GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT

Transcription

1 GOLD STANDARD VERIFICATION REPORT MYCLIMATE FOUNDATION ENERGY EFFICIENT CO STOVES FOR SIAYA COMMUNITIES, KENYA Monitoring Period: to (incl. both days) Report No: /544 GS879 Date: TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstraße, Essen, Germany Phone: Fax:

2 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Verification Report: Report No. Rev. No. Date of issue: Date of this rev /544 GS Project: Title: Gold Standard Registration date: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Gold Standard No: GS879 Project Participant(s): Host party: Other involved parties: Applied methodology/ies: Republic of Kenya - Title: Version No.: Scope: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption 1.0 3/3.1 : Energy Demand Monitoring: Monitoring period (MP): No. of days: MP No to incl. both days Monitoring Report: Title: Draft version: Final version: Verification team / Technical Review and Final Approval Emission reductions: [t CO 2e] Summary of Verification Opinion: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Verification Team: Technical review: Final approval:: L. Kirchner (TL) G. Kochaniewicz(TM) David Lubanga (TM) Verified amount 10,680 9,201 Christina Stöhr Stefan Winter As per draft MR: Stefan Winter myclimate Foundation has commissioned the to carry out the Gold Standard verification of the project: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya, with regard to the relevant Gold Standard (GS) requirements for VER project activities. The project activity aims to reduce GHG emissions by construction and installation of fuel efficient cookstoves for rural communities in Siaya County, Kenya. The efficient cookstoves reduce the utilization of non-renewable biomass, improve air conditions through complete burning as well as reduce cooking time and firewood collection. This verification covers the monitoring period from to (including both days). In the course of the verification 2 Correction Action Request (CAR) and 4 Clarification Requests (CL) were raised and successfully closed. In this verification no Forward Action Request (FAR) has been raised. The verification is based on the draft monitoring report, revised monitoring report, the monitoring plan as set out in the registered PDD, the GS Passport, and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participants. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are being implemented as planned and described in the validated project design document and GS additional annexes to the PDD. the monitoring report is in accordance with the relevant GS requirements. the monitoring plans as set out in the validated PDD and the validated additional annexes to the PDD has been followed. the project contributes to sustainability development the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions. As the result of the GS VER 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 project has achieved emission reductions, which could be labelled Gold Standard in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Document information: Emission reductions: 10,680 tco2e Filename: Num. of pages: GS Final Verification Report_Siaya.pdf 74 Page 2 of 74

3 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Abbreviations: CA CAR CER CDM CO 2 CO 2eq CL ER FAR GHG GS MP MR NIS PDD PP RfDev RfRevMP SCADA QA/QC UNFCCC ER Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Certified Emission Reduction Clean Development Mechanism Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Clarification Request Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) The Gold Standard Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report National Interconnected System Project Design Document Project Participant Requests for deviations from the applied methodology Requests for revisions of the monitoring plan Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Emission Reduction Calculation Spread Sheet Page 3 of 74

4 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 7 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Characteristics Project Verification History Involved Parties and Project Participants Project Location Technical Project Description 9 3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE Verification Steps Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Publication of the Monitoring Report Verification Planning Desk review On-site assessment Draft verification reporting Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs Final reporting Technical review Final approval VERIFICATION FINDINGS SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS Implementation of the project Project history Special events Compliance with the GS monitoring plan Monitoring parameters Monitoring report ER Calculation Quality Management Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators Hints for next periodic Verification 30 Page 4 of 74

5 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 6. VERIFICATION OPINION REFERENCES ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF TEAM MEMBERS Page 5 of 74

6 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 1. INTRODUCTION myclimate Foundation has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to carry out the CDM Gold Standard (GS) verification of the project Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya with regard to the relevant requirements for Gold Standard CDM project activities. The project was registered on under the regular project cycle and as per guidelines on the Gold Standard version 2.1 (GSv2.1), and therefore retroactively credited. According to the Gold Standard 2.1 requirements, emission reductions of projects which occurred prior to GS registration may be eligible for retroactive crediting for up to a maximum period of two years prior to the date of Gold Standard registration. The verification covers the monitoring period to All of the emission reductions occurred in the considered monitoring period claim for retroactive crediting. The project GHG emissions reductions and sustainable development contribution are both included in the same Monitoring Report. GHG data was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the UNFCCC Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/ as well as the Gold Standard Validation and Verification Manual /GVVM/. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this Gold Standard verification of the above mentioned GS 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 and the contribution to sustainable development. It includes the verification of the: - Implementation and operation of the project activity as given in the PDD /PDD/ and GS Passport /GSP/. - compliance of the actual monitoring systems and procedures with the provisions of the monitoring plan as a part of registered PDD, the GS monitoring matrix and the applied approved monitoring methodology; - data given in the monitoring reports by checking the monitoring records, the emissions reduction calculation and supporting evidence - accuracy of the monitoring systems - quality of evidence - significance of reporting risks and risks of material misstatements. Page 6 of 74

7 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 1.2. Scope The verification of this project is based on the validated project design document version 3.2 /PDD/, the validated Gold Standard Passport version 3.2 /GSP/, for retroactive GS registration the sustainability monitoring report, the registered GS validation report /VAL/, 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/, - guidelines for the implementation of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol as presented in the Marrakech Accords under decision 17/CP.7 /MA/, and subsequent decisions made by the Executive Board and COP/MOP, - Gold Standard Version 2.1 /GS/ - the simplified modalities and procedures for small scale CDM project activities of annex II to decision 21/CP.8 /SMP/ - other relevant rules, including the host country legislation, - CDM Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/ - GS Validation and Verification Manual for Voluntary Offset Projects /GVVM/ - monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD /PDD/ - Gold Standard Monitoring matrix as given in the registered additional annexes to the PDD for retroactive GS registration Page 7 of 74

8 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 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 Project size Large Scale Small Scale Project Scope (according to UNFCCC sectoral scope numbers for CDM) Applied Methodology Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 1 Energy Industries (renewable- /non-renewable sources) 2 Energy distribution 3 Energy demand 4 Manufacturing industries 5 Chemical industry 6 Construction 7 Transport 8 Mining/Mineral production 9 Metal production 10 Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of 11 halocarbons and hexafluoride 12 Solvents use 13 Waste handling and disposal 14 Afforestation and Reforestation 15 Agriculture GS: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption Version : Energy Demand Technical Area(s) GS registration No. GS 879 Crediting period Renewable Crediting Period (7 y) 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 GS registration Start of crediting period Monitoring Period to Ongoing 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 8 of 74

9 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Table 2-3: Project Parties and project participants Characteristic Party Project Participant Host Party Republic of Kenya Tembea Youth Centre for Sustainable Development Other involved party/ies Switzerland myclimate Foundation 2.4. Project Location The details of the project location are given in table 2-4: Table 2-4: Project Location No. Host Country Region: Project location address: Latitude: Longitude: 2.5. Technical Project Description Project Location Republic of Kenya Siaya County, Nyanza Province Tembea Youth Centre for Sustainable Development P.O. Box 313, 40606, Ugunja, KENYA 00 10' 59.88" N 34 17' 59.99" W The project activity is the installation of efficient cookstoves in household kitchens in the project area. The biomass rocket stove is designed to burn wood and consists of two cooking units that can be separately fired. The stoves are fixed installations in households and reduce firewood consumption by approximately 40-50%. The stoves are constructed using locally available materials such as clay, bricks and sawdust. Page 9 of 74

10 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 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 draft monitoring report including the claimed emission reductions and the sustainability monitoring report submitted by the client and additional supporting documents Verification planning On-Site assessment Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project proponent 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 to Draft reporting finalised Final reporting finalised Technical review finalised 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 and GS accreditation requirements a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed. Page 10 of 74

11 Qualification Status 2) Scheme competence 3) Technical competence 4) Verification competence 5) Host country Competence On-site visit Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 3.3. 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 2 additional team members, was appointed. Furthermore also the personnel for the technical review and the final approval were determined. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the table (3-2) below. Table 3-2: Involved Personnel Name Company Function 1) Mr.. Lars Kirchner TÜV NORD CERT GmbH TL LA 3.1 Mr.. Grzegorz Kochaniewicz TÜV NORD CERT GmbH TM A) LA - Mr.. David Lubanga TÜV NORD CERT GmbH TM A) A - Mr.. Christina Stöhr TÜV NORD CERT GmbH TR B) LA - - Mr.. Stefan Winter TÜV NORD CERT GmbH TR/FA B) SA 3.1-1) 2) 3) 4) 5) TL: Team Leader; TM: Team Member A), TR: Technical review B) ; OT: Observer-Team B), OR: Observer-TR B) ; FA: Final approval B) A) Team Member: GHG auditor (at least Assessor status), Technical Expert (incl. Host Country Expert or Verification Expert), not ETE B) No team member: OT, TR, OR, FA GHG Auditor Status: A: Assessor; LA: Lead Assessor; SA: Senior Assessor; T: Trainee; TE: Technical Expert GHG auditor status (at least Assessor) Technical Area / TR Subcategory as per S01-VA000-F02 or S01-VA070-F01 (such as 1.1, 1.2, ) In case of verification projects 3.4. Publication of the Monitoring Report The draft Gold Standard MR and Sustainability Monitoring Report, as received from the project participants, has not been made publicly available in the Gold Standard website, as it is not required to publish the monitoring report under the current GS rules /GST/GSR/. Page 11 of 74

12 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 3.5. 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 3-3 below. Table 3-3: 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 occurrence. 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 the annex 1 (table A-1) to this report. Project specific periodic verification checklist Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including FARs) 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 GS verification protocol is developed. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means and results of the verification. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: Page 12 of 74

13 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya - It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a 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. The basic structure of this project specific verification protocol for the GS Pre CDM verification is described in table 3-4. Table 3-4: Structure of the project specific GS verification checklist Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist Checklist Item Reference 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 GS shall be covered in this section. Draft 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 clarifycation stage. Final Conclusion In case of a corrective action or a clarification the final assessment at the final verification stage is given. The GS 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 draft monitoring report, including the claimed emission reductions for the project, the Monitoring Usage Survey and Report /MUS/ the registered version of the PDD /PDD/ and attached documents, including the monitoring plan /MM/, the additional annexes to the PDD for retroactive GS registration including the GS monitoring matrix Page 13 of 74

14 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya the registered GS validation report /VAL/, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/ Other supporting documents, such as publicly available information on the Gold standard website, 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 onsite 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. Changes to the key sustainable development indicators and the achievement and implementation of mitigation / compensation measures are other integral parts of the on-site assessment. Keeping in mind the principles of materiality and quality of evidence, typical activities on-site include but are not limited to: Establishing the state of project implementation and compliance with the validated documents. Investigating whether all relevant GS aspects as reported in the draft monitoring report hold true. The operating staff and end users were interviewed and observed in order to check the integrity of data and sustainability indicators. Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were reviewed to check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked completely. The monitoring/usage survey data was cross-checked via interviews. Possibility of leakage was also checked. 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. A representative of myclimate Foundation and operational staff of Tembea Youth Centre for Sustainable Development were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-5. Page 14 of 74

15 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Table 3-5 Interviewed persons and interview topics Interviewed Persons / Entities 1. Project proponents (IM01) 2. Project & Operations Personnel (IM02) 3. Stakeholders (IM03 & 4) Interview topics - General aspects of the project - Changes since validation - Monitoring and measurement - 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 - Procedural aspects of the verification - Maintenance - Environmental aspects - Sustainability indicators 3.8. 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 along with a general project and procedural description of the verification and a detailed list of the verification findings from 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 Non-conformities 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. Page 15 of 74

16 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 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 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 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 verification team will submit the verification report including the verification opinion to the client via and to Gold Standard via the GS registry. Page 16 of 74

17 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the carbon and sustainability monitoring report, the PDD /PDD/ and additional annexes for GS registration, the GS 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 Reports 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 1). Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Section A.6: - Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) 1. Date of project registration is not consistent with the GS registry. 2. Furthermore, the MR title does not indicate whether crediting period includes first and last day. 3. Emission reduction calculations does not reflect the appropriate dates Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. R1 1. The registration date in the GS registry was not correct. The GS has now corrected the date and it is now consistent with the date in the MR, 03 July Page 17 of 74

18 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Finding: R1 2. This is the CDM template for MR and it is filled with information as per template format. The monitoring period is defined by the dates mentioned and includes the start and end day of the period. This is the common practice. 3. ER calculation is done for the mentioned monitoring period starting and ending DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox 1. Date of registration is confirmed from the GS registry as This is now consistent with the MR. 2. The monitoring period is from t This is consistent with stove sales record and ER calculations. 3. The ER calculation has been checked and found to cover the entire monitoring period ending /XLS/. The finding is closed To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Section D.2 Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the The manner of establishing the existence of similar cookstoves in Siaya county was not context (e.g. section) elaborated Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox P1 The sources checked for similar project activities in Siaya have been specified in the MR, page 12. In addition to the GS registry and CDM pipeline, the project owner uses its network in the project area to check if similar projects are being launched (this is other local sources).. The MR has been updated with the information regarding references to existing cookstove projects. The validation team has confirmed the same via UNFCCC website, the VCS and the GS registry and is convinced no probability of double counting of credits in line with of the GS Toolkit. The finding is closed To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 18 of 74

19 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Monitoring/Usage Survey Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) Please clarify the age categories 0-1 and 0-2 years. Corrective Action #1 This is an error. The correct age categories are 0-1 years and This section shall be filled by 1-2 years. This has been corrected in the usage survey the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. report, page 3. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox P2 All tables in all the relevant sections in the Monitoring/Usage Survey /MUS/ have been corrected in the monitoring survey. The stove ages over the first monitoring period is up to 1 year between 1 and 2 years old. Finding closed To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding The GPS coordinates collected in order to ease the Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the monitoring and verification activities were not precise. context (e.g. section) Clarification is requested. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encom- Page 19 of 74 P3 The methodology does not request the collection of GPS coordinates in the sales record. However, this project collects GPS points of every stove installed as a helpful tool for sampling and monitoring procedures. For most stoves GPS coordinates are correct and precise, however we have detected also some coordinates that apparently follow a road and thus were not taken at the household itself. We will intensify the training of field staff taking the GPS coordinates to ensure that the coordinates are as precise as possible. In general, the GPS coordinates help to follow the expansion of the project within the defined project area and help to assess the geographical representativeness of a selected sample. For this purpose the coordinates, also when not exactly taken at the home, are useful.. As evidenced during onsite, some of the GPS coordinates were not exactly precise but gave indications as

20 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Finding: pass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox P3 to location of particular stoves. The verification team notes the challenges of meeting exact records and hence deems this clarification satisfactory. Finding is closed To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding During the onsite visit the verification team collected different Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the statements from artisans and stove owners concerning the context (e.g. section) waiting period between construction and first use of the cook stove. The conservativeness of use of 14 days lag time between installation and entrance into emission reduction calculation has to be justified. PP is also requested to make the necessary corrections in the determination of total Project Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. C1 Technology Days The conservative figure for time lag between date of installation and first use of stove is 21 days. This is what the artisans recommend to the stove users. Although, in practice many household will start using the stove before the recommended 3 weeks waiting period (often they start usage already after 14 days). Emission reductions calculation has been adjusted using 21 days as time lag. This results in a lower figure for ER, which is more conservative. See _Tembea_project_database_2012_V02.xlsx, spreadsheet Project_technology_days, cell V3. DOE Assessment #1 Please note that now the CDM default value for fnrb, which is the official value approved by the Kenyan DNA, has been applied for ER calculations. The CDM default value is higher than the value calculated in the PDD. However, we are convinced that the official fnrb value is more appropriate, because in our own fnrb calculation - due to lack of data - we did only consider consumption of wood fuels as annual harvest of wood biomass (H), but not including forest clearance and timber extraction as proposed by the methodology. This leads of course to a lower value for fnrb. The revision has been incorporated to account for 21 days lag Page 20 of 74

21 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Finding: The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. C1 time and the same has been reflected in the revised ER calculations (column W and X) and the stoves in use less or equal to 21 days have been omitted.. The application promotes consistency and eliminates potential material errors in emission reduction (ER) calculations. This is now considered conservative and hence acceptable to the verification team. The updated 92% default f NRB value is acceptable as per provision of section C of the approved GS methodology and the data from the UNFCCC. The finding is closed Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Section C: - Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the As per the detailed Monitoring Manual, PP will hire the context (e.g. section) services of an independent entity to verify important monitoring details. However, the MR does not identify or mention steps taken to fulfil this issue in as far as sustainability indicators are concerned. A clarification is Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. Q1 sought The project owner has hired a third party to check the stove sales records from a financial perspective. This provides the means to validate the numbers of stoves installed as reported in the Total Sales Record (which is based on data from artisans from the field). This is done as a voluntary action of the project owner and is not requested by the methodology. This third party check is intended for the stove sales record, but does not apply to sustainability indicators. To check sustainability indicators is the responsibility of the DOE during verification. The third party financial audit report confirms the number of stoves installed and sold during monitoring period as listed in the total sales record. The third party report is submitted to the DOE for consideration. Page 21 of 74

22 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya Finding: Q1 DOE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox The methodology does not require a third party audit of the sales record in addition to the audit conducted by the DOE. For clarification: the monitoring manual is a working document for the project owner to define and manage the monitoring system. The monitoring manual will be updated and amended periodically to ensure an efficient monitoring system. The reference for the DOE regarding mandatory monitoring is the monitoring plan as set out in the PDD, and not the monitoring manual. As the applied methodology and GS requirements do not require third party audits, the clarification is accepted. To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 22 of 74

23 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya 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) 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. implementation plan of the rocket technology, as well as the monitoring of key parameters; the project has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD version 3.2. Details of stove construction were determined as follows: Year , ,236 Total 7,222 Number of Stoves 5.2. 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. No such issues were identified for this project. Furthermore as this is the 1 st periodic verification no issues from former verifications are to be considered Special events No special events with effect on the monitoring of the project have been observed during the monitoring period Compliance with the GS monitoring plan Evidence was available to the verification team to check the compliance of the GS monitoring plan. The reporting procedures reflect the requirements of the monitoring plan. All relevant data is collected continuously and stored during the whole monitoring period. Page 23 of 74

24 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya The monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology (Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption). The SD indicators as per the validated monitoring plan are monitored and reported appropriately and cross-verified by means of desk review of supporting documents, interviews with the PP, staff and relevant stakeholders. The monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the registered monitoring plan Monitoring ER parameters During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in chapter B.7.1 of the PDD) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, 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. Parameter Project technologies credited (units) PP reports 7,222 constructed/sold stoves. The reported number of constructed stoves is plausible with the capacity of the reported artisans. During the onsite visit, the verification team applied standard auditing techniques to assess the quality of information provided. The following activities were performed Crosschecking the data collection and entries in sales record /XLS//SR/. Sampling of randomly chosen stoves from the database. Checking all relevant forms from artisans, lead artisans and stove owners and comparing with the computer database. Visual inspection and interviews of randomly selected homesteads /onsite//im04/ Verifying the sampling effort in the monitoring/usage survey /MUS/ and calculations /XLS/ A review of the QA/QC procedures to ensure correctness and data integrity No errors or inconsistencies in data collection and recording were found. In further step verification team selected 32 stoves from the database and conducted combined personal and telephone onsite interviews. All reported cook stove were found in place and operational. Therefore, verification team confirmed the number of reported stove. i). Project Technologies credited (October July 2012) The number of cookstoves disseminated to households in Siaya county can be traced via sales record. 7,222 improved rocket stoves could be determined by checking the sales database against the Artisan and Lead artisan rcords. By choosing random samples and cross-checking with the construction records, the verification teams confirms creditability of the data as no discrepancy was Page 24 of 74

25 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya discovered. Also, all households chosen randomly for a physical inspection had a functioning ICS. Hence, the figure of 7,222 stoves can be unambiguously verified. ii). U p,2 Usage rate in project scenario during year y Usage rate of 97.9% was reported in used in the ER calculation. Only 5 stoves built in the initial phase of the project activity in 2010 were found to be non operational. Using minimum sample size of 120 (60 for age groups 0-1 years and 60 for 1-2 years) PP determined 100% usage rate for age 0-1 and 92.6% usage rate respectively. The weighted usage rate of 97.2% was calculated as per requirements of the methodology. Validation team selected randomly 32 stove from the database and conducted combined personal (home visits) and telephone interviews. All interviewed households were found in possession of operational and used cook stove. Therefore verification team confirmed the number of reported stove. Further during onsite interview, the household stove users demonstrated a sound knowledge of the cookstoves and maintenance and reporting procedures. The reason for the drop of cook stove from the age class 1-2 might be in the initial distribution of new technology and knowledge. Verification team confirms correctness and conservativeness of the reported usage rate. CL P2 was raised and successfully closed. iii). N p,1 - Project Technology Days, cumulative number of technology days in the project database for project scenario As per requirements of the approved GS methodology, project technology days were calculated as cumulative number of technology days in the project database for project scenario. The cook stove are entering the ER calculation after 14 days lag to account for drying and seasoning of new build cook stove. CAR C1 was raised and successfully closed to account for differences in the draft MR recorded lag time versus reported lag time during onsite visit. After successful closure of the raised finding the verification team confirms the conservativeness of the calculated project technology days of 1,708,957. iv). P p,y - Quantity of woody biomass consumed in the project scenario during years (2011/2012) The value of t wood/year via PFT. This is as per the validated and registered PDD version 3.2. Hence the application in ER determination is correct and consistent. v). LE p,y Leakage in project scenario during year y Five types of Leakage were identified in monitoring plan of the registered PDD. Project participant collected leakage data during monitoring survey. No leakage was found due to any of the identified leakage sources: 1. Displacement and further use of the old less efficient technology- the common technology used prior the project activity was three stove open fire. There is no need Page 25 of 74

26 Gold Standard Verification Report: Energy Efficient Cook Stoves for Siaya to transfer any open fires from the project activity as the technology represents no economical value. Most of the interviewed households during the onsite visit confirmed rare interval use of old technology in case of additional visitors like family or church meetings. 2. Use of biomass saved in the project activity by households that were previously using more efficient technology outside the project boundary- The most common technology in the project are is the three stove fire. The use of more efficient technology in baseline was not confirmed. 3. Interference with coexistent ER project activity on the saving of NRB fraction in the project area- No other ER project activity were reported and witnessed during verification onsite visit. 4. Compensation of space heating lost due to the project activity- Most of the kitchens are separated from homes and dormitories. The tropical climate in the project area does not require additional heating. 5. Replacement of more efficient technology by introducing project technology. No efficient technologies were reported and witnessed during onsite visit. Verification team has crosschecked the data collected during the Monitoring survey /MUS//SUR/ and conducted interviews with surveyors /IM02/ and households /IM04/. Validation team confirms the correctness and results monitoring of leakage." Parameter Similar cook stove project activities in the project area CL P1 was raised and successfully closed. 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. vi). Similar cook stove project activities in the project area As dictated by Section I of the applied methodology /METH/, the existence of similar stov projects in the rea could lead to double counting of emission reductions. An annual check of similar project activities is required. This has been confired via credible sources (UNFCCC, GS, UNEP RISOE, and VCS registries) and hence, the claim that no similar activity in the Siaya County area is deemed accurate Monitoring report A draft monitoring report version 01 dated was submitted to the verification team by the project participants in time before the onsite visit 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 (MR) is complete and transparent and in accordance with the registered PDD and other relevant requirements. Page 26 of 74