WWF NEPAL GOLD STANDARD BIOGAS VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION (VER) PROJECT REBSTÖCKER STRAßE FRANKFURT GERMANY>

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT - RETROACTIVE VERIFICATION WWF NEPAL GOLD STANDARD BIOGAS VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION (VER) PROJECT < UMWELTSTIFTUNG WWF REBSTÖCKER STRAßE FRANKFURT GERMANY> GOLD STANDARD REF. NO. : Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /313 GSV01 Date: TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstraße, Essen, Germany Phone: Fax: S01-VA50-A2 Rev.4.0 /

2 Verification Report: Project: Project Participant(s): Report No. Rev. No. Date of 1 st issue: Date of this rev /313 GS V Title: WWF Nepal Gold Standard Biogas Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) Project Host party: Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MoEST) Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) Biogas Sector Partnership (BSP) - Nepal, WWF Nepal Program Registration date: UNFCCC-No.: GS504 Other involved parties: Applied methodology/ies: Monitoring: Monitoring report: Verification team / Technical Review and Final Approval Title: Indicative programme, baseline, and monitoring methodology for Small Scale Biodigester No.: N/A Scope: 1 Monitoring period (MP): No. of days: MP No. N/A to both days included Title: Draft version: Final version: Monitoring Report WWF Nepal Gold Standard Biogas Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) Project Version 1 Verification Team: Technical review: Final approval: Pankaj Mohan Emiilio Martin Alexander Richter Lars Kirchner Ulrich Walter Eric Krupp Emission reductions: Verified amount As per draft MR: As per PDD: [t CO 2e] 13,728 t 11,552 t 21,088 t /a Summary of Verification Opinion: WWF Nepal Program has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the retroactive verification of the project: WWF Nepal Gold Standard Biogas Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) Project, with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The project reduces GHG emissions due to the use of biogas digester plant that will displace fossil fuels and / or nonrenewable biomass (firewood). This verification covers the period from to In the course of the verification (09) Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and Clarification Requests (07) were raised and successfully closed. Furthermore (02) FARs are raised to improve the monitoring system in the future. The verification is based on the draft monitoring report, revised monitoring report, the monitoring plan as set out in the registered PDD, 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,i.e., Indicative programme, baseline, and monitoring methodology for Small Scale Biodigester, (version 1) 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. As the result of the retroactive verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG Page 2 of 81

3 emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 13,728 t CO 2e Document Filename: No. of pages: information: S01-VA Page 3 of 81

4 Abbreviations: ASS AEPC BSP BSP-N BUS CA CAR CDM CER CFCC CO 2 CO 2eq CL ER FAR GHG MFI MP MR PDD PP QA/QC QC of ASS TAL UNFCCC WWF XLS After Sale Service Alternative Energy Promotion Center Biogas Support Program Biogas Sector Partnership Nepal Biogas User Survey Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Community Forest Coordination Committee Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Clarification Request Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Micro Finance Institutions Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control Quality control of plants undergone After sale service Terai Arc Landscape United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change World Wildlife Fund Emission Reduction Calculation Spread Sheet Page 4 of 81

5 Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 2 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Characteristics Project Verification History Involved Parties and Project Participants Project Location Technical Project Description 2 3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE Verification Steps Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Verification Planning Desk review On-site assessment Draft verification reporting Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs Final reporting Technical review Final approval 2 4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS Implementation of the project Project history Special events Compliance with the monitoring plan Compliance with the monitoring methodology Monitoring parameters Monitoring report ER Calculation Quality Management Overall Aspects of the Verification 2 Page 5 of 81

6 5.11. Hints for next periodic Verification 2 6. VERIFICATION OPINION REFERENCES...2 Page 6 of 81

7 1. INTRODUCTION The Client WWF Nepal Program has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to carry out the retroactive verification of the project WWF Nepal Gold Standard Biogas Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) Project with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The verifiers have reviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan (MP) in the registered Gold Standard GS registry project number GS 504. GHG data for the monitoring period covering to was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the Validation and Verfication Manual /VVM/ of the UNFCCC. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this Retroactive 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 PDD, - 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 project design document, the monitoring report /MR/, emission reduction calculation spread sheet /XLS/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the on-site assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. The verification is carried out on the basis of the following requirements, applicable for this project activity: - Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol /KP/, Page 7 of 81

8 - 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 Manual /VVM/, - monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD, - Approved CDM Methodology - Indicative programme, baseline, and monitoring methodology for Small Scale Biodigester Version1. Page 8 of 81

9 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. Project Characteristics Essential data of the project is presented in the following Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Project Characteristics Item Data Project title WWF Nepal Gold Standard Biogas Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) Project Project size Large Scale Small Scale Project Scope (according to UNFCCC sectoral scope numbers for CDM) Applied Methodology Gold standard registration No. Crediting period Type A.1 renewable energy, A.1.1 Ecologically sound biomass, Biogas and liquid biofuels. Indicative programme, baseline, and monitoring methodology for Small Scale Biodigester Version 1 GS504 Retroactive Crediting Period Fixed Crediting Period (10 y) 2.2. Project Verification History Essential events since the registration of the project are presented in the following Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Project verification history # Item Time Status 1 Date of registration Start of crediting period Retroactive Monitoring period to Request for revision of / deviation from the monitoring plan N/A 2.3. Involved Parties and Project Participants The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity (Table 2-3). Page 9 of 81

10 Table 2-3: Project Parties and project participants Characteristic Party Project Participant Host party Nepal WWF Nepal Program, BSP-Nepal, AEPC Nepal. Other involved party/ies Germany 2.4. Project Location The details of the project location are given in table 2-4: Table 2-4: Project Location No. Project Location Host Country Nepal Region: Terai Region of Nepal District: Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Dang, Kanchanpur, Makwanpur, Parsa, Palpa, and Chitwan Project location address: N/A 2.5. Technical Project Description The project activity aims to install 7,500 bio digester plants in the Landscape of Terai, Nepal. At the time of retroactive verification 2865 bio digesters were installed. The minimum criterion for the installation of the system is the availability of 2 cattle. The cattle dung is fed into the bio digesters. Under the anaerobic conditions methane is produced which will be used for cooking. Utilization of this cooking gas reduces the consumption of non-renewable firewood which is normally collected by the women of the families in the forests nearby. Complimentary to the installation of the bio digester toilets became constructed, which are connected to the bio digesters as well. The system is therefore not solely depending on the amount of dung to be fed. Beneficial for users is the improved sanitation in the households due to the available toilet. The slurry of the bio digesters flows into a sink and can be used as fertilizer. The total emission reductions within the monitoring period due to reducing the amount of nonrenewable biomass for cooking and methane avoidance by handling of animal waste amounts to 11,552 tco 2eq according to the MR submitted for verification. The key parameters for the project are given in table 2-5: Table 2-5: Technical data of the plant Parameter Unit Value Biogas Plant Type: GGC 2047, fixed dome Manufacturer: As per year wise updated list of recognised Biogas Company by BSP. Quantity: 7,500 Page 10 of 81

11 Parameter Unit Value Size m3 4, 6 and 8 Feeding materials: Cattle dung and water Human excreta (optional) Minimum required cattle 2, 3 or 4 (depending on the size) Feasible height m Up to 2,100 altitude Page 11 of 81

12 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 Publication of the monitoring report A desk review of the Monitoring Report /MR/ submitted by the client and additional supporting documents with the use of customised verification protocol /CPM/ according to the Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/, Verification planning, On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer and its contractors, Draft verification reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any) Final verification reporting Technical review Final approval of the verification. The sequence of the verification is given in the table 3.1 below: Table 3.1: Verification sequence Topic Time Assignment of verification On-site visit Draft reporting finalised Final reporting finalised Technical review finalised Page 12 of 81

13 3.2. 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, consistent of one team leader and 3 additional team members, was appointed. Furthermore also the personnel for the technical review and the final approval was determined. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: Involved Personnel Name Company Function 1) Qualification Status 2) Scheme competence Technical competence 4) Host country Competence Team Leading competence Mr. Ms. Rainer Winter TN CERT TL SA Mr. Ms. Pankaj Mohan TUV India Pvt. Ltd. TM A Mr. Ms. Martin, Emilio TN CERT TM E E Mr. Ms. Alexander Richter TN CERT TM E Mr. Ms. Ulrich Walter TN CERT TR 3) AT Page 13 of 81

14 Name Company Function 1) Qualification Status 2) Scheme competence Technical competence 4) Host country Competence Team Leading competence Mr. Ms. Lars Kirchner TN CERT TR 3) E E Mr. Ms. Eric Krupp TN CERT FA SA 1) TL: Team Leader; TM: Team Member, TR: Technical review; FA: Final approval 2) GHG Auditor Status: A: Assessor; E: Expert; SA: Senior Assessor; T: Trainee; TE: Technical Expert 3) No team member 4) As per S01-MU03 or S01-VA070 A2 (such as A, B, C...) 3.4. 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. 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 Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Areas of residual risks Additional verification testing performed Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Page 14 of 81

15 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. 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. The completed table A-1 is enclosed in the annex 1 (table A-1) to this report. Project specific periodic verification checklist 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 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. The basic structure of this project specific verification protocol for the periodic verification is described in table 3-3. Page 15 of 81

16 Table 3-3: Structure of the project specific periodic verification checklist Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist Checklist Item Reference Verification Team Comments Draft Conclusion Final Conclusion 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 VVM shall be covered in this section. 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. 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 the annex (table A-2) to this report Desk review During the desk review all documents initially provided by the client and publicly available documents relevant for the verification were reviewed. The main documents are listed below: the last revision of the PDD including the monitoring plan, the last revision of the validation report /VAL/, the monitoring report, including the claimed emission reductions for the project /MR/, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/. Other supporting documents, such as publicly available information on the UNFCCC website and background information were also reviewed 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: Page 16 of 81

17 The on-site assessment included an investigation of whether all relevant equipment is installed and works as anticipated. The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check the risks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures. Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed. The duly calibration of all metering equipment was checked. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked completely. The data aggregation trails were checked via spot sample down to the level of the meter recordings. The complete verification team attended the site visit. 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 WWF Nepal Program, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MoEST), Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) and Biogas Sector Partnership (BSP) Nepal 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 Interviewed Persons / Entities 1. Projects & Operations Personnel, <WWF Nepal> 2. Consultant, Interview topics - General aspects of the project - Technical equipment and operation - Changes since validation - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Remaining issues from validation - Calibration procedures - 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 calculation - Procedural aspects of the verification - Maintenance - Environmental aspect - - Page 17 of 81

18 3.7. Draft 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; 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 Final reporting Upon successful closure of all raised CARs and CLs the final verification report including a positive validation opinion can be issued. In case not all essential issues could finally be resolved, a final report including a negative validation opinion is issued. The final report summarizes the final assessments w.r.t. all applicable criteria. Page 18 of 81

19 3.10. 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 Final 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 19 of 81

20 4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoring report /MR/, the calculation spreadsheet /XLS/, PDD, 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 H - Project history U - Update on Changes and Incidents R - Monitoring Report General P - Monitoring Parameters C - Emission Reduction Calculation Q - Quality Management 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). CAR R1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Page 20 of 81

21 Findings CAR R1 The following editorial issues were identified in the MR and need revision: Table of abbreviations, acronyms and definitions should be included Explanations to sources of formulas as well as parameters used in calculating the ERs should be added to the MR. Page numbers shall be provided in the MR Parameters to be monitored, sated in the table on the third last page in MR are partially incomprehensible as abbreviations are used rather than descriptions to the parameters. Table under 5.1 sampling methods for regular QC and monitoring in column year 2009 states QC of 2007 plants. This seems to be wrong. Column year 2007 states 5% QC carried out by the construction company. This seems to be wrong as well. The duration of QC, ASS, QC of ASS in relation to the construction dates of plants may be mentioned in that table, too in order to enable the reader a better understanding of these processes. Headline 6.0 is incomprehensible and headline 6.1 may be removed since there is no headline 6.2 The table in section 6 may be revised considering mixture of abbreviations and descriptions to parameters, missing header for column 4 and 5. The description within section 6 should enable the reader to identify unambiguously which parameters are defined ex-ante as per the PDD or to be monitored according to the monitoring plan. MR doesn t refer to the applied methodology Explanation to potential special events with impact on the ERs or project s contribution to SD shall be provided in the MR MR lacks of adequate reference to applicability of 50% fraction of lifestock category T s manure fed into the biodigester, S in climate region k: MS (T,S,k) Page 21 of 81

22 CAR R1 Corrective Action #1 Table of abbreviations, acronyms and definitions have been included. Explanations to sources of formulas as well as parameters used in calculating the ERs have been added to the MR. The page number have been provided The table has been removed. This has been mentioned in a better way. Table 5.1 has been removed and changes made so as to make it more comprehensible. Headline 6.0 has been changed to make it comprehensible. Table in section 6.0 has been removed and modified to make it comprehensible. The necessary revision on section 6 has been made The methodology has been referred to in the cover page The explanations to potential special events with impact on the ERs or project s contribution to SD has been provided in the MR under section 7 in the MR The changes have been made accordingly for lifestock category T s manure fed into the biodigester, S in climate region k: MS (T, S, k) as per the survey in the ER calculations. Refer to the Excel sheets on the calculations. DOE Assessment #1 The editorial changes in the revised MR has been carried out by the project proponent and checked by the verification team. The changes were found to be satisfactory, hence accepted by the verification team. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR R2 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings Mismatches between MR and ER-calculation sheet as well as within the ER-calculation sheet w.r.t. the total emission reductions within the monitoring period were detected. The calculation approach of ERs as per last page of the MR is not in line with the methodology and seems to be unnecessary. Corresponding corrections, strictly in line with the methodology, are requested. Page 22 of 81

23 Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CAR R2 The calculations for the ER has been re-done as per the QC sample survey redone and the sample survey obtained earlier. Corrections have been made as per the methodology. Please refer to excel sheets attached: 1. Emission Reduction from 1 st July 2007 to 31 st December 2007.xls 2. Emission Reduction from 1 st January 2008 to 31 st December 2008.xls 3. Emission Reduction from 1 st July 2007 to 31 st December 2008.xls The ER sheet seems to be satisfactory as checked by verification team. Hence CAR closed. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CL R3 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings According to the PDD annual monitoring of 100% of toilets constructed is necessary. This has not been taken place as the QC is limited to the 5% sample check. Clarification requested. Corrective Action #1 100%monitoring of toilets is not possible. The project proponent wants a deviation on this as the meaning of 100% toilet monitoring actually meant that the beneficiary would have a toilet provision constructed prior to getting the subsidy amount for the biogas. Thus monitoring of toilets will be limited to the sample size of the biogas plants monitored. DOE Assessment #1 The monitoring of toilets is carried out using the sampling technique by BSP Nepal. The sample size is same as taken for other parameters and that sample size is having the toilets in the house which were monitored by BSP Nepal. During the verification site visit the verification team also checked the same in the sample size and found to be satisfactory. Also the subsidy amount is given to the household only after the toilet is constructed. Hence the deviation was accepted by the verification team. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate action was not taken The project complies with the requirements Page 23 of 81

24 CL R4 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The following supporting documents are pending: Proof of occurrence and attendance of / in trainings (2007 / 09) Proof of project area Proof of non-availability of recent data on fraction of NRB Proof of 2865 installed bio-digesters Proof that the number of 739 households or 334 households, respectively received loans for the participation in this program. Corrective Action #1 WWF conducts the training through various organisations and consultants in the field related to various activities and sometimes it is difficult to micro manage so as to get all the attendance register The data of the trainings conducted are however reflected in the Government of Nepal and WWF Nepal s TAL Program s Progress report and WWF also maintains a database on the various training conducted as reported from the field. The data pasted in the MR report was copy-pasted from the database excel sheet. For proof the cover pages of the Annual reports form the TAL PABZ and TAL CBRP projects have been attached. In addition to this WWF Nepal has fiscal years running from July to June, therefore our annual reporting period also runs in the same fashion. The sent by the Program Officer in WWF Nepal with the data base has also been sent. The map has been attached. The total area and district area is derived from the administrative boundary of the maps using ARC GIS software. When developing the PDD recent data was sought so as to calculate the NRB, but latest data was not available. Similarly in the validation process and post validation latest data for NRB was also sought but this was not obtained. The Government of Nepal might is the sole authority to come with these national level data on which the NRB is based. Similarly WWF Nepal also does not have the latest images hence the image of 2001 was used during making the PDD. WWF has decided to buy the latest images of 2007 and 2008 and now work on it for retrieving data on the woody mass; other data is retrievable only when national data is published The proof in writing has been provided for the construction of 2685 biogas plants constructed form BSP Nepal and AEPC The proof is the data obtained from the BSP Nepal in the questionnaires after which the data is entered. When the plants is serviced for maintenance the questionnaire developed asks the Page 24 of 81

25 CL R4 beneficiaries whether the plants was constructed with cash or loan and this is entered in the data base. The annex of the number of plants constructed has C/L meaning cash or loan.biogas DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion The documents provided by PP were found to be satisfactory as checked by verification team and also in line with the query raised. This was also checked by interviewing the personal during the site visit. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate action was not taken The project complies with the requirements CAR C1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The baseline emission calculation does not reflect the commissioning dates of the biogas plants and accordingly GHG emissions saved from these dates until the end of the monitoring period. Therefore adequate corrections in the ER-calculation should take place. Detailed explanation of the approach taken in order to reflect the above mentioned commissioning dates in the ER-calculation shall be added to the MR. Corrective Action #1 The construction date corresponds to the date the biogas has come into operation. This has been given in writing by BSP-Nepal for further clarification. The calculations have been modified accordingly. For the plants constructed from 1st of January 2007 till 30th June 2007, the emissions reductions have been claimed for semi-annual period (half of 365 days), i.e. from 1st July 2007 to 31st December Similarly for plants constructed from 1st July 2007 to 30th June 2008, the emission reduction have been claimed for semi-annual period (half of 365) for 2008, but the plants constructed from 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2007 have been claimed annual basis (365 days) for 2008 DOE Assessment #1 The justification provided was accepted by the verification team after checking the documents and cross checking the same by doing the sample survey of the plants constructed. This was found to be satisfactory hence closed. Page 25 of 81

26 Conclusion CAR C1 To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR C2 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The PE-calculation, computed on the basis of fire wood consumption by household (ton/year) seems to be wrong as firewood consumption is calculated for 365 days, only rather than for the entire monitoring period. Corrective Action #1 The PE calculations have been modified accordingly taking into account semi annual a (half of 365 days) and annual basis (365 days) as per the operations of the plants. DOE Assessment #1 The calculations were checked and found to be satisfactory. Hence closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR C3 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The PP is requested to justify the calculation of fuel wood consumed: 1) on an average per household for bio-digesters installed in 2007 and 2008 on page 4 of the MR and 2) in total for plants constructed in 2007 or 2008 as per pages 6 14 of the MR. Justification should be provided taking into account the calculation approach followed in computing the PE as per the ER-spreadsheet according to the methodology. Corresponding amendments may be conducted in the MR in order to guarantee that usage of data provided is relevant to calculate PE. Page 26 of 81

27 Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CAR C3 The calculations have been changed accordingly in the excels sheets: 1. Emission Reduction from 1st July 2007 to 31st December 2007.xls 2. Emission Reduction from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2008.xls 3. Emission Reduction from 1st July 2008 to 31st December 2008.xls The calculations were checked and found to be satisfactory. Hence closed. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR C4 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The verification team detected the inclusion of plants constructed in 2006 in the ER calculation. Since these plants are not part of the project activity revision of the ER-spreadsheet is requested. Corrective Action #1 This has been checked. The confusion occurred due to using the local date practices (Bikram Sambat). Now 2685 plants have been considered with the written proof from BSP Nepal and AEPC DOE Assessment #1 The justification is accepted as now only 2007 and 2008 plants are included in the calculations. Hence closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR Q1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings Monitoring report does not address roles and responsibilities for monitoring procedures, obtaining of data, data handling, processing and storage as well as responsibilities for the preparation of the monitoring report. Based on that further elaboration is requested in terms of how the monitoring procedures are embedded in the GHG management system. Page 27 of 81

28 Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CAR Q1 This has been elaborated under heading 5: Monitoring Methodology of the MR The revised MR was checked and found to be satisfactory. Hence CAR is closed. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CAR / FAR P1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The monitoring report insufficiently justifies the non-availability of actual data to the fraction of Non-renewable Biomass as only one source is referred to, rather than all sources stated in the Annex 2 to the PDD Corrective Action #1 Various literatures were sought in this regard but data was not available. Thus WWF Nepal s GIS unit has now purchased recent satellite images and needs time to work on the images so as to calculate the woody mass available in the area. Had data been available, it would have had been earlier used in the PDD as well. This issue was also raised with the comments obtained from the Gold Standards 6-weeks review. WWF will try to come about with a revised data on woody biomass at least in its next MR and will be in the lookout for further recent data. Regional statistics were also sought for but data was not available. WWF s Senior GIS officer has also given this in writing on the unavailability of the data DOE Assessment #1 This justification was accepted but converted to FAR and this will be checked during next verification. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate action was not taken The project complies with the requirements CAR P2 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings Description of SD indicator Number of people from MFI s, CFCC trained is incomprehensible and need improvement. Adequate supporting documents shall be submitted to the verification team in order to back up the elaboration. Page 28 of 81

29 Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CAR P2 The title has been changed. Please refer to the WWF reports and the sent by the Program Officer of the Terai Arc Landscape Program, containing the database. The document provided was checked and found to be in order. Hence closed. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CL P1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The verification team recalculated the number of households in the project sample group on the basis of actual installed bio-digesters according to EB 47, Annex 27 and found that the same seems to be lower than necessary to obtain statistically representative results in accordance with the methodology. Therefore the PP is requested to justify the sample size or revise the ER-calculation using a statistically representative sample. The MR should contain a detailed elaboration of the approach followed. Corrective Action #1 5% random sampling was decided ex-ante in the PDD. The calculations have been done accordingly. The sample size has been maintained at 5% or at least exceeding a minimum of 60 households. The detailed approach is given in the MR DOE Assessment #1 The justification along with revised MR was checked and found that this is in line with registered PDD as well. Hence accepted by verification team. Now this is closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CL P2 Classification CAR FAR CL None Page 29 of 81

30 Findings Corrective Action #1 DOE Assessment #1 Conclusion CL P2 The MR should be improved with respect to the description of trainings. The summary table on trainings refer to trainings in 2006 and may be not related to the project activity. Also, the institutions providing the trainings are not included in the MR. Moreover, a clear description of the measurement procedures for the SD indicators trainings provided as well as number of jobs created shall be added to the MR. Supporting documents shall be submitted for verification in order to back up the number of 400 jobs created in 2007, 421 jobs in 2008 to masons and supervisors. WWF conducts the training through various organizations and consultants and sometimes by WWF staffs in the field related to various activities and sometimes it is difficult to micro manage so as to get all the attendance registers. WWF Nepal in its next reports will try to get the names of the facilitators and the organizations or consultant involved in giving the trainings. The data of the trainings conducted are however reflected in the Government of Nepal and WWF Nepal s TAL Program s Annual Progress report and WWF also maintains a database on the various training conducted as reported from the field. The data pasted in the MR report was copypasted from the database excel sheet. For proof the cover pages of the Annual reports form the TAL PABZ and TAL CBRP projects have been attached. Regarding trainings in 2006, WWF Nepal has fiscal years running from 1st July to 30th June, therefore our annual reporting period also runs in the same fashion; resulting in the recording of training programs that lie semi annually between two years. The description has been added under section 18 in Page 22. The proof of jobs is the report obtained from the reports submitted by BSP Nepal to WWF Nepal. BSP Nepal closely works with the construction companies and also rates them on an annual basis. The companies that do well are financially rewarded and those that do not perform well are fined or not given a good performance rating. The data of employment is obtained from BSP Nepal s database The justification provided along with the data was checked and found to be satisfactory. This was also verified during site visit by the team by interviewing the people of WWF, BSP etc. Even the stake holders were interviewed about training for usage and it was found that the trainings were provided by BSP Nepal. Hence accepted and closed. To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 30 of 81

31 CL C1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings PP is requested to justify the validity of fire wood consumption in the monitoring period as per the MR, particular with focus on the fact that higher consumption values during winter were identified by the validation team during interviews with users during the site visit. Corrective Action #1 The monitoring of plants is done towards the end of the year, thus the data that we receive from the beneficiaries is conservative. DOE Assessment #1 The data received from the stake holders was cross verified by sample survey by the verification team. This was found to be Satisfactory. Hence closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CL C2 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings PP is requested to justify the validity of the average number of cattle (buffalos / cows) per household in the monitoring period as per the ER-spreadsheet, particular with focus on the contradictions within the MR, between MR and ER-spreadsheet as well as within the ER-spreadsheet (cell 116, sheet Emission_GS_Meth). Moreover, data utilised for calculating the baseline emissions of animal waste handling seem to be obtained in the baseline survey and have consequently not been monitored. Clarification or corrective action requested. Corrective Action #1 The changes have been made accordingly. Please refer to 1. Emission Reduction from 1st July 2007 to 31st December 2007.xls 2. Emission Reduction from 1st January 2008 to 31st December Emission Reduction from 1st July 2008 to 31st December 2008.xls DOE Assessment #1 The calculations were checked and found to be satisfactory. Hence closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements CL Q1 Page 31 of 81

32 CL Q1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings PP is requested to provide precise statements w.r.t. the data or parameters obtained in QC, ASS and QC of ASS as the MR in its current shape may convey the impression that all data relevant for calculating ERs or proving the project s contribution to SD is surveyed threefold. However, this seems to be not the case as for instance the fire wood consumption per household is not surveyed in ASS Corrective Action #1 Respective changes has been made in the new MR avoiding confusions as done in the earlier MR DOE Assessment #1 The revised MR received was checked and found to be satisfactory. Hence closed. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate action was not taken The project complies with the requirements FAR Q1 Classification CAR FAR CL None Findings The verification team detected that no internal audits and control measures within BSP / WWF have taken place in the monitoring period. The potential for errors and misinterpretations of data obtaining, handling and processing is high considering the huge amount of users. Please refer to CAR C6, proving the likeliness of imprecise data handling. Thus, it is deemed necessary to establish internal audit procedures of data obtained from users directly or indirectly which are relevant for calculating ERs in subsequent monitoring periods. Therefore, this FAR should be considered in following verifications. Corrective Action #1 WWF Nepal did not conduct internal audits because BSP Nepal is an ISO certified company. But with this FAR WWF Nepal will conduct an internal audit with BSP Nepal prior to the next verification. WWF Nepal would like to request the DOE for any formats to conduct the internal audits DOE Assessment #1 This will be checked during next verification. Conclusion To be checked during next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken MR was corrected correspondingly Appropriate should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 32 of 81