VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Group PLC Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm SGS Climate Change Programme SGS United Kingdom Ltd SGS House London Road Camberley Surrey GU15 3EY United Kingdom SGS United Kingdom Ltd SGS House, London Road, Camberley, Surrey GU15 3EY Tel +44 (0) Fax +44 (0) Registered in England No Rossmore Business Park, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire CH65 3EN Member of SGS Group (Société Générale de Surveillance) 1/18

2 Date of Issue: Project Number: Project Title: Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm Organisation: Client: SGS United Kingdom Limited Group PLC Summary: SGS United Kingdom Ltd has performed the Voluntary Emission Reduction verification of the CDM project Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm. The verification includes confirming the implementation of the monitoring plan of the registered PDD (UNFCCC No. 1558) and the application of the monitoring methodology as per AMS.III.D version 11; 23 rd December 2006 & AMS I.D version 10, dated 23 rd December A site visit was conducted to verify the data submitted in the monitoring report. The purpose of the project activity is the application of high rate continuous flow anaerobic wastewater reactors to treat 100% of the barn flushing wastewaters produced from swine rearing barns at the farms. Swine barn flushing wastewaters consist of a combination of swine manure (dung and excreta) along with wash-water used for barn flushing. It is typified by a high organic strength (COD) approximately 10-15,000 mg O2/L) and high suspended solids content (10-15,000 mg TSS/L) Which would result in reduction in CO2 emissions i.e., Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction. SGS confirms that the project is implemented in accordance with the validated and registered Project Design Document. The monitoring system is in place and the emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. Our opinion relates to the projects GHG emissions and the resulting GHG emission reductions reported and related to the valid and registered project baseline and monitoring and its associated documents. Based on the information seen and evaluated we confirm that the implementation of the project has resulted in 33,853 tco 2 e during period up to Subject: VCS 2007 Verification Verification Team: Nikunj Agarwal Lead Assessor Pitipoom Tungsirisuteekul Local Assessor Kaviraj Pradhan Expert Technical Review: Trainee Technical Reviewer: Date: 28/10/2008 Name: NA Name: Jochen Gross Authorised Signatory: Name: Siddharth Yadav Date: 21 st November 2008 Revision Number: Date: Number of Pages: Indexing Terms No Distribution (without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit) Limited Distribution Unrestricted Distribution 2/18

3 Abbreviations CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEA Central Electricity Authority CEF Carbon Emission Factor CER Certified Emission Reductions CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CO 2 e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent DNA Designated National Authority DOE Designated Operational Entity GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MP Monitoring Plan MR Monitoring Report NIR New Information Requests ODA Official Development Assistance PDD Project Design Document UASB Up Flow Sludge Blanket VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard VCUs Voluntary Carbon Units PP Project Proponent 3/18

4 Table of Content 1. Introduction Objective Scope and Criteria VCS Project Description Level of Assurance Project Activity and Period Covered Methodology General Approach Verification Team for this Assessment Means of Verification Review of Project Documentation Onsite Inspections Review of Monitoring Results and Verification of the Correct Application of Monitoring Methodology Determinations of the Reductions in GHG Emissions Review of Additional Data from Other Sources if Appropriate Reporting of Findings Internal Quality Control Verification Findings Remaining Issues, including any Material Discrepancy, FAR s from Previous Validation Project Implementation Completeness of Monitoring Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Management and Operational System Verification Conclusion Document References /18

5 1. Introduction 1.1 Objective Group Plc has commissioned an independent verification by SGS United Kingdom Limited of its reported greenhouse gas emission reductions from the Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm. The verifiers have reviewed the GHG data collected to date for the period between 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 The purpose of this verification exercise is to independently review the objective evidence: Whether the project has resulted in emission reductions as declared by the organisation or GHG project s GHG assertion; The data reported is accurate, complete, consistent, transparent and free of material error or omission. 1.2 Scope and Criteria This engagement covers verification of emission reductions from anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases included within the project boundary of the Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm. SGS approach is risk-based, drawing on an understanding of the risks associated with reporting GHG emissions data and the controls in place to mitigate these. SGS examination includes assessment, on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in relation to the project s GHG emission reductions for the defined reporting period. 1.3 VCS Project Description The purpose of the project activity is the application of high rate continuous flow anaerobic wastewater reactors to treat 100% of the barn flushing wastewaters produced from swine rearing barns at the farms. Swine barn flushing wastewaters consist of a combination of swine manure (dung and excreta) along with wash-water used for barn flushing. It is typified by a high organic strength (COD) approximately 10-15,000 mg O2/L) and high suspended solids content (10-15,000 mg TSS/L). Prior to implementation of the project, swine barn flushing wastewaters were treated in an extensive open anaerobic lagoon system. This is the only manure management system employed at the farm. 1.4 Level of Assurance The parameters and values presented in the monitoring report were assessed through review of detailed project documentation and production records, interviews with personnel at Pig farm, check of log book, and collection of gas analysis report, observation of established monitoring and reporting practices and assessment of the reliability of measuring equipment. Information which was not available during site visit was reported as New Information Request (NIR), following submission of additional information, monitoring and operational records, and the reconsolidation of all reported data was assessed again. 1.5 Project Activity and Period Covered This engagement covers emissions and emission reductions from anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases included within the project boundary of the following project and period. Title of Project Activity: UNFCCC Registration Number: 1558 Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm Monitoring Period Covered in this Report: up to Project Participants: Location of the Project Activity: SPM Feedmill Co. Ltd. SPM Farm is located in Pak Thor District, Ratchaburi 5/18

6 Province, Thailand, approximately 100 km to the west of Bangkok. The specific location of the farm is provided below: N E (SPM1) N E (SPM2) N E (SPM3) 6/18

7 2. Methodology 2.1 General Approach SGS approach to the verification is a two-stage process. In the first stage, SGS completed a strategic review and risk assessment of the projects activities and processes in order to gain a full understanding of: Activities associated with all the sources contributing to the project emissions and emission reductions, including leakage if relevant; Protocols used to estimate or measure GHG emissions from these sources; Collection and handling of data; Controls on the collection and handling of data; Means of verifying reported data; and Compilation of the monitoring report. At the end of this stage, SGS produced a Periodic Verification Checklist which, based on the risk assessment of the parameters, data collection and handling processes for each of those parameters, describes the verification approach and the sampling plan. Using the Periodic Verification checklist, SGS verified the implementation of the monitoring plan and the data presented in the Monitoring Report for the period in question. This involved a site visit and a desk review of the monitoring report. This verification report describes the findings of this assessment. 2.2 Verification Team for this Assessment Name Role SGS Office Nikunj Agarwal Lead Assessor SGS India Pitipoom Tungsirisuteekul Local Assessor SGS Thailand Kaviraj Pradhan Expert SGS India 2.3 Means of Verification Review of Project Documentation The validated PDD, the monitoring report submitted by the client and additional background documents related to the project performance were reviewed. A complete list of all documents reviewed is attached in section 1 of this report. 7/18

8 2.3.2 Onsite Inspections As part of the verification, the following on-site inspections have been performed Location: SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd., Pak Thor District, Ratchaburi Province Coverage Date: 25 th August 2008 Source of Information / Persons Interviewed Management Approach to GHG commitment Ramesh Nadarajah Head of Regional Implementation South East Asia- Sophon Mansri CDM Clerk SPM Farm Assessment of Project Boundary Rohit Lohia Sr. Project Manager Chanitra Dokmali CDM Project Manager - Physical components Qualification and Training Plant Operations Steve Anzarouth CDM Project Manager, M&V Sophon Mansri CDM Clerk SPM Farm Sophon Mansri CDM Clerk SPM Farm Roles and responsibility Rohit Lohia Sr. Project Manager Chanitra Dokmali CDM Project Manager - Monitoring and measuring system Collection of measurements Observations of established practices Testing of the accuracy of monitoring equipment Data logging and reporting CDM monitoring & reporting documentation Quality Assurance Management and operating system Steve Anzarouth CDM Project Manager, M&V Chanitra Dokmali CDM Project Manager - Steve Anzarouth CDM Project Manager, M&V Chanitra Dokmali CDM Project Manager - Ramesh Nadarajah Head of Regional Implementation South East Asia- Emergency procedures Steve Anzarouth CDM Project Manager, M&V Chanitra Dokmali CDM Project Manager Review of Monitoring Results and Verification of the Correct Application of Monitoring Methodology The project activity uses AMS III.D. Version 11, dated 23 rd December 2006 & AMS I.D. Version 10, dated 23 rd December The Biogas Flow (m 3 /day) is measured by the flow meter and is recorded in the log book. The data is archived cumulatively and manual recorded by Biogas and Mechanical operators in the daily sheet. The daily sheet is submitted to CDM Clerk who will verify and record the data in plant calculation sheet and then send the same to the CDM officer and CDM Manager for information. All the meters used are calibrated annually. The log books were checked for the monitoring period and data of Biogas flow were also cross checked with the daily sheets. Calibration Certificates of the monitoring equipment was checked for the monitoring period and found consistent. 8/18

9 The Methane Content in Biogas (%) is measured by the methane gas analyzer and is recorded in the log book. Gas analyzer used is calibrated annually. Calibration Certificates of the gas analyzer was checked for the monitoring period and was not found consistent hence CAR 01 was raised to ask the PP to substantiate why Methane gas analyzer used for report methane content during 23rd November 2006 and 31st August 2007 not covering by the gas analyzer calibration certificate(ref cert:g6247_444). The Electricity Generation (MWh/year) is measured continuously using three-phase meters. Data are recorded manually in daily report about 9.00 am. Calibration Certificates of the energy meters was checked for the monitoring period and was not found consistent hence CAR 01 was raised to ask the PP to substantiate about the calibration certificate of the fifth energy meter as there are 5 electricity meters have been used in project activity but calibration certificate was provided for only 4 meters. The Quantity of Sludge Removed from the Treatment System and its Application : The sludge from the digesters is treated aerobically on sludge drying beds. The dried sludge is sold off to farmers in the nearby region for use as fertilisers. The whole sludge treatment is aerobic hence does not generate any CO2. The sludge generated is monitored and recorded Determinations of the Reductions in GHG Emissions Emission Reduction Where, ER = (BE) methane + (BE) power generation PE LE (BE) methane: Baseline Emission due to methane release avoidance is calculated as the product of amount of biogas used as fuel, the weighted average methane content and GWP of methane, resulting in ERs in tco2e. (BE) power generation: Baseline Emission due to renewable power generation is calculated by multiplying the amount of net electricity generated by the project activity with the grid emission factor tco2e/mwh, The emission factor for this monitoring period is for 2008 only, but this emission factor is conservative as the emission factor for 2006 & 2007 was , and this emission factor was checked and verified from SGS validated project having UN No PE: The Project Emission because of electricity consumption have been calculated based on electricity consumption attributable to the project activity as specified in the registered CDM PDD. LE: Leakage emission need not be accounted in accordance with the registered CDM PDD. Monitoring period Baseline Emissions due to power generation Baseline Emissions due to methane release Project Emissions Leakage Emission Reduction 25 th July 06 to 31 st December st January 07 to 31 st December st January 08 to 23 rd March Total Total Emission Reductions Verified = Review of Additional Data from Other Sources if Appropriate No additional data has been reviewed. 9/18

10 2.4 Reporting of Findings As an outcome of the verification process, the team can raise different types of findings In general, where insufficient or inaccurate information is available and clarification or new information is required the team shall raise a New Information Request (NIR) specifying what additional information is required. Where a non-conformance arises the team shall raise a Corrective Action Request (CAR). A CAR is issued, where: I. the verification is not able to obtain sufficient evidence for the reported emission reductions or part of the reported emission reductions. In this case these emission reductions shall not be verified and certified; II. the verification has identified misstatements in the reported emission reductions. Emission reductions with misstatements shall be discounted based on the verifiers ex-post determination of the achieved emission reductions The verification process may be halted until this information has been made available to the assessors satisfaction. Failure to address a NIR may result in a CAR. Information or clarifications provided as a result of an NIR may also lead to a CAR. Observations may be raised which are for the benefit of future projects and future verification actors. These have no impact upon the completion of the verification activity. Corrective Action Requests and New Information Requests are detailed in Periodic Verification Checklist. The Project Developer is given the opportunity to close outstanding CARs and respond to NIRs and Observations. 2.5 Internal Quality Control Following the completion of the assessment process and a recommendation by the Assessment Team, all documentation will be forwarded to a Technical Reviewer. The task of the Technical Reviewer is to check that all procedures have been followed and all conclusions are justified. The Technical Reviewer will either accept or reject the recommendation made by the assessment team. 10/18

11 3. Verification Findings 3.1 Remaining Issues, including any Material Discrepancy, FAR s from Previous Validation There are no issues pending from the previous validation report. 3.2 Project Implementation Project was implemented and equipment installed as described in the registered PDD; The project has not been implemented to create GHG emissions followed by its subsequent removal or destruction. The project activity replaces existing low rate open anaerobic lagoons with high rate closed anaerobic digesters. The methane rich biogas released from the treatment of swine barn flushing wastewater is captured in the high rate closed anaerobic digesters and further combusted in gas turbines for electricity generation. The project activity was successfully commissioned and installation of digester and UASB chamber was done on 28th February Commissioning certificate reference number below was checked and found satisfactory 1. SPM 3/1 Dated 20 th April SPM 3/2 Dated 12 th May SPM 3/3-1 Dated 28 th February Completeness of Monitoring The monitoring of the project activity is found to be in conformity with monitoring methodology described in AMS III.D version 11, dated 23 rd December 2006 & AMS I.D version 10, dated 23 rd December 2006 and monitoring plan indicated in the registered PDD of project activity. The required monitoring systems have been installed and operational. The meters comply with appropriate quality standards applicable for the used technology. The sustaining records were sufficient to enable verification of emission reductions. CAR 1 was raised to ask the PP to substantiate why Methane gas analyzer used for report methane content during 23rd November 2006 and 31st August 2007 not covering by the gas analyzer calibration certificate(ref cert:g6247_444). In response of this CAR PP replies that the readings shall be corrected by the maximum drift identified in the subsequent calibration but that would result in higher VERs as the drift found was positive. Hence the project has already been penalised with reported values that are lower than actual values. However, to add to the conservativeness of the emission reduction calculation, the typical error of the device (+/-3%) from the specifications (please refer to GA45/GA45Plus Technical Specification document reference LFGASTS002 / Issue 1 attached) has been subtracted from the reported values for the period concerned, hence this CAR was closed out. CAR 1 was further raised to ask the PP to substantiate about the calibration certificate of the fifth energy meter as there are 5 electricity meters have been used in project activity but calibration certificate was provided for only 4 meters. In response of this CAR PP replies that the readings shall be corrected by the maximum drift identified in the subsequent calibration. However, in this case the subsequent calibration has shown that there is no drift in the meter and hence that the meter performed within the desired levels of accuracy throughout the monitoring period. However, to add to the conservativeness of the emission reduction calculation, the typical error of the device +/-2% (class 2 meter, please refer to the website has been subtracted from the reported values. The explanation given by PP was found satisfactory; hence CAR 1 was closed out. CAR 5 was raised as there was some data mismatch in the data of the methane content between the reported values and the verified values as: 11/18

12 Date Calculation Sheet (Reported Data) Third party Test Report (Verified Data) 31/10/ /11/ /12/ /02/ /03/ /04/ /05/ /06/ /06/ /07/ /07/ /08/ /08/ In response of this CAR PP correct the values in the revised excel sheet, which was checked and found satisfactory, hence this CAR 5 was closed out. CAR 5 was further raised as there was some data mismatch between the reported values and the verified values of the electricity generation as: Date Calculation Sheet (Reported Data) Third party Test Report (Verified Data) 10/08/ kwh 4355 kwh 11/08/ kwh 2277 kwh In response of this CAR PP correct the values in the revised excel sheet, which was checked and found satisfactory, hence this CAR 5 was closed out. NIR 2 was raised such as to ask the PP about the Data cross reference has not been set for the data recording (Biogas Quantity & Electricity Generated). Please clarify how to ensure on the reporting data. In response of this NIR PP replies that the site s start of operations has been proved to be prior to the start of the monitoring period in July 2006 through commissioning certificates and various records of involvement from third party companies throughout the monitoring period. During the monitoring period, the site s procedure in terms of data collection was to record data in soft format immediately after the qualified operator took his daily electricity production and biogas usage readings. The data was then checked thoroughly by the CDM officer. As the biogas plant and the farm are managed by the same entity, the CDM officer has full access and knowledge of the pig farm records and events that can affect the biogas production or electricity usage (electricity is only for in-house purposes). Hence, the CDM officer can conduct some very efficient checks and identify when an error occurred during data collection. Please refer to CAR 4 for detail of the QA/QC checks performed. Efficiency and production checks have also been conducted by Ecosecurities experienced staff, and for the rare days where data did not satisfy our checks default values have been taken. This gives a good level of confidence on the accuracy of the data reported. The explanation given by PP was found satisfactory and was cross checked during site visit, hence this NIR 2 was closed out. 3.4 Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations The calculation of emission reductions was not clear. CAR 3 was raised as Project Emission is not been considered for the monitoring period while the same was considered during the PDD writing based on the actual data available. In the workbook, in ER calculation sheet project emission due to Electricity consumption is not clear, please justify. 12/18

13 In response of this CAR PP response that the PDD estimation counts Project Emission from the following sources in section B.6.3: - Methane not captured by the project (2,502 tco2/year). However, the PDD states in section B.6.1 During the crediting period, the gas meter will reflect only the methane captured by the Project. The biogas not captured by the Project would not be included as a part of the ex-post baseline. Therefore 10% deduction of meter reading will not be included in ex-post estimate. For this reason, the project emission from Methane not captured by the project has been excluded from the Monitoring Plan detailed in the PDD and hence not included in the monitored Emission Reduction calculation. - Annual CO2 emissions from Electricity consumption ( tco2/year). This was based on the maximum capacity of equipment installed for the operation of the project activity calculated at validation stage at MWh/year. This equipment has not been modified since validation of the project throughout the monitoring period, hence Project Emission from Annual CO2 emission from electricity consumption have been included in the monitored Emission Reduction calculation (refer to Monitoring Workbook and Monitoring Report) based on the same installed capacity of MWh/year. All the other sources of Project emission listed in the methodology AMS III.D version 11 are considered null in the PDD based on actual data available. The situation of these sources of Project Emission has not changed since PDD writing time and their emission of CO2 was null throughout the Monitoring period: - Methane captured and not flared: the PDD states This parameter will only be monitored when there is surplus gas from the Project and a flare is installed. During this monitoring period, all biogas was sent to the 5 gensets in the project boundaries in order to optimize usage of the biogas so there was no surplus gas; - CO2 emission from non-biogenic methane: no non-biogenic methane was used on site; - Methane emission from anaerobic treatment of sludge: all sludge removed from the anaerobic reactors is treated aerobically in sludge drying beds. The above explanation given by PP was not clear and CAR 3 was further reopened as: - As per registered PDD 10% deduction will not be included in ex post calculation (in the monitoring period covers after the registration), but this monitoring period covers the period when the PDD was prepared and this conservative figure of (2,502 tco2/year) was used as the estimation of project emissions and should be thus considered for this monitoring period. - As per the registered PDD Esludge, the aerobic treatment and/or proper soil application of the sludge leaving the digester in the project activity shall also be ensured and monitored, please justify. In response of this PP replies that: In the PDD, the ex-ante estimation of baseline emission accounts for methane avoidance based on IPCC tier 2 approach (paragraph Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management of the volume Agriculture, Forestry and other Land use ) as required by AMS III.D. In this model, the baseline emission is based on the swine population and the annual methane emission factor of the swine, hence include the overall methane production of the system. As a matter of consistency with the ex-ante estimation of baseline emission, the project emission from methane not captured has been estimated ex-ante in the PDD using IPCC tier 2 approach, considering that 10% of the overall methane production accounted for in the baseline will not be captured by the project. However, during any monitoring period (regardless registration date of the project), the baseline emission is determined only on the actual monitored quantity of methane captured and destroyed by the project activity and does not include any methane not captured by the digesters (contrarily to the ex-ante estimations where overall methane production was accounted for - please refer to paragraph 6, AMS III.D. version 11) hence, for a matter of consistency, it would be incorrect to account for 10% deduction in the monitored emission reduction, whether those occur before or after registration of the project. Further, paragraph 6 of AMS III.D., version 11, also ensures that the project activity does not include any benefit of any incremental methane generated by the digesters in the project activity over anaerobic lagoons in the baseline. 13/18

14 The aerobic treatment of sludge is being ensured using aerobic sludge drying beds with a depth of 15 to 20 cm only. Further, the dried sludge is sold to farmers for use as fertilizer in the field. Thus, it is ensured that any sludge leaving the digester is not resulting in methane emissions (project emissions) and the proper soil application of sludge is being monitored. The amount of sludge removed from the digester and dried during the monitoring period has now been added to the Monitoring Workbook. The above explanation given by PP was found satisfactory and hence this CAR 3 was closed out. NIR 7 was raised such as to ask the PP to please provide the documentary evidence for the multiplication factor of 60 used for the energy meter. In response to NIR 7 PP replies that the electrical diagram Genset Generation circuit for SPM farm 3 provided shows, the electricity meters are connected to the main power line through a current transformer. The purpose of such a device that is widely used in the industry and fitted on most electricity meters is to reduce the current going to the meter as these normally do not stand a high current. A picture Current transformer picture for SPM farm 3 of the current transformer is also made available to the verifier. The factor of 300/5A ( = 60) is visible on the device, meaning that the input current can be up to 300A and the output would be 5A, hence reducing any input current reaching the energy meter by 60. As the electrical diagram shows, this device does not affect at all the electrical current sent to the load, and this is why in the Monitoring Workbook the cumulated records for the electricity meter are multiplied by 60. The above explanation given by PP was found satisfactory; hence NIR 7 was closed out. CAR 8 was raised as the value of Methane content in biogas given in the registered PDD was 65%, while the reported value for the same in the verification period is different; however the actual data for the same was available at the time of PDD preparation. In response to CAR 8 replies that the monitored Methane content value reaches an average of 65.50% over the monitoring period. Hence it only differs from the value of 65% used for estimation purposes in the PDD by 0.77%, which shows, as expected, a very good correlation between the two values. The calculation workbook and monitoring report has been verified during site visit that found differ of methane content less than 1 %, hence CAR 8 was closed out. The details of the reported and the verified values for all parameters are listed above in section Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Critical parameters used for the determination of the Emission Reductions are discussed above in section above. All the data recorded are in compliance with the monitoring report. 3.6 Management and Operational System GHG management organization of Group Plc has been established, all related records have been documented. Team member responsibility has been allocated as per PDD and monitoring plan. CAR 4 was raised such as to ask the PP to please explain QA/QC procedure in detail in the monitoring report. Also explain what the procedure in case of any data uncertainty is. In response of this CAR PP replies that QA/QC procedure and procedure in case of data uncertainty have been added to the monitoring report, which was checked and has been discussed during site visit, PP needs to made internal audits to identify the typo errors and the mismatch, FAR 1 was raised for the same., CAR 6 was raised as On page 5 of the monitoring report under Title Proof of Title, was not demonstrated as per the VCS 2007 guidelines for the same. In response to CAR 6 PP replies that: The Host Nation Letter of Approval (provided at verification site visit) proves the ownership by the project entity SPM Feedmill Co. Ltd of the emission reductions realised by the project ; 14/18

15 The document Transfer of Title from Project to Ecosecurities Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farms proves the transfer of the ownership of the VERs generated during this monitoring period from the project entity SPM Feedmill Co. Ltd to Ecosecurities Capital Ltd. Both the above mentioned document were checked for the name and signature of the authorised person and was found satisfactory, hence CAR 6 was closed out. 15/18

16 4. Verification Conclusion SGS United Kingdom Ltd has been contracted by Group PLC to examine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions reported from the Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm for the period, 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 equating to tonnes of CO2 equivalents. Our opinion relates to the project s GHG emissions and resulting GHG emissions reductions reported for the period and the verification testing conducted against the GHG Assertion. The management of the Group PLC is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions on the basis set out within the project Monitoring Report version 3, dated 14 th October Calculation and determination of GHG emission reductions from the project is the responsibility of the management of the Group PLC. The development and maintenance of records and reporting procedures are in accordance with the monitoring report. It is SGS responsibility to express an independent GHG verification opinion on the GHG emissions from the project for the period 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 and on the calculation of GHG emission reductions from the project based on the verified emissions for the same. The verification approach was based on the requirements as defined in Voluntary Carbon Standard VCS Our approach is risk-based, drawing on an understanding of the risks associated with reporting GHG emissions data and the controls in place to mitigate these. Our examination includes assessment, on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in relation to the project s GHG emission reductions for the period 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008. We planned and performed our work to obtain the information and explanations that we considered necessary to provide sufficient evidence for us to give reasonable assurance that the amount of GHG emission reductions for the period 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008, prepared on the basis of the Monitoring Report, dated 14 th October 2008, are fairly stated. We conducted our verification with regard to the client s GHG projects PDD and monitoring report which included Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm at project plan, baseline applied and baseline GHG emissions or removals, Monitoring and Verification Plan, GHG Emission reduction, removal enhancements. This assessment included collection of evidence supporting the reported data checking whether the provisions of the Monitoring and Verification Plan in the PDD were consistently and appropriately applied We have verified whether the information included in the monitoring report representing the project baseline is current and has been extracted from the project site and the emission reduction achieved has been determined by correctly subtracting emissions for the monitoring period 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 from the baseline figures for the comparable Reporting Period: From 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 Verified emission in the above reporting period: Project Emissions: 381 tco 2 eqivalent Leakage: 0 tco 2 eqivalent Baseline Emissions: tco 2 eqivalent Emission Reductions: tco 2 eqivalent Based on process and procedures conducted, in our opinion, Group Plc assertion on GHG emission reductions for the Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm project during the reporting period 25/07/2006 to 23/03/2008 is materially correct and is a fair representation of the GHG data and information and the emission reductions are fairly stated. The GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of approved monitoring methodology AMS III.D. Version 11, dated 23 rd December 2006 & AMS I.D. Version 10, dated 23 rd December " Capital Ltd. entered into a emission reduction purchase agreement (ERPA) with SPM Feedmill Co. Ltd. by which SPM Feedmill Co. Ltd. will transfer the ownership of the emission reductions covered in this verification period to Capital Ltd, upon payment as per the terms ageed in the ERPA. Subsequently, Capital Ltd. appointed Group Plc, to prepare the GHG reporting required for the verification and to contract the verification services with SGS." 16/18

17 SGS confirms that the project is implemented as described in the validated and registered project design documents. Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm the following: Project Title: UNFCCC Reference Number: 1558 Registered and Approved PDD used for Verification: Methodology used for Verification: Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm Registered PDD version 4, dated 15 th January 2008 and Validation Report No 2007: 2047 by DNV AMS.III.D version 11, dated 23 rd December 2006 & AMS.I.D version 10, dated 23 rd December Applicable Period: up to Total GHG Emission Reductions Verified: 33,853 tco 2 e Signed on behalf of the Verification Body by Authorized Signatory SGS United Kingdom Limited Signature: Name: Siddharth Yadav Date: 21 st November /18

18 5. Document References /1/ Voluntary Carbon Standard, version /2/ Approved monitoring methodology AMS III D version 11, dated 23 rd December 2006 & AMS I D version 10, dated 23 rd December /3/ Project Design Document version 4 dated 15/01/2008 /4/ Monitoring report of Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm, version 3 dated 14/10/2008 /5/ Calibration Certificates for the period of 2006 to /6/ Monthly Record for Plant Log Book for the period of June 6 to March /7/ Calculation Excel sheet /8/ Validation Report by DNV NO , dated 15 th January /9/ Meter Specifications - o0o - 18/18