood stoves, institutional stoves, point-of-use (POU) non-chemical water treatment, and community water treatment). Sales are recorded when the unit is first sold by the wholesaler this may be direct to a household but is more commonly to a third party distributor for resale. As such, the total sales record is updated continuously. For community level water treatment, each installation is recorded directly. The monitoring plan stipulates that, for quality control purposes, a representative sample of each quarter s sales will be cross checked against paper records. Since stoves will mainly be sold through distributors, a lag time will be calculated for each issuance period and applied to all sales made during the period. During the monitoring period, online software called Netsuite has been used to record sales data for household stoves Netsuite tracks the movement of inventory out of the warehouse to distributors. Sample stoves that do not represent eventual sales to the end user, any stoves exported from the country, or stoves that have been returned by the distributors, are removed from the database. Data from Netsuite is then exported into the total sales record. Sales information for institutional stoves, point-of-use non-chemical water treatment and community level water treatment clusters is recorded at the point of sale/installation and entered into the total sales record. The data on sales is then exported into and held in excel files, named as project database /23-26/. A customer sampling record spreadsheets have also been maintained by the project implementer for each cluster /11-13, 41/, which are used for sampling for the surveys (e.g. Monitoring Kitchen Surveys and Usage Surveys) and tests (e.g. ageing stove kitchen tests). Customer details for household stoves and point-of-use non-chemical water treatment users are collected through the registration forms (warranty forms, also known as Carbon Rights waivers ), which also serve to record the sale for warranty purposes (hence there is an incentive for users to provide the information). During the monitoring period, software called carbon keeper has been introduced to record the information for household stove customers. Data can be entered into Carbon Keeper by sms, online, or by sending in paper records to the project implementer, who then enters the information into Carbon Keeper. Distributors/stove sellers are financially incentivised to provide completed registration/warranty forms/carbon rights waivers this incentive was introduced after the project owner found that some distributors were not sufficiently incentivised to provide customer details. Customer information for community level water treatment users are collected in two ways. For chlorine kiosks, users are provided with receipts when they buy water treated with chlorine, and a copy of the receipt is kept customer is thus recorded. For chlorine dispensers at water points run by DSW, customer information is collected through local contacts at the water points: usually a resident living nearest to the water point or a village elder identifies waterpoint users. Customer details for institutional stoves are recorded through installation and payment contracts for each stove. Detailed customer database: this database records the results of quarterly kitchen surveys, or monitoring kitchen surveys (see below). A spreadsheet for each cluster is maintained that includes results of all monitoring kitchen surveys conducted from the start of project implementation to date /14-17/. Monitoring kitchen surveys (MKS): these are conducted on at least 25 customers from each quarter of sales for the household stoves, PoU non-chemical water, and community water, and on at least 5 customers per quarter of sales for institutional stoves. Users are randomly selected from the customer sampling record for each quarter of new sales. At least 50% of the kitchen surveys must be done face-to-face (i.e. less than half should be done by telephone). The kitchen surveys are used to reassess household or institutional kitchen regimes, such as type of stoves and fuels used, frequency of cooking, number of people eating, etc. The results are used to reassess cluster definitions, gather data on users to ensure the kitchen tests are representative of the user population, assess aspects such as leakage, and monitor some of the sustainability indicators. 192 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for the household stove cluster in this monitoring peri d - at least 25 stoves from each quarter of sales. The surveys were conducted by Ecoscope and Paradigm, with QA/QC conducted by dr. Jacob Kithinji. 25 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for institutional stoves in this monitoring period at least 5 stoves per quarter of sales. The surveys were conducted by Ecoscope and Paradigm, with QA/QC conducted by dr. Jacob Kithinji. 114 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for point-of-use non-chemical water treatment in this monitoring period but 14 were removed as outliers, resulting in 100 surveys being analysed. The kitchen survey and usage survey were combined for this cluster. The surveys were conducted by SWAP and Life Force Kiosks, with QA./QC by Kirubi Gathu. 152 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for community water users in this monitoring period. The project ERM Certification and Verification Services 24 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

25 conducted kitchen surveys for all sales at one time since these units are retroactively included with the design change and on-going monitoring has not been in place. The surveys were conducted by DSW (Alethia) and Life Force Kiosks, with QA./QC by Kirubi Gathu For all clusters, the monitoring kitchen survey data was analysed and survey reports prepared by Impact Carbon /18-21/. Usage survey: this is conducted annually to establish the drop-off rates in technology usage from sales/installations of 1-2 years old. Users are randomly selected from the customer sampling record according to the date of sales. At least 50% of the usage surveys have to be conducted face-to-face. In the monitoring period, for household stoves and institutional stoves, usage surveys were conducted in October and November 2012 by EcoScope and Dr Jacob Kithinji. For point-of-use non-chemical water treatment cluster the usage surveys were conducted in November 2012 by SWAP and Life Force Kiosks, with QA./QC by Kirubi Gathu. For community water treatment usage surveys were conducted in November and December 2012 by DSW and Stephen Mumbwani, with QA/QC by Kirubi Gathu. NRB fraction: this is determined based on the guidance from EB 67. The default value accepted by the Kenyan DNA is used, and will be updated biennially if and when the value is revised and published on the UNFCCC website. The value has not been revised since its adoption on 19 September 2012, hence the value is applicable for this monitoring period. Leakage: this is assessed biennially based on an assessment of each of the leakage sources identified by the methodology. Kitchen Performance tests/ageing stove Kitchen tests, also referred to as monitoring kitchen tests (MKT): these are conducted biennially on units sold in different age groups to measure the performance of the devices (in terms of fuel savings) as the devices age, and other relevant factors. In the monitoring period, for household stoves and institutional stoves, ageing Kitchen Tests were conducted in October/November 2012 on stoves sold before April 2011, by team del by Jacob Kithinji, with analysis and reporting by Berkeley Air. New stove kitchen tests: these are used to measure fuel consumption of any new household or institutional stove models, as required. No new stove kitchen tests were required in this monitoring period. Although new models started to be sold during this verification period, they were classed as being similar to the original models and belonging to the same cluster (please refer to the section above for details) and therefore new stove kitchen tests were not required. Baseline Water Boiling Tests (BWBT): these are conducted biennially to measure the performance of baseline stoves used for boiling water. In the monitoring period, for the PoU non-chemical water treatment and community water treatment clusters, baseline water boiling tests were conducted in December 2012 by Dr Kirubi Gethu and staff at Kenyatta University. Water Consumption Fuel Tests (WCFT): these are conducted biennially to measure the volume of safe water consumed in the project scenario by the treatment technology, and to be applied to each relevant water treatment vintage in the project database. In the monitoring period, for the community water treatment cluster, water consumption fuel tests were conducted in October/November 2012 by DSW and SWAP, with analysis and reporting by DSW and Impact Carbon. For the PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster, water consumption fuel tests did not have to be conducted as previous tests were done in August 2011, i.e. two years have not passed. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Was the Total Sales Record collected accurately and in accordance with the methodology and registered monitoring Review of the Project Database spreadsheets /23-26/, NetSuite database Review of sales records for each A total sales record was maintained continuously in electronic format by the project coordinator, in line with the methodology. Paper records of sales were also kept. The monitoring plan requires a representative sample of each quarter s sales to be selected for follow-up by the VER director and for the sales to be cross checked against paper receipts or electronic records. During interviews on site, ERM CVS confirmed with the project implementer that these cross checks are taking place for household wood stoves cluster. However, no evidence was CAR 4 ERM Certification and Verification Services 25 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

26 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not plan? cluster Interviews with The Paradigm, DSW/Alethia, and SWAP found of the cross-checks done for other clusters please refer to CAR 4. Explanation and further evidence was provided of crosschecks undertaken by Paradigm and SWAP on sales of institutional stoves and ceramic water filters, respectively. Please refer to closure of CAR 4 in section 5 for further details. ERM CVS can therefore confirm that quality checks were conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan, and CAR 4 was closed. ERM CVS has reviewed the total sales record in the project database, and validated a sample of sales records against paper copies: For household stoves the team checked a small sample of records, as the system was audited in detail in a financial audit conducted by E&Y. For institutional stoves, 24 receipts were checked against the database and no discrepancies were found For community water treatment, 15 paper forms on installation of community chlorine dispensers were checked on site and no discrepancies were found. For point-of-use non-chemical water treatment, ERM CVS cross checked a sample of 40 paper records for ceramic water filters distributed by SWAP (Safe Water and Aids Project) against the sales record and confirmed that the information was consistent. Was detailed customer data collected appropriately and is it representative of the sales record? Review of customer sampling records /11-13, 41-42/ Interviews with the Paradigm, dealers, staff of SWAP, DSW, and Life Force Kiosks ERM CVS can therefore confirm that sales data were collected accurately and in accordance with the methodology and monitoring plan, and the Project Database for each cluster is complete and accurate A customer sampling record was collected and maintained containing data on users for each cluster /11-13, 41/. During on-site interviews with the project implementer, ERM CVS confirmed that customer details for household stoves and point-of-use non-chemical water treatment users are collected through the registration forms (warranty forms, also known as Carbon Rights waivers ). During the monitoring period, software called carbon keeper has been introduced to record the information for household stove customers. ERM CVS reviewed the Carbon Keeper interface, its training material /50/, a sample of different format paper forms used earlier for collecting customer details on site, and interviewed the Paradigm sales staff on how SMS-based data collection works. The paper forms have been modified during the course of the project. During this verification period, the project owner modified the incentive mechanism in order to incentivise them to complete registration/warranty forms. CL 4 CL 5 CL 6 Based on review of the customer sampling record /12/, sufficient number of users are covered in the record but serial numbers of the stoves are not recorded in 49% of the customer sampling record. During the visit to a sample of households ERM CVS found that stove number is difficult to record or is often not clearly visible, as it is located at the bottom of the stove and cannot be checked if the stove is used at the time or has recently be used and is hot. CL 4 was raised ERM Certification and Verification Services 26 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

27 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not for the PP to explain what it plans to do to rectify the problem and how it will be ensured that stoves can be tracked and no double counting occurs. The PP has provided further explanation on the system it uses to avoid double counting and changes done to the way customer data is recorded. Please refer to the information provided and closure of CL 4 in section 5 of the report for further details. Based on interview with Paradigm personnel, the Paradigm is discussing with the stove manufacturers how the location of serial numbers or the way they are imprinted could be modified to make it possible to check the serial number during monitoring. Based on these clarifications, CL 4 was closed. Customer details for institutional stoves are recorded through installation and payment contracts for each stove. The customer sampling record includes details of sufficient number of users /13/. ERM CVS noticed that invoice numbers were not included for 423 institutions out of 794 institutions /13/ and CL 5 was raised. The PP provided further explanation on the system used for avoiding double counting. As institutional stoves are not mobile but are sold to schools that can be uniquely identified by their name and address, ERM CVS agrees that sales can be confirmed without serial number of invoice number, and there is no risk of double counting. The PDD or the methodology also do not require recording serial numbers /22, 70/. CL 5 was therefore closed. For PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster, customer sampling record for this cluster was provided and reviewed by ERM CVS /41/. As filters were sold to customers directly and via distributors, customer details were collected by SWAP in two ways: from customer receipts collected by SWAP directly, and by contacting the largest distributor to get details of its customers. The customer sampling record does not include customer details for 10 times the size of the sample size needed for monitoring but the PP provided further explanation how it selected the sample and based on interviews with SWAP (organisation that distributed the majority of filters), the sample was representative please refer to closure of CL 3 in remediation requests section (section 5). It is ERM CVS s understanding that not all resellers were easy to work with for data collection but the PP has recognized that incentives have not been always aligned properly and that they are looking at changing the system of working with re-sellers. Customer details for community level water treatment users are identified through either customer information collected at the point of water collection, or through local contacts at the water points (usually a resident living nearest to the water point) who identify waterpoint users. Such list was provided for chlorine dispensers run by Life Force Kiosks. For dispensers run by Alethia, customer lists were made for sample of dispensers only as part of sample selection for MKS and ERM Certification and Verification Services 27 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

28 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not KPTs. However, such lists were not provided as evidence, and it was not clear how this ensures that detailed customer data is available for number of users that are at least 10 times the sample size CL 6 was raised. Subsequently the PP provided users lists for chlorine dispensers run by DSW /42/, and customer sampling record spreadsheet with customer list of water kiosks /11/. Both includes names/details of sufficient number of customers. CL 6 was therefore closed. It should be noted that for community water points, only names are recorded. However, during surveys any selected user from such list can easily be found by asking either the village elder or one of the women living closest to the water point. This is acceptable in communities and is in line with the monitoring plan. Were surveys implemented and data collected in a way that minimises errors and bias and ensures conservative estimate of emission reductions? Review of kitchen survey results and reports /14-21/, check against filled in paper questionnaires Review of usage survey data and reports /28-35/, check against filled in paper questionnaires Review of ageing kitchen test results and reports /46,47,52,53/, check against filled in paper forms Interviews with monitoring staff of Paradigm, Impact Carbon, Ecoscope, DSW, SWAP, Kirubi Gathu, and Jacob Kithinji Monitoring kitchen surveys: Monitoring Kitchen Surveys (MKS) were conducted every quarter, on at least 25 customers per quarter for the household stoves, PoU non-chemical water, and community water, and 5 customers per quarter for institutional stoves, in line with the registered monitoring plan. Household stoves MKS: Based on interviews with The Paradigm, households for conducting MKS were randomly selected by the Paradigm from a customer sampling record, using random number generators in the sampling record spreadsheets. ERM CVS reviewed the customer sampling record for HH stoves and confirmed that it contains details of the type of stove, serial number (where applicable), date sold, the name of the seller, name of the end user, and end user contact details such as telephone number and address /12/. Verification team reviewed a series of spreadsheets that recorded how the sample was selected. ERM CVS interviewed EcoScope, the independent company responsible for carrying out most of the surveys for HH stoves and institutional stoves. During the interview on site, EcoScope confirmed that enumerators were selected based on their qualifications and that training of enumerators was carried out in October Enumerators were also given a manual (enumerator handbook) to guide them which considers aspects such as survey preparation, survey techniques, how to avoid survey bias, etc /51/. The PDD does not prescribe details on QA/QC measures that need to be applied it only referred that data will be transparent and verifiable. However, training of surveyors is one of the key aspects of ensuring quality of the data, and ERM CVS was able to confirm that the surveyors were sufficiently trained. The collected data was reviewed and analysed by Impact Carbon, carbon consultant. ERM CVS has reviewed the survey s filled in paper questionnaires and the spreadsheets with the compiled raw data and data analysis, and can confirm that the data is transparent and verifiable. CL 3 CL 7 CAR 3 FAR 2 FAR 5 FAR 2 FAR 4 FAR 5 ERM CVS reviewed the process used by the PP to select a sample and can confirm that the selection process ensures a random selection of the sample and is in accordance with the methodology. ERM Certification and Verification Services 28 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

29 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not 192 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for the household stove cluster in this monitoring period, including at least 25 stoves from each quarter of sales. Only 2 interviews were by phone. ERM CVS reviewed the MKS questionnaire used for households /54/ and noticed that it only asks how many meals per day the users are cooking on the stove, without asking first how many days per week they use it, whilst usage survey results /29/ and DOE s interviews indicated that some households cook not every day. FAR 4 was therefore raised to revise the survey s questions for the next monitoring period. Institutional stove MKS: Institutions were randomly selected from the customer sampling record. 25 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for institutional stoves in this monitoring period, including 5 stoves per quarter of sales. All surveys were conducted in person. ERM CVS interviewed EcoScope, the independent company responsible for carrying out most of the surveys for HH stoves and institutional stoves. For the institutional MKS, the principal or deputy of the school was targeted. This is reportedly because they have the best overall knowledge of the school, e.g. number of pupils, and of financial matters e.g. amount spent on fuel. The cook or kitchen staff were normally also included during the survey visits, and provided the more detailed information on cooking practices. ERM CVS also carried out visits to 6 schools and confirmed that this approach is reasonable. ERM CVS reviewed the process used by the PP to select a sample and can confirm that the selection process ensures a random selection of the sample. Similarly to the household wood stove cluster, the PDD does not prescribe details on QA/QC measures that need to be applied it only referred that data will be transparent and verifiable. However, training of surveyors is one of the key aspects of ensuring quality of the data, and the surveyors were the same as for the household wood stoves. The collected data was reviewed and analysed by Impact Carbon, carbon consultant. ERM CVS has reviewed the survey s filled in paper questionnaires and the spreadsheets with the compiled raw data and data analysis, and can confirm that the data is transparent and verifiable. Based on review of the MKS questionnaire used for institutions /55/ and the survey results /17/, 15 out of 25 schools cook on more than one stove, and this was also observed during the site visits. When schools are full and there is sufficient food, meals for children are normally cooked on the project stoves, and meals for staff are cooked on other stove or a 3 stone fire. However, the questions on number of meals cooked for do not distinguish whether that s for all people and all stoves or children/students and new stove only (e.g. they ask For how many people does the institution cook breakfast per day? ). ERM CVS did not find evidence that the question was misunderstood by respondents but in order to minimise chances of mis-reporting, FAR 5 was raised to make the questions clearer in the next monitoring period. ERM Certification and Verification Services 29 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

30 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Point-of-use non-chemical water treatment MKS: Based on interviews and document review on site, monitoring surveys (which also served as usage surveys) were conducted by targeting sales within area reachable by SWAP monitoring team. Sales to remote areas or large quantity sales to distributors such as NGOs or other development groups were not targeted for surveys, as these are difficult for SWAP to monitor. Furthermore, if a user was at work for most of the day he/she was not surveyed. It is therefore not clear how the PP ensured that the resulting sample is representative of the total sales population please refer to CL 3. Further explanation was provided by the PP and the revised detailed customer database (spreadsheet with MKS results) shows which customers represent direct sales and which ones sales via distributors. As a mixture of customers from both types of sales was included in the sample, and based on the explanation provided, the selection was not biased. Further, the PP is looking at ways to change the incentive mechanism in order to get more customer details. CL 3 was therefore closed. 114 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for point-ofuse non-chemical water treatment in this monitoring period but 14 were removed as outliers, resulting in 100 surveys being analysed. The surveys were undertaken by SWAP and Life Force Kiosks with QAQC by Kirubi Gathu, an independent qualified expert who was interviewed by the verification team. As such, the survey was checked by independent third party. Only 6 surveys were conducted by phone, thus the methodology condition for at least 50% of the surveys to be conducted in person was satisfied. ERM CVS has reviewed the survey s filled in paper questionnaires and the spreadsheets with the compiled raw data and data analysis, and can confirm that the data is transparent and verifiable. The description of how sampling was done and surveys undertaken in the MKS report is not in line with the process as reported by the distributor (SWAP) during the site visit. Based on review of the filled in paper questionnaires and spreadsheet with survey results, it appears the data was not sufficiently analysed to identify any unreasonable responses / outliers. Number of surveys conducted is inconsistent in the MR and between MR and spreadsheet. CAR 3 was therefore raised. Subsequently the kitchen survey report was revised and description of sampling is now in line with the explanations provided during site visit interviews. The spreadsheet with kitchen survey results (detailed customer database) now clearly presents all surveys undertaken and outliers removed. After outliers were removed, 100 surveys were used for analysis of MKS results. CAR 3 was closed. ERM CVS checked a sample of filled in paper questionnaires against the detailed customer database (detailed results of MKS) and found a few discrepancies on how the data was entered. Those discrepancies do not directly affect the resulting parameters. However, it was evident that the dataset was not sufficiently analysed to understand if questions were understood properly, if responses are reasonable etc please refer to CAR 3. At least one of the questions, on volume of ERM Certification and Verification Services 30 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

31 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not water treated, was clearly misunderstood FAR 2 was therefore raised for the PP to modify the questionnaire for the next verification period. Community water MKS: Community water treatment users of dispensers run by Life Force Kiosks were randomly selected from the customer sampling record. ERM CVS reviewed the customer sampling record for community water treatment and confirmed that it contains details of the customer name, the service provider of the community water treatment point, the mobile phone number of the user, and the area where the water treatment point is located. Only 10 dispensers are run by LFK. However the customer sampling record for water points run by DSW was not provided please refer to CL 6. Subsequently the PP provided users lists for chlorine dispensers run by DSW /42/, and customer sampling record spreadsheet with customer list of water kiosks /11/. Both includes names/details of sufficient number of customers. CL 6 was therefore closed 152 monitoring kitchen surveys were conducted for community water users in this monitoring period by DSW and Life Force Kiosks with QA/QC by Kirubi Gathu, an independent qualified expert who was interviewed by the verification team. As such, the survey was checked by independent third party. The sample was selected from all sales to date, as this cluster was included into the project in this verification period only. The sample was selected by first selecting a sample of dispensers, and then a sample of users from the lists drawn by community members living closest to the water point (DSW), or from customer lists compiled from paper receipts for sold water with chlorine (Life Force Kiosks). All interviews were conducted in person. ERM CVS has reviewed the survey s filled in paper questionnaires and the spreadsheets with the compiled raw data and data analysis, and can confirm that the data is transparent and verifiable. The sample size is considered appropriate for the kitchen surveys for all the clusters. As noted above, the methodology requires 25 users per quarter to be surveyed wherever the total cluster size is greater than 250, however as noted above only 5 institutional stove users per month were surveyed. However this deviation was approved by the DOE at the validation stage and accepted by the Gold Standard. Usage surveys: Usage surveys were conducted annually to establish the dropoff rates in technology usage from sales/installations that are 1-2 years old. Users were randomly selected from the customer sampling record after filtering data according to the sales date. At least 50% of the usage surveys were conducted face-to-face. Household wood stoves: Usage surveys were conducted in October and November 2012 by EcoScope and Dr Jacob Kithinji, and as such were ERM Certification and Verification Services 31 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

32 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not conducted by independent third parties. 370 households were surveys, of which 259 were in-person. The average number of people per household across all the usage surveys was 5.18, compared to the average number per household in the MKS of There was a good balance between the different stove types: 196 users were using the Envirofit stove, 172 using JikoPoa. Two users had both, JikoPoa and Envirofit stoves. This indicates that the results are likely to be representative of the population. Ezystoves were not included in the survey as the first container of Ezystoves only arrives in November Institutional stoves: Usage surveys were conducted in October and November 2012 by EcoScope and Dr Jacob Kithinji, and as such were conducted by independent third parties. 126 institutional users were surveyed, all of which were done in person. Point-of-use non-chemical water treatment: Usage surveys were combined with MKS please refer to discussion above. The only difference is that no outliers were removed for analysing drop-off rates and all 114 survey results were analysed. This is correct. For household wood stove, institutional stove, and for PoU non-chemical water treatment clusters it is difficult to check if the geographical distribution of the usage surveys for institutional stoves is similar to geographical distribution of sales, as sales record does not include province, although it does include some form of indication of area/region, just not in systematic way. In order to enable checking the geographical distribution, province should be recorded in the total sales record FAR 3 was raised. Community water treatment: For chlorine dispensers run by DSW/Alethia, 150 dispensers of various age groups were checked if they are operational, and results weighed to determine accumulative usage rate. 58% of the checks were done in person thus satisfying the methodology requirement. All 10 of the Life Force Kiosks were checked and all were found to be operation. This is reasonable, as vendors are interested to fix any problem as soon as it appears because they are selling chlorinated water to get income. Kitchen Performance tests: Kitchen performance tests, which during the monitoring refer to ageing stove kitchen tests, are used to measure fuel use on a project stove, and thus fuel reduction performance compared to the baseline stove, as project stoves age. They should be conducted at least biennially, as per the methodology. The methodology requires that the sample size should be such that a sufficient number of ageing stoves are considered to ensure that the typical levels and types of degradation are ERM Certification and Verification Services 32 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

33 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not represented. Household stoves: For household stoves, ageing Kitchen Tests were conducted in October/November 2012 by a University of Nairobi team led by Jacob Kithinji with QA/QC, analysis and reporting by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, an experienced institution specialising in household stove testing and analysis. The sample was selected using sales data for sales up to April 2011, selecting areas in 3 provinces, selecting dealers that sold at least 30 stoves in those periods, and then targeting users via the dealers. Fuel use was measured for the Envirofit G3300 and JikoPoa unskirted models, as other stove models (Envirofit M5000, Jiko PoA unskirted and Ezy Stove) were introduced only in 2012 and have not reached the age of 1.5 years yet at the time of monitoring. As admitted by the PP, the approach for sample selection had problems as some dealers were not cooperating sufficiently, or did not have lists of customers and brought survey teams to households known to dealers/guides. This information is not included in KPT report or MR. CL 7 was raised for the PP to provide further explanation. Please refer to section 5 on further explanation provided by the PP on the sample selection. The KPT report was revised accordingly, and ERM CVS accepts that selection was sufficiently random geographically or across distributors. Based on review of the KPT results /52/ and report /47/ as well as MKS results (detailed customer database) and report /16, 20/, the sample selected for conducting ageing stove tests is representative of the population profile according to the MKS results. CL 7 was therefore closed. However, for future monitoring period, MKS questionnaire should be revised: MKS now only asks how many meals per day the users are cooking on the stove, without asking first how many days per week they use it. Please refer to FAR 4. Kitchen Performance Tests were performed in 187 homes over three full days (72 hours). The sample size is sufficient. All fuel quantities were weighed using digital scales and moisture content was measured daily taking three readings from three randomly selected pieces of wood using digital moisture meters. Equipment models were seen by the DOE. ERM CVS also cross checked a small sample of paper copies of the completed test forms during the site visit and concluded that the information in paper forms is consistent with the results in the excel database. Institutional stoves: For institutional stoves, ageing Kitchen Tests were also conducted in October/November 2012 by a University of Nairobi team led by Jacob Kithinji with QA/QC, analysis and reporting by Berkeley Air. Only schools in Nairobi area were included, reportedly due to logistical and safety issues. All institutions included in the study were schools receiving WFP ERM Certification and Verification Services 33 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

34 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not food rations for primary school aged children. KPTs were performed in 17 schools over 3 full days, with wood quantity and moisture content being measured in the same way as for households described above. The WFP provides food for lunches only, therefore in order to measure the amount of wood fuel used for a known quantity of food, any schools cooking meals other than lunch were removed from the biannual sample, as was done in the baseline study. This resulted in 2 schools being removed from analysis, resulting in the sample of 15 schools being analysed. However, the MR refers to using data from all 17 schools. In addition, based on interviews during the site visit, a number of schools experience food shortages due to late payments or other problems, and there can be a period of 1-2 months per year when schools do not cook meals, or do not use the new large stoves. If this is taken into account by means of usage survey and recording a school with food shortages as a nonuser, further explanation is needed whether food shortages appear at certain periods of the year. CL 8 was raised to explain how food shortages are not taken into account in ER calculations, and correct inconsistency on sample size. The revised MR correctly refers to the sample size, and follow up surveys were conducted on institutional stoves to determine what the impact of food shortages was on actual number of days cooked. Days cooked for this monitoring period has therefore been reduced from to days to account for food shortages. ERM CVS reviewed results of the follow up survey. The questions used in the follow up survey are clearer and allow taking into account times of food shortages. Therefore the revised value of number of days per year that schools cook meals takes into account periods of food shortage and CL 8 was closed. The sample size is considered to be sufficient to ensure representative results, as schools meals are dictated by the policies and are not expected to vary much. Although the geographical location was restricted to Nairobi, this was considered to be sufficiently justified given the current sales and their geographical distribution, logistics involved in carrying out institutional KPTs, and the time needed to reach more remote schools. However, if the sales of institutional stoves increase, the approach should be changed to ensure geographical representation of KPTs. PoU non-chemical water treatment: WCFTs were not needed for PoU non-chemical water treatment in this monitoring period, since the oldest units are less than 18 months old. Community water treatment: To determine performance of water treatment technologies, the methodology requires that a WCFT is carried out at least biennially to conservatively establish the number of creditable litres of water consumed per person per day. WCFTs are conducted with end users representative of the project ERM Certification and Verification Services 34 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

35 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not scenario target population and currently using the project technology. In this monitoring period, WCFTs for the community water cluster were carried out in October/November 2012 by DSW and Life Force Kiosks. Training was carried out for all enumerators, as described in the WCFT report, to ensure that testing was conducted in a culturally appropriate manner that reduces the possibility of survey error or survey bias. The survey was also piloted in a different area before being rolled out. Based on interviews with DSW and review of the CVs of supervising staff, the survey questionnaire and training material was created by experienced researchers. For dispensers, a total of 494 surveys were completed across 172 households at 24 waterpoints randomly drawn from the sales database covering the four area offices with dispensers: Busia, Bungoma, Oyugis, and Kakamega. For kiosks in Nairobi (Kibera), a total of 90 surveys were completed across 30 households at 6 randomly selected waterpoints from the database of 10 operating waterpoint kiosks. In accordance with the methodology and the results gained from piloting, all WCFTs involved the enumerator visiting the respondent household for 3 days, completing consecutive visits in 24-hour intervals, and spending minutes reviewing questions with respondent. The WCFTs measured the following parameters: - N (number of households using community water point) - Adoption (percentage of N that have adopted and use the community level water treatment technology, determined by survey or the presence of chlorine residual in household water) - Qp,y (amount of treated water that is used for hygienic purposes, per households per day) - Qcleanboil (amount of treated water used for hygienic purposes that is still boiled by households, per person per day) Has the PP maintained the detailed customer database in accordance with the methodology and PDD? Review of kitchen survey data and reports /14-21/ The methodology requires that the results of kitchen surveys and kitchen tests are placed in a detailed customer database. The kitchen surveys and kitchen tests have been described and validated above. ERM CVS checked the detailed customer database for each cluster and can confirm that it has been properly maintained in accordance with the methodology. Has the PP maintained the Project Database in accordance with the methodology and PDD? Review of the Project Database spreadsheets /23-26/, NetSuite database The methodology requires that a project database is derived from the total sales record, dividing purchasers into groups according to the most recent definition of clusters. The methodology also requires that the project database includes within it the emission reduction calculations for the project. ERM CVS can confirm that the PP has maintained a project database for each of the 4 clusters included in this monitoring period. Emission reduction calculations are maintained in a separate sheet. The emission reduction calculations themselves are validated ERM Certification and Verification Services 35 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

36 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not in section 4.6 below. Has the PP reviewed cluster lists and definitions? Review of the PDD /22/ and monitoring report /01/ Cluster list in the monitoring report does not appropriately match the clusters defined in the PDD, and PDD is not sufficiently clear on what clusters are defined please refer to CAR 2. Subsequently the revised PDD and MR were provided, which clearly and unambiguously describe clusters and sub-clusters. CAR 2 was thus closed. CAR 2 Separate MKS reports include short discussions on checking cluster definitions Completeness of monitoring parameters The verification team evaluated the monitoring of each parameter stated in the monitoring plan /4/. The parameters included in the monitoring plan are listed below and a full description of each parameter and the verification activities associated with monitoring of each one is included in Section Monitored parameter in monitoring plan Parameter Description Included in the Monitoring Report? Not k y,c,i S y,c,i B bl,y,c,i B pj,y,c,i AF bl,y,c,i AF pj,y,c,i U y,c,i F y,c,i W bl,b,y,c W bl,af,y,c,i W pj,b,y,c Technology units Percent sales of project technoloiy i, in year y, to in cluster c to either baseline fuel group non-wood users or all other users Mass of wood fuel consumed in the baseline scenario for technoligy i, in year y, for cluster c (tons/year) Mass of wood fuel consumed in the project scenario for technoiogy i, in year y, for cluster c (tons/year) Mass of charcoal fuel consumed in the baseline scenario for technilogy i, in year y, for cluster c (tons/year) Mass of charcoal fuel consumed in the project scenario for techiology i, in year y, for cluster c (tons/year) Annual usage of project tecinology i, in year y, for cluster c (percent) Performance of water treatment teihnology i, in year y, for cluster c Performance of biomass stove used in the baseline for treating water by endusers of tichnology i, in year y, for cluster c (tons wood /L of boiled water) Performance of charcoal stove used in the baseline for treating water by endusers of Iechnology i, in year y, for cluster c (tons wood /L of boiled water) Performance of biomass stoves used by end-users of project technology i, in Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The MR did not clearly follow the monitorin g parameter from the PDD CAR 6 ERM Certification and Verification Services 36 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

37 Monitored parameter in monitoring plan Parameter Description Included in the Monitoring Report? Not W pj,af,y,c,i L bl,y,i,i the project scenario year y, for cluster c (tons wood /L of boiled water) Performance of 37charcoal stoves used by end-users of project technology i, in the project scenario year y, for cluster c (tons wood /L of boiled water) Lbl,y,c,i for PoU water treatment clusters is defined as the total liters of treated water per person per day (L/p/d) consumed in the baseline Yes L pj,i,c,i Lbl,y,c,I for the community water treatment cluster is defined as the total liters of raw water treated with water treatmeni technology i, in year y, for cluster c that is used for hygienic purposes Lpj,y,c,i for PoU water treatment clusters is defined as total liters of treated water per person per day (L/p/d) still boiled in the project scenario by water treatment tichnology unit i, in year y, for cluster c Yes Yes LE y,c,i X nrb,y P y,c,i M y,c,i X boil,y,c X treat X untreated C i FC water,y,c Lbl,y,c,I for the community water treatment cluster is defined as the total liters of treated water still boiled in the project scenario by water treatient technology i, in year y, for cluster c. Leakage for priject technology i, in project year y in cluster c The non-renewable fraction of the woody biomass harvested in the project collection area in year y Average number of persons per projeci technology unit i, in year y, for cluster c Average number of meals cooked on Iroject technology i per day, in year y, for cluster c Fraction of the sales population that actually boiled OR would have boiled water if more resources were available in year y for cluster c (percent) Fraction of the target population that previously did not use safe water but would have used non-boiling safe water supply methods if more resources were available Fraction of the target population of water treatment technologies that previously did not treat or use safe water Fraction of the target population who in the baseline were already consuming safe water without boiling it Fraction of the Safi Solutions filters whose carbon filters have been properly replaced Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No, but it did not have to be included as the project does not yet sell Safi Solution filters ERM Certification and Verification Services 37 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

38 Data and parameters monitored The verification findings for the monitoring of each parameter are set out below Data / Parameter: K y,c,i Data unit: n/a (number) Description: Technology units Measured/calculated/ default Derived from the total sales record Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? ERM CVS reviewed the total sales record and how the data was collected please refer to section for details. Please also refer to CL 1: for household stoves cluster, discrepancies were found between sales numbers in the spreadsheet with the total sales record (project database export sheets) and the figures reported in the MR. CL 1 CAR 4 Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? The sales figures in the revised MR were corrected and are now consistent with the databases. CL 1 was closed. Please refer to section for more details on the total number of units in each cluster sold/implemented. QA/QC: Household stoves cluster: According to the monitoring plan, a representative sample of each quarter s sales should be selected for follow-up by the VER director, and the sales would be cross-checked against paper receipts or electronic records. ERM CVS interviewed The Paradigm Project s headquarter and Kenyan office staff and checked example of record checks performed and can confirm that such cross-checks are performed and lessons learned from results of such cross-checks have been taken into account in changing some of the processes and procedures. Institutional stoves: According to the monitoring plan, a representative sample of each quarter s sales should be selected for follow-up by the VER director, and the sales would be cross-checked against paper delivery notes issued by the transporter upon delivery of stoves. No evidence was provided of such cross-checks done for institutional stoves. CAR 4 was raised PoUnon-chemical water treatment and community water clusters: According to the monitoring plan, a representative sample of each quarter s sales should be selected for follow-up by the VER director, and the sales would be crosschecked against paper receipts or electronic records. Based on interviews with DSW and review of the records, such checks have been performed for installation of community water dispensers run by DSW. Life Force Kiosks operate only 10 dispensers, which all are well known to the organization, therefore no further cross-checks are necessary. However, no evidence was found of cross-checks being conducted on ceramic filter sales. Please see CAR 4 Subsequently sufficient evidence and explanation was provided of crosschecks undertaken by SWAP on sales of ceramic water filters and by Paradigm institutional stoves. ERM CVS can therefore confirm that quality checks were conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan. Please refer to section 5 for more details. CAR 4 was closed ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan ERM Certification and Verification Services 38 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

39 and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: S y,c,i Data unit: % Description: Measured/calculated/ default Percent sales of project technology i, in year y, to in cluster c to either baseline fuel group nonwood users or all other users Estimated from monitoring kitchen survey results Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Please refer to section for validation of monitoring kitchen surveys for all clusters. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default B bl,y,c,i Tons/year Mass of wood fuel consumed in the baseline scenario for technology i, in year y, for cluster c Calculated based on results of kitchen tests Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately Household wood stove and institutional stove clusters: The parameter was defined at the time of project registration based on baseline KPT results /3/ conducted at the end of CAR 6 According to the methodology, baseline monitoring kitchen tests should be ERM Certification and Verification Services 39 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

40 applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? carried out bi-annually if the kitchen surveys reveal that baseline parameters of the type measured by KTs may have changed significantly, or if the kitchen survey is not adequate to update evolving baseline conditions, and no New- Stove KT is taking place to perform this function. Analysis of MKS results /16/ does not indicate that baseline parameters would have changed significantly, therefore it is correct that baseline kitchen tests were not repeated during this verification period. PoU non-chemial water treatment and community water clusters: The MR presents data separately for W bl for unimproved charcoal stove and 3 stone fire, L bl and P, and does not present how the parameter B bl is calculated, e.g. how charcoal and unimproved wood stove data is combined. Please refer to CAR 6 on correcting the MR to be in line with the PDD The MR was corrected to follow the monitoring parameters from the revised corrected PDD, and CAR 6 was closed. The parameter B bl for water clusters is calculaied based on L bl,y,c,i, W bl,b,y,c,i and P y,c. Please refer to the validation of these parameters below. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default B pj,y,c,i Tons/year Mass of wood fuel consumed in the project scenario for technology i, in year y, for cluster c Calculated based on results of kitchen tests of ageing technologies (ageing stove KPTs) Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Household wood stoves cluster For household stoves aged over 1.5 years, ageing Kitchen Tests were conducted in October/November 2012 by the team led by Jacob Kithinji. The quality control, analysis and reporting was done by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, which is an experienced institution specialising in household stove testing and analysis. Please refer to section on verification of sample size and sample selection. Based on review of the test report and interview with Jacob Kithinji, the methodology for recording fuelwood during the tests is in line with the methodology requirements. CAR 5 CL 8 The dataset was split into two groups: households that previously were not using wood (charcoal users), and all other households, which are essentially ERM Certification and Verification Services 40 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

41 fuelwood users. The kitchen test report and the MR are not clear and consistent what statistical analysis was used and how it justifies the use of mean fuelwood use value for ER calculations: The KT report does not clearly explain what analysis was performed to identify any outliers and whether dataset was checked if it is not skewed Explanation of the methodology in the KT report says that the dataset was tested whether it meets the confidence/precision rule of 90/30, i.e. whether the endpoints of the 90% confidence interval lie within +/- 30% of the estimated mean, which is a rule specified in the new version of the methodology. However, this rule is applicable when analysis is done fuel fuelwood savings, whilst in this case the dataset is fuel use. Based on review of the Excel spreadsheet with the data and its analysis, it appears the dataset was checked for 90/10 rule as well and that datasets of both baseline user groups did not meet this rule, but the MR shows that mean fuel use values were used for ER calculations The MR is not clear on how a combined degradation factor is calculated CAR 5 was raised to further explain the analysis and correct description in test report and MR, and to justify the use of mean fuel use value for calculation of ERs. The revised ageing report for household stoves cluster includes explanation of data analysis to identify outliers, and analysis is robust. Fuelwood savings for households with wood baseline meet 90/30 confidence and precision rule, therefore mean value is used for ER calculations. For households with charcoal baseline, data do not meet the 90/30 rule and therefore lower bound value of the confidence interval is used, which is in accordance with the methodology. Explanation on calculation of degradation factors was also provided. CAR 5 was therefore closed. Institutional stoves cluster: Ageing institutional stove tests were conducted in October/November 2012 by the team led by Jacob Kithinji with QA/QC, analysis and reporting by Berkeley Air. KPTs were performed in 17 schools over 3 full days. However, as only fuel consumption for lunch was to be tested in line with the baseline study, schools cooking other meals in addition to lunch were removed, which means that data from 15 schools was used for calculating the parameter. This is not reflected in the MR, which refers that data from 17 schools was used. In addition, based on interviews during the site visit, a number of schools experience food shortages during late payments or other problems, and there can be a period of 1-2 months per year when schools do not cook meals, or do not use the new large stoves. CL 8 was raised for the PP to explain why this is not taken into account in ER calculations. Description of the sample size was corrected in the MR and follow up surveys were conducted by the PP on institutional stoves to determine what the impact of food shortages was on actual number of days cooked. Days cooked for this monitoring period has therefore been reduced from to days to account for food shortages. ERM CVS reviewed results of the follow up survey. The questions used in the follow up survey are clearer and allow taking into account times of food shortages. Therefore the revised value of number of days per year that schools cook meals takes into account periods of food shortage and CL 8 was closed. Please refer to section on verification of sample size and sample selection. The same issues on methodology for data analysis as raised on ageing ERM Certification and Verification Services 41 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

42 kitchen tests of household wood stoves, also applies to ageing stove tests of institutional stoves please refer to CAR 5. The revised ageing stove report for institutional stoves describes the analysis undertaken to check for outliers, and analysis is robust. The report was also made clearer where the data does not meet the 90/30 confidence/precision rule. Lower bound value of the confidence internal is used in such cases. Justification for the use of 90/30 rule was provided and is in line with the newest version of the equivalent methodology. CAR 5 was closed. PoU non-chemical water treatment and community water clusters: The parameter B pj for water clusters is calcuiated based In L pj,y,c,i, W pj,b,y,c,i and P y,c. Please refer to the validation of these parameters below. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default AF bl,y,c,i Tons/year Mass of charcoal fuel consumed in the baseline scenario for technology i, in year y, for cluster c Calculated based on results of kitchen tests Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Household wood stoves: The parameter was defined at the time of project registration based on baseline KPT results /3/ conducted at the end of According to the methodology, baseline monitoring kitchen tests should be carried out bi-annually if the kitchen surveys reveal that baseline parameters of the type measured by KTs may have changed significantly, or if the kitchen survey is not adequate to update evolving baseline conditions, and no New- Stove KT is taking place to perform this function. Analysis of MKS results /16/ does not indicate that baseline parameters would have changed significantly, therefore it is correct that baseline kitchen tests were not repeated during this verification period. Institutional stoves: The parameter is not applicable to institutional stoves as they are not using charcoal PoU non-chemical water treatment and community water clusters: The parameter AF bl for water clusters is caliulated based on L bl,y,c,i, W bl,af,y,c,i and P y,c. Please refer to the validation of these parameters below. ERM Certification and Verification Services 42 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

43 ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default AF pj,y,c,i Tons/year Mass of charcoal fuel consumed in the project scenario for technology i, in year y, for cluster c Calculated based on results of kitchen tests Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Household wood stoves cluster: Please refer to parameter B pj,y,c,i and CAR 5 as well as how it was closed. For households with charcoal baseline, data do not meet the 90/30 rule and therefore lower bound value of the confidence interval is used, which is in accordance with the methodology. CAR 5 Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Institutional stoves: The parameter is not applicable to institutional stoves as they are not using charcoal. PoU non-chemical water treatment and community water clusters: The parameter AF pj for water clusters is Ialculated baied on L pj,y,c,i, W pj,af,y,c,i and P y,c. Please refer to the validation of these parameters below. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: U y,c,i Data unit: Percentage Description: AnnuaI usage of project technology i, in year y, for cluster c Measured/calculated/ default Calculated based on usage survey Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of ERM Certification and Verification Services 43 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

44 information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Household wood stove cluster: Based on review of the detailed results of the usage survey for household wood stoves, the usage rate was calculated based on response on whether a project stove is used by respondents. However, analysis of comments shows that at least for 3 users who responded by saying yes to a question Are you currently using the improved stove, but comments indicate they are not actually using it. CAR 7 was raised justify if sufficient quality checks were done on the dataset and why responses to other questions were not used for cross-check purposes, and/or correct the parameter. Subsequently ERM CVS review of the updated usage survey results spreadsheet and usage report /29, 33/ and can confirm that the usage result was corrected to consider households who in comments indicated that they are not using stoves, as non-users. CAR 7 was therefore closed. CAR 7 CL 8 CAR 3 Institutional stove cluster: Based on review of spreadsheet with usage survey results, if during an interview the school does not use a stove because it does not have food, such school is recorded as non-user. Further explanation is needed whether food shortages appear at certain periods of the year. Please refer to CL 8 on providing explanation how fuel shortages are taken into account in ER calculations, as this is not explained in usage survey report or the MR. Subsequently the PP conducted follow-up surveys on institutions to determine what the impact of food shortages was on actual number of days cooked. Days cooked for this monitoring period has therefore been reduced from to days to account for food shortages. ERM CVS reviewed results of the follow up survey. The questions used in the follow up survey are clearer and allow taking into account times of food shortages. Therefore the revised value of number of days per year that schools cook meals takes into account periods of food shortage and CL 8 was closed. PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster: Usage survey was combined with the MKS. Please refer to CAR 3 raised in section on how the sample was selected for MKS and usage survey. A revised usage survey report for this cluster was subsequently provided which includes description of how the sample was selected, and description of sampling is now in line with the explanations provided during site visit interviews, therefore CAR 3 was closed. No outliers were removed for calculating usage, which is correct. Community water cluster: For chlorine dispensers run by DSW/Alethia, 150 dispensers of four different age groups were spot-checked if they are operational, and results weighed to determine accumulative usage rate. 58% of the checks were done in person thus satisfying the methodology requirement. Based on review of the usage survey results /28/, 15 units were found not operational at the time of the spot check and were classed as non-operational. When results were weighted according to the total number of units in each age group, the calculated cumulative usage rate is 90.90%. All 10 of the Life Force Kiosks were spot-checked and all were found to be operation. This is reasonable, as vendors are interested to fix any problem as soon as it appears because they are selling chlorinated water to get income. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan ERM Certification and Verification Services 44 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

45 and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: F y,c,i Data unit: Percent Description: Performance of water treatment technology i, in year y, for cluster c Measured/calculated/ default N/a Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? The monitoring report initially referred to WCFTs for this parameter but results were not reported. It is not clear how WCFT can monitor performance of a technology. Based on interviews with Alethia, ERM CVS understands that effectively a large proportion of the sample in WCFTs was tested for presence of chlorine, which effectively accounts for performance, but no explanation and rationale is provided in the monitoring report or supporting reports. As description in the monitoring report was not in line with the monitoring plan, please refer to CAR 6. The monitoring report was subsequently revised to report on all parameters according to the PDD and CAR 6 was closed. For this parameter, the monitoring report refers to manufacturer specifications for ceramic filters and chlorine residual testing for community water cluster. CAR 6 For PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster, this parameter is effectively not monitored. However, this appears to be allowed by the PDD, which states that In cases where the effectiveness of project technologies may be indicated reliably through proxies, such as reliable evidence that they are being maintained and used correctly in accordance with manufacturers or installers specifications, then the PP may capture such evidence of water quality in place of chemical or biological indicator tests. ERM CVS reviewed manufacturer specifications for ceramic water filters and certificate with test results from Kena Bureau of Standards on the filtration efficiency /45/. As the majority of the filters have only been used for less than a year in this verification period, it is acceptable to use the test certificate in this verification period to confirm performance. For community water, performance of chlorine use is effectively taken into account during WCFT when adoption is determined: for part of the users who said they use the technology, chlorine residual tests were undertaken to confirm if the dispenser was indeed used and if correct amount of chlorine was dispensed. ERM CVS also reviewed information about dispenser design, chlorine effectiveness and chlorine residual testing /43, 44/ as well as interviewed DSW to confirm the appropriateness of approach. ERM CVS confirmed that the parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology ERM Certification and Verification Services 45 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

46 Data / Parameter: Data unit: W bl,b,y,c,i tons wood /L of boiled water Description: Performance of biomass stove used in the baseline for treating waier by end-users of technology i, in year y, for cluster c Measured/calculated/ default Based on baseline water boiling test Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? The PDD provided at the time of starting verification was not consistent on stove performance parameters theri were paraieters W exisiing,y,c,i, W new,y,c,i, W bi,b,y,c,i, W bl,af,y,c,i, W pj,b,y,c,i, W pj,af,y,c,i, Please refer to CAR 2 on corrections of the PDD and monitoring plan. The PDD was subsequently corrected and the Ievised version refers to W bl,b,y,c,i, W pj,i,y,c,i, W bl,af,y,c,i, and W pj,af,y,c,i, Please refer to tables below for the latter 3 parameters. BWBTs on 3-stone fire and unimproved charcoal stove were carried out in December 2012 by Gathu Kirubi and his team in Kenyatta University, for both water treatment clusters. Based on interview with Gathu Kirubi, review of the test report and data, the methodology of the test is in line with the Gold Standard methodology and BWBT protocol. CAR 2 According to the results of the MKS, the baseline biomass stove type is the same for both clusters /18, 19/. This was also confirmed during the DOE s site visit: 3 stone fire or unimproved wood stove is the baseline biomass stove used for cooking by users in both clusters. Therefore it is appropriate that results of the same BWBT were applied to both clusters. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: W bl,af,y,c,i tons charcoal /L of boiled water Description: Performance of charcoal stove used in the baseline for treating water by end-users of technology i, in year y, for cluster c Measured/calculated/ default Based on baseline water boiling test Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately BWBTs on 3-stone fire and unimproved charcoal stove were carried out in December 2012 by Gathu Kirubi and his team in Kenyatta University, for both water treatment clusters. Based on interview with Gathu Kirubi, review of the test report and data, the methodology of the test is in line with the Gold CAR 2 (see table above) ERM Certification and Verification Services 46 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

47 applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Standard methodology and BWBT protocol. According to the results of the MKS, the baseline charcoal stove type is the same for both clusters /18, 19/ - it is unimproved charcoal stove. Based on ERM CVS local knowledge it is the most widely used charcoal stove type in Kenya. Therefore it is appropriate that results of the same BWBT were applied to both clusters. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default W pj,b,y,c,i tons wood /L of boiled water Performance of biomass stoves used by end-users of project technology i, in the project scenario year y, for cluster c Based on baseline water boiling test Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Please refer to the validation of W bl,b,y,c,i. According to the MKS reports for both water clusters, the types of stoves in the project scenario, after the households use water treatment technologies, have not changed /18, 19/, therefore results of BWBTs are used. CAR 2 (see table for W bl,b,y,c,i) Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: W pj,af,y,c,i tons charcoal /L of boiled water ERM Certification and Verification Services 47 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

48 Description: Measured/calculated/ default Performance of charcoal stoves used by end-users of project technology i, in the project scenario year y, for cluster c Based on baseline water boiling test Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Please refer to the validation of W bl,b,y,c,i. According to the MKS reports for both water clusters, the types of stoves in the project scenario, after the households use water treatment technologies, have not changed /18, 19/, therefore results of BWBTs are used. CAR 2 (see table for W bl,b,y,c,i) Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default L bl,y,c,i Litres per person per day (L/p/d) Average liters of treated water per person per day consumed in the baseline by water treatment technology I in year y in cluster c Based on Water Consumption Fuel Test (WCFT) Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? PoU non-chemical water treatment: WCFTs were not needed for PoU non-chemical water treatment in this monitoring period, since the oldest units are less than 18 months old. This is in line with the monitoring plan, which says that WCFTs should be conducted biennially. Value from the BWBT conducted in 2011 and verified during the previous verification period was used /07/. Community water treatment: WCFTs for the community water cluster were carried out in October/November 2012 by Alethia and Stephen Mumbwani. Please refer to section on verification of training of surveyors, sample size and sample selection. CAR 8 ERM Certification and Verification Services 48 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

49 ERM CVS interviewed DSW (Alethia) on the methodology of conducting the tests and checked the spreadsheet with data from the tests and data processing /06/. The definition of hygienic purposes applied in the analysis was not in line with the methodology / Gold Standard TAC definition, and analysis done in the spreadsheet was not in line with what methodology that Alethia considered in designing the questionnaire. The report of WCFTs did not explain clearly how dataset was analysed for outliers and e.g. how it dealt with responses that reported total use of treated water higher than the sum of treated water used for different purposes. It also did not explain what statistical analysis was performed and therefore why it is justifiable to use mean value of self-reported treated water consumption. CAR 8 was raised to clarify the methodology for analysing and processing the data, correct definition of hygienic purposes, and justify the use of mean value in ER calculations. The PP subsequently re-surveyed those households for which water consumption for creditable purposes could not be corrected to account for correct definition of creditable purposes based on data collected originally. In the revised data and analysis, correct definition of hygienic purposes was used, and analysis was done appropriately and conservatively. It is assumed that households are likely to better estimate the total daily consumption of chlorinated water but are likely to overestimate usage for separate purposes. Therefore a split into usage for separate purposes was used for calculating the percentage of hygienic use rather than simply adding consumption for separate hygienic purposes. Further, based on review of the spreadsheet with the WCFT data and calculations, percentage of hygienic purposes was calculated in a conservative manner /05/. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default L pj,y,c,i Litres per person per day (L/p/d) Liters of water boiled per person per day in the project by hoiseholds with water treatment technology i in year y in cluster c Based on Water Consumption Fuel Test (WCFT) Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? PoU non-chemical water treatment: The WCFTs were not repeated during this verification period, as they were conducted in the previous verification period, and according to the monitoring plan WCFTs are conducted biennially. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring Community water: The parameter was determined using an option as clarified by Gold Standard TAC, whereby it is determined by monitoring only liters of treated water still boiled, and applying a cap of 6 liters per person per day on L bl. Based on interviews, review of the WCFT data and reports, ERM CVS can confirm that ERM Certification and Verification Services 49 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

50 period? the parameter was monitored appropriately. ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: LE y,c,i Data unit: tco 2 e/yr Description: Leakage in project year y in cluster c Measured/calculated/ default Estimated Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Leakage was determined in line with the assumptions used in the PDD. Assumptions for calculating leakage for the new cluster, community water treatment, are appropriate based on the site visit and interviews. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS confirmed that the parameter has been estimated appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default X nrb,y Percent The non-renewable fraction of the woody biomass harvested in the project collection area in year y Calculated / based on study Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? The parameter was changed as part of the design change and it is now determined based on the default non-renewable biomass fraction calculated using the CDM guidance, accepted by the Kenyan DNA /36/ and published on the UNFCCC website, instead of being determined by the PP as per the procedure in annex 1 of the methodology. This change to the monitoring plan for this project has been accepted by the Gold Standard /27/. Does the monitoring ERM Certification and Verification Services 50 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

51 report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter did not have to be updated in this verification period Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default P y,c Persons per unit Average persons per household in year y in cluster c Surveyed as part of the monitoring kitchen survey Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? The 1 st version of the monitoring report does not report on persons per household please refer to CAR 6. The revised PDD follows the parameters according to the PDD and CAR 6 was closed. CAR 6 FAR 5 FAR 5 Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? Household wood stove, institutional stove, and PoU non-chemical water treatment clusters: please refer to section for validation of MKS for these clusters. In the case of institutional stoves, the parameter refers to number of people the meals are cooked for. Please refer to FAR 5 to ensure the questions of monitoring kitchen survey for institutional stoves in the future monitoring periods clearly refer to the meals cooked on new stoves. Institutional stove cluster: the parameter refers to the number of persons per water point that have adopted dispensers, and it is calculated based on the following parameters: - N (number of households using community water point) - Adoption (percentage of N that have adopted and use the community level water treatment technology, determined by survey or the presence of chlorine residual in household water) - P hh average number of persons per households for hosueholds verified to be using the technology N (the number of users of each waterpoint): The sales database only includes the name and location of water treatment units, so in order to estimate the number of end users using the unit the PP created a list of end users for all waterpoints where WCFT were conducted using the following methods. Please refer to section on how such lists were compiled. Adoption (the fraction of households listed as users of the waterpoint who are confirmed users of community chlorine treatment.): The PP randomly sampled 354 households from the dispenser household database and 200 from the kiosk database. For dispensers adoption was determined by users who tested positive for total chlorine residual (TCR) at the time of a random spot-check. For chlorinated water kiosks the users who purchased chlorine in the past 4 weeks were tracked and recorded with physical receipts. Users from this list were then called to confirm usage of chlorine from Lifeforce Kiosks. ERM Certification and Verification Services 51 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

52 P hh was surveyed as part of the WCFT. It is correct approach to calculate average number of people per household for only those households who were confirmed to use chlorine dispenser ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: M y,c Data unit: Meals per day Description: Average meals cooked per institutional stove in year y in cluster c Measured/calculated/ default Based on monitoring kitchen survey Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? The KPTs determined woodfuel savings for cooking lunch. Person-meals were determined based on MKS results but the monitoring report did not explain if this includes all meals cooked in a day. CL 9 was raised to clarify assumptions. After further explanation was provided. Based on review of the updated ER calculations spreadsheet, emission reductions from institutional stoves cluster for this verification period are only calculated for fuelwood savings from cooking lunch. This is conservative, as based on review of MKS results and DOE interviews with schools during the site visit part of the schools cook more than one meal per day. CL 9 was therefore closed. The value of this parameter is therefore 1. Please refer to section on validation of how MKS was conducted. CL 9 ERM CVS confirmed that The parameter has been monitored appropriately, in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology. The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default X boil,y,c Percentage Fraction of the sales population that actually boiled OR would have boiled water if more resources were available in year y for cluster c Calculated Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not ERM Certification and Verification Services 52 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

53 Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? The parameter is calculated based on recommendation from the Gold Standard in the 3-week issuance review period after the 1 st verification. Please refer to parameters below for further details. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter was calculated correctly Data / Parameter: X treat Data unit: Percentage Description: Measured/calculated/ default Fraction of the target population that previously did not use safe water but would have used nonboiling safe water supply methods if more resources were available n/a Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? According to the Gold Standard recommendation, this parameter should be fixed ex-ante. This was done in the PDD as part of the design change, in line with the Gold Standard recommendation. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter did not have to be updated in this verification period Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default X untreated Percentage Fraction of the target population of water treatment technologies that previously did not treat or use safe water Based on study or survey ERM Certification and Verification Services 53 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

54 Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? When the PDD was revised with the design change, the value from the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics was used /37/. The PDD provides an option to measure this parameter directly but based on interviews with the carbon consultant, the PP did not use this option during this monitoring period. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter did not have to be updated in this verification period Data / Parameter: C i Data unit: Description: Measured/calculated/ default Percentage Fraction of the target population who in the baseline were already consuming safe water without boiling it Based on study or survey Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? According to the PDD with the design change that was accepted by the Gold Standard, either the value determined ex-ante in the PDD can be used, or the parameter can be directly monitored to obtain a project-specific value. The PP opted to use the value determined in the PDD, which is taken from the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics /37/. Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter did not have to be updated in this verification period Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: FC water,y,c Percentage Fraction of the Safi Solutions filters whose carbon filters have been properly replaced ERM Certification and Verification Services 54 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

55 Measured/calculated/ default Surveyed or from sales database Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Is the parameter monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan and are the QA/QC procedures appropriately applied? As no Safi Solutions filters have been sold and included in the project yet, this parameter did not have to be monitored Does the monitoring report correctly state all relevant information and data relating to the monitoring of parameters during the monitoring period? ERM CVS can confirm that the parameter did not have to be monitored in this verification period Management and operational system ERM CVS evaluated the management systems in place to implement the monitoring of the project activity. This included the organisational structure, roles and responsibilities, data collection, transfer and aggregation procedures, training of personnel, data storage and archiving and emergency procedures for the monitoring system. Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Has an appropriate management and operational system for monitoring and reporting, including responsibilities and authorities, been established in accordance with the monitoring plan? Interviews with the staff of The Paradigm project, implementing partners, and 3 rd parties contracted for monitoring The project has a high number of entities involved in implementation and monitoring. The Paradigm Project has varying levels of control. The most directly controlled cluster is household wood stoves. The Paradigm office in Nairobi manages and tracks sales (using Net Suite) as well as detailed customer data (using Carbon Keeper), has warehouse including assembly of Ezy stoves, selects samples for monitoring surveys/tests, and facilitates finding selected households. Previously monitoring surveys were done by the Paradigm staff but during this verification period an external company, EcoScope, was contracted. Based on interviews, the system is robust to assess weaknesses and some processes and procedures have been changed to learn from identified weaknesses. CL 10 The project has considerably less control on implementation of other clusters. In these clusters, the project provides platform for carbon credits. It is not involved in managing sales and received data on sales and detailed customer data collected by the partners: on these aspects it relies on systems in the partner offices, therefore ERM CVS reviewed systems used by SWAP and DSW/Alethia, project partners for both water purification clusters. ERM Certification and Verification Services 55 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

56 Compliance question Verification activities undertaken (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not For the institutional stove cluster, the paradigm project also organises monitoring surveys. In water clusters, monitoring surveys are done by the entities who implement the project on the ground. Alethia conducts all monitoring needed for its part of the community water cluster. Based on interviews and review of the profiles of managing staff, Alethia has sufficient competencies to conduct monitoring. SWAP has enumerators that have had previous surveying experience but their knowledge of requirements specific to carbon is limited. There are several external entities involved in monitoring, quality control and data analysis. Their credentials are suitable and it is generally considered to be a strength that external parties are contracted to do part of monitoring and quality control. However, in some cases actual data collection is done by one party (e.g. SWAP and Alethia for water clusters, or Ecoscope for both stove clusters), sample may be selected by Paradigm (e.g. for both stoves clusters) and data analysis and reporting is done by carbon consultant (Impact Carbon). In PoU non-chemical water treatment and institutional stove clusters this resulted in inconsistencies of described approaches for sample selection and/or analysis please refer to sections above for details. Lines of reporting and responsibilities appear to be not fully worked out. With such a complex structure of project implementation and monitoring, the project should establish comprehensive organogram of the project which would include all external parties involved in both implementation and monitoring, and (possibly for the next verification period) develop clear procedures with clear lines or responsibility, oversight and reporting. CL 10 was raised. The organogram was subsequently provided by the PP and reviewed by ERM CVS. It clearly sets out for each cluster who is the implementing partner, and which entities is responsible for each of the survey s and test s field work & data entry, data processing & analysis, QA/QC, and report preparation. The scheme is consistent with the information obtained during interviews on site and document review. Therefore CL 10 was closed. ERM CVS confirmed that the monitoring of all relevant parameters has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/. It is confirmed that data acquisition process, data transferring process, archiving process and reporting process occur as required by the monitoring plan. The final monitoring report provides an accurate description of the monitoring for all parameters throughout the monitoring period Data and parameters determined at registration and not monitored The verification team evaluated the status of data and parameters that were determined at registration and not monitored during the monitoring period, including default values and factors, and confirmed whether they were correctly presented in Section D.2 of the monitoring report and applied correctly in the emission reduction calculations. ERM Certification and Verification Services 56 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

57 Data and parameters that were determined at registration and not monitored during the monitoring period Parameter Description Presented correctly in section the Monitoring Report and applied correctly in the emission reduction calculations? Not Efwood,CO2 Efwood,CH4 The CO2 emission factor for use of wood fuel in tons CO2 per TJ fuel The CH4 emission factor for use of wood fuel in tons CH4 per TJ fuel Units in the PDD were not consistent please refer to CAR 2. Once the PDD was corrected the parameters are correctly presented in the revised MR CAR 2 Efwood,N20 The N2O emission factor for use of wood fuel in tons N2O per TJ fuel NCVwood Net calorific value for wood fuel Mbiomassconv Biomass conversion factor This parameter was introduced as part of the PDD corrections. ERM CVS reviewed publication Forest Outlook studies in Africa (FOSA): Kenya prepared by David Mbugua and available on the FAO website, as well as report prepared by Practical Action for the International Institute for Environment and Development Biomass energy use in Kenya and can confirm that a more conservative conversion factor value was used. N/a GWPCO2 GWPCH4 Global warming potential of CO2 Global warming potential of CH4 The parameters were not presented in the first version of the MR but were correctly applied. The parameters are correctly presented in the revised MR CAR 6 GWPN20 Global warming potential of N Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions As per VVS section 9.4.5, ERM CVS evaluated the calculations applied to determine the emission reductions during the monitoring period resulting from implementation of the project activity. In conducting this evaluation, the verification team evaluated whether: A complete set of data for the monitoring period was available, and whether the most conservative assumption has been applied in any case where only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan unless a deviation has been approved (see section 5). Information provided in the monitoring report has been cross checked with other sources such as log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis (see section 5) Calculations of baseline, project and leakage emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology. Any assumptions used in the emission calculations have been justified Appropriate emission factors, IPCC default factors and other reference values have been correctly applied. ERM Certification and Verification Services 57 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

58 Compliance question (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Were data available throughout the monitoring period in accordance with the monitoring plan and methodology? Only sales data is collected continuously. Other parameters are monitored by surveys and tests conducted once in a certain period of time. There was no period when data would not be available. Has the project participant used appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline, project and leakage emissions? The PP used formulae and methods in accordance with the PDD and methodology. Emission reductions are first calculated per functioning unit-year, and then multiplied by the operational number of units after drop-off rates are considered. The time lag between date when units are sold to distributors and date when units reach the consumers is estimated using a standard inventory turnover analysis /67/. This is a suitable approach, as collecting dates of each unit reaching final customers is not practical in this project s structure. Has the project participant justified all assumptions, emission factors and default values that have been applied? The MR presents the main assumptions. Assumptions relevant to specific surveys or tests are presented in separate survey or test reports. Please refer to section for validation of surveys and tests. Further explanations and justifications were provided in responses to issues raised in the draft report please refer to section 5. Do the monitoring report and associated emission reduction spreadsheet correctly present the data and formulae used to calculate the reported emission reductions? The monitoring report was not properly following the PDD (see CAR 6), which was later rectified and CAR 6 closed. The PP opted not to present all formulae in the monitoring report but based on review of the ER calculations spreadsheets, the calculations correctly follow the formulae as set out in the PDD with the design change /22/. Emission reduction calculations are presented in 7 spreadsheets making it rather difficult to track calculations. A few errors were spotted initially but were rectified in the revised spreadsheets. In the revised spreadsheets, no errors were identified. Emission reductions achieved for this monitoring period are 278,510 tco 2 e. However, an adjustment for the previous monitoring period is taken into account, which is a reduction of 1,168 tco 2 e. This amount is taken off this period s emission reductions, resulting in the net emission reductions for this period of 277,341 tco 2 e. CAR 6 Emission reductions have been calculated in accordance with the monitoring plan and the applied methodology, and it was determined that the data processing and emission reductions calculations resulted in real and measurable emission reductions. Where there was any unavailability of data, conservative assumptions have been made. All assumptions, emission factors and default values have been justified and the information has been cross checked with other sources Other observations No other observations. ERM Certification and Verification Services 58 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

59 4.8. Assessment of sustainability monitoring Completeness of sustainability monitoring parameters The verification team evaluated the monitoring of each sustainability indicator stated in the Gold Standard passport /69/ and compared with the description in the MR how the indicators were monitored, their results, and scoring.. The parameters included in the Gold Standard passport are listed below and a full description of each parameter and the verification activities associated with monitoring of each one is included in Section Monitored sustainability indicators Number Description Included in Monitoring Report? 1 Air quality Yes, measurement of user perceptions between old stove and new stove Perceived smoke levels, Incidence of coughing, Incidence of respiratory illness, and Incidence of itchy eyes have been included and reported. 2 Water quality and quantity Yes, Amount of drinking water treated by project participants (L), and Availability of drinking water have been included and reported. 3 Livelihood of the poor Yes, Time and money savings due to reduced fuel consumption and treatment of drinking water have been included and reported. 4 Access to affordable and clean Yes, Time and money savings due to reduced fuel energy services consumption and treatment of drinking water have been included and reported. 5 Quantitative employment and Yes, Number of employees trained and jobs created income generation through stove manufacturing that supports the project have been included and reported. Not Sustainability indicators monitored The verification findings for the monitoring of each sustainability parameter are set out below. Note that only those sustainability parameters monitored for this verification period are presented (see table above). Number: 1 Air quality Chosen parameter: Target: Monitoring: Measurement of user perceptions between old stove and new stove/ water treatment technology: smoke levels, incidence of coughing, incidence of respiratory illness, incidence of itchy eyes, location of stove use and type of house Households will report reduced smoke levels, reduced incidence of coughing, reduced incidence of respiratory illness, reduced incidence of itchy eyes. Increase in percentage of households locating their stoves outdoors. Baseline household surveys regarding sustainability issues will be conducted. Household monitoring surveys will be given to a sample of all purchasers of improved cookstoves. Monitoring will be conducted biennially. Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Has the monitoring ERM CVS reviewed the survey questionnaires used in the monitoring kitchen procedure been followed surveys, and confirmed that questions were included to ask users about their appropriately? perception of smoke levels, incidence of coughing, incidence of respiratory illness, itchy eyes etc. ERM conducted interviews on site with those Has the trend of the responsible for managing the kitchen surveys, and with enumerators who ERM Certification and Verification Services 59 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

60 indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? carried out the household surveys, and found that the survey had been appropriately designed and carried out. Enumerators were given training and guidance. ERM CVS reviewed the results of the surveys and confirmed that the majority of beneficiaries reported less smoke, less coughing, respiratory illness and itchy eyes. The results have been accurately reported in the monitoring report. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 2 Water quality and quantity Chosen parameter: Amount of drinking water treated by project participants Target: Increased levels of water treatment for drinking and cooking. Monitoring: Annual household surveys of users of water treatment technologies Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? ERM CVS reviewed the survey questionnaires used in the surveys of water treatment clusters, and confirmed that the survey was appropriately designed in line with the requirements of the methodology to monitor the amount of treated water used for hygienic purposes. ERM conducted interviews on site with those responsible for managing the kitchen surveys, and with enumerators who carried out the household surveys, and found that the survey had been appropriately designed and carried out. ERM CVS also conducted its own household visits during the site visit, and gained similar feedback from users. ERM CVS reviewed the results of the surveys and confirmed that the results have been accurately reported in the monitoring report. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 3 Livelihood of the poor Chosen parameter: Target: Monitoring: Compliance question Time and money savings due to reduced fuel consumption, treating of drinking water For families that purchase fuelwood and/or charcoal, access to efficient cookstoves and water treatment technologies will likely reduce fuel expenditures, resulting in more disposable income. For families and institutions that gather biomass, efficient cookstoves will reduce the time spent collecting fuel. Kitchen Performance Tests or surveys will to monitor fuel savings, combined with data regarding the price and time required to collect fuel. The survey will also assess how any money saved is then used. Monitoring will be conducted biennially. (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of ERM Certification and Verification Services 60 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

61 information, data and evidence) Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? ERM CVS reviewed the monitoring kitchen survey design and execution and confirmed its appropriateness (please see air quality above). The survey results show that considerable fuel savings were reported by users, and that more than half of users purchase their fuel, thereby resulting in a financial saving. The results of the surveys also showed that households reported using the saved money for items such as food, school fees, and putting towards their savings. The survey results also showed that households that gather fuel did not need to spend so much time gathering it. The majority of households used the extra time for income generating activities. ERM CVS reviewed the results of the surveys and confirmed that the results have been accurately reported in the monitoring report. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan /4/ The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate Number: 4 Access to affordable and clean energy services Chosen parameter: Target: Monitoring: Compliance question Time and money savings due to reduced fuel consumption, treating of drinking water. Percentage of households receiving training Families will adopt efficient cookstoves. For families and institutions that purchase fuelwood and/or charcoal, access to efficient cookstoves and water treatment technologies will reduce fuel expenditures, resulting in more disposable income. For families that gather biomass, efficient cookstoves will reduce the time spent collecting fuel. The same as livelihood of the poor above, plus: Ongoing surveys or other method will be used to estimate the percentage of households receiving training. Monitoring will be conducted biennially. (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? Has the trend of the indicator been appropriately assessed and presented in the MR? ERM CVS has assessed the monitoring of time and money savings, and confirmed that it has been monitored properly please see livelihood of the poor above. Regarding percentage of households receiving training, it is unclear what the intention of this monitoring parameter is in the Gold Standard Passport /69/. Under the project, training has been provided to distributors, including last mile entrepreneurs, to help them promote and sell improved stoves. However training of households is not mentioned in the monitoring report. If it refers to training households how to use a new stove, it is not clear why not all households receive such training. Please see CL 12. CL 12 Based on the Gold Standard Passport for this project /69/, the indicator is relevant for cookstove clusters and relates to access to more efficient stoves and resulting fuel savings. Training to households is not tracked but is assumed to reach all users via instruction manuals and distributors. ERM CVS has reviewed the training manual and has seen examples of stove use instructions during the site visit. The indicator Access to affordable and clean energy services is scored based on other parameters indicated in the passport, and it is suitable that the monitoring report does not report on training as part of this indicator. CL 12 was therefore closed. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate ERM Certification and Verification Services 61 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

62 Number: 5 Quantitative employment and income generation Chosen parameter: Target: Monitoring: Number of distributors trained and jobs created through stove manufacturing that supports the project. Increase in number of jobs created and distributors trained. Track number of jobs created at local manufacturing plants and distributors trained. Monitoring will be conducted biennially. Compliance question (including verification activities undertaken and justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Not Has the monitoring procedure been followed appropriately? CVS confirmed during the site visit that the project has supported jobs in stove manufacture and project management. The JikoPoa stove is manufactured in Kenya, and hence helps to support local jobs. ERM CVS interviewed the director of manufacturing company and confirmed that the company produces these stoves only for Paradigm, and also confirmed the number of employees. CL 13 The monitoring report also provides numbers of employees in SWAP and Alethia offices but this is not one of the chosen parameters. In addition, based on the site visit ERM CVS understands that employees of SWAP are working on a variety of products and therefore 15 employees may not be a result of this project. Please revise reporting of the indicator and provide evidence on the number of distributors trained. Please see CL 13. Evidence for training of distributors has subsequently been provided. Reporting for the indicator Quantitative employment and income generation for stoves cluster in the revised MR was correctly revised to refer to jobs created in manufacturing stoves, and training of distributors/re-sellers. As the sustainability monitoring plan referred only to indicators relevant to the stoves cluster, reporting for water purification clusters in the MR refers to jobs that are supported by the project. While these jobs were not necessarily created for the project, they are sustained and supported by it. CL 13 was therefore closed. ERM CVS confirmed that The indicator has been monitored appropriately in accordance with the monitoring plan The scoring of the indicator presented in the MR is appropriate ERM Certification and Verification Services 62 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

63 5. Remediation Requests 5.1. Clarification Requests Where information was insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable requirements have been met ERM CVS raised a Clarification Request (CL). The CLs raised, and a description of how each was resolved are set out below. CL 1 Comment: Numbers of units sold per cluster and technology is not consistent between the monitoring report and total sales record in spreadsheets or export files from the sales database: 1. Institutional stoves: Based on review of the project database, 870 stoves of 400 L capacity and 102 stoves of >400 L capacity have been installed to date, i.e. 972 stoves. However, the monitoring report refers to 980 stoves 2. Household wood stoves: Based on the project database, the following number of each stove model has been sold to date: Jikopoa unskirted 16,104 Jikopoa skirted 2,029 (2,025 of which were sold in December 2012) Envirofit G ,357 Envirofit M5000 7,094 EzyStove 4,353 Total 65,937 However, the MR refers to 60,512 stoves 3. PoU non-chemical water treatment: Based on review of the project database, 25 filters of Chujio brand and 700 filters of CeraMaji brand were sold, i.e. 725 filters in total. However, the MR refers to 475 units 4. Community water treatment: Based on review of the project database, 872 points run by Alethia are included (they have been installed from 2008 to 2012), and 10 points run by Life Force Kiosks are included all installed in However, the MR refers to a total of 860 units Clarification Request: Please clarify the discrepancies PP Response These discrepancies are mainly due to the addition of December s sales figures in the monitoring period, and the finalization of all sales records after the closure of the monitoring period. In every case, the Project Databases provided with these responses accurately reflect the number of units distributed. The updated summary of units installed is as follows: Charcoal Stove Wood Stove Institutional Stove PoU Non Chemical Water Treatment PoU Chemical Water Treatment Community Water Treatment , , , TOTAL 65, ERM Certification and Verification Services 63 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

64 The attached Monitoring Report has been updated to accurately summarize the total number of units distributed, in concordance with the totals provided in the Project Databases. Documentation provided Annexes 23-26, Project Databases (Excel) Monitoring Report (PDF) Verification activity ERM CVS checked the revised MR /01/ against the spreadsheets with the sales data /23-26/. ERM CVS can confirm that number of units sold or distributed is now consistent between the detailed spreadsheets and the MR for each cluster. The spreadsheet with sales data for PoU non-chemical water treatment units was revised/corrected compared to the initial version supplied to the DOE and it now shows sales of units. CL 1 is closed. CL 2 Comment: The monitoring report is not sufficiently clear on groups within clusters for the purpose of calculating emission reductions, and on which models/technologies are considered the same and why. This makes it confusing to understand the project s structure for calculation of emission reductions. Clarification Request: Please clarify the structure of the project in terms of technologies and their combinations as well as other grouping within clusters for the purpose of calculating emission reductions. PP Response Round 1: There are four clusters crediting Emission Reductions in this Monitoring Period, each with two sub-clusters: 1. HH Wood Stoves a. Baseline Charcoal Users b. Baseline All Other Users (wood) 2. Institutional Wood Stoves a. >400L b. 400L 3. Point of Use (PoU) Non-Chemical Water Treatment a. Baseline Charcoal Users b. Baseline All Other Users (wood) 4. Community Water Treatment a. Baseline Charcoal Users b. Baseline All Other Users (wood) Sub-clusters are created when adjustment factors are applied to ensure that ERs are credited in a conservative and accurate manner. This is due to varying fuel consumption patterns across the customer population; in the case of the HH wood stove and both water clusters, this was baseline fuel type whereas in the case of institutional stove it is based on stove size. The clusters are monitored in the same way, but as fuel savings was found to be different between the two types of sub-clusters, they are analyzed separately before being aggregated into one singular weighted value. In the case where a cluster encompasses multiple technologies, PP evaluates whether technologies may be clustered together. For HH Wood Stoves, all stove technologies were evaluated side-by-side in a water boiling test; as all stoves performed within +/- 5% of the stoves originally included in the crediting period, they are able to be clustered in the same technology per the methodology. See attached WBT data. For Institutional Wood stoves, the units are monitored the same, although it is found that fuel savings is slightly different between the two subclusters and so this is evaluated via a weighted ERM Certification and Verification Services 64 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

65 average. The Nonchemical POU water cluster is made up of users who have received and are using a silver-lined ceramic pot filter as their project technology. Within this cluster there are two vintages of the product: ages 0-1 and ages 1-2. The filters ages 0-1 were a mixture of Chujio ceramic pot filters and Ceramaji ceramic pot filters distributed by SWAP and the filters ages 1-2 were Chujio ceramic pot filters distributed by Impact Carbon in partnership with a consultant from Life Force Kiosks in July The specifications of the product technologies are the same and the characteristics of end users are also similar, per the Kitchen survey report. Where differences do exist the PP believes that using values from the Chujio WCFT monitoring, as is proposed, is a conservative approach based on the justifications below: - The reported household size from SWAP filter users (ages 0-1) is 5.43, whereas this is 4.94 for Chujio users (ages 1-2). Although these sizes are similar, using estimates from Chujio WCFTs is conservative in that the average Liters consumed per day is likely smaller for smaller households. - ly, SWAP users report using the filter, on average, 3 times a day, and refilling the filter 1.84 times a day. The capacity for the filter is 8 Liters at a time, therefore, they would be filtering approximate Liters per day which is above the average reported from the WCFT data. The Community Water cluster is made up of users who use community-level chemical treatment. In this case both types of users use liquid chlorine to treat their water, and the chlorine is obtained at the source at which water is obtained. The cluster consists of two partner groups: Alethia s DSW program, who installs chlorine dispensers at local water points, and Life Force Kiosks (LFK) who partners with water vendors to treat water that people purchase from the vendor. In addition to using the same fundamental treatment technology, the end user characteristics were also similar including household size, education levels of primary household contact, etc. Since there were some distinct differences between user groups such as LFK paying for water and water treatment, complete testing was done for both partners and analyzed together as one cluster.. Round 2: Table in Section 2 of MR has been updated to list sub-clusters more transparently. Envirofit M5000 and Unskirted JikoPoa were compared using a water boiling test. The stoves have the same fundamental combustion technology as the Envirofit G3300 and Unskirted JikoPoa. Based on the results of the WBT, which shows that the stoves have +/- 5% efficiency as the Envirofit G3300 and JikoPoa with skirt, these stoves may apply the same baseline as the current models in the PDD. This is in line with methodological requirements. The WBT report has been provided as evidence. Future KTs on these stoves will be conducted according to methodological requirements. MR has also been updated. Community Water: The PP has updated the community water WCFT and Emissions reductions calculations so they are no longer weighted by the number of technologies installed by each project partner (DSW & LFK). Since there is no distinction made between chlorine kiosks and dispensers, subclustering is not needed. Documentation provided Detailed Customer Database, Non-Chemical PoU Water Treatment WBT Data, HH Wood Stoves Updated MR Verification activity Review of the PDD (including corrections done during this verification) /22/, revised MR /01/, WBT report for household stoves /08/ The PDD now shows clusters and groups within clusters for the purpose of calculating emission reductions, and subclusters are also shown in the MR section 2. The PDD discusses how based on results of baseline KPT there is no statistical difference between fuelwood savings of Envirofit G3300 and JikoPoA (skirted) stove models, and the PDD confirms that they belong to one cluster. According to the PDD with design change, cookstoves that are deemed similar (+/-5% efficiency and similar design features) to existing stove may apply the same baseline as the current models in the registered PDD, and the efficiency difference range referred in the methodology is in relative terms rather than absolute. Based on review of the WBT results for all household stove models currently being sold (including Envirofit M5500 and JikoPoA unskirted), their thermal efficiency is within +/-5% difference. Explanation on this issue has been included in the monitoring report. The WBT tests thermal efficiency, which is a measure of technical specifications. The fuel savings also depend on behavior of households and thus on user acceptability of different models. According to the methodology, monitoring (ageing stove) ERM Certification and Verification Services 65 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

66 KPTs will need to be conducted on all models. Based on review of kitchen survey report for PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster and visual inspection of a ceramic water filter at SWAP offices, ERM CVS can confirm that Chujio and Ceramaji models can be considered the same technology. CL 2 is closed. CL 3 Comment: In the PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster, part of sales of the water filters are in large quantities to distributors, and there is little transparency on the process of sales/distribution and carbon rights communication between such distributors/intermediaries and final customers. Further, no customer sampling record was provided to the DOE. Based on interviews and document review on site, monitoring surveys (which also served as usage surveys) were conducted by targeting sales within area reachable by SWAP monitoring team. Sales to remote areas or large quantity sales to distributors such as NGOs or other development groups were not targeted for surveys, as these are difficult for SWAP to monitor. Furthermore, if a user was at work for most of the day he/she was not surveyed. It is not clear how the PP ensures that the resulting sample is representative of the total sales population. Clarification Request: Please justify how such approach ensures all customers are informed about the carbon rights transfer, and how sampled users are representative of the total sales population. PP Response For PoU non-chemical water treatment, customers are informed about transfer of carbon rights at point of sale; this is something that distribution partner SWAP can readily ensure for direct sales, whereas for units sold through resellers it is more difficult to ensure communication of carbon rights through the reseller as incentives are not always aligned properly. PP is collaborating with implementing partners to establish systems that streamline and facilitate communications on transfer of carbon rights to the end user; for example, PP is considering installing CRW stickers on unit boxes going forward. However, while customer sampling information is collected primarily through the CRW forms that SWAP collects from end users at point of direct sale, it is incorrect that PP did not target sales to distributors. SWAP was able to collaborate with World Vision to collect customer sampling information, and sampled from both direct and indirect sales for the MKS, across multiple distribution areas including: - Karabok - Koloo - Siaya - Kisumu - Kakamega - Homa Bay A customer sampling record has been provided as an appendix to the project documents. In addition, the Detailed Customer Database has been updated to include a column indicating the distribution method for the sampled units, in order to demonstrate the users sampled from World Vision compared to the users sampled from direct sales. Per the methodology, PP conducted a usage survey for all ages of filters (Age 0-1, for units distributed in 2012, and Age 1-2, for units distributed in 2011). However, because the initial Chujio filter distribution by LFK was only 25 units in July 2011 and filter distribution did not begin again until SWAP s sales at end of May 2012, PP could only satisfy the requirement to sample units with an average age of greater than 6 months by sampling the first filters sold from that year (starting with May 2012, the oldest of which were just over seven months old by the end of the crediting period). SWAP began contacting customers starting with earliest date of sale available in the sales record; as with all other clusters, users that did not have customer details recorded or who could not be reached by enumerators or who did not consent to be surveyed were not surveyed. Therefore users surveyed were the first available who had contact information and could be reached. For sales made to intermediaries, such as World Vision, SWAP contacted end-users by gathering information from the intermediary and other associated groups (such as the local Public Health Officer) on household names, locations, and phone numbers. Due to lack of resources as well as the recentness with which all units were sold, PP combined the MKS and usage survey, ERM Certification and Verification Services 66 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

67 conducting an MKS on every usage survey done. PP is confident that the sampled users are a conservative representation of the total sales population because: - A mixture of direct and indirect sales were surveyed (including a mixture of sales arrangements) - The survey population is geographically diverse - Units surveyed are oldest available for Age total users were surveyed, well beyond the requirement for both usage and monitoring kitchen surveys as well as a large overall percentage of the project population, which is less than 650 units total Documentation provided Detailed Customer Database, Non-Chemical PoU v2 KS Report, Non-Chemical PoU_v2 Customer Sampling Record, Non_Chemical PoU Verification activity Review of the revised detailed customer database for the cluster /15/, kitchen survey report /18/, and customer sampling record /41/ Further explanation was provided on the ways to collect user information and the method for sampling users for conducting kitchen survey and usage survey. The revised detailed customer database includes information whether customers were from direct sales or via World Vision (the biggest intermediary), and it is clear that a mixture of users from direct sales and from distributors were surveyed. It is ERM CVS s understanding that not all resellers were easy to work with for data collection but the PP has recognized that incentives have not been always aligned properly and that they are looking at changing the system of working with re-sellers. Similar situation was found and incentive mechanism changed by paradigm for household wood cluster, therefore ERM CVS believes Paradigm s internal processes are robust to implement corrective measures to improve customer data collection. CL 3 is closed CL 4 Comment: Based on review of the customer sampling record for household wood stoves, serial numbers of the stoves are not recorded in 49% of the customer sampling record. During the visit to a sample of households ERM CVS found that stove number is difficult to record or is often not clearly visible, as it is located at the bottom of the stove and cannot be checked if the stove is used at the time or has recently be used and is hot. Clarification Request: Please explain what is being done to rectify the problem and how it will be ensured that stoves can be tracked and no double counting occurs PP Response Round 1: It is important to note that because stoves are tracked at the point of sale out of the warehouse, no double counting occurs. To ensure that stoves monitored for the project are part of the project database, the enumerator verifies the date of stove purchase with the consumer and checks that the stove was purchase through a project representative. The PP has made improvements to its systems to require recording of serial number at the point of sale for ALL registered stoves. Further, the PP is speaking to manufacturers regarding the location of serial numbers based on the recent feedback that recording serial numbers at the point of monitoring is difficult to execute due to the location on the bottom of the stove, which cannot be viewed while the stove is in use. As invoice and serial numbers are not required for the project, it is still possible to verify the sale without an invoice number ERM Certification and Verification Services 67 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

68 by cross-checking the electronic entry against the paper invoice or receipt. Round 2: Paradigm requires its distributors to gather information on a minimum of 30% of its sales to end users. This standardized information is entered into Carbon Keeper, a cloud-based Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system that performs data validation to ensure that all required information is entered, including stove serial number and end user contact information. The stove seller is also recorded as part of the information gathered on the sale to an end user. The seller is marked with a unique customer code that matches that customer s identifier in NetSuite, Paradigm's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system used for tracking all sales out of its warehouse to distributors. Through this common data point, Paradigm is able to identify which end users were sold their stoves through which distributor. More details on Carbon Keeper software can be found in the attached folder, which includes training materials Documentation provided No documentation is available to demonstrate possible changes to serial number location. Ref folder labeled CL 4 Carbon Keeper training Verification activity Review of Customer sampling record for household stoves cluster /12/ and Carbon Keeper training material /50/ Based on interview with Paradigm personnel, the Paradigm is discussing with the stove manufacturers how the location of serial numbers or the way they are imprinted could be modified to make it possible to check the serial number during monitoring. As serial numbers are recorded at the point of sales from warehouse to distributors/re-sellers, no double counting occurs. A proportion of sales from re-sellers to final customers is gathered as a customer sampling record. The Paradigm changed system for gathering customer record and is now using Carbon Keeper software, which was seen and checked by the verification team during the site visit. Based on review of the customer sampling record and Carbon Keeper training material /50/ it is clear that in the new system (Carbon Keeper), serial numbers of stoves are recorded at the point of sale to users. This can be used to cross-checked with serial numbers of stoves sold to distributors. CL 4 is closed. CL 5 Comment: Based on review of the customer sampling record for institutional stoves, invoice numbers are not recorded for 423 institutions out of 794 institutions in the sampling record (53%). Clarification Request: Please clarify why invoices are not recorded for such a large share of institutions PP Response The invoice number is not used to identify the stove; it is only a reference number for the paper receipt that includes relevant information for the stove sale, the invoice number is sometimes not recorded to create efficiencies in data entry. As invoice and serial numbers are not required for the project, it is still possible to verify the sale without an invoice number by crosschecking the electronic entry against the paper invoice or receipt. Documentation provided N/A ERM Certification and Verification Services 68 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

69 Verification activity Review of the explanation provided and the PDD /22/ The PDD does not require the use of serial numbers. As institutional stoves are not mobile but are sold to schools that can be uniquely identified by their name and address, ERM CVS agrees that sales can be confirmed without serial number of invoice number, and there is no risk of double counting. CL 5 is closed. CL 6 Comment: No customer sampling record / detailed customer database was provided to the DOE for the part of the community water cluster run by DSW (Alethia). ERM CVS understands that customer details for community level water treatment users are identified through either customer information collected at the point of water collection, or through local contacts at the water points (usually a resident living nearest to the water point) who identify waterpoint users. Such lists were made for a sample of dispensers as part of sample selection for MKS and KPTs rather than as a separate detailed customer data selection exercise. However, it is not clear how this ensures that detailed customer data is available for number of users that are at least 10 times the sample size. Clarification Request: Please clarify how minimum detailed customer data requirement was satisfied, and provide a list of customers for the dispensers sampled for MKS/usage surveys. PP Response The sampling record for the community water cluster run by Alethia has been provided as an attachment. This is a scanned hard copy of the list of users who use the water points regularly. The list has more than 2,000 names, which is more than10 times the sample size of those surveyed for the MKS (total 124), as per the requirements. In addition, the Customer Sampling Record for thecommunity Water cluster also includes details for the customers on record for Life Force Kiosks (LFK). This list was obtained by recording users who purchase chlorination treatment at LFK vendors. The two Customer Sampling tools provide sufficient numbers from which to sample from for the purposes of survey work. Documentation provided DSW User Lists, Community Water Customer Sampling Record, Community Water (xls) Verification activity Review of users lists for chlorine dispensers run by DSW /42/, and customer sampling record spreadsheet with customer list of water kiosks /11/ During the site visit interviews ERM CVS confirmed the method for collecting information on the possible users of water points. For water points run by Alethia, the assumption is that users of water points may also be users of chlorine dispensers. Whether they are actually users, get checked during usage survey. The DOE received copies of user lists for over 50 water points, each with over 10 users (many much longer). This provides sufficient number of user contacts for conducting surveys. CL 6 is closed. ERM Certification and Verification Services 69 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

70 CL 7 Comment: As admitted by the PP, the approach for selecting a sample for conducting KPTs in household stove cluster had problems as some dealers were not cooperating sufficiently, or did not have lists of customers and brought survey teams to households known to dealers/guides. This information is not included in KPT report or MR. Clarification Request: Please provide further explanation on the sample selection, and if corrective measures are being taken to adjust the approach to working with the dealers, collecting customer data, and selecting a sample PP Response Round 1: The KPT sample was properly representative and random. The sampling began with a sales breakdown retrieved from an exported NetSuite list, Paradigm s accounting software, which represents sales to dealers out of Paradigm Kenya s warehouse. An analysis of sales data by province was done to determine sampling plans per region to ensure random representative sampling in high sales regions with a target sample size of at least 25 households per location; aiming to reach 200 stoves across the eight locations. To facilitate randomness and geographical feasibility, end user sampling was done through dealers in selected regions. Dealers with a minimum net order of 30 stoves were grouped together onto a list; using the RAND function, dealers were ordered at random in each region, and the first few dealers in each region were highlighted as eligible dealers for the survey team to contact, starting with the top of the list and working down the list as necessary (it was anticipated that not every dealer would be reachable or available to work with the survey team during the study period; in the case that a dealer was not available, the survey team was instructed to select the next dealer on the list). Dealers were asked to provide the survey team with a staff member with knowledge of the area who could guide the survey team to households. In the case that PP had sales records available for the dealer, the survey team contacted and selected HHs themselves. In the cases where this information was not available, dealers worked with the survey team to locate HHs who had purchased the stove between April 2010 and 2011 (first year of sales) by utilizing sales records and any other available documents from which the survey team could randomly choose households. To mitigate sampling bias among distributors and guides, guides were not given criteria for household selection but were asked to show households with stoves that were located close to one another. The survey team spent six days in each location: the first two days were used to scout for the appropriate number of stoves (a minimum of 25), inform HHs of the process and ask for permission to conduct KPTs. The KPT itself was administered over the following four days. Locating sufficient stoves in each area that were close enough to one another to allow several HH visits per day, even when working through dealers, proved to be difficult, resulting in slight revisions to the sampling plan. Dealers were not always able to locate enough stoves and the teams had to do their own scouting and searching, asking members of the community and through word of mouth. Due to this, certain locations were considered ineligible, as not enough stoves could be located, and replacements to the original dealer list had to be made. However, the monitoring team held to the original breakdown of areas and continued to move consecutively down the randomly generated list of dealers that met eligibility criteria. The minimum required number of stoves was reduced to KPTs were performed on HHs who met core selection criteria: Did the household own either the Jiko Poa or Envirofit G3300 Stove? Was the stove at least 18 months old? Did they have enough wood fuel to last the monitoring period? Was the main cook sure she would be available for the period of the survey? The final KPT data surveyed a large number of households (187), across twelve locations in the Eastern, Central and Western provinces of Kenya. As the initial location choices were based on representativeness of sales, the selected dealer lists were randomly generated from a database, and end users were selected by a combination of survey teams randomly choosing from lists, guides who were instructed to find households within reasonable proximity to one another as the only guideline, and additional information supplied from community members on nearby units when none could be found, PP asserts that the sample is sufficiently large, representative and random. Results of the KPT data are representative of the project population. Round 2: It is important to note that various frequencies of usage are indeed subsumed in the KPT. The reference to daily usage as a requirement for sampling was an error left over from an old report template; this has been removed and has been updated in the revised KPT report from Berkeley Air. Berkeley Air and Jacob were instructed to follow the Gold Standard KT Methodology, which states that users should be instructed to cook as they normally would. Upon following up with Berkeley Air and Jacob Kithinji, it was confirmed that it was not a requirement to use the stove daily in the selection of HHs or in the data analysis. According to Dr. Kithinji, We did not discriminate at all. We chose all HH equipped with Jko POA or envirofit stove. For the KPT we had assurance that the HH used the stove at least once within the 24 hr KPT monitoring period and ERM Certification and Verification Services 70 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

71 that they had the enough firewood to last for the same period. The KPT team has reiterated that their screening requirements did not involve daily usage, as listed above and in the corrected report, and mentions on page 5 of the report that It was further agreed that they would use the improved stove at least once during the monitoring event. This is further supported by Berkeley Air s breakdown of usage in KPT data. According to Berkeley Air, improved stove usage statistics for the 2012 Aging HH KPT breaks down as follows: - 100% of meals cooked on improved stove: 78% of HHs % of meals cooked on improved stove: 9% of HHs % of meals cooked on improved stove: 9% of HHs % of meals cooked on improved stove: 3% of HHs - <24% of meals cooked on improved stove: 1% of HHs From there, additional breakdown of the KPT data demonstrates further that the KPT team collected data on households who did not use every day and therefore did not exclude them from either the survey work or the data analysis: -167 of the 186 HHs in the KPT (89.8% of 186) used their ICS at least once per day of those 167 HHs (78.4% of 186) used the ICS for 100% of all meals cooked ('all meals') --21 of those 167 HHs (11.3% of 186) used the ICS everyday, but not for all meals ('daily') -19 HHs (10% of 186) used the ICS 'less than daily' Therefore, the KPT, which was both random and representative, includes households who use their stove less than daily. PP applies a single biomass use and biomass savings from the KPT; no extrapolation is necessary as infrequent users were represented in the KPT and the value is subsumed. Documentation provided Aging KPT Report, HH Wood Verification activity Review of the revised ageing KPT report and spreadsheet with the KPT results for household wood stove cluster /46, 52/ Based on further description provided, ERM CVS accepts that selection was sufficiently random geographically or across distributors and representative of sales patterns (i.e. largest sales in the eastern, Central and Western/Nyanza provinces). Based on review of the results of usage survey, ca. 42% (82 out of 170) respondents use a stove less frequently than every day sometimes or rarely. However, based on the first version of the ageing KPT report, sample was selected by selecting households who use stoves at least once every day. This was corrected in the revised KPT report and clarification from Jacon Kithinji, who led the team conducing KPTs, confirmed that households only had to cook at least one meal during the test period to be included in the sample. Based on review of the revised ageing KPT report and the response provided in the second round, the question about daily usage was not used in the selection of households. As 24 hour period mentioned in Dr. Kithinji s clarification refers to 3 days of daily time when meals are cooked, this covers the test period. If a customer uses the project stove sometimes or rarely (less frequently than daily), then less than 50% of meals are cooked on the project stove. According to the usage survey, there is a larger proportion of non-daily users (ca. 40%) than results of the KPTs show. But review of MKS results show cooking frequency similar to the results of KPT. As results of kitchen survey are the primary source of checking features of the population, KPT sample appears representative according to the MKS results. However, usage survey s results indicate that MKS questions may need to be modified for the future monitoring: KS only asks how many meals per day the users are cooking on the stove, without asking first how many days per week they use it, and usage survey indicated that some households cook not every day. Therefore FAR 4 is raised to include a question in MKS aiming to understand frequency of using the project stove in a week. As explained in the main section of the verification report, Paradigm modified the approach of working with dealers and now an incentive system is used encouraging the re-sellers to complete user registration forms and thus to provide more end user details. This will facilitate easier selection of the sample in the future. ERM Certification and Verification Services 71 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

72 As sufficient additional explanation was provided that selection was sufficiently random geographically or across distributors, CL 7 is closed. CL 8 Comment: In ageing stove tests for institution stoves, only fuel consumption for lunch was to be tested in line with the baseline study, and therefore schools cooking other meals in addition to lunch were removed, which means that data from 15 schools was used for calculating the parameter. However, the MR refers to using data from all 17 schools. In addition, based on interviews during the site visit, a number of schools experience food shortages due to late payments or other problems, and there can be a period of 1-2 months per year when schools do not cook meals, or do not use the new large stoves. If this is taken into account by means of usage survey and recording a school with food shortages as a non-user, further explanation is needed whether food shortages appear at certain periods of the year. Clarification Request: Please explain how food shortages are not taken into account in ER calculations, and correct inconsistency on sample size. PP Response The Institutional KPT collected data from 17 schools, but the analysis includes only 15 schools, as only 15 schools provided lunch-only and Berkeley Air sought to measure the amount of wood fuel for a known quantity of food in order to compare to the baseline study. This is explained in section 3.1 of Berkeley Air s institutional KPT report. Attached updated MR clarifies this point further. Food shortages are taken into account via the Monitoring Kitchen Survey s question which evaluates person-meals by asking both the number of days per year that food is cooked and the number of persons cooked for. PP conducted follow-up surveys on institutions to determine what the impact of food shortages was on actual number of days cooked. Days cooked for this monitoring period has therefore been reduced from to days to account for food shortages. For conservativeness, this value is used as the average for the entire project period (including issuance 1). The new table reads as follows (this table can be found in the ER Equation Tabs_Master file): From Monitoring Survey: School days How many days per year does your school cook meals? Issuance 1 Issuance 2 Average Average These modifications can be reviewed in the updated Detailed Customer Database see tab All Institutional MS Data and Person-meal-day analysis Iss 2. Follow up surveys have been clearly marked. This new day-value has been updated in the ER equations spreadsheet. Documentation provided - Updated MR - ER Equations - Detailed Customer Database, Institutional Wood Verification activity Review of the results of the follow up survey and survey report /17, 21/ Clarification was provided on the number of kitchen tests conducted and number of test results used in analysis. ERM Certification and Verification Services 72 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

73 ERM CVS reviewed results of the follow up survey. The questions used in the follow up survey are clearer and allow taking into account times of food shortages. Therefore the revised value of number of days per year that schools cook meals takes into account periods of food shortage. CL 8 is closed. CL 9 Comment: The institutional stove KPTs determined woodfuel savings for cooking lunch. Monitoring report explains that person-meals were determined based on MKS results and does not explain if this includes all meals cooked in a day. Clarification Request: Please clarify assumptions and methodology for calculating emission reductions from institutional stove cluster PP Response Berkeley Air s KPT report explains that in order to establish fuel savings on a person-meal basis, only schools cooking lunch were analyzed in order to determine the amount of wood fuel used for a known quantity of food. Currently, lunch is the only meal that is credited, although the MKS demonstrates that many institutions also cook breakfast, dinner and tea. A screen shot is provided below of the table showing these calculations in the ER equations spreadsheet: BASELINE SCENARIO kg fuel/kg food Inst Size (Persons) kg food ration/personmeal meals per day School days Annual kg fuel/yr kg fuel/kg food These values and calculations are provided transparently in the ER Equations file for Institutional Wood. This final emission reduction per stove-year value is then plugged into the ER Calculator for Institutional Wood stoves. It is important to note that the project conservatively does not currently account for all meals cooked, as this data was not available during Issuance 1; data was added to the Issuance 2 MKS survey field sheet. Therefore, data is only relevant for lunch-only, whereas in reality many institutions also provide lunch, dinner and tea. As shown in the table above, currently the only meals per day that are credited is 1, which is lunch. This is very conservative, because many schools also cook breakfast, tea and dinner on project stoves, but this is not accounted for at all in the calculations. MKS collects data on meals per day to understand person meals per day, but this is not currently being credited, as only one meal per day, lunch, is counted for. Please refer to rows 109, 110, 113 and 114 in the institutional stoves tab in the ER Equation Tabs_Master spreadsheet. Inst Size (Persons) kg food ration/pers on meal meals per day Bbl,hh,y,c AFbl,hh,y,c PROJECT ACTIVITY kg fuel/kg food Inst Size (Persons) 400L Fuel Usage (as monitored via KPT) meals per day School days Annual kg fuel/yr kg fuel/kg food Inst Size (Persons) kg food ration/pers on meal meals per day Bpj,hh,y,c AFpj,hh,y,c >400L 400L >400L Schooldays kg food ration/personmeal Schooldays Annual kg fuel/yr Annual kg fuel/yr Documentation provided - Updated ER Equations, Institutional Wood - ER Calculation, Institutional Wood - Updated MR, Institutional Wood - Equation Tabs_Master. Verification activity Review of the updated ER calculations spreadsheets /02/ and revised MR /01/ ERM Certification and Verification Services 73 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

74 Based on review of the updated ER calculations spreadsheet, emission reductions from institutional stoves cluster for this verification period are only calculated for fuelwood savings from cooking lunch. This is conservative, as based on review of MKS results and DOE interviews with schools during the site visit part of the schools cook more than one meal per day. CL 9 is closed. CL 10 Comment: There are several external entities involved in monitoring, quality control and data analysis. Their credentials are suitable and it is generally considered to be a strength that external parties are contracted to do part of monitoring and quality control. However, in some cases actual data collection is done by one party (e.g. SWAP and Alethia for water clusters, or Ecoscope for both stove clusters), sample may be selected by Paradigm (e.g. for both stoves clusters) and data analysis and reporting is done by carbon consultant (Impact Carbon). In PoU non-chemical water treatment and institutional stove clusters this resulted in inconsistencies of described approaches for sample selection and/or analysis. Lines of reporting and responsibilities appear to be not fully worked out. Clarification Request: Please provide a comprehensive organogram of the project which would include all external parties involved in both implementation and monitoring, and please explain whether the project will develop comprehensive implementation and monitoring system/procedures with clear lines or responsibility, oversight and reporting PP Response The PP has provided a comprehensive organogram of the project's structure that includes implementing partners, clusters, and details around monitoring. As the project moves forward, the PP will continue to strengthen monitoring systems and procedures so that roles and responsibilities between implementing partners and monitoring partners are clearly defined and understood. Documentation provided CL 10 Issuance 2 Monitoring Period Organogram Verification activity Review of the organogram /60/ The organogram clearly sets out for each cluster who is the implementing partner, and which entities is responsible for each of the survey s and test s field work & data entry, data processing & analysis, QA/QC, and report preparation. The scheme is consistent with the information obtained during interviews on site and document review. CL 10 is closed. CL 11 Comment: Comparison of emission reductions per unit between prediction in the PDD and actual monitored reductions is not provided ERM Certification and Verification Services 74 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

75 Clarification Request: Please provide a comparison of estimated and actual ERs per unit for each cluster PP Response Registered PDD does not provide projections per unit, therefore there is no comparison of predicted units in the PDD to actual monitored units. Documentation provided N/A Verification activity Review of the PDD /22/ The PDD does not include values of monitoring parameters used for ex-ante calculation of emission reductions and does not present estimated ERs per unit, just estimated ERs per cluster. CL 11 is closed CL 12 Comment: One of the chosen parameters for the indicator Access to affordable and clean energy services is percentage of households receiving training. it is unclear what the intention of this monitoring parameter is in the Gold Standard Passport. If it refers to training households how to use a new stove, it is not clear why not all households receive such training. Clarification Request: Please clarify the purpose of this parameter and explain how it was monitored, if relevant PP Response Training is given to the end user in a variety of ways. The training is outlined below: - For Paradigm, training on stove use is provided to all end users, as evidenced by supporting documents. This includes training manuals and toolkits. All dealers are trained on proper stove use and are expected to communicate this to end users; in addition, training is provided to end users via the instruction manual on the boxes. Documentation provided Paradigm JP Training Tool Kit PAR-014 Consumer Piece 3 Outlined Paradigm JP Training Manual Verification activity Review of the paradigm training manual and toolkit /61/, Ezy Stove consumer manual /62/ ERM Certification and Verification Services 75 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

76 Based on the Gold Standard Passport for this project, the indicator is relevant for cookstove clusters and relates to access to more efficient stoves and resulting fuel savings. Training to households is not tracked but is assumed to reach all users via instruction manuals and distributors. ERM CVS has reviewed the training manual and has seen examples of stove use instructions during the site visit. The indicator Access to affordable and clean energy services is scored based on other parameters indicated in the passport, and it is suitable that the monitoring report does not report on training as part of this indicator. CL 12 is closed CL 13 Comment: According to the Gold Standard Passport, chosen parameters for the indicator Quantitative employment and income generation are Number of distributors trained and jobs created through stove manufacturing. Based on interviews with a few distributors, training was provided to them on how to sell stoves. However, the chosen parameters are number of distributors that received training and jobs in manufacturing are not reported, and this was not reported,. Instead, jobs created or supported in distribution are reported. Clarification Request: Please clarify the number of people employed in manufacturing as a result of this project, and provide evidence of the number of distributors trained PP Response Paradigm has a network of more than 100 regular distributors who have been trained on stove sales and distribution. Paradigm s local operations in Kenya include a team of ten full-time and sixteen part-time employees. Employees are offered opportunity for growth; one of the regional Business Development Executives has been promoted to countrywide Sales Manager and a part-time data entry staff was promoted to full-time Customer Service Officer. Additional part-time sales campaign staff and stove assemblers have been brought on as well. Paradigm s partnerships with local manufacturing entities have also provided a positive impact on job creation. Documents showing evidence of Paradigm s distributor training are attached. Paradigm provides basic training to all distributors on sales and end user training, but the attached evidence shows 106 dealers who received additional training (the training is offered to all dealers, but not all accept the additional training). A sample questionnaire shows that Paradigm collects feedback on these trainings. Round 2: FEL, the manufacturer of the JikoPoa, employs 20 people who work on the stove. Therefore, the project has created 20 jobs in manufacturing at FEL. In addition, Paradigm now employs nine people to assemble the Ezy Stove. Overall, 29 jobs have been created. This has also been updated in Section 6 of the MR. Documentation provided Paradigm training attendance lists from Kisumu, Nakuru and Embu/Mombasa. Photos available as well. Promoter Responsibility Card Updated MR Verification activity Review of the training attendants lists /64/ and revised MR /01/ ERM Certification and Verification Services 76 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

77 Evidence for training of distributors has been provided. Reporting for the indicator Quantitative employment and income generation for stoves cluster in the revised MR was correctly revised to refer to jobs created in manufacturing stoves, and training of distributors/re-sellers. As the sustainability monitoring plan referred only to indicators relevant to the stoves cluster, reporting for water purification clusters in the MR refers to jobs that are supported by the project. While these jobs were not necessarily created for the project, they are sustained and supported by it. CL 13 is closed Corrective Action Requests ERM CVS raised a Corrective Action Request (CAR) where: o o o Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impair the estimate of emission reductions; a Forward Action Request (FAR) during validation (or previous verification) to be verified have not been resolved by the project participants CAR 1 Comment: The monitoring report does not describe how FARs from validation, previous verification, and Gold Standard review were taken into account. Corrective Action Request: Please provide description in the MR how FARs were taken into account in the implementation and monitoring during this verification period PP Response MR has been updated in Section 2.4 to provide description of how FARs were taken into account. Documentation provided Updated Monitoring Report Verification activity Review of the revised MR /01/ The revised MR includes explanation how FARs from validation and previous verification were taken into account. This is verified in section 4.1 of the verification report. CAR 1 is closed ERM Certification and Verification Services 77 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

78 CAR 2 Comment: The DOE noticed some inconsistencies and small errors in the PDD and monitoring plan. For example: Clusters are not clearly defined in the PDD, and groups within clusters (such as baseline nonwood/charcoal users and all other (wood) users in the household wood stove cluster) are also referred to as separate clusters, although they are not monitored separately There a few discrepancies in parameters and their units between the sections B.6.1, B.6.2 and B.7.1 Monitoring procedures for some of the parameters is not clear in section B.7.1 Corrective Action Request: Please correct inconsistencies in the PDD PP Response PP has corrected inconsistencies in PDD, which have been submitted to DOE with track changes. Documentation provided Revised PDD Verification activity Review of the revised PDD with track changes /22/ The PDD with corrections appropriately describes clusters and groups within clusters used for calculating emission reductions. Discrepancies in the methodological choices and parameter tables were corrected, which resulted in some changes to the way parameters are denoted. Monitoring procedures were also clarified. This PDD was sent by the PP to the Gold Standard and the Gold Standard has accepted it /27/ CAR 2 was therefore closed. CAR 3 Comment: MKS survey report for PoU non-chemical water treatment: the description of how sampling was done and surveys undertaken in the MKS report is not in line with the process as reported by the distributor (SWAP) during the site visit. Based on review of the filled in paper questionnaires and spreadsheet with survey results, it appears the data was not sufficiently analysed to identify any unreasonable responses / outliers. Number of surveys conducted is inconsistent in the MR and between MR and spreadsheet. The same survey was used to identify usage rate but report on usage is not clear on how the sample was selected. ERM Certification and Verification Services 78 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

79 Corrective Action Request: Please provide corrected MKS and usage survey reports for PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster, and correct MR accordingly PP Response The Kitchen Survey Report for the Non-Chemical PoU cluster has been updated to accurately reflect how sampling was done and to ensure the number of surveys conducted is consistent in the report and spreadsheet. Data has been updated to analyze for outliers, which have been removed to take the original sample of 94 surveys to 85 surveys. Outliers have been moved to Outliers tab (ref: Detailed Customer Database, Non-Chemical PoU_v2). MR has been updated to reflect this updated figure for analysis. As mentioned in CL 3, per the methodology, PP conducted a usage survey for all ages of filters (Age 0-1, for units distributed in 2012, and Age 1-2, for units distributed in 2011). However, because the Age 0-1 filter distribution did not begin until SWAP s sales at end of May 2012, PP could only satisfy the requirement to sample units with an average age of greater than 6 months by sampling the first filters sold from that year (starting with May 2012, the oldest of which were just over seven months old by the end of the crediting period). SWAP began contacting customers starting with earliest date of sale available; as with all other clusters, users that did not have customer details recorded or who could not be reached by enumerators or who did not consent to be surveyed were surveyed. Therefore users surveyed were the first available who had contact information and could be reached. Due to lack of resources as well as the recentness with which all units were sold, PP combined the MKS and usage survey, conducting an MKS on every usage survey done. PP is confident that the sampled users are a conservative representation of the total sales population because: - A mixture of direct and indirect sales were surveyed (including a mixture of sales arrangements) - The survey population is geographically diverse - Units surveyed are oldest available for Age total users were surveyed for Age 0-1, well beyond the requirement for both usage and monitoring kitchen surveys as well as a large overall percentage of the project population, which is less than 650 units total. Ultimately, 85 households were analyzed after removing outliers. For Age 1-2, only 25 units were distributed, and only in July All units were sampled, 20 were able to have surveys conducted, and 17 HHs were analyzed after removing outliers. Round 2: The Non-Chemical PoU KS report that was submitted in the first round is also included in the Round 2 folder, with the file name CL 3, CAR 3 - KS Report Non-Chemical PoU_V2. The Non-Chemical PoU Usage report has been amended to fix a few small data calculation errors, such as correcting the cumulative usage rate weighting to be based on percentages of sales/distribution by age rather than percentages of surveys conducted per age group. These changes have increased the usage rate minimally- from 90.09% to 90.21%. The usage data and report has not been revised to reflect the changes made to the KS dataset and removal of outliers. For the KS data, households who did not use the filter were removed as outliers because they were unable to provide answers to the survey questions. The PP did not remove these as outlier in the Usage data because it would incorrectly inflate the usage rate to 100%. The PP has provided an updated PoU Non-chemical Usage Survey Dataset and Report for review. In addition, the ER calculations for this cluster have been revised to reflect the minor changes made to the usage rate. Documentation provided Detailed Customer Database, Non-Chemical PoU_v2 KS Report, Non-Chemical PoU_V2 Monitoring Report CAR GS966 ISS 2-Usage Data, Non-Chemical PoU V2 CAR 3-35 GS966 ISS 2-Usage Report Non-Chemical PoU Water V2 Verification activity Review of the revised KS/usage survey reports and underlying data for PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster /15, 18, 31, ERM Certification and Verification Services 79 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

80 35/ The kitchen survey report was revised and description of sampling is now in line with the explanations provided during site visit interviews. The spreadsheet with kitchen survey results (detailed customer database) now clearly presents all surveys undertaken and outliers removed. The same survey was used for calculating usage but no outliers were removed, which is correct. Description of sample selection is now also included in the usage report for this cluster. CAR 3 is closed. CAR 4 Comment: According to the monitoring plan, a representative sample of each quarter s sales should be selected for follow-up by the VER director, and the sales would be cross-checked against paper delivery notes issued by the transporter upon delivery of institution stoves, or against paper receipts or electronic records for water filters. No evidence was provided of such cross-checks done for institutional stoves and for PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster (ceramic filters). Corrective Action Request: Please provide evidence that cross-checks were performed in accordance with the monitoring plan for institutional stove and PoU non-chemical water treatment clusters. PP Response For PoU non-chemical water treatment units, SWAP field staff return monthly to reconcile their sales and bank the money and re-order new stock. Field staff bank money from sales and present their bank slips to Maryline Okuto, Sales and Marketing Officer together with their reconciliation forms, which provide details of each product sold including the ceramic filters. A copy of this reconciliation and bank slips is taken to the M&E officer (Penina Ogendo) for verification. The accountant (Elvis Omondi) then verifies the sales records from the sales and marketing officer. A consolidated report is compiled of monthly sales per field officer, as well as an overall sales report, which is forwarded to the country director, for further verification and is then included in the monthly report to the Board and donors. The sales and marketing officer keeps a data base of all products sold and this is verified and entered into monthly reports to the board by the M and E officer. Monitoring is also done by the Finance manager who also does the bank reconciliations. Bank slips are provided as evidence. For institutional stoves, a sample of sales is cross-checked against paper receipts. Evidence is provided of the checks in the attached Excel file, and sample checked receipts are in the attached folder. Documentation provided CAR 4 - Institutional Stoves Sep Sales Database Check CAR 4 - Institutional Stoves Sales Receipts Verification activity Review of: SWAP annual report 2012; monthly progress report for December 2012 and spreadsheet with financial statement for December; spreadsheet with November sales report and scanned copies of cash deposit slips for November for PoU non-chemical water treatment cluster /65/; spreadsheet with sample selected for cross-checking sales against paper receipts and 39 scanned copies of sales receipts for institutional stoves cluster /48/ ERM Certification and Verification Services 80 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

81 Sufficient evidence and explanation was provided of cross-checks undertaken on sales of ceramic water filters and institutional stoves. ERM CVS can therefore confirm that quality checks were conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan. CAR 4 is closed. CAR 5 Comment: The kitchen test report and the MR are not clear and consistent what statistical analysis was used and how it justifies the use of mean fuelwood use value for ER calculations: The KT report does not clearly explain what analysis was performed to identify any outliers and whether dataset was checked if it is not skewed Explanation of the methodology in the KT report says that the dataset was tested whether it meets the confidence/precision rule of 90/30, i.e. whether the endpoints of the 90% confidence interval lie within +/- 30% of the estimated mean, which is a rule specified in the new version of the methodology. However, this rule is applicable when analysis is done fuel savings, whilst in this case the dataset is fuel use. Based on review of the Excel spreadsheet with the data and its analysis, it appears the dataset was checked for 90/10 rule as well and that datasets of both baseline user groups did not meet this rule, but the MR shows that mean fuel use values were used for ER calculations The MR is not clear on how a combined degradation factor is calculated Corrective Action Request: Please further explain the analysis applied, justify the use of mean fuel use values for ER calculations, and correct description in the test reports and the MR. PP Response Institutional stove cluster:: Berkeley Air has updated the Aging Institutional KPT report P9, to address outliers and normality: A histogram of the kg wood/kg food data from the 2012 institutional stove KPT was examined for relative normal distribution of the data and presence of outliers. Figure 1 below shows the normal distribution curve for the kg wood/kg food data from the 45 lunch events cooked on the aging RTE stoves. It can be seen that there are no outliers in the data that could be having any detrimental impact on the sample mean. The histogram also suggests that the data for kg wood/kg food appears to be within the bounds of a normal distribution. When the SD (in this case 0.140) is smaller than the sample mean (0.290 kg wood/ kg food), it is strongly suggestive that the data is not skewed. Likewise, the median (0.268 kg wood/kg food) and mean values are very similar, and the median falls within the 95% confidence intervals of the mean ( ). This also strongly suggests a normally distributed set of data. Thus, it is appropriate to use parametric statistical tests, which are based on the assumption that the data is normally distributed. ERM Certification and Verification Services 81 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

82 Figure 1. Histogram of fuel use for the 45 lunch events cooked with the aging RTE stoves. The following overview of 90/30 and use of mean fuel savings was provided by David Pennise at Berkeley Air Monitoring Group: Berkeley Air Monitoring Group s updated KPT report demonstrates that fuel savings assessments meet the confidence/precision rule of 90/30 for all stoves except for the smaller institutional wood stoves, wherein the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval is taken. Per Table 5 in [the] institutional report, it is correct that the smaller stoves do not meet the 90/30 rule on fuel savings (precision = 52%). Berkeley Air added a row to Table 5 for "90/30 precision Yes/No", similar to the row in Tale 3 (showing Yes for large stoves and No for small stoves). Furthermore, Berkeley Air provides the lower bound of the 1-sided 90% CI for 400L stoves that do not meet 90/30 [Aging Institutional KPT report]: As the fuel savings for the 400L stoves do not meet the Gold Standard v3 methodology s 90/30 precision rule, the value for lower limit of the one sided 90% confidence interval should be used. This is calculated as; Mean fuel savings - (1.282 * SEp) = = 0.13 kg wood/kg food 90/10 is applicable only to Single Sample tests, which refer to projects where a default baseline parameter is used, or where when the baseline is calculated based on project tests (eg. Through stove efficiency values). PP s project activity used independent sampling that establishes values for both baseline and project activity (cross-sectional study design). Gold Standard Meth V3 clearly indicates that 90/30 is applied to savings and not to the individual baseline or project groups. Where 90/30 savings is not met, PP applies the lower bound of the 1-sided 90% confidence interval of savings. Degradation factors are determined for aging technologies using results from the aging KPT. An aging stove emission reduction value is calculated using the updated aging fuel savings. The aging stove ER is ratio d to the baseline emission reduction to determine a degradation/performance factor. The degradation/performance factor is applied in the ER calculator to stoves of relevant vintage (ie. Aging stove 2yr degradation/performance factor is applied only to stoves of ages 2-4 years). HH Wood Fuel Consumption: Check for outliers and skewness: Histograms of the kg wood/per/day by baseline fuel (non-wood and wood) were examined for relative normal distribution of the data and presence of outliers. Box plots were also used to identify outliers that might have a detrimental impact on the sample mean. Figures 32 and 43 below shows the normal distribution curves and box plots for the group not using wood at ERM Certification and Verification Services 82 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

83 baseline. The histogram suggests that the data for kg wood/per/day appears to be within the bounds of a normal distribution. When the standard deviation (SD) is smaller than the sample mean, it is strongly suggestive that the data is not significantly skewed. Likewise, the median (0.723 kg wood/per/day) and mean values are very similar, and the median falls within the 95% confidence intervals of the mean ( ), which also strongly suggests a normally distributed set of data. Thus, it is appropriate to use parametric statistical tests, which are based on the assumption that the data is normally distributed. The box plot identifies one outlier in the non-wood group. The statistical package SPSS denotes outliers that are greater than 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (IQR) from the third (75th) quartile as circles and those that are 3 times the IQR, extreme outliers, as stars. 1.1 Figure 3: Histogram of fuel use for non-wood using HH (kg wood/per/day) 1.2 Figure 4: Box plot of fuel use for non-wood using HH (kg wood/per/day) 1.3 The data from this outlier was examined for any error or unusual characteristics that might warrant its removal. The data looked consistent and within the bounds of reasonable fuel consumption for this population. In view of the fact that the outlier is not considered to be extreme and without any evidence to show that this household had any unique characteristics to suggest it was not representative of this randomly selected population, it was decided to include this household in the analysis (and it is conservative to do so). Figures 5 and 6 below shows the normal distribution curves and box plots for the group using wood at baseline. The histogram suggests the presence of outliers, which cause the data to be positively skewed. Even though the SD is smaller than the sample mean, the median (0.641 kg wood/per/day) and mean values are quite different and the median does not fall within the 95% confidence intervals of the mean ( ). This strongly suggests that the data is not normally distributed, and it would not be appropriate to use parametric statistical tests, which are based on the assumption that the data is normally distributed. The box plot identifies three outliers in this wood group. One of these areis greater than 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (IQR) from the third quartile (denoted as a circle) and two are extreme outliers that are 3 times the IQR from the third quartile. Figure 5: Histogram of fuel use for wood using HH 1.4 (kg wood/per/day) Figure 6: Box plot of fuel use for wood using HH 1.5 (kg wood/per/day) ERM Certification and Verification Services 83 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

84 The most extreme outlier showed wood fuel consumption whichthat was in was particularly high for this population group without out any obvious reason (such a large numbers cooked for, commercial cooking, etc.). In view of this fact that this case might be unrepresentative of this population and that it is 3 times the IQR from the third quartile, this household was removed from the final analysis. The other extreme outlier was from a household that only hadwas comprised of only one child (and nno parents or anyone else was living or other person eating there during the KPT). Review of the data suggested that this demographic profile was unique, - as most households had at least one adult. Therefore, as with the other extreme outlier, in view of this fact that this case might be unrepresentative of this population, and that it is 3 times the IQR from the third quartile, this household was removed from the final analysis. Figure 7. shows the histogram from the data set with these two outliers removed. The median (0.640 kg wood/per/day) and mean (0.764 kg wood/per/day) are now more similar, and the median falls on the edge of the lower bound 95% confidence of the mean (0.692). Switching to non-parametric tests would require a more skewed/ non- normal distribution of data and so it is deemed appropriative to use the parametric analysis. Figure 7. Histogram of fuel use for wood using HHs after removal of extreme outliers The data from the third, - less- extreme outlier was examined for any error or unusual characteristics that might warrant its removal. The data looked consistent and within the bounds of reasonable fuel consumption for this population. In view of the fact that the outlier is not considered to be extreme and without any evidence to show that this household had any unique characteristics to suggest it was not representative of this randomly selected population, it was decided to include this household in the analysis. -90/30 Analysis and Degradation Factors for Domestic Stoves: Domestic stove analysis of 90/30 fuel savings and degradation factors were determined similar to institutional stoves. Berkeley Air domestic aging KPT report tables 9,11,16,18 outline 90/30 analysis of fuel savings. Wood savings meet the 90/30 rule, thus we apply mean savings. Charcoal savings do not meet 90/30 rule, thus we apply lower 1-sided 90% CI ERM Certification and Verification Services 84 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Gold Standard Verification Report

Gold Standard Verification Report Gold Standard Verification Report Project Title Kisumu Improved Cook Stoves ERM CVS Reference 2286.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS843 Client Name Co2balance UK Ltd Client Address 1 Discovery

More information

Gold Standard Verification Report

Gold Standard Verification Report Project Title Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya ERM CVS Reference 2118.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS886 Client Name Vestergaard Frandsen Group SA Client Address

More information

Validation of CDM Projects Real life examples of what a DOE looks for

Validation of CDM Projects Real life examples of what a DOE looks for Validation of CDM Projects Real life examples of what a DOE looks for Jonathan Avis, CDM Business Manager ERM Certification and Verification Services 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court 33 St Mary Axe London EC3A

More information

Full Monitoring Report

Full Monitoring Report Full Monitoring Report 30 August 2011 31 December 2012 Version 07 Last date of edit: 10 May 2013 Project ID: GS 966 Project Name: Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project Report filename:

More information

Gold Standard Verification Report

Gold Standard Verification Report Gold Standard Verification Report Project Title Sustainable Deployment of the LifeStraw Family in Rural Kenya ERM CVS Reference 2118.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS0086 Client Name Vestergaard

More information

Annex 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL. (Version 01.2) CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS... 3 I. INTRODUCTION...

Annex 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL. (Version 01.2) CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS... 3 I. INTRODUCTION... Page 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL (Version 01.2) CONTENTS Paragraphs Page ABBREVIATIONS... 3 I. INTRODUCTION... 1 5 4 A. Updates to the Manual... 6 4 II. TERMS FOR VALIDATING

More information

Risk Based Verification Cambodia cook stove project

Risk Based Verification Cambodia cook stove project Risk Based Verification Cambodia cook stove project Chee.Keong.Lai@dnv.com www.dnv.com/certification/climatechange Contents 1. Introduction of Det Norske Veritas AS 2. Risk Based Validation/Verification

More information

How to Select a DOE and preparation for validation and verification Presentation Report

How to Select a DOE and preparation for validation and verification Presentation Report How to Select a DOE and preparation for validation and verification Presentation Report Introduction to DOE s The two key functions of DOEs are: Validation: assessing whether a project proposal meets the

More information

STOVE COMMERCIALIZATION GIZ Stove Colloquium PARADIGM KENYA, L3C. 7 June 2011 Nairobi, Kenya

STOVE COMMERCIALIZATION GIZ Stove Colloquium PARADIGM KENYA, L3C. 7 June 2011 Nairobi, Kenya STOVE COMMERCIALIZATION GIZ Stove Colloquium 7 June 2011 Nairobi, Kenya PARADIGM KENYA, L3C Innovating sustainable social, environmental & economic impact. PK: PROJECT TYPE Paradigm Kenya project type:

More information

Registration - Information and reporting checklist (Version 2.0) The main changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0 are the following:

Registration - Information and reporting checklist (Version 2.0) The main changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0 are the following: Registration - Information and reporting checklist (Version 2.0) Version 1.0 of the information and reporting checklist was published in June 2010. The enclosed version 2.0 of this checklist represents

More information

Annex 3 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL. (Version 01) CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION

Annex 3 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL. (Version 01) CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION page 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL (Version 01) CONTENTS Paragraphs Page ABBREVIATIONS... 4 I. INTRODUCTION... 1 5 5 A. Updates to the Manual... 6 4 II. TERMS FOR VALIDATING

More information

International Water Purification Programme

International Water Purification Programme GOLD STANDARD FINAL VERIFICATION /CERTIFICATION REPORT International Water Purification Programme Report No.: EC09(B)2016006 Report Date: 13/03/2018 China Classification Society Certification Company 40,

More information

CDM Validation Report

CDM Validation Report Project Title Qinghai Jingneng Ge'ermu Solar PV Power Project ERM CVS Project Reference Client Name 2401.v1 Qinghai Jingneng Construction Investment Co., Ltd. Client Address Floor 3, Jingfa Building, Kunlun

More information

Gold Standard Verification Report

Gold Standard Verification Report Project Title Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project ERM CVS Reference 2689.V2 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS 966 Client Name The Paradigm Project Client Address 1431 Regency

More information

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Datang Zhangzhou Wind Power Co., Ltd Fujian Zhangpu Liuao 45MW Wind Power Project SGS Climate Change Programme SGS United Kingdom Ltd SGS House 217-221 London Road

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity Man and Man Enterprise GS1385 Man and Man Enterprise Improved Cooking Stoves Programme in Ghana GS1385 Man and Man Enterprise Improved Cooking

More information

PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES (POA) REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION - INFORMATION AND REPORTING CHECK CHECKLIST

PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES (POA) REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION - INFORMATION AND REPORTING CHECK CHECKLIST PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES (POA) REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION - INFORMATION AND REPORTING CHECK CHECKLIST PCP : Clean development mechanism project cycle procedure (version 02.0), EB 66, annex 64, 2 March 2012.

More information

Performance assessment report validation (Version 01.1)

Performance assessment report validation (Version 01.1) Performance assessment report validation (Version 01.1) SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Entity name: UNFCCC entity ref.no.: Site Visit made by the CDM-AT: Address of the site(s) visited: Scope(s) of accreditation

More information

Small-scale Methodology Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass

Small-scale Methodology Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM Small-scale Methodology Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass Sectoral scope(s):03 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 2. SCOPE,

More information

Gold Standard Verification Report

Gold Standard Verification Report Project Title Stove Capital Guatemala Improved Stove and Water Purification Project ERM CVS Reference 2619.V1 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS 1321 Client Name Client Address The Paradigm Project

More information

Version 03.1 Page 1 of 18

Version 03.1 Page 1 of 18 F-CDM-MR Monitoring report form (Version 03.1) Monitoring report Title of the project activity Up Energy s Improved Cookstove Carbon Project, Uganda Reference number of the project activity GS 1044 Version

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Program of Activity Man and Man Enterprise GS1385 Man and Man Enterprise Improved Cooking Stoves Programme in Ghana GS1385 Man and Man Enterprise Improved Cooking

More information

Decision 3/CMP.1 Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol

Decision 3/CMP.1 Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol Page 6 Decision 3/CMP.1 Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to

More information

Draft Small-scale Methodology AMS-II.G: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass

Draft Small-scale Methodology AMS-II.G: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CDM-SSCWG42-A04 Draft Small-scale Methodology AMS-II.G: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable Sectoral scope(s):03 COVER NOTE 1. Procedural background

More information

THE GOLD STANDARD PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

THE GOLD STANDARD PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES GUIDANCE DOCUMENT THE GOLD STANDARD PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES GUIDANCE DOCUMENT This document provides detailed instructions and guidance on the steps to be followed for the development of Gold Standard Programme of Activities

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA HANGJIN YIHEWUSU WIND POWER PROJECT

VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA HANGJIN YIHEWUSU WIND POWER PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA HANGJIN YIHEWUSU WIND POWER PROJECT Document Prepared By China Environmental United Certification Centre Co., Ltd. Project Title Inner Mongolia Hangjin Yihewusu Wind

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT JP MORGAN VENTURES ENERGY CORPORATION ( JP MORGAN CLIMATE CARE ) VERIFICATION OF THE EFFICIENT COOKING WITH UGASTOVES

VERIFICATION REPORT JP MORGAN VENTURES ENERGY CORPORATION ( JP MORGAN CLIMATE CARE ) VERIFICATION OF THE EFFICIENT COOKING WITH UGASTOVES JP MORGAN VENTURES ENERGY CORPORATION ( JP MORGAN CLIMATE CARE ) VERIFICATION OF THE EFFICIENT COING WITH UGASTOVES REPORT NO. KENYA - VER N/AAS/08/050/2009 REVISION NO. 01 BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION

More information

GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT

GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT MYCLIMATE FOUNDATION ENERGY EFFICIENT CO STOVES FOR SIAYA COMMUNITIES, KENYA Monitoring Period: 2011-01-01 to 2012-07-02 (incl. both days) Report No: 8000400320-11/544

More information

IN GHANA > Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /308 V01. Date:

IN GHANA > Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /308 V01. Date: VERIFICATION REPORT - RETROACTIVE VERIFICATION < E+ CARBON > < IMPROVED HOUSEHOLD CHARCOAL STOVES IN GHANA > GS REF. NO. : Monitoring Period: 2007-09-09 to 2009-09-08 (incl. both days) Report

More information

Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities. (Version 01.0)

Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities. (Version 01.0) Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities (Version 01.0) Complete this form in accordance with the Attachment: Instructions for filling out the verification and certification

More information

Overview of CDM Documentation and Procedures

Overview of CDM Documentation and Procedures Overview of CDM Documentation and Procedures 19-20 April 2006 London, England John Kessels CDM Documentation Project Design Document CDM Institutions CDM New Methodology Baseline (CDM NMB) CDM New Monitoring

More information

THE GOLD STANDARD POA RULES AND GUIDANCE ANNEX F (GSV2.2)

THE GOLD STANDARD POA RULES AND GUIDANCE ANNEX F (GSV2.2) THE GOLD STANDARD POA RULES AND GUIDANCE ANNEX F (GSV2.2) Unless otherwise specified in this document, Gold Standard PoAs follow the rules for CDM PoAs 1 PoA Eligibility Where a group of project activities

More information

Verification and certification report form for GS project activities. (Version 01.0)

Verification and certification report form for GS project activities. (Version 01.0) Verification and certification report form for GS project activities (Version 01.0) VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Title of the project activity Reference number of the project activity 15 MW Solar

More information

IN GHANA > Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /308 V01. Date:

IN GHANA > Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /308 V01. Date: VERIFICATION REPORT - RETROACTIVE VERIFICATION < E+ CARBON > < IMPROVED HOUSEHOLD CHARCOAL STOVES IN GHANA > GS REF. NO. : Monitoring Period: 2007-09-09 to 2009-09-08 (incl. both days) Report

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT VEJO GUSIS,UAB

VERIFICATION REPORT VEJO GUSIS,UAB VEJO GUSIS,UAB VERIFICATION OF THE LIEPYNES WIND POWER PARK JOINT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MONITORING PERIOD: 1 JANUARY 2012 TO 31 OCTOBER 2012 REPORT NO. LITHUANIA-VER/0075/2012 REVISION NO. 01 BUREAU VERITAS

More information

Version 03.2 Page 1 of 20

Version 03.2 Page 1 of 20 Monitoring report form (Version 03.2) Monitoring report Title of the project activity Up Energy s Improved Cookstove Carbon Project, Uganda Reference number of the project activity GS 1044 Version number

More information

VALIDATION REPORT RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD

VALIDATION REPORT RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD VALIDATION REPORT RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD Kanfeng 15MW Hydropower Station Project, Min County, Dingxi City Prefecture, Gansu province, China REPORT NO. CDM-0111-RCP1 No distribution without permission

More information

VCS METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT

VCS METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT VCS METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT Infra-red Automatic Refrigerant Leak Detection Efficiency Project REPORT NO. 2009-9189 REVISION NO. 02 Date of first issue: Project No.: 14 August 2009 99800011

More information

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Datang Zhangzhou Wind Power Co., Ltd Fujian Zhangpu Liuao 45MW Wind Power Project Monitoring period: 28/05/2009 to 27/05/2010 SGS Climate Change Programme SGS United

More information

CDM What and How? /

CDM What and How? / CDM What and How? Chee.Keong.Lai@dnv.com / SEA.Climate.Change@dnv.com http://www.dnv.com/services/certification/climate_change/ Contents 1. Introduction of Det Norske Veritas AS 2. What is CDM? 3. DNV

More information

Piloting a Standardized Crediting Framework for Scaling Up Energ Access Programs. Program Protocol Rwanda Pilot. Report 15/11/2018

Piloting a Standardized Crediting Framework for Scaling Up Energ Access Programs. Program Protocol Rwanda Pilot. Report 15/11/2018 Piloting a Standardized Crediting Framework for Scaling Up Energ Access Programs Program Protocol Rwanda Pilot Report 15/11/2018 Table of contents 1. Introduction... 1 2. Program governance and institutions...

More information

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CDM-SSCWG40-A05

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CDM-SSCWG40-A05 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CDM-SSCWG40-A05 Questions for public inputs in relation to the top-down revision of AMS-II.G: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass COVER

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT «CEP CARBON EMISSIONS PARTNERS S.A.» VERIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

VERIFICATION REPORT «CEP CARBON EMISSIONS PARTNERS S.A.» VERIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY «CEP CARBON EMISSIONS PARTNERS S.A.» VERIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES AND REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AT STATE ENTERPRISE SELIDOVUGOL INITIAL

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification for the CDM Project Activity

VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification for the CDM Project Activity VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification for the CDM Project Activity Efficient Wood Fuel Stove- Cooking-Sets, Lesotho (UNFCCC Reference Number: 5482) in Lesotho Report No. 01 997 9105073326-1 ST

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT PA KHOANG HYDROPOWER PROJECT REPORT NO. GHGCC(E) REVISION NO. 03 GHG CERTIFICATION OFFICE

VERIFICATION REPORT PA KHOANG HYDROPOWER PROJECT REPORT NO. GHGCC(E) REVISION NO. 03 GHG CERTIFICATION OFFICE VERIFICATION REPORT PA KHOANG HYDROPOWER PROJECT REPORT NO. GHGCC(E)12-004 REVISION NO. 03 GHG CERTIFICATION OFFICE KOREA ENERGY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Date of first issue: Project No.: 19/06/2012 GHGCC(E)12-004

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT UNITED CARBON FINANCE

VERIFICATION REPORT UNITED CARBON FINANCE UNITED CARBON FINANCE LTD. VERIFICATION OF THE WASTE HEAPS DISMANTLING BY TEMP LTD-A IN UKRAINE FORTH PERIODIC FOR THE PERIOD 01/08/2012 30/11/2012 REPORT NO. UKRAINE-VER/0822/2012 REVISION NO. 02 BUREAU

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT YUNNAN MANGLI HYDROPOWER PROJECT

VERIFICATION REPORT YUNNAN MANGLI HYDROPOWER PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT YUNNAN MANGLI HYDROPOWER PROJECT Document Prepared By: Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS Report No.BVC/China-VR/7066/2012 Project Title Version Report ID Yunnan Mangli Hydropower

More information

Product Carbon Footprint Protocol

Product Carbon Footprint Protocol Product Carbon Footprint Protocol Required data and documentation to achieve product carbon footprint certification in preparation for communication and labelling. Part 1: Requirements for Certification

More information

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Group PLC Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm SGS Climate Change Programme SGS United Kingdom Ltd SGS House 217-221 London Road Camberley Surrey GU15 3EY United

More information

GOLD STANDARD PASSPORT

GOLD STANDARD PASSPORT GOLD STANDARD PASSPORT CONTENTS A. Project title B. Project description C. Proof of project eligibility D. Unique Project Identification E. Outcome stakeholder consultation process F. Outcome sustainability

More information

FAST TRACK OPTION FOR RETROACTIVE PROJECTS

FAST TRACK OPTION FOR RETROACTIVE PROJECTS FAST TRACK OPTION FOR RETROACTIVE PROJECTS The ʻfast trackʼ process is an option available to submitted retroactive projects (including, under certain conditions, those within PoAs as specified in the

More information

The Gold Standard Simplified Methodology for Efficient Cookstoves. February /12

The Gold Standard Simplified Methodology for Efficient Cookstoves. February /12 The Gold Standard Simplified Methodology for Efficient Cookstoves February 2013 1/12 Table of Contents Section I: Source and Applicability... 3 Section II: Baseline methodology... 3 1. Project Boundary...

More information

Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit

Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation Version 2.0 June 2018 Title: Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit Number: 2.0 Program Name: Carbon

More information

THE PROTOTYPE CARBON FUND. Durban La Mercy and Mariannhill Landfill Gas to Electricity. Monitoring Plan

THE PROTOTYPE CARBON FUND. Durban La Mercy and Mariannhill Landfill Gas to Electricity. Monitoring Plan THE PROTOTYPE CARBON FUND Durban La Mercy and Mariannhill Landfill Gas to Electricity Monitoring Plan September 2005 1. The Monitoring Plan... 3 1.1 Purpose of the MP... 3 1.2 Use of the MP... 3 2. Calculation

More information

Waste management - Hydro, Wind, Solar Energy. - Capturing of landfill methane emission - Biomass power. to generate power - Geothermal, Tidel Energy

Waste management - Hydro, Wind, Solar Energy. - Capturing of landfill methane emission - Biomass power. to generate power - Geothermal, Tidel Energy Workshop on Improving the Regional Distribution of CDM s in Asia and the Pacific Technical Session 1 : Overview of CDM Key Elements of CDM Cycle Hemant Nandanpawar International CDM Specialist Technical

More information

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION REPORT PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF THE TROJES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN MEXICO

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION REPORT PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF THE TROJES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN MEXICO VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION REPORT PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF THE TROJES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN MEXICO (Registration Ref No. 0649) Monitoring period: 01 April 2003-30 November 2006. REPORT NO. 2006-2174

More information

VALIDATION REPORT. Quezon City Controlled Disposal Facility Biogas Emission Reduction Project in Philippines REPORT NO REVISION NO.

VALIDATION REPORT. Quezon City Controlled Disposal Facility Biogas Emission Reduction Project in Philippines REPORT NO REVISION NO. Quezon City Controlled Disposal Facility Biogas Emission Reduction Project in Philippines REPORT NO. 2007-1142 REVISION NO. 02 Date of first issue: Project No.: 2007-07-09 44410005-08 Approved by: Organisational

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Project Activity

VERIFICATION REPORT for the Gold Standard Project Activity 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

More information

Monitoring Report Gold Standard VER, version 01

Monitoring Report Gold Standard VER, version 01 Monitoring Report Gold Standard VER, version 01 Project Name: Solar and efficient stoves in southwest Madagascar Project ID: GS 464 Monitoring Period: 4 th of January 2008 to 22 nd of December 2009 Version

More information

GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT

GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT 5TH PERIODIC XENTOLAR HOLDINGS LIMITED BANGK KAMPHAENG SAEN EAST: LANDFILL GAS TO ELECTRICITY PROJECT GOLD STANDARD REF. NO.: GS1371 Monitoring Period: 2013-10-01 to 2014-10-31

More information

Verification and Certification Report

Verification and Certification Report Verification and Certification Report of Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria GmbH Brooktorkai 18 20457 Hamburg Germany Handelsregister Hamburg, Abt. B., Nr. 52078 Organisational Unit GmbH (GLC), Greenhouse

More information

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM SMALL-SCALE PROGRAM ACTIVITY DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-CPA- DD) Version 01 CONTENTS

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM SMALL-SCALE PROGRAM ACTIVITY DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-CPA- DD) Version 01 CONTENTS CDM Executive Board page 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM SMALL-SCALE PROGRAM ACTIVITY DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-CPA- DD) Version 01 CONTENTS A. General description of CDM programme activity (CPA) B.

More information

ANNEX AN THE GOLD STANDARD MICRO-PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT TEMPLATE

ANNEX AN THE GOLD STANDARD MICRO-PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT TEMPLATE ANNEX AN THE GOLD STANDARD MICRO-PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT TEMPLATE CONTENTS A. General description of micro-scale programme of activities B. Duration of the micro-scale programme of activities

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT CARBON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

VERIFICATION REPORT CARBON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CARBON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION OF THE HEBEI SHANGYI MANJING WEST WIND FARM PROJECT REPORT NO.BVC/CHINA-VR/7009/2010 REVISION NO.01 BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION Great Guildford House,

More information

Validation and Verification DOE s Perspective

Validation and Verification DOE s Perspective Validation and Verification DOE s Perspective Presented by: Asim Kumar JANA TÜV Rheinland (India) Pvt Ltd Presented at ADB Headquarters, Manila, Philippines 08 September 2010 1 Contents Validation and

More information

GS-VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT

GS-VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT GS-VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT GANSU ANXI WIND FARM PROJECT, 100.5 MW IN CHINA (Gold Standard Registration No. GS 554) MONITORING PERIOD: 30 December 2010 to 29 December 2011 PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRAR

More information

Validation Report. Kalpataru Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd. Validation of the Biomass Power Project at Kalpataru Energy Venture Private Limited

Validation Report. Kalpataru Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd. Validation of the Biomass Power Project at Kalpataru Energy Venture Private Limited Validation Report Kalpataru Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd. Validation of the Biomass Power Project at Kalpataru Energy Venture Private Limited Report No. 806970, Revision 01 2006, April 12 TÜV ndustrie Service

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE LUGOUHE HYDROPOWER PROJECT IN SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA

VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE LUGOUHE HYDROPOWER PROJECT IN SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA VCS Verification Report VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE LUGOUHE HYDROPOWER PROJECT IN SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA Voluntary Carbon Standard 2007.1 Report No: VCS 009-06, rev. 03 Germanischer Lloyd Certification

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA CHAO ER IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT

VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA CHAO ER IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT OF INNER MONGOLIA CHAO ER IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT Document Prepared By China Environmental United Certification Center Co., Ltd. Project Title Inner Mongolia Chao er Improved

More information

Al-Shaheen CDM Project Experience

Al-Shaheen CDM Project Experience ١ LESSONS LEARNED FROM AL-SHAHEEN (ALS) OIL FIELD, GAS RECOVERY AND UTILIZATION PROJECT By Adnan Fahad Al-Ramzani Manager, Clean Development Mechanism HSE Regulation & Enforcement Directorate Contents

More information

Corporate Emissions Assessment Protocol

Corporate Emissions Assessment Protocol Corporate Emissions Assessment Protocol For the measurement, management, and reduction of organisations greenhouse gas emissions 1 1 Version 1_4 2 Part 1: Requirements The Carbon Trust About the Carbon

More information

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 566 S 8QLW Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 1 st Arab CP Workshop, Amman - Jordan 4-6 / 4 / 2006 www.cp.org.jo The Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT SWISS CARBON VALUE LTD. National Bachu Biomass Power Generation Project GS Report No

VERIFICATION REPORT SWISS CARBON VALUE LTD. National Bachu Biomass Power Generation Project GS Report No VERIFICATION REPORT SWISS CARBON VALUE LTD. National Bachu Biomass Power Generation Project GS 1228 1 st Monitoring period: 28/01/2011 to 27/08/2013 Report No. 130104369 China Environmental United Certification

More information

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Datang Zhangzhou Wind Power Co., Ltd Fujian Zhangpu Liuao 45MW Wind Power Project Fourth Monitoring period: 28/05/2010 to 27/05/2011 (both days inclusive) SGS Climate

More information

BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes Terms of Reference Emission Reductions Program Document Assessment

BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes Terms of Reference Emission Reductions Program Document Assessment Background The BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) is a multilateral facility that promotes and rewards reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased sequestration through

More information

Carbon Finance Training, Uganda, March 27, 2009 PCIA 2009 forum

Carbon Finance Training, Uganda, March 27, 2009 PCIA 2009 forum Carbon Market Overview Carbon Finance Training, Uganda, March 27, 2009 PCIA 2009 forum I. Introduction to carbon market Basis for Carbon Market Climate Change is real and mostly caused by GHG from human

More information

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT For the CDM-GS Project Activity

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT For the CDM-GS Project Activity VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION REPORT For the CDM-GS Project Activity Accion Fraterna Biogas CDM project for rural communities in Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh In India GS REF. NO. 980 CDM REF. NO. 3779 1 st

More information

Contents. Full Monitoring Report 1 January March 2014 Version 05 Last date of edit: 20 November 2015

Contents. Full Monitoring Report 1 January March 2014 Version 05 Last date of edit: 20 November 2015 Full Monitoring Report 1 January 2014 31 March 2014 Version 05 Last date of edit: 20 November 2015 Project name: Improved Cookstoves for Social Impact in Ugandan Communities GS Reference Number: GS447

More information

PCF IMPLEMENTATION NOTE Number 4 Version of April 21, Background

PCF IMPLEMENTATION NOTE Number 4 Version of April 21, Background Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized PCF IMPLEMENTATION NOTE Number 4 Version of April 21, 2000 DOLGDWLRQHULILFDWLRQDQG&HUWLILFDWLRQIRU3&)3URMHFWV

More information

COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD)

COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD) CDM Executive Board Page 1 COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITY DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (F-CDM-VPA-DD) Version 02.0 COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD) SECTION A. General description of VPA A.1. Title

More information

Concepts of Clean Development Mechanism. Confederation of Indian Industry

Concepts of Clean Development Mechanism. Confederation of Indian Industry Concepts of Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC & Kyoto Protocol Kyoto Treaty was drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 th December, 1997 to implement United Nations Framework Convention for Climate

More information

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Distr.: General 31 May 2011 English only FCCC/TP/2011/4 Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism Technical paper Summary This document

More information

YAPRAK WEIR AND HEPP

YAPRAK WEIR AND HEPP YAPRAK WEIR AND HEPP Document Prepared By: KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. Project Title Yaprak Weir and HEPP Version 01.1 Report ID VCS.15.VER.005 Report Title Client Pages 19 Date of Issue Prepared

More information

GS VALIDATION & VERIFICATION REPORT

GS VALIDATION & VERIFICATION REPORT GS VALIDATION & VERIFICATION REPORT 4.5 MW BIOMASS (LOW DENSITY CROP RESIDUES) BASED POWER GENERATION UNIT OF MALAVALLI POWER PLANT PVT LTD, INDIA REPORT NO. 2007-4003 REVISION NO. 01 DET NORSKE VERITAS

More information

COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD)

COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD) CDM Executive Board Page 1 COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITY DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (F-CDM-VPA-DD) Version 02.0 COMPONENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT (VPA-DD) SECTION A. General description of VPA A.1. Title

More information

VALIDATION REPORT SAIHANBA EAST MW WINDFARM PROJECT IN CHINA REPORT NO REVISION NO. 01 DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT SAIHANBA EAST MW WINDFARM PROJECT IN CHINA REPORT NO REVISION NO. 01 DET NORSKE VERITAS VALIDATION REPORT SAIHANBA EAST 45.05 MW WINDFARM PROJECT IN CHINA REPORT NO. 2006-1309 REVISION NO. 01 DET NORSKE VERITAS DET NORSKE VERITAS VALIDATION REPORT Date of first issue: Project No.: 2006-05-26

More information

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF GEOTHERMAL CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECTS IN KENYA

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF GEOTHERMAL CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECTS IN KENYA Presented at Short Course on Geothermal Project Management and Development, organized by UNU-GTP, KenGen and MEMD-DGSM, at the Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel, Entebbe, Uganda, November 20-22, 2008. GEOTHERMAL

More information

Version 03.0 Page 1 of 38

Version 03.0 Page 1 of 38 Programme design document form for small-scale CDM programmes of activities (Version 03.0) CDM-SSC-PoA-DD-FORM Complete this form in accordance with the Attachment Instructions for filling out the programme

More information

KAMIRANGA CERAMIC FUEL SWITCHING PROJET VERIFICATION REPORT

KAMIRANGA CERAMIC FUEL SWITCHING PROJET VERIFICATION REPORT KAMIRANGA CERAMIC FUEL SWITCHING PROJET VERIFICATION REPORT Document Prepared By IBOPE Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião Pública e Estatística Ltda. Project Title Kamiranga Ceramic Fuel Switching Project

More information

Monitoring and Verification Plan Graneros Plant Fuel Switching Project June Prepared by

Monitoring and Verification Plan Graneros Plant Fuel Switching Project June Prepared by Monitoring and Verification Plan Graneros Plant Fuel Switching Project June 2003 Prepared by MGM International, Inc. Ayacucho 1435, 9 B C1111AAM Buenos Aires Argentina Table of Contents 1. Introduction

More information

VALIDATION OPINION FOR REVISION OF REGISTERED MONITORING PLAN

VALIDATION OPINION FOR REVISION OF REGISTERED MONITORING PLAN VALIDATION OPINION FOR REVISION OF REGISTERED MONITORING PLAN Rio Taquesi Hydroelectric Power Project UNFCCC Ref. No. 1031 SGS Climate Change Programme SGS United Kingdom Ltd SGS House 217-221 London Road

More information

RSB Standard for Certification of Smallholder Groups

RSB Standard for Certification of Smallholder Groups Type of document: RSB Standard Status: Approved Date of approval: September 15 2014 Date of publication: April 29 2015 Version 1.1 RSB Standard for Certification of Smallholder Groups RSB reference code:

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT. TÜV Rheinland Group

VERIFICATION REPORT. TÜV Rheinland Group VERIFICATION REPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF ARC FURNACE STEELMAKING PLANT "ELECTROSTAL" AT KURAKHOVO, DONETSK REGION ITL Project ID: UA1000181 Third Periodic Verification for the period: 01.03.2011 31.07.2011

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT FOR THE COAL MINE METHANE CAPTURE AND USE PROJECT AT THE NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE COAL MINE COMPLEX

VERIFICATION REPORT FOR THE COAL MINE METHANE CAPTURE AND USE PROJECT AT THE NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE COAL MINE COMPLEX VERIFICATION REPORT FOR THE COAL MINE METHANE CAPTURE AND USE PROJECT AT THE NORTH ANTELOPE ROCHELLE COAL MINE COMPLEX Document Prepared By First Environment, Inc. Project Title Coal Mine Methane Capture

More information

MONITORING PERIOD: FROM 07/01/2014 TO 31/12/2014. AENOR Reference nº: 2014/100/VOL/42

MONITORING PERIOD: FROM 07/01/2014 TO 31/12/2014. AENOR Reference nº: 2014/100/VOL/42 GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT 1 st Periodic Verification CAMARTEC VPA 002 African Biogas Carbon Programme (ABC) Tanzania CAMARTEC VPA ID: GS2751 POA African Biogas Carbon Programme (ABC) POA ID: GS2747

More information

REPORT OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD Annex 5

REPORT OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD Annex 5 - 1 - Annex 5 Appendix A 1 to the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM SIMPLIFIED PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR SMALL SCALE PROJECT ACTIVITIES

More information

We think the word Professional scepticism needs to be defined in detail to avoid individual interpretation leading to confusion.

We think the word Professional scepticism needs to be defined in detail to avoid individual interpretation leading to confusion. The CDM Executive Board (EB) has call for public comment on the draft of the Validation and Verification Manual (VVM). This document represents the main views of the CantorCO2e with regards to the current

More information

-SUBMISSION BY MEXICO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

-SUBMISSION BY MEXICO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -SUBMISSION BY MEXICO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES I. Mandate The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), at its twenty-fifth session

More information

Draft Small-scale Methodology SSC-III.BG: Emission reduction through sustainable charcoal production and consumption

Draft Small-scale Methodology SSC-III.BG: Emission reduction through sustainable charcoal production and consumption CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM CDM-SSCWG39-A03 Draft Small-scale Methodology SSC-III.BG: Emission reduction through sustainable charcoal production and consumption Sectoral scope(s): 04 COVER NOTE 1. Procedural

More information

VERIFICATION REPORT RENERGA,UAB

VERIFICATION REPORT RENERGA,UAB RENERGA,UAB VERIFICATION OF THE BENAICIAI WIND POWER PROJECT MONITORING PERIOD: 01 JANUARY 2012 TO 31 OCTOBER 2012 REPORT NO. LITHUANIA-VER/0071/2012 REVISION NO. 01 Report Template Revision 4, 13/07/2011

More information