GS VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

Transcription

1 GS VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT - 2ND PERIODIC HIVOS INDONESIA DOMESTIC BIOGAS PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES (IDBP) (ID 1172) POA UNFCCC REF. NO. : 1172 Report No: GM-GSPVer 15/03 15/049 Date: TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstraße, Essen, Germany Phone: Fax: S01-VA050-F10 Rev.0.2 /

2 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Verification Report: Report No. Rev. No. Date of 1 st issue: Date of this rev. Programme of Activities: GM-GSPVer 15/03 15/ Title: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) GS Registration date: GS No.: Verification No.: 2 nd periodic verification PoA Scale Large Scale Duration of the PoA: From: To: Small Scale 28 years VPA #1 title: Inclusion date GS No.: VPA Crediting period: From: To: Renewable (7y) Fixed (10y) Project Participant(s): Client: Coordinating/Managing Entity VPA No. 1 Monitoring period (MP): From: To: HIVOS Non Annex 1 country: Indonesia PP from non Annex 1 country: HIVOS Indonesia No. of days: Applied methodology/ies HIVOS Indonesia Annex 1 country: Netherlands PP from Annex 1 country: HIVOS Title: Version No.: Scope(s) / TA(s) Technologies and practices to displace decentralized thermal energy consumption 1.0 1, 3 & 13 Monitoring Report #1: Monitoring Report #2: version: version: VPA Batch version: version: VPA Batch v NA NA NA Verification team / Verification Team: Technical review: approval: Technical Review and Cheong, Chun Yuen Lubanga, David (OR) Winter, Stefan Approval: (Robert) TL/TE Winter, Stefan Key dates of verification: Summary of Verification opinion Publication of Work Plan : DVerR issued: On-site (from): On-site (to): HIVOS has commissioned the to carry out the 2nd periodic verification of the PoA: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172), with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the validated project design document, the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied approved GS methodology, the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately, the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions, and the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. Page 2 of 118

3 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) the project has contributed to sustainable development. Emission reductions: [t CO 2e] Document information: TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as listed below (verified amount). Total verified amount As per draft MR #1: As per VPA-DD: 53,609 19,149 /a 54,063 As per draft MR #2 NA Filename: IDBP MPII FVerR No. of pages: Page 3 of 118

4 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Abbreviations: CA CAR CDM CER CO 2 CO 2eq CL VPA-DD DVerR ER FAR GHG MP MR PA PoA-DD PP QA/QC UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Clarification Request Component Project Activity Design Document Verification Report Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Project Activity Programme of Activities Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Standard Page 4 of 118

5 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 7 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION Technical Project Description of the Programme of Activities Technical Description of the Component Project Activities Project Location Project Verification History METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE Verification Steps Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Verification Planning Desk review On-site assessment verification reporting Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs reporting Technical review approval VERIFICATION FINDINGS SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS Involved Parties and Project Participants Implementation of the project Project history Post registration changes Compliance with the monitoring plan Compliance with the monitoring methodology Carbon Monitoring parameters Monitoring report(s) Sampling Implementation of the sampling plan Sampling approaches during verification 35 Page 5 of 118

6 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) ER Calculation Quality Management Actual emission reductions during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions Contribution to Sustainable Development Overall Aspects of the Verification Grievances Hints for next periodic Verification VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT REFERENCES ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF INVOLVED PERSONNEL Page 6 of 118

7 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 1. INTRODUCTION HIVOS has commissioned the (CP) to carry out the 2nd periodic verification of the Programme of Activities: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The verifiers have reviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan(s) (MP) as described in the registered PoA-DD and VPA-DD and GS PoA Passport. GHG data for this monitoring period was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the CDM Validation and Verification Standard /VVS/ of the UNFCCC and the applied methodology. Sustainable Development Indicators for this monitoring period were verified in detailed manner as required under the GS Toolkit /GST, GS requirements /GSR/, relevant GS Annexes, and the GS Validation and Verification Manual /GS-VVM/. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this 2nd periodic verification of the above mentioned UNFCCC registered project activity Objective The objective of the verification is the review and ex-post determination by an independent entity of the GHG emission reductions. It includes the verification of the: - implementation and operation of the project activity as given in the VPA-DD, - compliance with applied approved methodology and the provisions of the monitoring plan, - data given in the monitoring report by checking the monitoring records, the emissions reduction calculation and supporting evidence, - accuracy of the monitoring equipment, - quality of evidence, - significance of reporting risks and risks of material misstatements Scope The verification of this registered project is based on the validated Programme of Activities design document /PoA-DD/, the validated Component Project Activity Design Document (VPA-DD), the GS PoA Passport, the monitoring report(s), emission reduction calculation spread sheet /XLS/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the onsite assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. Page 7 of 118

8 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) The verification is carried out on the basis of the following requirements, applicable for this Programme of Activities: - Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol /KP/, - guidelines for the implementation of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol as presented in the Marrakech Accords under decision 3/CMP.1 /MA/, and subsequent decisions made by the Executive Board and COP/MOP, - other relevant rules, including the host country legislation, - CDM Validation and Verification Standard /VVS/, - GS Toolkit and Requirements versions 2.2 /GST/GSR/ - monitoring plan as given in the registered PoA-DD and VPA-DD(s) /PoA-DD/VPA-DD/, - Approved GS Methodology. /GSM/ Page 8 of 118

9 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. Technical Project Description of the Programme of Activities The technology implemented under the PoA is biodigesters to treat animal waste anaerobically to generate biogas for use as cooking fuel. The capacity of the biodigesters ranges from 4 m 3 to 15 m 3. There are two types of biogas systems that will be initially introduced by this PoA. Fixed-dome biodigester: This model is constructed with bricks and stone masonry installed underground. Plastic bag biodigester: This model constitutes a plastic biodigester composed of a large bag that is typically stored above-ground Technical Description of the Component Project Activities The Programme of Activities consists in a total of 1 type of VPA briefly described as following: VPA-1 The technology implemented under the VPA-1 are biodigesters of fixed dome type installed underground to treat animal waste anaerobically to generate biogas for use as cooking fuel. The key parameters of the VPA-1 are given in Table 2-1.1: Table 2-1.1: Technical data of the component project activity Plant size 4 m 3 6 m 3 8 m 3 10 m 3 15 m 3 Manure requirements (kg/day) Estimated biogas production (m 3 /day) Estimated firewood savings (kg/day) Project Location The details of the VPA locations are given in Table 2-2: Table 2-2: VPA(s) Location VPA No.: 1 Host Country Region: Project location address: Project Location Indonesia 9 active provinces during the current monitoring period 9 provinces during monitoring period Page 9 of 118

10 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) VPA No.: 1 Latitude / longitude of program provinces: Project Location # Province Latitude Longitude 1 Lampung S 6 45' ' E ' ' 2 West Java S 8 0' ' E 106 0' ' 3 Central Java & Yogyakarta S 8 30' ' E ' ' 5 East Java S 9 0' ' E ' ' 6 Bali S 9 0' ' E 114 0' ' 7 Nusa Tenggara Barat S 9 20' ' E ' ' 8 Sumba S 11 10' ' E ' ' 9 South Sulawesi S E ' ' 2.4. Project Verification History Essential events since the registration of the PoA-DD are presented in the following Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Status of previous Monitoring Periods # Item Time Status 1 PoA-DD registration Registered 2. Inclusion of VPA Completed 3 1 st Monitoring period to Issued 4 2 nd Monitoring period to Issuance Requested An overview of all Post Registration Changes is given in the following table. Table 2-4: Overview Post Registration Changes # Changes on PoA- DD/VPA- DD Applicable from to / as of MP Type of post registration change 1) Description Status 2) / Date 1) 2) IVPAiPoA : Inclusion of component project activities in programme of activities TDfrMP : Temporary deviation from registered monitoring plan TDfMM : Temporary deviation from the monitoring methodology CrVPADD : Corrections to the registered VPA-DD PCfrMP : Permanent changes from registered Monitoring Plan PCfMM : Permanent changes from Monitoring Methodology CoPD : Changes to the project design of a registered PoA, or generic or specific VPA Approval (by EB) or Acceptance (by DOE) Page 10 of 118

11 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE 3.1. Verification Steps The verification consisted of the following steps: Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers A desk review of the carbon and SD Monitoring Reports submitted by the client and additional supporting documents with the use of customised /CPM/ verification protocol according to the Validation and Verification Standards /VVS//GS-VVM/, Verification planning, On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer and its contractors, verification reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any) verification reporting Technical review approval of the verification Contract review To assure that the project falls within the scopes for which accreditation is held, the necessary competences to carry out the verification can be provided, Impartiality issues are clear and in line with the CDM accreditation requirements a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed Appointment of team members and technical reviewers On the basis of a competence analysis and individual availabilities a verification team, consisting of one team leader was appointed. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the Table 3-1 below. Page 11 of 118

12 Qualification Status 2) Scheme competence 3) Technical competence 4) Verification competence 5) Host country Competence On-site visit GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 3-1: Involved Personnel Name Company Function 1) Mr. Ms. Cheong, Chun Yuen (Robert) TN Malaysia TL SA 1.2,3.1, 13.2 Mr. Ms. Lubanga, David OR B) A - - Mr. Ms. Winter, Stefan TN Cert GmbH TR/FA B) SA 1.2,3.1, ) 2) 3) 4) 5) TL: Team Leader; TM: Team Member, TR: Technical review; OT: Observer-Team, OR: Observer-TR; FA: approval GHG Auditor Status: A: Assessor; LA: Lead Assessor; SA: Senior Assessor; T: Trainee; TE: Technical Expert GHG auditor status (at least Assessor) As per S01-MU03 or S01-VA070-A2 (such as 1.1, 1.2, ) In case of verification projects A) Team Member: GHG auditor (at least Assessor status), Technical Expert (incl. Host Country Expert or Verification Expert), not ETE B) No team member All team members contributed to the review of documents, the assessment of the component project activities and to the preparation of this report under the leadership of the team leader. Technical experts contributed to the assessment of special aspects of the project activity, e.g. technical or host country aspects. Statements of competence for the above mentioned team members are enclosed in annex 2 of this report Verification Planning In order to ensure a complete, transparent and timely execution of the verification task the team leader has planned the complete sequence of events necessary to arrive at a substantiated final verification opinion. Various tools have been established in order to ensure an effective verification planning. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning For the identification of potential reporting risks and the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas table A-1 is used. The structure and content of this table is given in Table 3-2 below. Page 12 of 118

13 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 3-2: Table A-1; Identification of verification risk areas Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification of potential reporting risk The following potential risks were identified and divided and structured according to the possible areas of occurance. Identification, assessment and testing of management controls The potential risks of raw data generation have been identified in the course of the monitoring system implementation. The following measures were taken in order to minimize the corresponding risks. The following measures are implemented: Areas of residual risks Despite the measures implemented in order to reduce the occurrence probability the following residual risks remain and have to be addressed in the course of every verification. Additional verification testing performed The additional verification testing performed is described. Testing may include: - Sample cross checking of manual transfers of data - Recalculation - Spreadsheet walk throughs to check links and equations - Inspection of calibration and maintenance records for key equipment - Check sampling analysis results Discussions with process engineers who have detailed knowledge of process uncertainty/error bands. The completed table A-1 is enclosed in Annex 1 (table A-1) to this report. Project specific periodic verification checklist Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Having investigated the residual risks, the conclusions should be noted here. Errors and uncertainties are highlighted. In order to ensure transparency and consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a project specific verification protocol has been developed. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means and results of the verification. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: - It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM/GS project is expected to meet for verification - It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifying DOE documents how a particular requirement has been proved and the result of the verification. Page 13 of 118

14 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) The basic structure of this project specific verification protocol for the periodic verification is described in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Table A-2; Structure of the project specific periodic verification checklist Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist Checklist Item Verification Team Comments The checklist items in Table A-2 are linked to the various requirements the monitoring of the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity. It further includes guidance for the verification team. Gives reference to the information source on which the assessment is based on. The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the assessment of the verification team and how the assessment was carried out. The reporting requirements of the VVS shall be covered in this section. Conclusion Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is fulfilled (), or a CAR, CL or FAR (see below) is raised. The assessment refers to the draft verification stage. Conclusion In case of a corrective action or a clarification the final assessment at the final verification stage is given. The periodic verification checklist (verification protocol) is the backbone of the complete verification starting from the desk review until final assessment. Detailed assessments and findings are discussed within this checklist and not necessarily repeated in the main text of this report. The completed verification protocol is enclosed in Annex 1 (table A-2) to this report Desk review During the desk review all documents initially provided by the client and documents relevant for the verification were reviewed. The main documents are listed below: the last revision of the PoA-DD and VPA-DD including the monitoring plan /PoA-DD//VPA-DD/, the last revision of the validation report /VAL/, documentation of previous verifications /VER/ the monitoring report(s), including the claimed emission reductions for the project, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/. The SD monitoring report Other supporting documents, such as publicly available information on the UNFCCC website and background information were also reviewed. Page 14 of 118

15 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 3.6. On-site assessment As most essential part of the verification exercise it is indispensable to carry out an inspection on site in order to verify that the project is implemented in accordance with the applicable criteria. Furthermore the on-site assessment is necessary to check the monitoring data with respect to accuracy to ensure the calculation of emission reductions. The main tasks covered during the site visit include, but are not limited to: The monitoring data were checked completely. An assessment of the implementation and operation of the registered component project activity as per the registered VPA-DD or any approved revision thereof; A review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; The data aggregation trails were checked via spot sample down to the level of the meter recordings. Interviews with relevant personnel to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan in the VPA-DD; A cross check between information provided in the monitoring report and data from other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources; A check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance and observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PoA- DD, VPA-DD and the selected methodology and corresponding tool(s), where applicable; A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions; A detailed review of the implementation and monitoring of all SD indicators as per the registered GS PoA Passport An identification of quality control and quality assurance procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters. Before and during the on-site visit the verification team performed interviews with the project participants to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. Representatives of HIVOS Indonesia and Climate Focus (project consultant) including the operational staff of the plant were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Interviewed persons and interview topics Page 15 of 118

16 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Interviewed Persons / Entities 1. Projects & Operations Personnel Hivos Indonesia 2. Consultant Climate Focus Interview topics - General aspects of the project - Technical equipment and operation - Changes since validation / previous verification - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Remaining issues from validation / previous verification - Calibrations - Quality management system - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Implementation of the monitoring plan - Monitoring data management - Data uncertainty and residual risks - GHG emission reduction calculation - Implementation of SD indicators - Contribution to Sustainable Development - Procedural aspects of the verification - Maintenance - Environmental aspects - SD Indicators monitoring - GS MRI Issuance Review Comment The list of interviewees is included in chapter verification reporting On the basis of the desk review, the on-site visit, follow-up interviews and further background investigation the verification protocol is completed. This protocol together with a general project and procedural description of the verification and a detailed list of the verification findings form the draft verification report. This report is sent to the client for resolution of raised CARs, CLs and FARs Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs Nonconformities raised during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliver high quality emission reductions is identified. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, if: Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; Page 16 of 118

17 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; Issues identified in a FAR during validation or previous verifications requiring actions by the project participants to be verified during verification have not been resolved. The verification team uses the term Clarification Request (CL), which is be issued if: information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. Forward Action Requests (FAR) indicate essential risks for further periodic verifications. Forward Action Requests are issued, if: the monitoring and reporting require attention and / or adjustment for the next verification period. For a detailed list of all CARs, CLs and FARs raised in the course of the verification pl. refer to chapter reporting Upon successful closure of all raised CARs and CLs the final verification report including a positive verification opinion can be issued. In case not all essential issues could finally be resolved, a final report including a negative verification opinion is issued. The final report summarizes the final assessments w.r.t. all applicable criteria Technical review Before submission of the final verification report a technical review of the whole verification procedure is carried out. The technical reviewer is a competent GHG auditor being appointed for the scope this project falls under. The technical reviewer is not considered to be part of the verification team and thus not involved in the decision making process up to the technical review. As a result of the technical review process the verification opinion and the topic specific assessments as prepared by the verification team leader may be confirmed or revised. Furthermore reporting improvements might be achieved approval After successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of the complete verification will be carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of TÜV NORD. After this step the request for issuance can be started. Page 17 of 118

18 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoring report(s), the calculation spreadsheet /ER/, PoA-DD /PoA-DD/, VPA-DD /VPA-DD/, the Validation Report /VAL/ and other supporting documents, as well as from the on-site assessment and the interviews are summarised. The summary of CAR, CL and FAR issued are shown in Table 4-1: Table 4-1: Summary of CAR, CL and FAR Verification topic No. of CAR No. of CL No. of FAR A Description of project activity B Implementation of project activity C Description of Monitoring System D Carbon Data and Parameters E - Calculation of Emission Reductions F Sustainability Monitoring Parameters SUM The following tables include all raised CARs, CLs and FARs and the assessments of the same by the verification team. For an in depth evaluation of all verification items it should be referred to the verification protocols (see Annex). Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) MR version 1.0 section 1.1, table 2: The number of units installed in each province is not indicated. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. B1 The referred information has been included on p.8 of the revised MR 1.1, see Table 4. Page 18 of 118

19 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox B1 MR version 1.1 section 1.1: Table 4 is added to indicate the number of units installed in each province. The number of units in installed each province is according to the database. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) MR version 1.0 section 1.3, table 3: The accumulative number of units built per year is not tabulated. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox B2 Revised MR 1.1 Table 3 (p.8) has been updated to account for the cumulative number of units installed per year. MR version 1.1 section 1.3, table 3: The table is updated to include the cumulative number of units installed per year. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0, Section 3.1, Operation rate: The PP is requested to clarify Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the the following: context (e.g. section) 1. The current MP is MR2 and MRI was stated. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. B3 2. The source for 386 households reporting non-functioning of their biodigester. 3. The source for 14 non-operating days for each household 4. The source for emission reduction potential 3.16 per biodigester per year. 1. MRI has been updated to MR II in MR version The source of the non-functioning rate of the digesters has been added as footnote to the revised MR 1.1 (p.27). See IDBP Page 19 of 118

20 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox B3 Database dated 24 March 2015, sheet NON FUNCTIONAL DIGESTERS. The number has been updated to The source for non-operating days has been made available see Memo Perbaikan Reaktor. However, the actual number of days referred in this report is 15 days, not 14 days. Consequently, the MR 1.1 has been updated to include the 15 days of nonoperations (see footnotes 30 and 31 on p.27). The ER1_Emission reduction calculation VPA 1 MRII 6May2015 has also been updated to reflect the change (see cells E89 in the GS VER 2013 and GS VER 2014 sheets. 4. The 3.16 value indicates the total emission reduction potential per biodigester per year. See the emission reduction calculation spread sheet, dated 6 May 2015 (Cell E86, sheets GS VER 2013 or GS VER MR version 1.1, Section 3.1, Operation rate: 1. Corrected to read as MRII. 2. The source of the non-functioning rate of the digesters is added in revised MR and the information is derived from See IDBP Database dated 24 March 2015, sheet NON FUNCTIONAL DIGESTERS sheet. The number of non-functioning disgester for the monitoring period is revised to 337 units. 3. The source for the 15 non-operating days for each household is derived from the Memo Perbaikan Reaktor. The memo is reviewed that states 15 days. The data in MR and ER spreadsheets for GS VER 2013 and GS VER 2014 were reviewed and could confirm is applied correctly. 4. The source for emission reduction potential of 3.16 per biodigester per year is the calculated value derived from the ER spreadsheet. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) MR version 1.0: During the GS Issuance Review for MPI, 2 FARs were raised. FAR 2 is not addressed. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. B4 This GS FAR#2 states the CME is requested to categories the waste treatment/disposal system clearly as per the IPCC table for default emission factor for various type of disposal methods in future monitoring period. Section 7 of the revised MR 1.1 has been updated to explain how this FAR has been addressed. A table illustrating the bio-slurry storage methods, as surveyed during the BUS 2015, has been included to show how the final Page 20 of 118

21 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox MCF is derived. B4 MR version 1.1: The GS FAR #2 is added in Section 7 of revised MR. The applied default factor on MCF applied for the various type of disposal methods are derived from 2006 IPCC Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management; Table 10A-4 p.77. The data applied in the Primary Data BUS 2015, sheet Raw Data Cells OO211 OO216 is reviewed and could confirm is correct. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0, Section 3.22, table 16: Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the 1. Table 16 refers to the registered PDD section E.7.1. The PoA-DD context (e.g. section) is a generic document and the parameters for monitoring shall be in accordance to Section D.6.1 of VPA-DD. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox D1 2. The SD parameters shall be reported in a separate table as SD parameters monitoring. 1. to the VPA-DD has been added in MR version A separate SD monitoring parameter title has been added to the Table 18 in MR version 1.1 MR version 1.1, Section 3.22, table 18 (change from table 16): 1. The reference is corrected to VPA-DD section B.6.1: 2. The SD parameters are reported in a separate table for clarity. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0, Section 3.22, Table 17, Parameters not monitored: Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the 1. Parameters NRB and DRB are not listed. context (e.g. section) 2. EF awms,t : The data in the table is incomplete and inconsistent with the registered VPA-DD Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the cor- D2 1. Parameters NRB and DRB have been listed in the Table 19 in MR version 1.1 Page 21 of 118

22 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding rective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox D2 2. EF awms,t data including other animal types has been listed in the Table 19 in MR version 1.1 MR version 1.1, Section 3.22, Table 19 (change from table 17): 1. Parameters NRB and DRB are added and in accordance with registered VPA-DD. 2. EF awms,t : The data in the table is revised and include the other animals type and consistent with the registered VPA-DD To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding E 1 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0, Section 2.4, BUS Survey design: Table 7 indicates the total Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the number of HHs was 177. However, in the Primary BUS 2015 spreadsheet, it context (e.g. section) indicates 189 HHs. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. In addition, there is not survey results indicated in the Primary BUS 2015 for row 145 to 155. During the meeting with JRI (the firm responsible for conducting the BUS 2015 and preparing the draft BUS 2015 report) held during the site visit on 23 April 2015 in Jakarta, Mrs. Rita Maria (Director) clarified that there were small inconsistencies in the reporting of the draft results and that some drop-off digester households had been omitted from the initial presentation. The final numbers pertaining to the BUS 2015 and reported in the document I_Primary Data BUS 2015-plus drop-off.xls are: A. 199 total amount of approached households (Please see column A of the Raw Data sheet) B. 181 total amount of surveys successfully completed (i.e. where households had operational biodigesters). C. 18 (difference A B) households that reported biodigesters to be non-operational (see rows 20, , of the Raw Data sheet) The missing survey results in the original Primary BUS 2015 data sheet (rows 145 to 151) related to 7 households that reported a non-functioning biodigester hence the lack of input data. The other 11 households were left out from the sheet. Please see document I_Primary Data BUS plus drop-off.xls for the full overview. The sample size exceeds the minimum requirement of 30 samples per age group (5 age groups * 30 samples = 150 samples). Oversampling of at least 5 households per age group has been applied. Table 8 of the MR version 1.1 has been updated to include these figures Page 22 of 118

23 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding E 1 Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox MR version 1.1, Section 2.4, BUS Survey design: According to the usage survey report, the number of households selected for the survey was households with complete survey information, 18 households reported the digesters were dropped-off due to lack of information and 11 households were left out. Table 8 of revised MR is updated with the survey results. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) MR version 1.0 Section 3.2.3: The baseline emissions equation is not demonstrated how BE thermal energy is determined. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox E2 The MR v 1.1 Section has been updated to include the equation (3) for the calculation of the baseline emissions. MR version 1.1 Section 3.2.3: The equation for BE thermal energy baseline emissions determination is added in revised MR and in accordance to the applied methodology. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0 Section 3.25: Parameter LE Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the survey method. This is not reported in BUS 2015 survey and there is no p,y is monitored annually using context (e.g. section) leakage determined in the ER spreadsheet Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) E3 As per clarification from the Gold Standard, LE p,y is 0% as per the Table 32 in Section 3.25 in MR version 1.1. can be made to the exchange between the Consultant and the Gold Standard. MR version 1.1 Section 3.25, Parameter LE p,y : The respond above from the PP did not addressed the methodology requirements. The verification team has communicated with GS technical team for clarification and request the DOE to issue a FAR as regards to leakage. Page 23 of 118

24 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) shall be added. Finding Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox E3 Therefore FAR E6 is raised as below that will be addressed in the next verification based on GS issuance review comments. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding KPT Primary Data and Analysis Spreadsheet: Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the 1. Refer Biogas HH sheet Column AI, there numbers are keyed-in. context (e.g. section) There is no linkage where these data are derived. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. E4 2. Refer Non-Biogas HH Sheet Columns AH, AI and AP are keyedin. There is no linkage where these values are derived? 3. Refer Non-Biogas HH Sheet Column AQ: The value is calculated using a formula. There is no linkage to demonstrate where the applied data of 1.92, 60, 10.6 and 3 are derived. 4. The data of 1.92hrs/day from the Biogas User Survey 2012 is not applicable for this monitoring period since there was a survey conducted on September to October The numbers in this data sheet are keyed in as they have been transferred from original KPT surveys, which were completed by pen. The scanned copies of all KPT surveys have been made available for inspection. 2. Same as above. 3. Please refer to the Table 14 of MR version 1.1 for references to these numbers refers to the amount of hours of cooking by households as per the BUS refers to minutes/hour refers to the average amount of days households use up a 3kg LPG tank. 3 kg refers to the LPG tank size used by households (as confirmed also during the site visit). 4. The value 1.92 hrs/day from the BUS 2013 has been applied for the year up to 2013, while the value of 3.20 hrs/day from the BUS 2015 has been used for the 2014 calculations. This gives a weighted-average value of 2.15 hours/day, which has been updated and applied in the revised MR 2.0. See calculation of this figure in the emission reduction calculation spread sheet, Cumulative VER sheet, Cells B15 F18. To be conservative, a comparison has been replicated. Value 1.92 applied to June to Dec 2013 and 3.20 for 2014 to compare with 2.15 weighted average. With the replication, results show that applying a weighted average of 2.15 hr/day is more conservative as it leads to total ERs of 54,059. Assuming 1.92 up until Dec 2013 and then 3.2 for 2014 results in total ERs of 54,091. Please refer to the following additional sheets: Page 24 of 118

25 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding E4 ADDITIONAL_ER1_Emission reduction calculation VPA 1 MRII 11May2015 in this document, sheet 1.92 applies the LPG usage data from a project KPT assuming 1.92 hrs/day value. See E57. The corresponding value for 3.2 hrs/day can be found in sheet The Cumulative VER sheet then links to these two calculated ER figures in cells B3 and D3, respectively. ly, cells AE 11 BI11 apply the 1.92 figure (pre 2014 data), while BJ11 BU11 apply 3.20 (2014 data) ADDITIONAL_N_KPT primary data and analysis_cf25jun2014_cf_1.9 time LPG in this document, sheet Biogas HH, row AY has been updated to use 1.92 (cell AY64). Sheet 90/30 test in turn applies these results to calculation the ER for LPG usage in the project scenario see cell X57. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. ADDITIONAL_N_KPT primary data and analysis_cf25jun2014_cf_3.2 time LPG in this document, sheet Biogas HH, row AY has been updated to use 3.2 (cell AY64). Sheet 90/30 test in turn applies these results to calculation the ER for LPG usage in the project scenario see cell X57. KPT Primary Data and Analysis Spreadsheet: 1. Refer Biogas HH sheet Column AI: The data are derived from the KPT surveys questionnaires sheet and cross-checked for correctness. 2. Refer Non-Biogas HH Sheet Columns AH, AI and AP: The data are derived from the KPT surveys questionnaires sheet and crosschecked for correctness. 3. Refer Non-Biogas HH Sheet Column AQ: The data applied in the equation the total amount of LPG used by each household is derived from the data stated in MR. The data stated in the MR was cross-checked against the relevant documents for correctness. The verification team has inspected and interview the households during onsite on the size of the LPG tank is 3kg and the average number of days to complete usage of LPG gas is approx.. 10 to 14 days. The reported number of days of 10.6 is based on the study report by Pertamina. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox 4. The PP has demonstrated the comparison of the survey data conducted in year 2013 of value 1.92 h/d to the period from to and 3.20 h/d to the period from to and the average of 2.15h/d to the monitoring period that indicate a lower ERs. For conservativeness, the data 2.15h/d of LPG usage is applied in the ER calculations. The ER spreadsheet was reviewed and could confirm as appropriate. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Page 25 of 118

26 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) ER spreadsheet, Cumulative VER sheet: It is unclear what does the data in cells A33 to A51 represent. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox E5 This data was for internal cross-checking purposes. These cells have now been deleted. ER spreadsheet, Cumulative VER sheet: The data in cells A33 to A51 are of no relevant to the emission reductions, therefore deleted to avoid confusion. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding ER spreadsheet, GS VER 2013, GS VER 2014 and Bio Slurry Sheets: Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the The number dairy cows and pigs refer to BUS However, the values context (e.g. section) are not traceable in BUS Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox E6 The data is traceable to the primary input data sheets for BUS to the specific sections of this excel spreadsheet (Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet) have been included to facilitate tracing: Amount of dairy cows: Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Column MF cell MF194) Amount of market swine: Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Column LB cell LB194 ) ER spreadsheet, GS VER 2013, GS VER 2014 and Bio Slurry Sheets: The data for the number of dairy cows and market swine (pigs) in the respective sheets can be traced to the BUS 2015 raw data spreadsheet respective cells and are correct. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Page 26 of 118

27 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Finding Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0 Section 3.25: Parameter LE p,y is to be monitored in Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the accordance to the applied methodology 6. According to the registered context (e.g. section) VPA Section B.6.1 monitoring plan the data will collected every 2 years through survey and a default factor of 5% was applied as ex-ante. The survey conducted in 2014 did not include this parameter and therefore no data available. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox E7 The PP has considered a 0 leakage which the verification team considered as not conservative. The verification team request clarification from GS as regards on the monitoring of this parameter and the acceptable default factor to be applied for this crediting period if the survey cannot be conducted. The verifying DOE for the next monitoring period shall reviewed GS issuance review comments on the monitoring of this parameter and data to be applied. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Finding SD1 Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding MR version 1.0, Section 4.2: A comparison of each SD monitoring targets Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the was not made to indicate whether any improvement in each monitoring context (e.g. section) period. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and VT assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox Section 4.2 of the MR version 1.1 has been updated to include a comparison of each SD monitoring parameter through time. MR version 1.1, Section 4.2: The respective SD parameters tables are updated to include the situation from the MR of MPI to current monitoring period. The data were reviewed and could be confirm as correct. To be checked during the next verification Additional action should be taken (finding remains open) The finding is closed Page 27 of 118

28 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 5. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS The following paragraphs include the summary of the final verification assessments after all CARs and CLs are closed out. For details of the assessments pl. refer to the discussion of the verification findings in chapter 4 and the verification protocol (Annex 1) Involved Parties and Project Participants The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity. Table 5-1: Project Parties and project participants Characteristic Party Project Participant Non-Annex 1 Indonesia HIVOS Indonesia Annex 1 Netherlands HIVOS 5.2. Implementation of the project During the verification, a site visit was carried out from to On the basis of this site visit and the reviewed project documentation it can be confirmed that w.r.t. the realized technology, the project equipment, the project has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PoA-DD, VPA-DD and GS Passport. This 2 nd monitoring period is from to During this monitoring period, 2,890 bio-digesters were built and commissioned. The total number of bio-digesters commissioned as at were 14,139 units. Based on the usage survey, 337 units were reported non-operation during this monitoring period. Therefore, they were excluded in the carbon emissions calculation. The survey data was reviewed to confirm the 337 non-operation units and excluded in the ER calculations. Refer CAR B1, CAR B2 and CL B3 raised and closed out Project history During the validation the validating DOE might have raised issues that could not be closed or resolved during the validation stage. For this purpose FARs might have been raised. The verification report This is the 2 nd monitoring period. All FARs raise during the validation have been addressed by the verifying DOE during the 1 st verification of MRI. Page 28 of 118

29 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) During the 1 st verification of MPI, the verifying DOE and GS have raised several FARs. In Section 7 of MR, the CME has addressed the FARs raised and as follows: MPI FARs raised during GS Issuance Review: FAR 01: The CME is requested to conduct the survey for usage rate in line with the methodology (page 24). The CME shall make sure that usage survey shall be able to capture the usage pattern of project technology. A single weighted average usage rate value shall be applied to the whole project population instead of age-group wise usage for the emission reduction calculation. CME Response: The usage rate applied in the ER calculation is in line with the applied methodology. A single weighted average usage rate value has been applied to the whole project population instead of age-group wise usage for the emission reduction calculation. The calculation of the single weighted average usage rate value is explored in Section 3.1, and equates to 94.1%. DOE Assessment: The usage survey report and primary data were reviewed and cross-checked with the usage rate applied in the ER spreadsheet for the whole monitored period and could confirm is a single weighted average. /S1/ER1/ Therefore the FAR is closed. FAR 02: The CME is requested to categories the waste treatment/disposal system clearly as per the IPCC table for default emission factor for various type of disposal methods in future monitoring period. CME Response: The MCF is determined through the different storage methods of the bio-slurry as reported in the BUS % of the farmers apply the bio-slurry as fertilizer on land. The digestate management system is daily spread as the bio-slurry is used by farmers as fertilizer through spread directly on the field. The corresponding MCF for this handling method is 0.75%. 1,2 Of the remaining 25%, 13% dump it into drains, 6% dump it into a nearby river or irrigation channel, 4% leave it in the biodigester, 1% gives it away to other farmers to be used as fertilizer, and 1% sells it to other farmers to be used as fertilizer. The resulting MCF for this remaining bio-slurry is 24.23%. Given that this only applies to 25% of the households, the MCF becomes 3.14% 3. The two MCF values combined (0.75% %) equal to 3.89%. The table below indicates the usage method of the bio-slurry and the corresponding MCF. 1 Calculated as: 0.75 * 1% (MCF of daily spread ) 2 IPCC Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management; Table 10A-4 p.77 3 Calculated as: 0.25 *((19%*0%)+(4%*78%)+(1%*1%)+(1%*1%) Page 29 of 118

30 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 2: Overview of bio-slurry handling methods Bio-slurry handling method 4 Percentage 5 Corresponding IPCC definition 6 Use as fertilizer 75% Daily spread 1% Dumped into open drain 13% Aerobic treatment 0% Dumped into river/irrigation 6% Aerobic treatment 0% MCF Left inside the biodigester 4% Liquid/slurry 78% Given out for free for fertilizer use 1% Daily spread 1% Sold for fertilizer use 1% Daily spread 1% Average MCF 3.89% The data can be traced back to the Primary Data BUS 2015 excel document, under the sheet Raw Data Cells OO211 OO216. DOE Assessment: The CME has categorised the waste treatment / disposal system in the MR according to the IPCC table for default emission factor for various type of disposal methods. The data for the various disposal methods are derived from the usage survey report and tabulated in the primary data sheet as mention above. The data were reviewed and could verify the MCF applied for the various disposal method is according to IPCC Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management, Table 10A-4 p.77. Therefore the FAR is closed. MPI FARs raised by DOE: FAR 1: The application of sludge/slurry shall be monitored according the applied methodology. If there is any anaerobic use/storage of bio slurry under anaerobic conditions reported from monitoring survey, the PP shall account the project emission accordingly. The PP can propose a method to account the emissions. CME Response: According to Section 3.22 of the MR, the application of bio-slurry is monitored by BUS 2015 in accordance with the monitoring plan of the registered VPA-DD. As per the BUS 2015, 75% of the households have applied bio-slurry as fertilizer. In other word, it can be assumed 25% of the households use the bio-slurry anaerobically. According to Section 3.26 of the MR, the emissions from bio-slurry of each biodigester are calculated by 5-steps approach which was approved for another similar GS biogas project (i.e. GS 1083). As per the calculations presented in the shared Emission Reduction Calculation (dated 30 March1 May 2015), the emissions are calculated to be tco 2 /year/hh which is 0.96% of the total annual ER per households. 4 Source: Biogas User Survey Source: see Primary Data BUS 2015 cells OO211 OO216 6 Source: IPCC Chapter 10 on Livestock Emissions Page 30 of 118

31 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) With reference to paragraph 87 of VVS version 2.1, these emissions can be ruled out from the total ER calculation since the emission from the bio-slurry is less than 1% of the annual ER. DOE Assessment: In the ER spreadsheet, the CME has demonstrated the emissions calculation for bio-slurry using the 5 steps approach similar to GS 1083 project. The calculated emissions was 0.03tCO 2 e/y/hh or 0.96% which is less than 1% of the total emission reductions form fuel switch and manure handling per household of tco 2 e/y/hh. The calculation in the ER spreadsheet was verified and considered as appropriate and correct. /ER1/ Therefore the FAR is closed. FAR 2: This FAR is closed by the verifying DOE at the time of the MPI MR is submitted for GS Issuance Review. /VER1/ Therefore, no further assessment required in this monitoring period. FAR 3: Regarding to the implementation of KPT, the LPG consumption is monitored by means of recording the time spent on LPG cooking during the first monitoring period. Then derive the weight of LPG consumption with reference to the average usage time of 3 kg LPG tank. This approach is deviated from the applied methodology TPDDTEC, however, it is accepted by the GS for the 1 st monitoring period. For the forth-coming verifications, the DOE shall check whether the KPT measurement is implemented in line with the applied methodology or GS s requirement. CME Response: As the KPT results are valid for a period of two years, and the first KPT was conducted in September 2013, a new KPT will need to be implemented by the CME in September This KPT will present the first opportunity for the CME to apply the suggested changes raised by FAR 2. DOE Assessment: According to the registered VPA-DD, KPT will be conducted once every 2 years. Therefore, the KPT results conducted during September 2013 is valid for the current monitoring period. The next KPT will be conducted in September 2015 and the results will be applied in the next monitoring period. During the onsite inspection of the visited households, it could confirm the capacity of the LPG is 3kgs and the average usage period between 3 to 4 weeks. Therefore, the FAR is closed. FAR 4: The CME is requested to conduct the survey for usage rate in line with the methodology (page 24). The CME shall make sure that usage survey shall be able to capture the usage pattern of project technology. A single weighted average usage Page 31 of 118

32 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) rate value shall be applied to the whole project population instead of age-group wise usage for the emission reduction calculation. CME Response: The PP will include the weighted average of the usage rate in the next verification period. The PP understood that for this first retro-active verification period the usage rate per usage year can be applied. This means that no further changes have been included in the ER calculation spread sheet. DOE Assessment: The usage survey report and primary data were reviewed and cross-checked with the usage rate applied in the ER spreadsheet for the whole monitored period and could confirm is a single weighted average. /S1/ER1/ Therefore the FAR is closed. Refer to CAR B4 raised and closed out Post registration changes No post registration changes applicable for this monitoring period have been observed Compliance with the monitoring plan The monitoring system and all applied procedures are in compliance to monitoring plan of the registered GS VPA-DD and GS PoA-DD. Evidence was available to the verification team to check the compliance of the monitoring plan. The reporting procedures reflect the requirements of the monitoring plan for the carbon monitoring and sustainability development criteria. All relevant data stored is for the whole monitoring period and traceable to the computer server at the PP office Compliance with the monitoring methodology The monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology Technologies and practices to displace decentralized thermal energy consumption, version Carbon Monitoring parameters During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in chapter B.6.1 of the VPA-DD) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The results as well as the verification procedure are described parameter-wise in the project specific verification checklist. Page 32 of 118

33 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Data and parameters monitored: Parameter Monitored Value Verification Opinion U p1,y : Cumulative usage rate for technologies in project scenario p1 in year y, based on cumulative adoption rate and drop off rate (fraction) N p1,y : Cumulative project operational rate included in the project database for project scenario p1 against baseline scenario b1 in year y No p1,y : Cumulative number of project technologies included in the project database for project scenario p1 in year y O p1,y : The average technology-days during which the biodigesters are operational for project scenario p1 against baseline scenario b1 in year y 94.1% The data is the calculated weighted average based on the age group percentage of units in operation. Age 0 1: 97.14% Age 1 2: 97.44% Age 2 3: 87.80% Age 3 4: 90.24% Age 4 5: 83.72% The age group results are derived from the usage survey report. /S1/ 14,125 7 The data is the number of units in operation for the monitoring period. The data is calculated using the usage survey results, the number of days units are in operation in a year. /S1/ 14,139 The data is the total number of biodigesters installed as at derived from the project database. /DB1/ The data is calculated as show in footnote 8 below. The data to calculate this parameter is derived from the usage survey results. /S1/ LE p1,y : Leakage in project scenario p1 during year y N T,h : Number of animals of livestock category T in premise h 0% Dairy cow: 5.21 Market swine: 0.28 The parameter was not monitored during this monitoring period. Therefore the value applied in ER calculations is incorrect. Refer CAR E3 and FAR E7 raised. The data is derived from the usage survey results as shown in Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Column MF). /S1/ The data is derived from the usage survey results as shown in the Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Column LB). /S1/ PL: Physical leakage of the biodigester 10% The value is default data derived from the registered GS VPA-DD section Calculated as No p1,y * (O p1,y/365), therefore 14,139 * (364.64/365) = 14,125 8 Calculated as (malfunctioning digesters * maximum amount of days of malfunctioning)/ No p1,y, therefore = 365 ((337*15)/14,139) = Page 33 of 118

34 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Parameter Monitored Value Verification Opinion BB b1,bio : Amount of woody biomass used in the baseline scenario b1 BB p1,bio : Quantity of biomass consumed in project scenario p1 during year y BB b1,fuel : Amount of fossil fuels used in the baseline scenario b1 BB p1,fuel : Quantity of fossil fuel consumed in project scenario p1 MS P,S,K : Fraction of livestock category T s manure not treated in bio-digester, in climate region k MS T,S,k : Fraction of livestock category T's manure fed into the bio-digester, S in climate region k 1.127t/y 0.116t/y LPG: t/y LPG: t/y Dairy cow: 30.05% Market swine: 0% Dairy cow: 69.94% Market swine: 100% The data is derived from the KPT survey conducted on and applicable for this monitoring period since the survey will be conducted once every 2 years according to the registered GS VPA-DD. The data is derived from the KPT survey conducted on and applicable for this monitoring period since the survey will be conducted once every 2 years according to the registered GS VPA-DD. The data is derived from the KPT survey conducted on and applicable for this monitoring period since the survey will be conducted once every 2 years according to the registered GS VPA-DD. The data is derived from the KPT survey conducted on and applicable for this monitoring period since the survey will be conducted once every 2 years according to the registered GS VPA-DD. The data is based on the usage survey results as shown in the Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Cells OF193 and NH193). /S1/ The data is based on the usage survey results as shown in Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (Cells OE 193 and NG193) /S1/ GWP CH4 : Global Warming Potential of methane 25 The data is a default value applicable for the 2 nd commitment period as from and derived from IPCC 9. Bio: Use of bio-slurry 75% The data is based on the usage survey results as shown in Primary data BUS 2015, Raw Data sheet (see cell OO211) /S1/ After appropriate corrections were carried out by the project participant it can be confirmed that all monitoring parameters have been measured / determined without material misstatements and in line with all applicable standards and relevant requirements. Refer CAR D1 raised and closed out. 9 Available on: Page 34 of 118

35 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Data and parameters not monitored: The ex-ante parameters stated in table of 18 of MR are derived from section B.5.1 of the registered VPA-DD version 7.0. The ex-ante data will be applicable for the current crediting period from to However, CAR D2 raised and closed out Monitoring report(s) A GS Monitoring Report along with relevant supporting documents was submitted to the verification team by the project participants. These documents form the basis for the verification opinion of TÜV NORD. During the verification, mistakes and needs for clarification were identified. The PP has carried out the requested corrections so that it can be confirmed that the Monitoring report is complete and transparent and accordance with the registered VPA-DD, the GS PoA Passport and relevant GS requirements Sampling Implementation of the sampling plan The PP has taken the approach for the sampling plan by adopting EB69 Annex 5 which includes level of assurance. The biogas usage survey has a design confidence precision level of at least 90/10 according to the GS requirement. The usage survey sample size was 199. The verification team has checked on the sampling plan and considered appropriate since an addition of 10% has been included to ensure the level of assurance and the number of households is representative Sampling approaches during verification The verification team has applied the sampling plan based on 90/10 confidence level to ensure the households interviewed are representative to meet GS requirements. The number of installed units as at is 14,139. Using the link to calculate the sample size, 68 households will be sufficient to obtain a confidence level of 90. The verification team has selected a sample size of 80 households from the clusters in the different villages, different districts & different provinces. Out of the 80 selected, 20 selected for the onsite inspection and 60 selected for telephone interview. /LHH/ Page 35 of 118

36 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) During the onsite visit, households were interviewed whilst 38 households were interviewed by telephone. 22 of the households for telephone interview were not reachable due to telephone numbers have changed or not at home. From the results from 59 interviewed households, it could confirm the following: 1. The usage of bio-slurry for farming activities; 2. Improved living conditions and cleaner environment; 3. A proper system to dispose the animal manure; 4. Free gas for cooking and lighting; Therefore, the sample size is representative based on the results obtained ER Calculation During the verification mistakes in the ER calculation were identified. Corresponding CARs were raised. A revised ER calculation was prepared by the PP and presented to the verification team. All raised issues were addressed appropriately so that all corresponding CARs could be closed out. Thus it is confirmed that the ER calculation is overall correct. Baseline Emissions: The baseline emissions have 2 components and as follows: 1. Emissions from displacement of fossil fuels and non-renewable biomass fuel. These emissions are the comparing of fuel consumption in a project scenario to the baseline scenario according to the registered GS VPA-DD. In the baseline scenario the fossil fuel is LPG and kerosene whilst the nonrenewable fuel is firewood. The equation applied: BE b1,co2,y = B b1,y * ((f NRB,y * EF b1,fuel,co2 ) + EF b1,fuel,nonco2 ) * NVC b1,fuel The inputs for the fuel usage data are derived from the KPT survey. The baseline emission for this component is 1.460tCO 2 e/y. 2. Emissions due to the avoidance of methane emissions from manure handling using the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 approach. The equation applied: BE b1,ch4,y = GWP CH4 * T (EF awms,t * N T,h ) The inputs for the type of animals and average population of animals are from the usage survey. The baseline emission for this component is 4.085tCO 2 e/y. Page 36 of 118

37 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Project Emissions: The project emissions are contributed from: 1. Continue use of baseline scenario fossil fuel and firewood in the project scenario; The equation applied: PE p1,co2,y = Ʃ (BB p1,fuel * NCV fuel * EF p1,fuel ) + (BB p1,bio * NCV bio * EF p1,fuel * f NRB ) The inputs for the fuel usage data are derived from the KPT survey. The project emission for this situation is 0.138tCO 2 e/y. 2. Physical leakage of biogas from the biodigester and incomplete combustion of biogas; The equation applied: PE p1,ch4,y = GWP CH4 * (N T,h,y * EF awms,t ) * PL y + (N T,h,y * EF awms,t ) * (1- η new stove) (1- PL y ) + PE awms,nt The input for the type of animals and number of animals are from the usage survey. The default value of 10% applied for physical leakage of biodigester. The animal waste not treated in the biodigester in the project scenario is considered as zero since the non-treated animals in the project scenario will have the same situation as they would have had in the baseline. The project emission for this situation is 2.247tCO 2 e/y. 3. Emissions from bio-slurry: In the ER spreadsheet, the CME has demonstrated the steps for the calculating the emissions for bio-slurry. The data applied in the calculation are derived from: IPCC default value for animal excretion amount, MCF and methane potential; 2. The average head count of animals type are based on the usage survey results; /S1/ 3. The digester efficiency is based on the study report and IPCC data; /O1/ The calculated emission for each digester was tco 2 e/y/hh approx. 0.96% of the total emissions per household per year of tco 2 e/y/hh and is less than 1%. Since the emissions is less than 1%, therefore, it is not required to consider in the final ER calculations. Page 37 of 118

38 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Leakage: In accordance to the methodology, leakage needed to be account for and the CME has to investigate the potential source of leakage as follows: a) The displaced baseline technologies are reused outside the project boundary in place of lower emitting technology or in a manner suggesting more usage than would have occurred in the absence of the project. b) The non-renewable biomass or fossil fuels saved under the project activity are used by non-project users who previously used lower emitting energy sources. c) The project significantly impacts the NRB fraction within an area where other CDM or VER project activities account for NRB fraction in their baseline scenario. d) The project population compensates for loss of the space heating effect of inefficient technology by adopting some other form of heating or by retaining some use of inefficient technology17. e) By virtue of promotion and marketing of a new technology with high efficiency, the project stimulates substitution within households who commonly used a technology with relatively lower emissions, in cases where such a trend is not eligible as an evolving baseline. In the registered GS VPA-DD, the parameter shall be monitored once every two years using survey methods to satisfy the requirements put forth by the methodology. However, there is no survey conducted so far for this parameter. The verification team has sought clarification from GS technical team and was requested to issue a FAR for review during issuance request so that corrective measures to be taken in the next verification. Refer CAR E3 raised and closed out. Subsequently FAR E7 was raised for consideration in the next verification, All other applicable default values are in accordance to the ex-ante parameter in Section B.5.1 of registered GS VPA-DD version 7.0. However, the default value for GWP of methane was changed from 21 to 25 tco 2 e in accordance to IPCC 10 and GS. Emission Reduction: The emission reduction is calculated for this monitoring period as follows: 1. Emission reductions from fuel switch. ER CO2, y = BE b1,co2,y PE p1,co2, y LE p1,co2, y = = tco 2 e/y 10 Page 38 of 118

39 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 2. Emission reductions from waste management. ER CH4,y = (BE b1,ch4,y PE p1,ch4,y LE p1,ch4,y ) = = tco 2 e/y The cumulative emission reductions for this monitoring period are determined as below: ER Total = (ER CO2,y + ER CH4,y ) * N p1,y * U p1,y = 54,063 tco 2 e The above ERs is summation for the monitoring period. The vintage ERs for the monitoring period as below: Vintage Year Period ER (tco 2 e) to , to ,739 Total 54,063 To be conservative, the total baseline emissions for biogas extracted are rounded down as integer. Project emissions are rounded-up to the next integer. To conclude, from the reviewed and replication of data input to the ER calculation, it can be confirmed the data stated in the MR is overall correct. Refer CL E 1, CAR E2, CAR E3, CL E5, CL E6 raised and closed out Quality Management Quality Management procedures for measurements, collection and compilation of data, data storage and archiving, calibration, maintenance and training of personnel in the framework of this GS PoA-DD have been defined. The procedures defined can be assessed as appropriate for the purpose. No significant deviations thereof have been observed during the verification Actual emission reductions during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards The MR(s) include(s) actual ER values achieved up to 31 December 2012 and actual values achieved from 1 January 2013 onwards as follows: Page 39 of 118

40 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 5-2: Emission reductions before and after the end of 2012 from ) to until Sum ) Emission reductions [tco 2 e] 23,809 64,626 88,435 1) Both days included Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions The MR includes a comparison of the calculated actual emission reductions with the ex-ante calculated values in the registered VPA-DD. Ex-Ante ERs: 30,376 tco 2 e (579 days) (Ex-ante 19,149 tco 2 e average for 365 days) Ex-Post ERs: 54,063 tco 2 e Difference: 23,687 tco 2 e The ex-post value is found to be higher than the ex-ante determined value. The reason for the increase as follows: 1. The number of installed units applied in the ER calculation was 7,983 as compared to 14,139 units for this monitoring period. 2. The GWP for methane potential applied in the registered VPA-DD was 21 whilst 25 is applied for this monitoring period. Therefore, the increased in ER for this monitoring period is comprehendible. The annual emissions for methane avoidance for this monitoring period are approx. 21,364 tco 2 e which still below the 60,000 tco 2 e threshold for Type III small scale project activity. The annual emissions for fuel switch for this monitoring period with the total thermal energy saved is MW th which is below the threshold of 45MW th per year for Type I small scale project activity Contribution to Sustainable Development The SD indicators as outlined in the sustainability monitoring plan of the GS PoA Passport are monitored and reported appropriately and cross-verified by means of desk review of survey reports, interviews with the CME operation personnel and selected households. The monitoring system and all applied procedures are in compliance to the sustainability monitoring plan in the registered GS VPA-DD and the Gold Standard principles. Page 40 of 118

41 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 5-1: Assessment of monitored SD Indicators No Indicator Chosen Parameter Situation as at Verification Opinion GS-03 Soil Condition Number of users applying the final biodigester slurry on agricultural land. 10,604 households The usage survey reported 75% of the households apply bio-slurry for the farming activities. /S1/ During the onsite inspection and telephone interviews it could confirm 74% of the households apply bio-slurry for farming activities. /LHH/ GS-06 Quality of employment Quality of employment refers to changes compared to the baseline in the qualitative value of employment, such as whether the jobs resulting from the project activity are highly or poorly qualified, temporary or permanent. The proportion of employees attending vocational training programs, as proven through issuance of a certificate to all constructors, will be monitored. 1,239 vocational trainings The value was based on the records in the database on training conducted for this monitoring period. /DB1/ During the onsite visits, the provincial officers and supervisors were interviewed to cross-checked on the training conducted. /IM02/IM05/ GS-07 Livelihood of the poor Livelihood of the poor refers to changes compared to the baseline in living conditions, access to healthcare services including affordability and poverty alleviation. To indicate improvement, as part of the Biogas User Survey users will be asked whether they have perceived an improvement in their living conditions after the installation of the biodigester Improved: 9,897 HHs (70%) The same: 4,100 HHs (29%) Worsened: 141 HHs (1%) The data is derived from the usage survey report. /S1/ During the onsite visit, the visited households confirmed the living conditions have improved as follows: 1. The biodigester has reduced the manure smell and disposal of untreated manure. 2. They now have free cooking gas and reduce the purchase of LPG. Thus reduced the household expenses. GS-08 Access to affordable and clean energy services Access to energy services refer to changes in unsustainable energy use. This will be monitored through the number of biogas units commissioned. 14,139 biodigesters implemented The number of biodigesters installed as at was derived from the database stored at the Jakarta office. /DB1/ During the onsite, the database was checked. The data officer and provincial officers were interviewed on the data submitted for the number of units installed. /IM02/ GS-09 Human and institutional capacity Changes compared to the baseline in education and skills, gender equality and empowerment. Women spend much of their time collecting firewood and cooking, and have little spare time to undertake activities that stimulate personal and 3,247 women attending O&M training The number of household women attended the O&M training was recorded in the database. /DB1/ During the onsite inspection, the visited households could confirm O&M training for the biodigester is provided by the provincial technical team regularly. /LHH/IM02/IM05/ Page 41 of 118

42 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) No Indicator Chosen Parameter entrepreneurial development. The number of women attending the Operation and Maintenance training as well as the bio-slurry utilization training will be monitored. Situation as at Verification Opinion GS-10 Qualitative employment and income generation GS-12 Technology transfer and technologica l selfreliance The number of jobs generated by within the IDBP as well as the number of constructors employed will be monitored. To evidence income generation, the amount of users selling biodigester slurry on the market will be monitored. Refers to changes compared to the baseline in activities that build usable and sustainable know-how in a region / country for a technology, where knowhow was previously lacking. The number of constructors trained and users attending the operation and maintenance training will be monitored 1,258 number of direct jobs created by the project 99 number of constructors employed under the project 424 households (3% of total) sell the bio-slurry on the market 10,294 O&M training The database was reviewed to crosschecked on the number of direct jobs and constructors created by the VPA. /DB1/ The percentage of households sell bioslurry was derived from the usage survey. The report was reviewed to cross-checked on the reported percentage of households sell bio-slurry. /S1/ The training records in the database were reviewed during onsite and could conclude the O&M trainings attended by the households and constructor supervisor. The households and supervisor was interviewed during onsite visit. /IM05/LHH/ The verification team can confirm that no changes to the registered SD parameters have occured that may have an impact on Gold Standard qualification of this project activity. Refer CAR SD1 raised and closed out Overall Aspects of the Verification All necessary and requested documentation was provided by the project participants so that a complete verification of all relevant issues could be carried out. Access was granted to all installed households which are relevant for the project performance and the monitoring activities. No issues have been identified indicating that the implementation of the project activity and the steps to claim emission reductions are compliant with the GS requirements. Page 42 of 118

43 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Grievances The PoA applies GS version 2.1, therefore there is no requirements on reporting of any grievances raised by local stakeholders. However, the verification team has interviewed the operational personnel, reviewed the survey report and there are no complaints and grievances raised by the householders. The verification team has interviewed the householders during the onsite inspection and there were no complaints as regards to the CME personnel and the constructors. The households are satisfied having installed a biodigester to have free cooking gas and savings in fuel costs Hints for next periodic Verification FAR E7 has been raised for consideration in the next verification. Page 43 of 118

44 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 6. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT HIVOS has commissioned the to carry out the 2nd periodic verification of the PoA: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172), with regard to the relevant requirements for GS project activities. The PoA reduces GHG emissions due to displacement of non-renewable cooking fuel with biogas, avoidance of methane emission from animal manure by capturing and destroying methane for thermal energy use and displacement of chemical fertilizers by the bio-slurry. This verification covers the emission reductions achieved by all the VPAs in its corresponding monitoring periods: VPA No. 1 Monitoring period (MP): From: To: In the course of the verification 9 Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and 4 Clarification Requests (CL) were raised and successfully closed. Furthermore 1 FAR is raised to improve the monitoring system in the future. The verification is based on the draft monitoring report(s), revised monitoring report(s), the monitoring plan as set out in the registered VPA-DD(s), the validation report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the validated project design document. the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied approved CDM methodology. the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately. the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions. the project contributes to sustainability development As the result of the 2nd periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the PoA has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 54,063 t CO 2 e Subang Jaya, Essen, Cheong, Chun Yuen (Robert) Verification Team Leader Winter, Stefan Approval Page 44 of 118

45 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) 7. REFERENCES Table 7-1: Documents provided by the project participant(s) Document Monitoring Report Monitoring Report version 1.0 dated Monitoring Report version 1.1 dated Monitoring Report version 1.2 dated Monitoring Report version 1.3 dated ER Spreadsheet /ER1/ ER spreadsheet version dated ER spreadsheet version dated /ER2/ ADDITIONAL ER1 Emission reduction calculation VPA 1 MRII 11May2015 ADDITIONAL N KPT primary data and analysis CF25Jun2014 CF 1.9 time LPG ADDITIONAL N KPT primary data and analysis CF25Jun2014 CF 3.2 time LPG Calibration /C1/ Calibration for 500gm and 1,000gm weights conducted by Balai Pengelola Laboratorium Metrologi dated Scale calibration form dated Calibration method dated Database Survey /DB1/ IDBP project database dated /S1/ Primary Biogas Usage Survey data User survey tabulation 2015 Biogas User survey (BUS) report dated Questionnaires form for BUS /S2/ KPT primary data and analysis dated KPT survey questionnaires forms Sustainability Development Indicator /SD1/ GS-03 Soil Condition: Primary Data BUS, Raw Data sheet cell OO211 Page 45 of 118

46 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) /SD2/ /SD3/ Document GS-06 Quality of Employment: IDBP Database March 2015, Operation & Maint training sheet GS-07 Livelihood of the poor: Biogas Usage Survey Report /SD4/ GS-08 Access to affordable and clean energy service: IDBP Database March 2015, tblpcrmster total input sheet. /SD5/ /SD6/ /SD7/ GS-09 Human and institutional capacity: IDBP Database March 2015, Operation & Maint training sheet GS-10: Quantitative employment and income generation: IDBP Database March 2015, CPO, Mason, Supervisor sheets GS-12 Technology transfer and technological self-reliance: IDBP Database March 2015, Operation & Maint training sheet Training /T1/ KPT training dated /T2/ Mason training programme QA/QC /QA1/ Operation and Maintenance Manual Others /O1/ Biogas as renewable energy theory and development Nepal /O2/ /O3/ Indonesian National Standard on LGP Stoves Kerosene to LP Gas Conversion Programme in Indonesia /O4/ Behaviour Analysis of Using the Household Fuel in Bogor /O5/ /O6/ /O7/ O5 IPCC Chapter 10 on Livestock emissions Memo Perbaikan Reaktor Supplement 1 Total respondents drop off rates Page 46 of 118

47 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Table 7-2: Background investigation and assessment documents /CPM/ /GSGWP/ Document TÜV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) The Application of Global Warming Potentials for Gold Standard Project Activities /GSIR/ GS Issuance Review dated /GSM/ Technologies and practices to displace decentralized thermal energy consumption, version 1.0 (TPDDTEC) /GSPPoA/ PoA Gold Standard Passport dated /GSPVPA1/ VPA1 Gold Standard Passport dated /GSR/ Gold Standard Requirements version 2.1 /GSS/ Guidelines for Sampling and Surveys for CDM Project Activities and Programme Of Activities, EB 69, Annex 5 /GST/ Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.1 /IPCC/ Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: 1. Non-CO 2 Stationery Combustion 2. Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management (Chapter 10) 3. IPCC Second Assessment Report Climate Change 1995: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change /KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997) /MA/ /GSPoA-DD/ Decision 3/CMP. 1 (Marrakesh Accords) GS Programme of Activites Design Document for GS PoA project: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) version 5.0, dated /PCP/ Project Cycle Procedure (Version 7.0) /PS/ CDM Project Standard (Version 7.0) /SSP/ /SSS/ Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities, Version 04.1 Standard for Sampling and Surveys for CDM Project Activities and Programme Of Page 47 of 118

48 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) Document Activities, EB 69, Annex 4 /VAL/ /VER1/ /VER/ /VPA1/ Validation Report for GS project Error! No text of specified style in document. version 01.8, dated Verification Report for GS project Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) version 01.4, dated Documents of previous verification (Monitoring report, verification report, ER calculation sheet) Component Project Activity Design Document for GS VPA-DD: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172), VPA-1(ID 1174), version 7, dated /VVS/ CDM Validation and Verification Standard (Version 07.0) Table 7-3: Websites used Link Organisation /gs/ CDM Gold Standard /unfccc/ UNFCCC /ipcc/ IPCC publications /ss/ Sampling Size Table 7-4: List of interviewed persons MoI 1 Name Organisation / Function /IM01/ V Mr. Ms Sundar Bajgain SNV / Senior Advisor Mr. Ms Agung Lenggono Biogas Technical / Yayasan Rumah Energi /IM02/ V Mr. Ms Agung Lenggono Biogas Technical Officer / Yayasan Rumah Energi Mr. Ms Yudha Hartanto Organic Fertiliser Officer / Yayasan Rumah Energi Page 48 of 118

49 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) MoI 1 Name Organisation / Function Mr. Ms Mr. Ms Benediktus Dwi Adi Asmoro Project Coordinator West Java / Yayasan Rumah Energi Sholahuddin Quality Inspector West Java / Yayasan Rumah Energi Mr. Ms Merlinda Embon Data Officer / Yayasan Rumah Energi /IM03/ V Mr. Ms Szymon Mikolajczyk Consultant / Climate Focus /IM04/ V Mr. Ms Rita Maria Director / JRI research /IM05/ V Mr. Ms Muchamad Aulia Nouyandi Supervisor / CPO List of households visited: /LHH/ No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Village, Subdistrict, District, Province) 1 V KBP0783 Tatang Suparman Cikahuripan, Lembang, Bandung Barat, Bandung 2 V EPP0167 Ble Usep Edi 3 V KBP0366 Ai Kuniati 4 V KBP0474 Tatang Bin Uju 5 V KBP0197 Alo Caryana 6 V KBP0326 Aan Nurjanah 7 V KBP0568 Cucu Rosmawati 8 V KBP0414 Dede Priatna 9 V KBP0259 Iim Sari 10 V KBP0257 Wahyudin Bi Ili 11 V KBP0359 Kusnia Page 49 of 118

50 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Village, Subdistrict, District, Province) 12 V KBP0277 Oke Sularman Sunteniaja, Lembany, Bandung Barat, Bandung 13 V KBP0382 Aep Tristna 14 V KBP0345 Sukmana 15 V KBP0853 Mulyana 16 V EPP0082 Ble Miftahudin 17 V KBP0389 Irin Sutisna 18 V KBP0381 Ape Dana bin Wana 19 V EPP0120 Ble Drh Umar Nm Jayagiri, Lembang, Bandung Barat, Bandung 20 V EPP0149 Ble Acih 21 V EPP0119 Ble Wahyu List of households interviewed by telephone calls: /LHH/ No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Province, District, Commune, Village) 1 T BOP0017 Ketut Sunarka Selat, Payagan, Gianyar, Bali 2 T BOP0051 Wayab Parta Penyabangan, Payagan, Gianyar, Bali 3 T IDP0226 Simantri Wayan Daging Undisan, Tembuku, Bangli, Bali 4 T IDP0241 Nengah Sarma Tembuku, Bandli, Bangli, Bali 5 T BEP0130 Ble Ady Rustam Efendi Beji, tulung, Klaten, Jawa Tengah 6 T BEP0132 Ble Sundaryono Baturetno, Banguntapan, Bantul, Jawa Barat 7 T BEP0135 Rokinem / Indro Sutrisno Sumberadi, Mlati, Sleman, Jawa Tengah Page 50 of 118

51 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Province, District, Commune, Village) 8 T BYP0060 Ble Hery Christanto / Wirot Inoyo Dlingo, Majosongo, Boyolali, Jawa Tengah 9 T BYP0062 Ble Janar Pancur, Pancur, Rembang, Jawa Tengah 10 T PBP0166 Esdm Suparjo Srimartani, Piyungan, Bantul, Jawa Tengah 11 T QAP0008 Ble Elan Suherlan Triharjo, Sleman, Sleman, Jawa Tengah 12 T QTP0041 Jumani Sempu, Andong, Semarang, Jawa Tengah 13 T RMP0150 Suparno Seloromo, Jenawi, Karanganyar, Jawa Tengah 14 T SAP0070 Ble Supriyanto Purworejo, Wonogiri, Wonogiri, Jawa Tengah 15 T SUP0052 Ble Drs. Lasini Anastasia Banjaroyo, Kalibawang, Kulon Progo, Jawa Tengah 16 T NGP0123 Suwoto Waturejo, Ngantang, Kab. Malang, Jawa Tengah 17 T NGP0126 Siami Waturejo, Ngantang, Kab. Malang, Jawa Tengah 18 T FJP0047 Supritanto Untoro, Trimurjo, Lampung Tengah, Lampung 19 T HBP0028 Suparlan Watuagung, Kalirejo, Lampung Tengah, Lampung 20 T HBP0030 Nining Fatmawati Watuagung, Kalirejo, Lampung Tengah, Lampung 21 T NUP0003 Kh. Ismail Marzuqi Suka Damai, Suka Damai, Natar, Lampung Tengah 22 T NHP0005 Drs. Muhyidin Pardi Panaragan Jaya, Tulang Bawang, Tulang Bawang, Lampung 23 T YLP0040 Nurul Hidayati Adirejo, Pekalongan, Lampung Page 51 of 118

52 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Province, District, Commune, Village) Timur, Lampung 24 T YLP0043 Budi Wahyono Batang Harjo, Batanghari, Lampung Timur, Lampung 25 T BSP0129 Bles Parakkasi Balocci Baru, Balocci, Pangkajene Kepuluan, Sulawesi Selatan 26 T BSP0132 Bles Said Ballenanging, Balocci, Pangkajene Kepuluan, Sulawesi Selatan 27 T BTP0216 Dak M. Dg Ngitung Cakura, Polobangkeng selatan, Takar, Sulawesi Selatan 28 T BTP0218 Dak Hasbullagrang Cakura, Polobangkeng selatan, Takar, Sulawesi Selatan 29 T BTP0219 Dak Gaffar DG Bella Bontoloe, Galesong, Taklar, Sulawesi Selatan 30 T BTP 0132 Dak Ismail Mone Cakura, Polobangkeng Selatan, Takar, Sulawesi Selatan 31 T BTP0238 Dak Jumali DG Ruppa Baramamase, Galesong Selatan, Takalar, Sulawesi Selatan 32 T BTP0243 Dak S DG Sarro Kalenna, Galesong, Takalar, Sulawesi Selatan 33 T REP0056 KLH Ismail Pattallassang, Sinjai Timur, Sinjai, Sulawesi Selatan 34 T REP0057 KLH Husen Pasir Putih, Sinjai Borong, Sinjai, Sulawesi Selatan 35 T REP0059 KLH H Emil Batu Belerang, Sinjai Borong, Sinjai, Sulawesi Selatan 36 T YMP0004 Salamudin Penedagandor, Labuhan Haji, Lombok Timur, NTB 37 T ALP0123 Mbepa Karanja Mbani Prailiu, Kambera, Sumba Timur, NTT Page 52 of 118

53 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) No. MoI 1 Biodigester Number Household Name Location (Province, District, Commune, Village) 38 T ALP0125 Veronika Beka Mayorga Kambajawa, Kota Waingapu, Sumba Timu, NTT 1) Means of Interview: (Telephone, , Visit) Page 53 of 118

54 GS Verification and Certification Report: Indonesia Domestic Biogas Programme of Activities (IDBP) (ID 1172) ANNEX A1: Verification Protocol A2: Statements of Competence of involved Personnel Page 54 of 118

55 ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification of potential reporting risk Installation of measuring equipment Dysfunction of installed equipment Maloperation by operational personnel Downtimes of equipment Exchange of equipment Change of measurement equipment characteristic Insufficient accuracy Change of technology Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Installation of modern and state of the art equipment Process control automation Internal data review Regular visual inspections of installed equipment Only skilled and trained personnel operates the relevant equipment Daily raw data checks Immediate exchange of dysfunctional equipment Stand-by duty is Areas of residual risks Raw data generation Inadequate installation / operation of the monitoring equipment Inadequate exchange of equipment Change of personnel Undetected errors measurement Inappropriateness of Management system procedures w.r.t. monitoring plan requirements (e.g. substitute value strategies) Non-application management procedures Insufficient accuracy Inappropriate of system QA/QC Additional verification testing Site visit Check of equipment Check of technical data sheets Check of suppliers information / guarantees Check of calibration records, if applicable Check of maintenance records Counter-check of raw data and commercial data Check of CDM management system Check of CDM related procedures Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) See Table A-2 Page 55 of 118

56 Identification of potential reporting risk Accuracy of values supplied by Third Parties Identification, assessment and testing of management controls organized Training Internal audit procedures Internal check of QA/QC measures of involved Third Parties Areas of residual risks Additional verification testing measures of Third Parties Application of CDM management system procedures Raw data collection and data aggregation Check of trainings Check of responsibilities Check of QA/QC documentation / evidences of involved Third Parties Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Wrong data transfer from raw data to daily and monthly aggregated reporting forms IT Systems Spread sheet programming Manual data transmission Data protection Responsibilities Cross-check of data Plausibility checks of various parameters. Appropriate archiving system Clear allocation of responsibilities Application of CDM Management system procedures Usage of standard software solutions Unintended usage of old data that has been revised Incomplete documentation Ex-post corrections of records Ambiguous sources of information Non-application management procedures of system Manual data transfer mistakes Check of data aggregation steps Counter-calculation Data integrity checks by means of graphical data analysis and calculation of specific performance figures Check of management system certification Check of data archiving system See Table A-2 Page 56 of 118

57 Identification of potential reporting risk Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Areas of residual risks Additional verification testing Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) (Spreadsheets) Limited access to IT systems Data protection procedures Unintended change of spread sheet programming or data base entries Problems caused by updating/upgrading or change of applied software Check of application of Management system procedures Other calculation parameters Emission factors, oxidation factors, coefficients The values and data sources applied are defined in the VPA-DD and monitoring plan Unintended or intended Modification of calculation parameters Wrong application of values Misinterpretations of the applied methodology and/ or the VPA-DD Missing update of applicable regulatory framework (e.g. IPCC values) Update-check regulatory framework of Countercheck of the applied MP in the MR against the methodology and the VPA-DD See Table A-2 Calculation Methods Page 57 of 118

58 Identification of potential reporting risk Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Areas of residual risks Additional verification testing Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Applied formulae Miscalculation Mistakes in spreadsheet calculation Advanced calculation and reporting tools A CDM coordinator is in charge of the CDM related calculations Usage of tested / counterchecked Excel spreadsheets Involvement of external consultants The danger of miscalculation can only be minimized. Countercheck on the basis of own calculation. Spread sheet walktrough. Plausibility checks Check of plots See Table A-2 Monitoring reporting Data transfer to the author of the monitoring report Data transfer to the monitoring report Unintended use of outdated versions An experienced CDM consultant is responsible for monitoring reporting. CDM QMS procedures are defined The danger of data transfer mistakes can only be minimized Inappropriate application of QMS procedures Counter check with evidences provided. Audit of procedure application See Table A-2 Page 58 of 118

59 Table A-2: (Project specific) Periodic Verification Checklist Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) A. Description of the PoA and its component project activity (-ies) A.1. Purpose and general description of the PoA and VPA(s) Check if section of the MR includes the following: - Purpose of the PoA and each VPA and the measures taken to reduce GHG emissions - Brief description of the installed technology and equipment - Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g. construction, commissioning, continued operation periods etc.) - Total emission reductions achieved in this monitoring period /GSPoA- DD/ /VPA1/ The verification team has checked section A.1 of the MR and confirms that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Purpose of the PoA and its VPA(s) and the measures taken to reduce GHG emissions Brief description of the installed technology and equipments Relevant dates for the VPAs (e.g. construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, VPA inclusion, etc) Emission reductions achieved in this monitoring period by each VPA and total emission reductions achieved by the PoA In this context no findings have been identified: A.2. Location of project activity Check if section of the MR reflects correctly the following: - Host Party(ies) /VPA1/ /IM/ The verification team has checked section A.2 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VPA-DD and information gathered during the site visit that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: - Region / State / Province etc. Host Party(ies) - City / Town / Community etc. Region / State / Province - Physical / geographical location (e.g. Latitude City / Town / Community Page 59 of 118

60 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) and Longitude) Physical / Geographical location In this context no findings have been identified: A.3. Parties and Project Participants (EB 75, Annex 7, A.3) Check if section of the MR includes the following: - All PPs as displayed on the UNFCCC website - A correctly filled table as per the MR template /GS/ The verification team has checked section A.3 of the MR as well as the GS website and confirms that: all PPs as displayed on the project related GS website are correctly listed the table as per the template MR has been correctly filled In this context no findings have been identified: A.4. of applied methodology Check if section of the MR correctly describes / includes the following: - to the applicable version of the methodology - to the applicable version(s) of relevant methodological tools /VPA1/ /GS/ The verification team has checked section A.4 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VPA-DD and displayed on the GS website that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Number, title and version of the applicable GS Methodology Name and version of applicable methodological tools Relevant GS decisions - Relevant GS/EB decisions, if applicable In this context no findings have been identified: A.5. Crediting period of project activity Check if section of the MR correctly includes the following: - Start date of the crediting period. In this context please check, if applicable, whether post registration changes to the start date have been /GS/ /GSIR/ The verification team has checked section A.5 of the MR(s) and confirms by means of comparison with the information displayed on the GS website that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Start date of the crediting period. Type and length of the crediting period Page 60 of 118

61 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) accepted by the GS. - Length and type of the crediting period In this context no findings have been identified: A.6. Publication of the Work Plan Check if the work plan has been made submitted to GS before the verification commenced. /GS/ The verification team has ensured and confirms by means of checking the respective project information on the GS website that: The work and audit plan, was submitted to GS prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments have been received. In this context no findings have been identified: B. Implementation of project activity B.1. Description of implemented registered programme of activities Check if section of the MR correctly describes / includes the following: - Implementation status of the PoA and its VPAs - Detailed description of installed technology(ies) / technical processes and equipment applied - Diagrams (where appropriate) - Whether a single report or two MR are prepared; in case of two MR, check that all VPAs are considered in two separate batches /GSPoA- DD/ /VPA1) /IM/ The verification team has checked section B.1 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the PoA-DD and VPA-DD, the project standard and information gathered during the site visit that: OR the description of the implementation status of the VPA is in line with the applicable provisions of the Gold standard an appropriate description of the installed technology(ies), technical process and equipment incl. diagrams, where applicable, has been included one single MR has been provided including all VPAs, two different MRs are prepared including all VPAs and information on the reference numbers of the VPAs that are included in each batch. Page 61 of 118

62 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In this context the following findings have been identified: B.1.1. Initial project implementation Assess whether the VPA has been implemented and operated as per the registered VPA-DD and are all physical features of the project in place. Further focus on the potential phase wise implementation and check the reporting on the corresponding status and starting dates accordingly. Check if the project is still in compliance with the applicability conditions of the methodology. Also, discuss if applicable the necessity of PRC notifications / approvals. /VPA1/ The verification team has checked the implemented project activity and the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VAP-DD, the applicable Gold Standard Requirements, Toolkit and information gathered during the site visit that: the project has been implemented and operated as per the registered VAP-DD and the GS Passport and all physical features of the project are in place the project has been implemented phase wise and corresponding evidence has been provided the project is still in compliance with the applied methodology CAR B1 CAR B2 In this context the following findings have been identified: Refer CAR B1 and CAR B2 raised B.1.2. Technical equipment changes (VVS; 225 a, 226) Check if relevant technical equipment of the project activity has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period. Further ensure that consistent notations of key equipment (meters etc.) in MR and calculation spreadsheet are applied /VPA1/ The verification team has checked the implemented project activity and the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VPA-DD, the applicable GS Requirements and Toolkit and information gathered during the site visit and interviews that: no technical equipment has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, QMS records, maintenance records, instrument specifications. the notations of key equipment are consistently applied in the project documentation In this context no findings have been identified: Page 62 of 118

63 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In case of changes, check whether the project is still in line with the registered VPA-DD and assure that these changes have been considered in the monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation. In case of post registration changes pl. refer to chapter B.2. B.1.3. Operation of the project activity (VVS; 225 a, 226) Check if relevant operation modes of the project activity have been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period. Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, operation log sheets, data management system records. In case of changes, check whether the project is still in line with the registered VPA-DD and assure that these changes have been considered in the monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation. /VPA1/ The verification team has checked the implemented project activity and the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VPA-DD, the applicable Gold Standard Requirements and Toolkit and information gathered during the site visit and interviews that: no relevant operation modes of the project activity have been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period the following changes have been adopted during the monitoring period, however the project is still in line with the registered PDD: In case of post registration changes pl. refer to chapter B.2. B.1.4. Incidents (VVS; 225 a, 226) Identify if there have been any significant incidents, The verification team has checked the implemented project activity and the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the VPA-DD, the applicable Gold Standard Requirements and Toolkit and information gathered during the site CL B3 Page 63 of 118

64 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) deviant operation modes and / or downtimes of the equipment? Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, operational log sheets, analysis of performance data. visit and interviews that: no significant incidents, deviant operation modes and / or downtimes of the equipment happened during the monitoring period the following incidents, deviant operation modes and / or downtimes of the equipment happened during the monitoring period: Refer CL B3 raised B.1.5. Legislation Find out esp. in the context of methodological requirements - whether relevant legislation with effect on the project activity in the host country has been changed. The verification team has checked the host country legislation and confirms by means of comparison with the implemented project that: no relevant legislation with effect on the project activity in the host country has been changed Assess, in case of changes, whether consequences for the PA with regard to relevant CDM requirements have been accounted for. In this context no findings have been identified. In case of changes data sources shall be referenced. B.1.6. Open issues from validation (VVS; 213) Check (esp. in case of 1 st periodic verification) whether there are any open issues indicated in the validation report (e.g. FAR)? /VAL/ There were no open issues addressed in the validation report All open issues from the validation have been appropriately addressed. The following issues related to the validation have not yet been appropriately addressed: B.1.7. Open issues from previous There were no open issues addressed in the previous CAR B4 Page 64 of 118

65 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) verification (VVS; 213; 284 h) Check in case of further periodic verifications whether there are any open issues indicated in previous verification reports (FAR) and take into consideration the guidance as specified in VVS. /VER/ /GSIR/ verification report All open issues from the previous verification have been appropriately addressed. The following issues related to the previous verification have not yet been appropriately addressed: Refer CAR B4 raised B.2. Post registration changes B.2.1. Post registration changes applicable to the proposed project activity Indicate whether any post registration change already approved or under approval by the GS has been identified. /VPA1/ No, by means of site visit, document check and interview it could be verified that the project is implemented and operated in line with the registered VAP-DD and the applied methodology. (Please proceed with section C) Yes, post registration changes have been identified and are assessed in detail in the subsequent steps. (Please proceed with B.2.2.) B.2.2. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan or applied methodology (TDfrMP; TDfMM) (EB 75, Annex 7, B.2.1; VVS ) Indicate whether any temporary deviations have been applied during this monitoring period. In cases where approval has been sought from the EB please provide reference. If applied, provide a description of the deviation(s). This should include the reasons for the deviation(s), /VPA1/ No TDfrMP or TDfMM have been submitted to the GS prior to the current monitoring period The following TDfrMP or TDfMM have been approved or are under approval by the GS 1 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Page 65 of 118

66 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) how it deviates from the monitoring plan and/or applied methodology(ies), the duration for which the deviation(s) is(are) applicable and justification on the conservativeness of the approach. Indicate if the deviation will lead to a reduction in the accuracy and if so, which conservative assumptions and discount factors have been applied. For deviation(s) that require prior approval by the Board, include the date of approval and reference number. Ref. No. 2 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a TDfrMP or TDfMM has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following TDfrMP or TDfMM is to be requested from the GS for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following TDfrMP or TDfMM for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: In this context no findings have been identified: B.2.3. Corrections (EB 75, Annex 7, B.2.2; VVS; ) /VPA1/ During the verification of the current MP no need for Page 66 of 118

67 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Indicate whether any corrections to project information or parameters fixed at validation have been approved during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. In cases where the correction(s) and the revised VPA-DD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, provide the approval date and reference number. Otherwise, provide the version number and the completion date of the revised VPA-DD. Please check and report that the corrected information is an accurate reflection of the actual project information and that the corrected parameters are in accordance with the applied methodology and the monitoring plan. corrections has been identified. The following corrections have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: In this context no findings have been identified: B.2.4. Permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan or applied methodology (PCfrMP; PCfMM) (EB 75, Annex 7, B.2.3; VVS; ) Indicate whether any permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan or applied methodologies have been approved during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. Assure that modifications or additions of technologies/measures respect to the VPA-DD were already included in the originally registered PoA-DD. In cases where the change(s) and the revised VPA- DD are approved prior to the submission of this /VPA1/ No PCfrMP or PCfMM.have been submitted to the GS prior to the current monitoring period The following PCfrMP or PCfMM have been approved or are under approval by the GS 1 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref. No. 2 Title Page 67 of 118

68 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) monitoring report for request for issuance, provide the approval date and reference number. Otherwise, provide the version number and the completion date of the revised VPA-DD. Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a PCfrMP or PCfMM has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following PCfrMP or PCfMM is to be requested from the GS for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following PCfrMP or PCfMM for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: In this context no findings have been identified: B.2.5. Changes to the project design of the registered PoA / VPA (CoPD) (EB 75, Annex 7, B.2.4; VVS; ) Indicate whether any changes to the project design of the project activity have been approved during this /VPA1/ No CoPD has been submitted to the GS prior to the current monitoring period The following CoPD has been approved or are under approval by the GS Page 68 of 118

69 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. Assure that modifications or additions of technologies/measures respect to the VPA-DD were already included in the originally registered PoA-DD In cases where the change(s) and the revised VPA- DD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, provide the approval date and reference number. Otherwise, provide the version number and the completion date of the revised VPA-DD. 1 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref. No. 2 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a CoPD has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following CoPD.is to be requested from the GS for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following CoPD for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: Page 69 of 118

70 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In this context no findings have been identified: C. Description of monitoring system C.1. Monitoring Plan VPA-DD Compliance (VVS, ) Check if the monitoring plan is in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered VPA-DD (or any accepted revised MP). Please check esp. If: - all parameters stated in the MP of the registered VPA-DD have been monitored and updated as applicable /VPA1/ /S1-S3/ By means of comparison of the MR with the registered VPA-DD (or any revisions thereof) the verification team has checked whether the MP is in compliance with the registered VPA-DD. The outcome is as follows: The MP is completely in accordance with the last registered/approved version of the VPA-DD / MP. In this context no findings have been identified: - the monitoring equipment has been controlled and calibrated as per the MP - the monitoring results are consistently recorded as per the approved frequency - QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the MP C.2. Monitoring Plan Meth Compliance (VVS, ) Check if the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. /VPA1/ /GSM/ By means of comparison of the MR with the applied CDM methodology and related tools the verification team has checked whether the MP is in compliance with the MP related requirements of the applied methodology. The outcome is as follows: In case the methodology references applicable tools it has to be ensured that the MP is also compliant with those tools. The MP is completely in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the CDM project (last registered/approved version of the VPA-DD) Page 70 of 118

71 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Also please specify if monitoring aspects have been identified that are not specified in the methodology but may enhance the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring plan this esp. applies for SSC VPAs. The MP is completely in accordance with the applied tools which the methodology references. A breakdown of the referenced tools is as follows: 1 Title (of the tool) Version MP compliance 2 Title (of the tool) Version MP compliance 3 Title (of the tool) Version MP compliance full compliance findings have been raised N/A (for MP) full compliance findings have been raised N/A (for MP) full compliance findings have been raised N/A (for MP) In this context no findings have been identified: C.3. Management System Page 71 of 118

72 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) (VVS, 217 (a) (iii)) Check if the GHG data monitoring system can be assessed as appropriate. In case reference is made to a (certified) company quality management system, check if all GS related monitoring procedures have been fully integrated in the project participant s quality management system. In case of a stand-alone system, check how the GHG management system has been implemented and effectiveness is ensured. /DB1- DB3/ /S1-S3/ An independent consultant has been hired to conduct the monitoring of carbon parameters and GS sustainability indicators for the national biodigesters programme. The project activity has a project database managed at Hivos Indonesia central office in Jakarta, Indonesia. The organization chart for the monitoring activities includes Hivos Indonesia operational personnel and carbon consultants who manage the database and conduct field surveys for usage, CMS and KPT. The project database, survey reports and forms have been reviewed by the verification team. The management system was set up as a stand-alone system and exclusively for the Hivos. The system has been implemented effectively. C.4. Roles and Responsibilities (EB 75, Annex 7, Section C.; PS 196) Check if all roles and positions of each person in the GHG data management process are clearly defined and implemented as stated in the monitoring plan. Please consider the complete data trail from raw data generation to submission of the final data. Identify, if relevant personnel w.r.t. monitoring has been exchanged? /GSP/ /DB1- DB3/ /S1-S3/ The project activity has a project database managed at the Hivos central office in Jakarta. The organization chart for the monitoring activities includes Hivos operational personnel and carbon consultants who manage the database and conduct field surveys for usage, CMS and KPT. The project database, survey report and forms have been reviewed by the verification team. Page 72 of 118

73 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) If so, have appropriate training measures been carried out. In case of changes, assure that the implemented monitoring procedures have not been affected. The survey report and forms have been checked and used without any change so far up to the end of the current monitoring period. C.5. Emergency procedures for the monitoring system (EB 75, Annex 7, C; PS 196) Check, as appropriate, whether relevant emergency procedures for the monitoring system have been included in the MR and assess whether these procedures have been implemented, when required /QA1/ /IM01/ The computer server in the office has the primary back-up data stored and an external back-up at external media which will be used in the event of an emergency. During the on-site visit, the verification team has checked the server to confirm the primary data and records stored are the most recent for the MRI. The stored data are password protected and only authorized person could access. The database officer was interviewed to confirm how the data is applied in emergency case. By means of onsite assessment and checking the stored data, it can be concluded emergency respond plan is in place. C.6. Data archive and data protection (PS 56 b) Check whether all records of monitoring parameters are archived according to the monitoring plan. Assess further whether appropriate measures have /VPA1/ /IM01/ Chapter 6 of the monitoring report also described how the data is archived and backed up. Page 73 of 118

74 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) been taken in order to avoid unintended or intended manipulation or loss of the measured data. The data was kept in a project database at Hivos Indonesia central office in Jakarta. The data was backed up periodically onto hard disk media. During the on-site visit, the verification team has conducted interview and reviewed the records archiving method and procedures for the monitored parameters stated in MR and VPA- DD. Two persons were authorized to access the database key-in interface and only the administrator is authorized to edit the saved database. Furthermore, the data stored at the server is password protected and only authorized personnel can access. By means of onsite assessment and checking the stored data, it can be concluded data archiving and protection is in place and has been properly implemented. D. Data and parameters D.1. Data and Parameters fixed ex ante a) Compliance with registered VPA-DD (EB 75, Annex 7; D1) Check whether the value applied is in compliance with the registered VPA-DD. /GSPoA- DD/ /VPA1/ By means of comparison of the MR with the registered PDD (or any revisions thereof) the verification team confirms that: all ex ante data and parameters are in compliance with the registered PoA-PDD, VPA-DD and the applied methodology or any other tool. CAR D1 In this context the following findings have been identified: Refer CAR D1 raised Page 74 of 118

75 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) b) Compliance with the applied methodology (EB 75, Annex 7; D1) Check whether the value applied is in compliance with the applied methodology or any other tool. /GSM/ By means of comparison of the MR with the methodology the verification team confirms that: all ex post and parameters are in compliance with the applied methodology and any other tool. In this context the following finding has been identified: CAR D1 Refer CAR D1 raised D.2. Data and Parameters monitored D.2.1. U p1,y VPA-No: 1 (1174) Cumulative usage rate for technologies in project scenario p1 in year y, based on cumulative adoption rate and drop off rate (fraction) a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). /ER1/ /DB1/ /S1/ The cumulative usage rate of bio-digesters for the monitoring period was 94.10%. Age group Period, inclusive of all dates % in operation (A) 11 Units built in that period (B) Number of biogas plants in operation (A*B) Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. -1 to 0 01/06/14 31/12/ % 2,048 1,989 0 to 1 01/06/13 31/05/ % 3,003 2,917 1 to 2 01/06/12 31/05/ % 3,709 3,614 2 to 3 01/06/11 31/05/ % 2,128 1,868 Assess whether the measurement / determination 11 Calculated as 100% - drop-off percentage for a given age group Page 75 of 118

76 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. 3 to 4 01/06/10 31/05/ % 2,982 2,691 4 to 5 31/12/09 31/05/ % Sum 14,139 13,305 The data was consolidated from the biogas usage survey results, conducted by an independent consultant. The data is applied to calculate the emission reductions per unit per month. The data has been checked against the survey report records to confirm that the data is correctly consolidated. The data applied in the ER spreadsheet was reviewed. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures /VPA1/ /S1/ /QA1/ /IM02/ The data was consolidated from the survey results and no equipment was involved in monitoring. The data is cross-checked with the usage survey report. The quality control procedure was reviewed and operation personnel interviewed. Page 76 of 118

77 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. The parameter is determined based on the survey results and in accordance with the registered VPA-DD. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /ER1/ The data was determined based on the usage survey report and tabulated results. The data has been checked against the usage survey report / forms records to confirm that the data is correctly determined and applied correctly in ER spreadsheet. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet is correct. D.2.2. N p1,y VPA-No: 1 (1174) Cumulative project operational rate included in the project database for project scenario p1 against baseline scenario b1 in year y a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged /ER1/ /DB1/ /S1/ /O6/ /O7/ The number of bio-digesters in operation during the monitoring period. It is calculated using monitoring parameters N op1,y and O p1,y : N p1,y = N op1,y * (O p1,y /365) = 14,139 * (364.64/365) = The database was reviewed to cross checked on the number of Page 77 of 118

78 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /IM01/ /IM02/ units in operation during the monitoring period. The number of days for non-operation per year O p1,y was checked which is 15 days per year stipulated in the operation memo dated The calculated number of days biodigesters (O p1,y ) in operation for the monitoring period was reviewed and could confirm as correct. Step 1: Calculate the number of days of the total installed digesters in operation. 365 days (337 households digesters are out of operation multiplied with 15 days of non-operation divided by the total installed units) = days. Step 2: Calculate the number of digesters in operation Total number of digesters installed multiplied by number of days total installed digesters in operation (364.64) divided by number of days in one year 365 = 14,125 digesters in operation for the monitoring period. The operation personnel were interviewed on the number of days each digester will not be in operation per year. The parameter is monitored in according to the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) /ER1/ There is no measurement for this parameter. In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for /SD1/ The data is calculated using actual number of units installed and number of days per year a bio-digester not in operation Page 78 of 118

79 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /DB1/ /O6/ /QA1/ The data applied in the equation to determine the value is reviewed and cross checked with the input values and are consistent. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. QA procedures implemented. There is no inconsistency in the calculation. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /ER1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /S1/ /DB1/ /O7/ /IM01/ /IM02/ The value is calculated using data from the database and survey results. The calculation and data applied were reviewed for correctness. Operation personnel were interviewed for the correctness of the calculation. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. There is no inconsistent found. D.2.3. No p1,y VPA-No: 1 (1174) Cumulative number of project technologies included in the project database for project scenario p in year y a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) /ER1/ The number of units installed as at was 14,139. The data is derived from the installation reports submitted by the Page 79 of 118

80 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /DB1/ /IM02/ provincial offices to Jakarta office. The project database was reviewed and cross-checked with the selected household inspected during onsite to confirm the data in the database are correct. The provincial personnel were interviewed on the installation reports submission to Jakarta office. The data applied in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the database. The parameter is monitored in accordance to the registered VPA- DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /QA1/ /ER1/ /IM02/ The parameter is not measured and based on the input data from the provincial office for the number of units installed each month. The data applied in the ER spreadsheet was verified with database for consistency. Operation personnel were interviewed for the input data to the database. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. QA procedures implemented. The reported value is in accordance with the database. Page 80 of 118

81 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /ER1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /S1/ /DB1/ /O7/ /IM01/ /IM02/ The value is calculated using data from the database and survey results. The calculation and data applied were reviewed for correctness. Operation personnel were interviewed for the correctness of the calculation. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. There is no inconsistent found. D.2.4. O p1,y VPA-No: 1 (1174) The average technology-days during which the biodigesters are operational for project scenario p1 against baseline scenario b1 in year y a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the /GSM/ /S1/ /DB1/ /ER1/ /O6/ The data is calculated using the number of days with the expected number of household digesters not in operation. For this monitoring period, the average number of days of digesters in operation is days. Based on the operation memo dated , when a report from the householder is received, the provincial technician must visit the household with 15 days to inspect the cause of nonoperation. Should there is a delay in the reporting for more than 15 days, the digester will be considered as out of operation. Page 81 of 118

82 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. During this monitoring period, there were 337 households digesters were out of operation. For this monitoring period, the calculated number of days for the total number of installed digesters in operation is days. The memo was reviewed that states the 15 days grace period and after which the digester is considered as non-operation. The survey report was reviewed to cross-checked on the number of households digesters non-operation is 337. The calculation for the number of days the digesters in operation was replicated and considered correct. The ER spreadsheet was reviewed to cross-checked on the operation days applied. The parameter is monitored according to the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) /ER1/ The data is calculated and not measured by any instrument. In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have /QA1/ /S1/ /DB1/ /IM01/ During the onsite, the operational personnel and project advisor were interviewed on the approach the data is calculated. The survey report, survey and project database were reviewed to cross-checked on the data applied to determine the average Page 82 of 118

83 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /IM02/ number of operational days per year. Operation manual is implemented. The data is determined correctly and in accordance to registered VPA-DD. c) Correctness (VVS, 233, 236) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /ER1/ /S1/ /DB1/ /O7/ /IM01/ /IM02/ Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The value is calculated using data from the database and survey results. The calculation and data applied were reviewed for correctness. Operation personnel were interviewed for the correctness of the calculation. There is no inconsistent found. D.2.5. LE p1,y VPA-No: 1 (1174) Leakage in project scenario p during year y a) Measurement / Determination method CAR E3 FAR E6 (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation /S1/ /ER1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ According to the registered VPA-DD, the parameter will be monitored once every two years using survey methods to satisfy the requirements put forth by the methodology. The survey report did not report the data for this parameter therefore has deviated from the monitoring plan. Page 83 of 118

84 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. The PP has applied the value of 0 which is inconsistent with the default value of 5%. The survey report was reviewed and did not indicate the survey data for this parameter. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. The reported value in the MR and ER spreadsheet is 0 which is inconsistent with the monitoring plan. The parameter is not monitored according to the registered VPA- DD and applied methodology. Refer CAR E3 raised b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure CAR E3 FAR E6 (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /S1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ The parameter is monitored by means of survey once every 2 years. There were no results from the survey conducted. The survey report was reviewed and no results for this parameter. The parameter is not monitored in accordance to registered VPA- DD and applied methodology. Refer CAR E3 raised. Page 84 of 118

85 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) c) Correctness (VVS, 233, 236) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /ER1/ /S1/ Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The applied value of 0 is incorrect and not according to the registered VPA-DD is based on survey conducted once every 2 years. The survey report was reviewed and no data available. The data in the MR and ER spreadsheet is incorrect. Refer CAR E3 raised D.2.6. N T,h VPA-No: 1 (1174) Number of animals of livestock category T in premise h CAR E3 FAR E6 a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. /S1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /ER1/ The data for the number of animals for each category is derived from the biogas usage survey report. For this monitoring period, the average number of animals per household as below: Dairy cow: 5.21; Market Swine: 0.28 The data applied in the ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the data from the survey report and primary BUS spreadsheet. The parameter is monitored in accordane with the registered VPA- Page 85 of 118

86 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /S1/ /ER1/ /QA1/ /IM02/ The parameter is based on survey results and not measured by any instruments. The survey data was reviewed and cross-checked with the data applied in the ER spreadsheets. Operational manual implemented. The data is the MR is according to the survey results c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /ER1/ /VPA1/ The data is derived from survey conducted The survey report was reviewed. The data applied in ER spreadsheet is cross-checked for correctness. The parameter is monitored according to registered VPA-DD. Page 86 of 118

87 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. D.2.7. PL VPA-No: 1 (1174) Physical leakage of the biodigester a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /ER1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ A default value of the 10% is applied for this parameter The value is derived from the registered VPA-DD section B.6.1. Review MR against registered VPA-DD and data applied in ER spreadsheet. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most /ER1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /QA1/ A default value is applied for this parameter and no measurement is conducted by any instruments. The data applied in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. Page 87 of 118

88 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. Operational manual implemented. The value applied is a default value derived from registered VPA- DD. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /ER1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /VPA1/ /GSM/ The data for this parameter is a default value from the registered VPA-DD. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet was reviewed for correctness. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The value applied is a default value and is correct. D.2.8. BB b1,bio VPA-No: 1 (1174) Amount of woody biomass used in the baseline scenario 1: households a) Measurement / Determination method CAR E4 (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation /ER1/ /S2/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ The amount of woody biomass used by the households in the baseline scenario is based on the KPT conducted once in every 2 years. The last KPT test was conducted on to and applicable for this monitoring period. Page 88 of 118

89 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /S2/ /LHH/ The woody biomass is firewood in the baseline scenario. The data in the ER was cross-checked with the results from the KPT primary data and analysis for consistency. During the onsite inspection, it could be confirmed firewood is the woody biomass used prior to the bio-digester is installed mainly for the milking activity. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. However refer CAR E4 raised. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /ER1/ /S2/ /QA1/ /IM01/ /IM02/ The parameter is monitored by means of KPT conducted once every 2 years. The KPT report was reviewed for consistency with the data applied in ER spreadsheet. Operational manual implemented and operational personnel interviewed.. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. The parameter is monitored in accordance to registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. Page 89 of 118

90 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S2/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /ER1/ The data for this parameter is derived from the KPT conducted once every 2 years. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet was reviewed and compared with the KPT data and anlysis for correctness. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The value applied is according to the KPT results. D.2.9. BB b1,fuel VPA-No: 1 (1174) Amount of fossil fuels used in the baseline scenario 1: households a) Measurement / Determination method CAR E4 (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. /ER1/ /S2/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /S2/ The amount of fossil fuel used by the households in the baseline scenario is based on the KPT conducted once in every 2 years. The last KPT was conducted on to and applicable for this monitoring period. The fossil fuel used in the baseline scenario is LPG. The data in the ER was cross-checked with the results from the KPT primary data and analysis for consistency. During the onsite inspection, it could be confirmed LPG is used by several households as a standby fuel for cooking additional food Page 90 of 118

91 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. during a family gathering. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. However refer CAR E4 raised. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) /ER1/ The parameter is monitored by means of KPT once every 2 years. In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /S2/ /QA1/ /IM01/ /IM02/ The KPT report was reviewed for consistency with the data applied in ER spreadsheet. Operational manual implemented and operational personnel interviewed.. The parameter is monitored in accordance to registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S2/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the /ER1/ The data for this parameter is derived from the KPT conducted once every 2 years. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet was reviewed and Page 91 of 118

92 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. D BB p1,fuel VPA-No: 1 (1174) compared with the KPT data and anlysis for correctness. The value applied is according to the KPT results. Quantity of fossil fuel consumed in project scenario 1 during year y, in tonnes a) Measurement / Determination method CAR E4 (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /ER1/ /S2/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /LHH/ The quantity of fossil fuel used by the households in the project scenario is based on the KPT conducted once in every 2 years. The last KPT test was conducted on to and applicable for this monitoring period. The fossil fuel in the project scenario is LPG. The data in the ER was cross-checked with the results from the KPT primary data and analysis for consistency. During the onsite inspection, it was found the LPG is main standby fossil fuel used by the households mainly for cooking additional food during family gathering. The LPG tank capacity is 3kg and on average could last up to 4 weeks. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. However refer CAR E4 raised. Page 92 of 118

93 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /ER1/ /S2/ /QA1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /IM01/ The parameter is monitored by means of KPT conducted once every 2 years. The KPT report was reviewed for consistency with the data applied in ER spreadsheet. Operational manual implemented and operational personnel interviewed.. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /IM02/ The parameter is monitored in accordance to registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S2/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /ER1/ The data for this parameter is derived from the KPT conducted once every 2 years. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet was reviewed and compared with the KPT data and analysis for correctness. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The value applied is according to the KPT results. Page 93 of 118

94 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) D BB p1,bio VPA-No: 1 (1174) Quantity of biomass consumed in project scenario p during year y, in tonnes a) Measurement / Determination method CAR E4 (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /ER1/ /S2/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ /S2/ The quantity of biomass used by the households in the project scenario is measured by means of KPT conducted once in every 2 years. The last KPT test was conducted on to and applicable for this monitoring period. The biomass consumed in the project scenario is firewood. The data in the ER was cross-checked with the results from the KPT primary data and analysis for consistency. During the onsite inspection, it could be confirmed firewood is used by 3 households to boil water for the milking activity. The parameter is monitored in accordance with the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. However refer CAR E4 raised. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance /ER1/ /S2/ /QA1/ The parameter is monitored by means of KPT conducted once every 2 years. The KPT report was reviewed for consistency with the data Page 94 of 118

95 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. /IM01/ /IM02/ applied in ER spreadsheet. Operational manual implemented and operational personnel interviewed. The parameter is monitored in accordance to registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S2/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /ER1/ The data for this parameter is derived from the KPT conducted once every 2 years. The value stated in MR and ER spreadsheet was reviewed and compared with the KPT data and analysis for correctness. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The value applied is according to the KPT results. D MS P,S,K VPA-No: 1 (1174) Fraction of livestock category T s manure not treated in biodigester, in climate region k a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the /S1/ /ER1/ The fraction of manure not treated in the biodigesters for respective animal category as follows: Page 95 of 118

96 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /VPA1/ /GSM/ Category T % Dairy cow Market Swine 0 The data was derived from the usage survey conducted by an independent consultant. The usage survey database was reviewed and cross-checked with the date applied in the ER spreadsheet for consistency. The parameter is monitored according to the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /S1/ /ER1/ /QA1/ /IM02/ The data is calculated based on the usage survey results and no instrument is used. The data applied in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the usage survey results for consistency. Operational manual implemented and operational personal interviewed. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. The data in ER spreadsheet is consistent with the usage survey database. Page 96 of 118

97 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. D MS T,S,K VPA-No: 1 (1174) /ER1/ The data is derived from the usage survey results database. The data in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the usage survey database for correctness. No inconsistency of data in ER spreadsheet found. Fraction of livestock category T's manure fed into the biodigester, S in climate region k a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). /S1/ /ER1/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ The fraction of manure fed in the biodigesters for respective animal category as follows: Category T % Dairy cow Market Swine 100 Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. The data was derived from the usage survey conducted by an independent consultant. The usage survey database was reviewed and cross-checked with Page 97 of 118

98 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. the date applied in the ER spreadsheet for consistency. The parameter is monitored according to the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. /S1/ /ER1/ /QA1/ /IM02/ The data is calculated based on the usage survey results and no instrument is used. The data applied in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the usage survey results for consistency. Operational manual implemented and operational personal interviewed. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. The data in ER spreadsheet is consistent with the usage survey database. c) Correctness Correct Not correct (initial assessment) (VVS, 233, 236) /S1/ Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should /ER1/ The data is derived from the usage survey results database. The data in ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with the usage survey database for correctness. Page 98 of 118

99 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. No inconsistency of data in ER spreadsheet found. D GWP CH4 VPA-No: 1 (1174) Global Warming Potential of methane a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. /ER/ /IPCC/ /VPA1/ /GSM/ The GWP is the methane content applicable during the monitoring period is 25 for emissions generated as from The GWP data applied in the MR and ER spreadsheet were verified with 2006 IPCC for consistency. The parameter is monitored in accordance to the registered VPA- DD and applied methodology. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) /ER1/ The GWP value is not measured and derived from IPCC. In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies /IPCC/ /QA1/ The GWP for methane applied in MR and ER spreadsheet was cross-checked with 2006 IPCC for correctness. Page 99 of 118

100 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. QA procedure is implemented Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. The data value applied is consistent with IPCC. c) Correctness (VVS, 233, 236) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /ER1/ /IPCC/ Correct The GWP value is derived from IPCC. Not correct (initial assessment) The value was cross-checked with IPCC for correctness. D Bio VPA-No: 1 (1174) Use of bio-slurry a) Measurement / Determination method (VVS, 233, 236) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the original data level (ODL) but also describe the applied data aggregation trails (from ODL to data aggregation /S1/ No inconsistency found in value appled The bio-slurry is used by households for grass farming and vegetables gardening activities. Based on the usage survey conducted 75% of households apply bio-slurry for the farming and gardening activities. Page 100 of 118

101 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) level zero (DAL0)). Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and the applied methodology. The PP had calculated the emission from the use of bio-slurry is below 1% of the total emission reduction per household per year. The emission determined was 0.03tCO 2 /year/hh, which is less than than 1% of emission reductions of 3.161tCO 2 /year/hh. The total daily VS fed into the biogas plant was with the VS remained in bio-slurry was 4.63 with the VS conversion / destruction efficiency of 45%. The survey result was reviewed to cross-checked on the percentage of households apply bio-slurry for farming activities. During the onsite inspection, the verification team visited 21 households and 16 households apply bio-slurry for farming activities. (76%) From the telephone interviews 78% of the 38 interviewed household of apply bio-slurry for farming activities. The data applied in the ER spreadsheet was verified and the project emissions calculation for bio-slurry was reviewed and could confirm it is less than 1% of the total emissions of each household, there is considered as zero. The parameter is monitored according to the registered VPA-DD and applied methodology.. b) Accuracy and QA/QC Procedure (VVS, ) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check /S1/ /ER1/ The data was consolidated from the usage survey results and no equipment was involved in monitoring. Page 101 of 118

102 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance. c) Correctness (VVS, 233, 236) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. D.3. SD Indicators Monitored /QA1/ /S1/ /ER1/ The usage survey results were reviewed. The calculation in the ER spreadsheet was reviewed and cross-checked with the survey results for consistency. Operation manual procedure implemented and operation personnel interviewed. By mean of document review, the calculation for project emissions from usage of bio-slurry is determined correctly. Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The data was calculated using data from the usage survey results. The data was checked against the survey forms records to confirm that the data is correctly consolidated. The value applied in the MR is correct D.3.1. GS-03: VPA1 Soil condition a) Measurement / Determination method CAR SD1 VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Page 102 of 118

103 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes.. /S1/ /SD1/ /DB1/ /LHH/ The number of households used bio-slurry for farming activities reported was 75% for this monitoring period which is approx. 10,604 households. The data was derived from the Biogas Usage Survey. The usage survey report was reviewed and cross-check during the site inspection and telephone interviews that 59 (approx. 74%) of the randomly selected households apply bio-slurry for farming activities. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised. b) Correctness and Scoring Correct Not correct (initial assessment) Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /S1/ /SD1/ /DB1/ /LHH/ The value of the data in the monitoring report was based on the survey report. The survey report was reviewed and compared with the results of the onsite inspection and telephone interviews conducted by the verification team for the usage of bio-slurry for farming. The data of the survey is correct. Score: Page 103 of 118

104 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) D.3.2. GS-06: VPA1 Quality of employment a) Measurement / Determination method VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes. b) Correctness and Scoring Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. /S1/ /SD2/ /DB1/ /T2/ /IM02/ /IM05/ /SD2/ /IM02/ /IM05/ The number of households using bio slurry as fertilizers for their farming activities for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. The number of vocational training conducted during the monitoring period was 1,239. The monitoring of such number of training conducted was by means of reporting from the provincial offices to the central office where the data is processed and entered into the project database. The training records and manual were checked and the data handling process was confirmed through interviews with the provincial officials and supervisor during the site visit. The project database and training records were reviewed. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The data is monitored by means of keeping track of the number vocational training and keyed in the project database. CAR SD1 Page 104 of 118

105 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The database and training records were verified during onsite. Interviewed conducted during onsite inspection. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: D.3.3. GS-07: VPA1 Livelihood of the poor a) Measurement / Determination method VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes. /S1/ /ER1/ /SD3/ /LHH/ The number of vocational training conducted for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. The improvement to the living conditions of the households with the installation of the bio-digesters was based on the usage survey conducted by an independent 3 rd party. During this monitoring period, the reported data as below: Improved: 9,897 (70%) The same: 4,100 (25%) Worsened: 141 (1%) The usage survey report and records was verified.. During the onsite visits, households were interviewed and could CAR SD1 Page 105 of 118

106 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) b) Correctness and Scoring Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /S1/ /ER1/ /SD3/ /LHH/ confirm the improvement in the living conditions with the installation of digester. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The data is monitored by means of usage survey. The survey report was reviewed and onsite inspection could confirm the improvement of the living conditions. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: The number of households reported improvement to living conditions for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. D.3.4. GS-08: VPA1 Access to affordable and clean energy services a) Measurement / Determination method VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) /DB1/ /S1/ The number of bio-digesters implemented that benefit as at was 14,139. CAR SD1 Page 106 of 118

107 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes.. /SD4/ /IM02/ The data is derived from the project database with the number of digesters implemented reported by the provincial offices to the central office where the data is processed and entered in the project database. The project database was reviewed and the data handling process was confirmed through interviews with the provincial officials during the site visit. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised b) Correctness and Scoring Correct Not correct (initial assessment) Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /DB1/ /S1/ /SD4/ The data is monitored by means of keeping track of the number digesters implemented at each province, reported and entered into the project database. The database was verified for correctness. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: The number of digesters implemented as at as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Page 107 of 118

108 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. D.3.5. GS-09: VPA1 Human and institutional capacity a) Measurement / Determination method VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes.. b) Correctness and Scoring Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. /DB1/ /SD5/ /S1/ /IM02/ /IM03/ /ER1/ /SD5/ The number of women attended the operational and maintenance conducted during the monitoring period was 3,247. The monitoring for such training conducted was done by means of reporting from the provincial offices to the central office where the data is processed and entered in the project database. In addition, during the annual usage survey, the households women were interviewed for cross-checking on the training attended. The training records were verified and the data handling process was confirmed through interviews with the provincial officials during the site visit. The project database and usage survey records were reviewed. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised Correct Not correct (initial assessment) The data is monitored by means of keeping track of the number training conducted and entered in the project database. CAR SD1 Page 108 of 118

109 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /S1/ /IM02/ /IM03/ The database and training records were checked by the verification team. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: The number of vocational training conducted for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. D.3.6. GS-10: VPA1 Quantitative employment and income generation a) Measurement / Determination method VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes.. /S1/ ER1/ /SD6/ The number of employment created for this monitoring period as follows: Direct job created: 1,258 Number of constructors employed: 99 Number of households sells bio-slurry on the market: 424. The number of jobs created and number of constructors employed is derived by the project database records submitted by the provincial offices to the central office where the data is processed and keyed in the project database. The number of households who sells the bio-slurry is derived from the usage survey report. CAR SD1 Page 109 of 118

110 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) The employment records were reviewed and the data handling process was confirmed through interviews with the provincial officials during the site visit. The usage survey report was reviewed to cross-checked on the number of households sells bio-slurry. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised b) Correctness and Scoring Correct Not correct (initial assessment) Determine whether the monitoring method/value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. /S1/ /SD6/ /ER1/ The data is monitored by means of keeping track of the number employment and entered in the project database. The quantity of households selling bio0slurry is based on the survey report. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I The database and survey records were verified. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: The number of employment created and household sell bio-slurry for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is Page 110 of 118

111 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. D.3.7. GS-12: VPA1 Technology transfer and technological self reliance a) Measurement / Determination method CAR SD1 VVS, 389, 393, GS Annex I, GS Annex AC, GS Annex G) Describe how the monitoring parameter was measured / determined. Focus primarily on the registered VPA-DD and GS Passport and check what has been achieved relative to the baseline scenario. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the VPA-DD and relevant GS Annexes.. /ER1/ /SD7/ /IM02/ The number of operational and maintenance trainings conducted during the monitoring period was 10,294. The monitoring of such number of training conducted was done by means of reporting from the provincial offices to the central office where the data is processed and entered into the project database. The training records were verified and the data handling process was confirmed through interviews with the provincial officials during the site visit. The project database and training records were reviewed. The monitoring of the indicator is consistent with the GS Passport. However refer to CAR SD1 raised b) Correctness and Scoring Correct Not correct (initial assessment) Determine whether the monitoring method value given in the sustainability monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered passport detailed The data is monitored by means of keeping track of the number training conducted and entered into the project database. Page 111 of 118

112 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. Score in accordance to Toolkit Annex I In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. The database and training records were checked during onsite visit. The data can be confirmed for correctness. Score: The number of training conducted for this monitoring period as compared to the baseline scenario is zero. Therefore, the score is positive as per the Toolkit 2.1 Annex I. D.4. Sampling Page 112 of 118

113 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) a) Implementation of sampling plan (EB75 Annex 7; D3, EB74, Annex 6) Check whether the PP has applied a sampling approach to determine the monitored values (as per section D.2 above). If this is the case, please provide an assessment whether the PPs have correctly and sufficiently described the implemented sampling plan including: a) Description of the implemented sampling design b) Collected data c) Analysis of collected data d) Demonstration on whether the required confidence/precision has been met (when no specific guidance in the applied methodology, 90/10 confidence/precision for SSC and 95/10 confidence/precision for LSC) and samples were representative of the population. e) Confirmation on the application of samplings separately and independently for each of the VPAs or a sampling covering a group of VPAs is undertaken applying 95/10 confidence/precision /GSP/ /VPA1/ /S1/ /S2/ /SSS/ /GSS/ A sampling approach has been taken by the PP due to large number of implemented bio-digesters. The sampling as described in the MR is based on GS guidelines for following data: 1. Usage Survey 2. KPT The Kitchen Performance Tests were conducted in previous monitoring period and remain valid for two years, hence the valid for the current monitoring period. The verification team has checked on the sampling plan for US 191 households and considered appropriate. An addition of 10% has been included to ensure the level of assurance and the number of households is representative. The data collected were reviewed and cross checked during the onsite field inspection on the selected households to confirm the correctness. The sampling plan applied by the PP is incompliance to GS recommendation and guidelines of UNFCCC. Page 113 of 118

114 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) b) Sampling during verification w.r.t. the monitoring parameters /SSP/ No sampling approach has been used by the VT to verify the monitored parameters (EB74, Annex 6, 24-29) OR. In case the VT has applied a sampling approach in the course of the verification the approach shall be described for each parameter. A sampling approach has been applied by the VT for the following monitored parameter: Parameter: Name_of Parameter c) Sampling during verification w.r.t. on-site visits (VVS, 298) /DB1/ OR. No sampling approach has been used by the VT to determine the number of VPAs or households to be visited A sampling approach has been applied by the VT in order to determine the number of VPAs or households to be visited: Explained here the sampling approach taken by the VT in order to determine the amount of VPAs that shall be visited, if applicable. For VPAs complying with different versions of the PoA, a statistically sound sample of VPAs from each version of the PoA have to be verified. The selected 20 number of households for the onsite inspection is determined using a 90/30 rule according to the GS requirements to ensure the confidence level of 99% is achieved. The sample size was determined using the below method. In addition telephone interviews for 38 households were conducted to ensure the accuracy of the usage survey results. Page 114 of 118

115 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) E. Calculation of Emission reductions E.1. Traceability (VVS, 212, 214) Assess if the calculation is fully traceable. In case of complex calculations an Excel calculation spreadsheet shall be used. All applied formulae must be visible. /ER1/ The verification team has checked the emission reduction calculation and confirms that: the calculation is fully traceable all applied formulae are visible In this context the following finding has been identified: Refer to finding CAR E 1, CAR E2, CAR E3, CAR E4, CL E5 and CAR E6 raised CAR E 1 CAR E2 CAR E3 CAR E4 CL E5 CAR E6 E.2. Parameter consistency (VVS, 214) Assess whether all internal and external parameters and data used for calculation are applied consistently in the monitoring report and the calculation spreadsheet. Consider only the correct data exchange between the monitoring report and the calculation spreadsheet (if any). Further ensure the consistency of notations for all parameters in the VPA-DD, MR and calculation spreadsheet. /ER1/ The verification team has checked the emission reduction calculation and the MR and confirms that: all parameter notations are consistent in the project documentation all internal and external parameters and data used for calculation are consistently applied In this context the following findings have been identified: Refer to findings CAR E 1, CAR E2, CAR E3, CAR E4, CL E5 and CAR E6 raised CAR E 1 CAR E2 CAR E3 CAR E4 CL E5 CAR E6 E.3. Correctness of calculation (VVS, ) Check if the applied formulae and methods for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and /VPA1/ /ER1/ The verification team has checked the emission reduction calculation and the MR and confirms that: all applied formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage are in accordance with the CAR E2 Page 115 of 118

116 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) leakage are in accordance with the monitoring plan and / or the approved methodology. Assess whether the provided calculations are complete and reflect all requirements of the monitoring plan. monitoring plan the provided calculations are complete In this context the following findings have been identified: Refer to CAR E2 raised Check especially that no standard or old values have been used for calculation where calculations based on up-to-date data is required. When sampling is undertaken, unless differently specified in the methodology applied, the sample mean value shall be used for the ER calculation instead of the lower or upper bounds of the confidence interval. E.4. Emission reductions table (EB 75, Annex 7, E.4) Check if the MR includes a summary table of the emission reductions calculation specifying separately - Total baseline emissions - Total project emissions: - Total leakage /ER1/ The MR includes a summary table of the emission reductions calculation. The summary table specified the total baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as the total emission reductions separately. The values as specified in the ER summary table are correct; no issues have been identified during the verification which require changes in the ER calculation. CAR E 1 CAR E3 CAR E4 CL E5 CAR E6 - Total emission reductions. Assess whether the values are correct or need to be revised as a consequence of issues identified above. During the verification issues with impact on the ER calculation have been identified. Thus subject to the closure of above listed findings the summary needs to be revised. In this context the following additional findings have been identified: Page 116 of 118

117 Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the verification team) Verification Team Comments (Means and results of assessment) Refer to findings CAR E 1, CAR E3, CAR E4, CL E5 and CAR E6 raised E.5. Comparison with ex-ante determined emission reductions (EB 75, Annex 7, E.5; E.6) Check if the MR includes a comparison of actual values of the monitoring period with the estimations in the registered VPA-DD. /ER1/ /VPA1/ The verification team has checked the MR and confirms that: the MR includes a comparison of actual emission reductions with the estimations of the registered VPA-DD the increase has been appropriately explained In this context no findings have been identified: Check further whether in case of an increase an appropriate explanation is included in the MR. Assess in case of a significant increase whether this is due to technical or organisational changes within or outside the control of the PP and if this is case whether the PRC have been considered appropriately. Page 117 of 118

118 ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF INVOLVED PERSONNEL Page 118 of 118