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

Transcription

1 JP MORGAN VENTURES ENERGY CORPORATION ( JP MORGAN CLIMATE CARE ) VERIFICATION OF THE EFFICIENT COING WITH UGASTOVES REPORT NO. KENYA - VER N/AAS/08/050/2009 REVISION NO. 01 BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION Report Template Revision 5, 13/02/2009

2 Date of first issue: Organizational unit: 02/12/2009 Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS Client: Client ref.: JP Morgan Ventures Energy Dr. Adam Harvey Corporation ( JP Morgan Climate Care ) Summary: Bureau Veritas Certification has made the verification of the Efficient Cooking with Ugastoves, Gold Standard Registration Reference Number GS447, project of JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JP Morgan Climate Care ) located in in Plot 574, Kayemba Road, Nkere Zone, Kibuye I Parish, Makindye Division, Kampala, Uganda on the basis of requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard, UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Development Mechanism. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM rules and modalities and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board, host country criteria as well as the Gold Standard Validation & Manual for Voluntary Offset Projects and criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and Reporting. The verification scope is defined as a periodic independent review and ex post determination by the Designated Operational Entity of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions during defined verification period, and consisted of the following three phases: i) desk review of the project design and the baseline and monitoring plan; ii) follow-up interviews with project stakeholders; iii) resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final verification report and opinion. The overall verification, from Contract Review to Report & Opinion, was conducted using Bureau Veritas Certification internal procedures. The first output of the verification process is a list of Clarification, Corrective Actions Requests, Forward Actions Requests (CR, CAR and FAR), presented in Appendix A. In summary, Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that the project is implemented as planned and described in validated and registered project design documents. The monitoring system is in place and the project is ready to generate GHG emission reductions. The GHG emission reduction is calculated without material misstatements. Our opinion relates to the project s GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported and related to the valid and registered project baseline and monitoring, and its associated documents. Report No.: KENYA - VER N/AAS/08/050/2009 Project title: Efficient Cooking with Ugastoves Subject Group: GS -VER Indexing terms Work carried out by: Team Leader : Mr. Flavio Gomes Team Member : Mr. James Metto No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organizational unit Work verified by: Dr. Ashok Mammen Limited distribution Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages: 21/12/ Unrestricted distribution 2

3 Abbreviations CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CER Certified Emission Reductions CL Clarification Request CO 2 Carbon Dioxide DOE Designated Operational Entity FAR Forward Action Request GHG Green House Gas(es) I Interview IETA International Emissions Trading Association MoV Means of NGO Non Government Organization PCF Prototype Carbon Fund PDD Project Design Document UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change VVM Validation and Manual UNFCCC VER United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change Voluntary Emission Reductions GS Gold Standard GS-VERs Gold Standard Voluntary Emission Reductions GS-TAC Gold Standard Technical Advisory Committee GS-VER-PDD Project Design Document for Gold Standard Voluntary Offset projects 3

4 Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope GHG Project Description Team 6 2 METHODOLOGY Review of Documents Follow-up Interviews Resolution of Clarification, Corrective and Forward Action Requests 7 3 VERIFICATION CONCLUSIONS Project implementation in accordance with the registered project design document (189) Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology (194) Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan (197) Gold Standard Requirements - Sustainable Development Indicators Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions (200) 11 4 VERIFICATION OPINION REFERENCES Curricula Vitae of the DOE s Team Members Appendix A: company CDM PROJECT Protocol

5 1 INTRODUCTION JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JP Morgan ClimateCare )has commissioned Bureau Veritas Certification to verify the emissions reductions of its of its Gold Standard project (hereafter called the project ) at Plot 574, Kayemba Road, Nkere Zone, Kibuye I Parish, Makindye Division, Kampala, Uganda. This report summarizes the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard, UNFCCC criteria as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. 1.1 Objective is the periodic independent review and ex post determination by the DOE of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions during defined verification period. The objective of the Gold Standard verification is to verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the Gold Standard monitoring plan. The GS verification is based on the GS Monitoring plan and the additional requirements stated by the Gold Standard. 1.2 Scope The verification scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document, the project s baseline study and monitoring plan and other relevant documents. The information in these documents is reviewed against Kyoto Protocol requirements, requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard, UNFCCC rules and associated interpretations. The verification is not meant to provide any consulting towards the Client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project monitoring towards reductions in the GHG emissions. 1.3 GHG Project Description The project reduces green-house emissions by disseminating fuel-efficient stoves. The project is based on pilot work in 2005 by the Urban Community Development Association of Kampala, Uganda (Ugastove). A stove manufacturing business with the name Ugastove was founded on the basis of this pilot work in Three types of stoves are marketed by Ugastove: a. improved fuel-efficient charcoal stoves for domestic and restaurant use b. improved fuel-efficient residential wood stoves c. improved fuel-efficient institutional wood stoves The improved charcoal stove reduces fuel consumption by introduction of an insulated combustion chamber which increases combustion efficiency and retains heat. The wood 5

6 stoves use the well-proven rocket technology, which consists of an insulated elbowjointed combustion chamber that increases combustion efficiency and retains heat while also raising the cooking pot to the hottest point above the flame. The institutional rocket stoves further increase heat transfer by having the cooking pot rest within a skirt. While these stoves will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they simultaneously provide co benefits to users and families in the form of relief from high fuel costs and reduced exposure to health damaging airborne pollutants. To date, Ugastove has concentrated its marketing efforts in Kampala, with some limited extension to the other urban areas of Uganda. The dissemination of improved charcoal stoves is targeted to urban areas where charcoal use is most pervasive. The improved institutional wood stoves are targeted to urban and periurban areas to replace traditional wood fires in institutions such as schools which pay high fuel costs. The wood stoves are not yet marketed widely and are intended for rural areas. Operational stove-years are an important concept, since GHG emission reductions are dependent not on the sale of an improved stove for use in a kitchen operating an inefficient stove, but rather they are dependent on the number of months or years the improved stove is in daily use. An improved stove working for six months qualifies as 0.5 operational stove-years. Currently inefficient and polluting cooking regimes are deeply established in the culture. The project aims to break this mould and move large populations away from conditions under which GHG emissions are unacceptably high, and health effects are unacceptably inhumane, for the women and children spending long hours each day in conventional kitchens. 1.4 Team The validation team consists of the following personnel: Flavio Gomes Bureau Veritas Certification James Metto Bureau Veritas Certification Ashok Mammen Bureau Veritas Certification, Team Leader, Climate Change Verifier Climate Change Verifier Internal reviewer 6

7 2 METHODOLOGY The overall verification, from Contract Review to Report & Opinion, was conducted using Bureau Veritas Certification internal procedures. In order to ensure transparency, a verification protocol was customized for the project, according to the version 01 of the Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Manual, issued by the Executive Board at its 44 meeting on 28/11/2008. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from verifying the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes: It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements the project is expected to meet; It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifier will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification. The completed validation protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. 2.1 Review of Documents The Monitoring Reports (MR) version and version , submitted by JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JP Morgan Climate Care ) and additional background documents related to the project design and baseline, i.e. country Law, Project Design Document (GS-VER-PDD), Approved methodology, Kyoto Protocol, Clarifications on Requirements to be Checked by a Designated Operational Entity were reviewed. The verification findings presented in this report relate to the project as described in the GS-VER-PDD version Follow-up Interviews On 29/06/2009 and 30/06/2009 Bureau Veritas Certification performed interviews with project stakeholders to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. Representatives of JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JP Morgan Climate Care ), Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD), CIRCODU and Ugastoves were interviewed (see References). The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table 1. 7

8 Table 1 Interview topics Interviewed Interview topics organization JP Morgan Ventures Project Design and implementation Energy Corporation Calibration and operation ( JP Morgan Climate Monitoring Plan and management procedures Care ) Monitoring data GHG Calculation Data uncertainty and residual risks (QA/QC) Environmental Impacts Compliance with National Laws and Regulations Ugastoves Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD) CIRCODU Staff Training, Sales Records Production Records Calibration and operation Monitoring Plan and management procedures Monitoring data GHG Calculation Data uncertainty and residual risks (QA/QC) 2.3 Resolution of Clarification, Corrective and Forward Action Requests The objective of this phase of the verification is to raise the requests for corrective actions and clarification and any other outstanding issues that needed to be clarified for Bureau Veritas Certification positive conclusion on the GHG emission reduction calculation. From the Validation process 7 Forward Action Requests (FAR s) which had been raised have now been clarified based on the s received from the project proponent as detailed in Appendix A Findings established during the initial 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 (CAR) is issued, where: (a) Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; (b) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; 8

9 (c) Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants. Forward Action Requests (FAR) are issued, for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period. The verification team may also use the term Clarification Request (CL), if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the concerns raised are documented in more detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A. 3 VERIFICATION CONCLUSIONS In the following sections, the conclusions of the verification are stated. The findings from the desk review of the original monitoring documents and the findings from interviews during the follow up visit are described in the Protocol in Appendix A. The Clarification, Corrective and Forward Action Requests are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Protocol in Appendix A. The verification of the Project resulted in 07 Corrective Action Requests and 07 Clarification Requests. The number between brackets at the end of each section corresponds to the VVM paragraph. 3.1 Project implementation in accordance with the registered project design document (189) BVC has performed an on-site visit to verify the real implementation of the Project against the description in the registered GS VER-PDD and found that all facilities and equipments essential for generating GHG emission reductions. All the physical features of the GS VER project activity reviewed based on the registered GS-VER-PDD were found in place during the site visit carried out from 29th to 30th June The project is a stove manufacturing business with the name Ugastove which reduces green-house gas emissions by disseminating fuel-efficient stoves. The manufacturing and distribution process was reviewed during the site visit and found to be in place and have been implemented and operated properly during this monitoring period as described in the registered GS VER-PDD The implementation status of the project is follows:- GS VER registration number: GS-447 9

10 Project Database period (stove sales eligible for crediting): 01/01/2006 to 31/03/2009 Emissions Reduction crediting period: 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2009 The actual operation of the proposed project activity is as defined in the registered GS- VER-PDD and there is no change. The project reduces green-house emissions by disseminating fuel-efficient stoves. The dissemination of improved charcoal stoves is targeted to urban areas while the improved institutional wood stoves are targeted to urban and peri-urban areas to replace traditional wood fires in institutions. All the data and variables provided in the monitoring report are according the registered GS-VER- PDD. 3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology (194) The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the proposed Gold Standard project activity 3.3 Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan (197) Monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered GS VER-PDD. The parameters required by the monitoring plan and the way the Team has verified the values in the monitoring reports are described below: (a) Stove years The Ugastove Sales Records which are updated daily enables the project participants to monitor stove years. These records are kept in Quickbooks and exported to Excel format. The sales record used to create the Project Database, which re-organizes sales data and tracks the quantity of stoves sold each day, by cluster was verified by sampling specific sales records and confirming that the correct data has been indicated in the project data base records as well as the values reported in the monitoring report (b) Project Fuel Consumption this parameter is monitored every two years using the Kitchen performance test this parameter was determined prior to Validation and this being a retroactive verification the values have not changed. (c) Clustering definitions this parameter is determined using Monitoring Kitchen Surveys on a quarterly basis - this parameter was determined prior to Validation and this being a retroactive verification the values used during validation was used. (d) Usage factor this parameter was determined prior to Validation and this being a retroactive verification the values have not changed. (e) Age Factor - this parameter was determined prior to Validation and this being a retroactive verification the values have not changed 10

11 3.4 Gold Standard Requirements - Sustainable Development Indicators The Sustainable Development Indicators parameters monitored on an ongoing basis included Air Quality, Livelihood of the Poor, Employment, Access to Energy Services, Human and Institutional Capacity, Technological Self Reliance. The Air Quality, Livelihood of the Poor are monitored using Quarterly Kitchen Surveys required from April 2009, previously, the impact on of the Ugastove project on livelihood of the poor was monitored by the amount of money saved by Ugandans based on the price of charcoal, the number of stoves sold, and the amount of fuel savings recorded in the Kitchen Performance Tests. Employment of people in the Makindye neighbourhood of Uganda has been demonstrable from the reviewed records of employment which indicate employment of 52 people both in production and non-production activities staff in 2009 compared to 49 people in Stove retailers totaling 135 as of 2009 are currently employed by Ugastoves in the stove sales which contribute to improvement of their livelihood. Access to Energy Services, Human and Institutional Capacity, Technological Self Reliance have been monitored and reported using the sales record which indicated that between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 Ugastove provided Ugandans with an average of 1412 efficient stoves per month, while the training records availed indicated development of human and Institutional capacity. Lastly Ugastoves has redesigned the stove that saves additional fuel evidencing Technological Self reliance. 3.5 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions (200) The reported data was cross-checked as follows:- All the necessary data and all the parameters foreseen to be monitored in the registered GS-VER-PDD were available to the DOE. A Project Database kept electronically by CEIHD (Annex 04 - Ugastove Project Database to ) was reviewed to determine the logging of how many stoves of each type (sorted by cluster) entered use on each day. Protection of the database from tampering was demonstrable as CEIHD maintains this file as a password protected excel document. Ugastove saved sales receipts and truck logs that allow cross checks of sales, the sales records were checked by a third party, the Center for Integrated Research and Community Development, Uganda (CIRCODU). CIRCODU audited sales entries and 11

12 contacted customers to confirm that sales records were conservative, as expressed in their report Annex 12 CIRCODU Ugastove Sales Audit Report. According to the registered GS-VER-PDD the difference between the values for project and baselines emissions are the average emission reductions for the sample of stoves tested in the respective Kitchen Tests. The formula is: ER (per stove-year) = Eproject (per stove-year) Ebaseline (per stove-year) Emission reductions per stove-year for sample and adjusted for all sales are as detailed in Table below (from the registered GS-VER-PDD) Emission reductions per stove-year for sample and adjusted for all sales (From Table E.5 of GS-VER-PDD) Cluster Stove type Emission reductions Fuel savings Emission reductions Average from sample Lower bound of 90% C.I. Lower bound of 90% C.I. tco2e/st-yr tco2e/st-yr a Charcoal Sizes t/yr 1.46 b Charcoal Size t/yr Institutional kg/adjusted meal d Wood domestic t/yr 2.56 The table sets out the values of the average emission reductions for each sample in the respective Kitchen Tests, and also sets out the mean fuel savings and emission reductions at the lower bound of a 90% confidence interval, as required by the methodology. The Management System for the Project including the organization structure with the responsibilities was reviewed for to determine effectiveness of the monitoring process being implemented for the project. As per the registered GS-VER-PDD, the Monitoring plan has clearly prescribed the management and operational procedures for the various steps including the monitoring, recording, data management including backup, audit and training for relevant personnel involved in the Project. CIRCODU has been hired by CEIHD to carry out an Audit Exercise at Ugastove in order to verify the stove production and sales records, a report of this audit has been provided in Annex 12 of the monitoring report. BVC has verified the Management and Quality Assurance procedures and found the management and operational system appropriate and effective Appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed. The assumptions, emission factors and default values that were applied in the calculations have been justified. 4 VERIFICATION OPINION Bureau Veritas Certification has performed a verification of the Efficient Cooking with Ugastoves Project in Uganda. The verification was performed on the basis of Gold 12

13 Standard requirements, UNFCCC criteria, host country criteria and on the criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The verification consisted of the following three phases: i) desk review of the project design and the baseline and monitoring plan; ii) follow-up interviews with project stakeholders; iii) resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final verification report and opinion. The management of JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JP Morgan Climate Care ) is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions of the project on the basis set out within the project Monitoring and Plan indicated in the final GS-VER-PDD version The development and maintenance of records and reporting procedures in accordance with that plan, including the calculation and determination of GHG emission reductions from the project, is the responsibility of the management of the project. Bureau Veritas Certification verified the Project Monitoring Report version QMR start- Q109 Ugastoves for the reporting period as indicated below. Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that the project is implemented and described in validated and registered project design documents. The monitoring system is in place and the project is ready to generate GHG emission reductions Bureau Veritas Certification can confirm that the GHG emission reduction is calculated without material misstatements. Our opinion relates to the project s GHG emissions and resulting GHG emissions reductions reported and related to the valid and registered project baseline and monitoring, and its associated documents. Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm the following statement: Reporting period: From 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2009 Emission Reductions : 69,952 t CO2 equivalents 5 REFERENCES Category 1 Documents: Documents provided by Type the name of the company that relate directly to the GHG components of the project. /1/ Validation Report NO Revision NO. 04 /2/ Project Design Document (GS-VER-PDD), version /3/ Monitoring Report version /4/ Monitoring Report version /5/ Ugastove Project Database to /6/ Sales report dated 11/11/2008, Sales Audit report (QMR Annex 12 CIRCODU Ugastove Sales Audit Report) for verification of the stove production and sales records in the months of January, May, July, August and September

14 Category 2 Documents: Background documents related to the design and/or methodologies employed in the design or other reference documents. /1/ Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes /2/ Calibration Certificate dated 17/05/2006 for T-50 and the Scale and Weight Calibration Protocol /3/ Staff Training Records /Training Reports dated October and December 2008 /4/ Samples of Stove Warranty Cards for Sales done in 2008 /5/ Employment Contracts/records for Employees in 2008 and 2009 /6/ Employment Contract for the 3 rd party expert CIRCODU to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Control by carrying out an Audit of production and Sales records Persons interviewed: List persons interviewed during the validation or persons that contributed with other information that are not included in the documents listed above. /1/ Mr. Tom Owino JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JPMorgan Climate Care ) /2/ Mr. Matt Evans Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD) /3/ Ms. Caitlyn Toombs Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD) /4/ Mr. Kawere Muhammad C.E.O Ugastoves Ltd /5/ Mr. Paul Kakaire Ugastoves Ltd /6/ Mr. Sekibombo Jesse - Ugastoves Ltd /7/ Mr. Joseph Ndemere CIRCODU /8/ Mr. Fred Isabirye CIRCODU 14

15 6. CURRICULA VITAE OF THE DOE S VERIFICATION TEAM MEMBERS Bureau Veritas Certification, Lead GHG Verifier Flavio Gomes Flavio Gomes is a MSc graduate in chemical engineering, and the global manager for climate in Bureau Veritas. Flavio has a vast experience in activities related to CDM, such as: participation in validation and verification team, tutor of internal training courses for validators/verifiers qualification and internal reviewer of validation and verification reports issued by BV Cert. Bureau Veritas Certification, Team Member, Climate Change Verifier James Metto James Metto is a Bachelor of Science graduate in Agricultural Engineering with experience in Quality and Environmental management in Engineering, Manufacturing, chemical and Service Industries. He is ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14001:2004 Lead Auditor and has also experience in the implementation of Environmental Management Systems. James is qualified as a Verifier GHG Green House Gases. Bureau Veritas Certification, Internal Technical Reviewer Dr. Ashok Mammen Ashok Mammen - PhD (Oils & Lubricants), MsC (Analytical chemistry). Over 20 years of experience in petrochemical sector. Dr. Mammen is a lead auditor for environment, safety and quality management systems and a lead verifier for GHG projects. He has been involved in the validation and verification processes of more than 50 CDM and other GHG projects. 15

16 APPENDIX A: COMPANY GOLD STANDARD PROJECT VERIFICATION PROTOCOL VERIFICATION PROTOCOL Table 1 requirements based on the Validation and Manual (EB44 Annex 3) CHECKLIST QUESTION 1 Project implementation in accordance with the registered project design document It is assessed if the GS - VER project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD * a Are all physical features of the proposed GS VER project activity, proposed in the registered PDD, in place? b Have the project participants operated the proposed GS VER project activity as per the registered PDD? CONCLUSIONS All the physical features of the GS VER project activity reviewed based on the registered PDD were found in place during the site visit carried out from 29 th to 30 th June The project is a stove manufacturing business with the name Ugastove which reduces green-house gas emissions by disseminating fuel-efficient stoves. The manufacturing and distribution process was reviewed during the site visit and found to be in place. The project participant has operated the proposed GS VER project activity as per the registered PDD. Draft Concl Final Concl c Is the proposed GS VER project implemented against the description in the PDD? Yes the project as been implemented as per the description of the registered PDD. 16

17 CHECKLIST QUESTION CONCLUSIONS d Was an on-site visit conducted? Yes. The onsite visit was conducted on 29 th and 30 th June This is the first verification covering the pre-registration period. The audit purpose and methodology was explained in the meeting participated by the following persons. Draft Concl Final Concl Mr. James Metto - Bureau Veritas Certification. Mr. Andrew Kinyanjui - Bureau Veritas Certification Mr. Tom Owino JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation ( JPMorgan Climate Care ) Mr. Matt Evans Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD) Ms. Caitlyn Toombs Centre for Entrepreneurship in International Health and Development (CEIHD) Mr. Kawere Muhammad Ugastoves Ltd Mr. Paul Kakaire - Ugastoves Ltd Mr. Sekibombo Jesse - Ugastoves Ltd Mr. Joseph Ndemere CIRCODU Mr. Fred Isabirye - CIRCODU e If not, justify the rationale of the decision. Not Applicable N/A N/A 2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology It Is assessed if the monitoring plan of the proposed GS - VER project activity is in accordance with the applied methodology 17

18 CHECKLIST QUESTION a. Is the validated monitoring plan in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the proposed GS project activity? b. If no, was a request for revision of the monitoring plan was done? (The DOE may request for revision of the monitoring plan covering the monitoring period under verification, for approval by the Board) c. Are there any monitoring aspects of the project activity that are not specified in the methodology, particularly in the case of small-scale methodologies (e.g. additional monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency and calibration frequency)? CONCLUSIONS The validated monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the proposed GS project activity i.e. The Indicative programme, Baseline and monitoring methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 Draft Concl Final Concl Not Applicable N/A N/A No all the monitoring aspects of the project activity are specified by the Methodology 3 Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan It is assessed if monitoring of reductions in GHG emissions to result from the proposed GS - VER project activity is implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD or the accepted revised monitoring plan *. a Have the monitoring plan and the applied methodology been properly implemented and followed by the project participants? The Monitoring plan requires that a Monitoring Kitchen Survey is undertaken of 25 Ugastove customers each three months by CIRCODU, however this has not been implemented, there is need to demonstrate that 25 customers are surveyed on a CAR 1 CAR 1 CLOSED Hence 18

19 CHECKLIST QUESTION quarterly basis CONCLUSIONS Draft Concl Final Concl The methodology recommends that all the data in the DCD is derived from interviews in the homes of the customers, rather than by telephone, so that the observations of the interviewer will help to avoid mis-communications. To accommodate conditions where this is practically difficult, the largest possible ratio should be achieved, not falling below 50% of the data in the DCD being derived from interviews in the homes of the customers. However Annex 12 QMR indicates that the verification of institutional stoves was done by contacting the users by telephone CAR 2 CAR 2 CLOSED Hence 19

20 b CHECKLIST QUESTION CONCLUSIONS Have all parameters stated in the monitoring plan, the applied methodology and relevant GS - VER requirements been sufficiently monitored and updated as applicable, including: i Project emission parameters? The Project emission parameters have been incorporated into the emissions reductions equations for all the stoves based on the Kitchen Surveys and Kitchen tests, however inclusion of a diesel operated liner mixing machine from February 2009 which had not been factored in during determination of the project emissions prior to registration was observed during the site visit, this needs to be addressed to ensure the emissions reductions reported during this period excludes project emissions generated by operations of the Diesel Engine Draft Concl CAR 3 Final Concl CAR 3 CLOSED Hence ii Baseline emission parameters? The baseline emission parameters have been incorporated into the emissions reductions equations for all the stoves based on the Kitchen Surveys and Kitchen tests. iii Leakage parameters? Qualitative assessment through quarterly Kitchen survey home visits throughout the project period is used to monitor leakage, however the quarterly Kitchen Survey report is not clear on monitoring details of leakage as required by the methodology CL 1 CL 1 CLOSED Hence iv Management and operational system: the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan? The management and operational system for monitoring and reporting of the project activities has been defined in the registered PDD through the established Organogram 1 (Ugastove Organizational Chart and Monitoring Relationships), Organogram 2 (Manufacturing Team Organizational Chart) and Organogram 3 CL 2 CL 2 CLOSED Hence 20

21 CHECKLIST QUESTION CONCLUSIONS (Sales Team Organizational Chart). During the site visit it was however noted that changes of staff have occurred since the registration of the project but this changes have not been reflected in the organization s management and operational system e.g. Organizations management structure in PDD does not reflect actual scenario e.g. Company Secretary position is now shared The employment of the 3 rd Party expert was demonstrable from the contract reviewed during the site visit e.g. the Contract dated 27/10/2008 between CEIHD and CIRCODU, the responsibilities and authorities for their monitoring process was however not defined by the contract. The Monitoring plan states that, With respect to training of monitoring personnel, CIRCODU has been, and will continue to be trained and briefed by CEIHD to undertake key monitoring tasks and in turn will provide training alongside CEIHD experts, to the Ugastove staff in record keeping relevant to monitoring however there was no records indicating implementation of the training during the site visit. Draft Concl CL 3 CAR 4 Final Concl CL 3 CLOSED Hence CAR 4 CLOSED Hence 21

22 CHECKLIST QUESTION c Is the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring in accordance with the relevant guidance provided by the GS Requirement and are equipment controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan? i Are monitoring results consistently recorded as per approved frequency? ii Have quality assurance and quality control procedures been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan? CONCLUSIONS The equipment used during the Biannual Kitchen tests i.e weighing scales did not have a define procedure to ensure their accuracy through calibration The details on a three month basis of the Kitchen surveys done was not evident from the monitoring reports provided there is need to demonstrate that 25 customers are surveyed on a quarterly basis Refer to CAR No. 1 Yes - The employment of an expert 3rd party CIRCODU for monitoring demonstrable from the availed report. The responsibilities as defined by QA/QC procedures included ensuring that the Detailed Customer Database and the Project Database are up to date and that the latter is representative of the most recent definitions of clusters, cross-checking the Sales Record with the sales records of retailers, and with production records (materials purchases, staff numbers), and with Ugastoves s internal accounting records, The 3 rd party expert s was required as per the procedures to report on the methods used for such cross-checks and their findings in the quarterly monitoring reports, however the details of the available reports did not include this information. The approved methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 indicates that, The use of serial numbers on project stoves is recommended to facilitate cross-checks and prevent double-counting. It was however observed from the Draft Concl Final Concl CL 4 CL 4 CLOSED Hence Refer to CAR 1 CAR 1 CLOSED Hence CAR 5 CL 5 CAR 5 CLOSED Hence CL 5 CLOSED Hence 22

23 CHECKLIST QUESTION CONCLUSIONS visit to one of the distributors as well as the production process that this has not been implemented Draft Concl Final Concl Sales Reporting; Sales report dated 11/11/2008 provides a summary of sales/distribution including; Katwe summary that captures 7 stoves replaced size 1, this has been captured in the sales system as new sales no further information is provided in relation to the stoves that were replaced. A sales transaction in the same sales report M.A Hardware involved exchange of 3 stoves (size 1) for one rocket stove, the same has been posted in system as new rocket sale, reconciliation of stoves exchange is not catered for in Ugastoves CO 2 crediting management. CL 6 CL 6 CLOSED Hence 23

24 CHECKLIST QUESTION CONCLUSIONS Draft Concl Final Concl 4 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions It is assessed if GHG emission reductions achieved by / resulting from the proposed GS - VER project activity are calculated applying the selected methodology a. Is a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available? (If no, i.e., only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the DOE shall opt to either make the most conservative assumption theoretically possible in finalizing the verification report, or raise a request for deviation if appropriate). b. Has information provided in the monitoring report been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis? c. Have calculations of baseline emissions, proposed GS - VER project activity emissions and leakage, as appropriate, been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document? The monitoring reports for the period have been provided. The verification of the records including Sales records and production records was carried out during the site visit The information provided in the monitoring report has been cross checked with the sales records and delivery notes. The monitoring report version includes ER Calculation for Charcoal Size 2 6 stoves which is not as per the registered Project PDD which indicates Charcoal size 2 5. This had been identified as CAR No. 14 during validation. The values has been interchanged in ER Calculations summary for stove sizes 1 and 2-6 CAR 6 CL 7 CAR 6 CLOSED Hence CL 7 CLOSED Hence 24

25 CHECKLIST QUESTION d. Have any assumptions used in emission calculations been justified? e. Have appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values been correctly applied? CONCLUSIONS The project assumes that the charcoal stoves have a 3-year working life while the institutional stoves have a working life of ten years or more. However for increased accuracy usage factors are assessed annually and these numbers are applied to each year. The last usage survey was carried out in 2008 Yes the IPCC default values for these stove-fuel combinations were correctly used. Draft Concl Final Concl 25

26 CHECKLIST QUESTION 5 GS Requirements a. Have the social and economic impact of the project been investigated biannually and an assessment made of its contribution, positive or otherwise, to sustainable development in the area? b. Are there any changes to the key sustainable development indicators? c. Were mitigation/compensation measures achieved and implemented according to the success indicators as established in the monitoring plan(s)? CONCLUSIONS The following parameters are required to be monitored on a quarterly basis: -Air quality, Lively-hood of the poor, Employment, Access to Energy Services, Human and institutional capacity and Technological self-reliance. However as reported in section 3 c (i) the frequency of the kitchen survey has not been carried as required by the methodology with the last survey report dated July 2008 The Kitchen surveys report has been used to monitor changes to Sustainable Development Indicators. No negative Indicators were were noted while Air quality, Employment and Livelihood of the poor were reported as positive. Annex 7 Kitchen Survey Monitoring Report for the survey done in October/November 2007 and in January/July 2008 indicates that Air Quality, Employment and Livelihood of the poor were positive. A Saving of Ushs 300,000 (120 Euros) over three years (the expected lifetime of a stove) was implied by the survey, on Air quality exposure to fewer hazardous pollutants was expected through reduced emissions of carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter and with regards to employement as of 2007 the manufacturing and distribution of improved charcoal stoves had created 56 Jobs. However as reported in section 5 (a) the kitchen survey has not been carried as required by the methodology (Refer to CAR 7) No negative Indicators were were noted hence mitigation/compensation measures were not applicable Draft Concl Final Concl CAR 7 CAR 7 CLOSED Hence Refer to CAR 7 CAR 7 CLOSED Hence 26

27 Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action / Clarification Requests / Forward Action from Validation Report. CAR 1 The Monitoring plan requires a Monitoring Kitchen Survey is undertaken of 25 Ugastove customers each three months by CIRCODU, however this has not been implemented, there is need to demonstrate that 25 customers are surveyed on a quarterly basis Table 1 3 (a) For the reasons explained below, the Monitoring Plan does not require a Kitchen Survey of 25 Ugastove customers to be undertaken quarterly in the period before April 2009 since the project was registered in end of March With respect to monitoring in the retroactive period prior to April 2009 (registration date is end of March 2009), the Gold Standard Cookstove Methodology states specifically: team conclusion BVC Response Since the verification is for the Retroactive period the Monitoring plan requirement is not applicable hence the CAR is retained as a FAR 1 for the subsequent verification Projects generating baseline information for application to 27

28 retrospective emission reductions do not need to add retrospective monitoring KS s to a baseline KS. (Refer footnote 19 of the GS Approved Methodology) team conclusion The provision above is a footnote to the following text on pages 22 and 23 of the Methodology: The sample size for a Monitoring KS, repeated each 3 months, is not less than 25 customers (or 10% of cluster size if this is less than 250). The purpose and guidelines are described in the Baseline Procedure in section II.4; households are randomly selected from the Sales Record of the relevant period (in this case purchases made in the previous and/or current quarter). The purpose is to update cluster definitions such that they and Monitoring KTs remain 28

29 representative, and the calculations of emission reductions are based on a correctly organized Project Database. The repeated KS s serve to monitor an evolving baseline. Results of the monitoring KS s should be included in monitoring reports 19. team conclusion CAR 2 - Annex 12 QMR Indicates that the of Institutional Stoves was done by contacting the users by telephone, however the largest Table 1 3 (a) In accordance with the methodology and monitoring plan, CIRCODU will therefore conduct Monitoring Kitchen Surveys of 25 Ugastove customers each quarter from the date of registration onwards i.e. end March CIRCODU, the third party monitor, has conducted Kitchen Surveys on 31 Institutional Stove Customers to create a Detailed Customer Database of 31 Institutional customers that have been subject to ongoing monitoring Kitchen. BVC Response 100 % Visit to homes of the customers has been done in July hence the CAR is closed 29

30 possible ratio should be achieved, not falling below 50% of the data in the DCD being derived from interviews in the homes of the customers Surveys. 100% of these customers were visited in person. The visits were made in July A summary of the information collected on these visits is attached as CAR 2 Institutional Stove DCD Summary. Of note is that the number of students cooked for over the entire survey group grew by 8% between the installation of each stove and July However, to ensure conservativeness, carbon crediting is only done for the number of people cooked for at installation, and a 10% drop-off factor is applied, though the observed drop-off factor in this sample group is 6%. team conclusion CAR 3 - A diesel operated liner mixing machine has been in use by the project from Table 1 3 (b - i) Addressed in the PDD(Sections D.2.3.1, D.2.3.2, D.3 and B.2) The same is reflected in the Xcel The spread sheet has been amended to include the calculation of leakage from diesel use. The leakage is BVC Please provide the Xcel Spreadsheet for calculating emission reductions (

31 February 2009 however this had not been factored in during determination of the project emissions, this needs to be addressed to ensure the emissions reductions reported during this period excludes project emissions generated by operations of the Diesel Engine Summary Emission Reduction Calculation s_ x ls>). Extruder Delivery Note dated 23/03/2009 Spreadsheet for calculating emission reductions ( Excel PDD UGASTOVES reg CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE_090803). determined by converting the total amount of diesel used over the verification period (in litres) into mass, and then multiplying the mass with the IPCCC default emission factor for diesel (See file <Summary Emission Reduction Calculations_ xls>). The total emissions generated from the leakage are subtracted from the total emission reductions in order to get the net emission reduction for the period under verification. Spread sheet with calculation steps is provided as <Summary Emission Reduction Calculations_ xls>. team conclusion Excel PDD UGASTOVES reg CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE_090803) hence CAR is Not Closed BVC 2 The revised emission reduction summary has been provided hence CAR 3 is closed 31

32 CAR 4 - The Monitoring plan states that, With respect to training of monitoring personnel, CIRCODU has been, and will continue to be trained and briefed by CEIHD to undertake key monitoring tasks and in turn will provide training alongside CEIHD experts, to the Ugastove staff in record keeping relevant to monitoring however there was no records indicating implementation of the training during the site visit. Table 1 3 (b - iv) Records: from Jesse Sekibombo (CAR 4 Sekibombo Training ), CAR 4 CIRCODU Recordkee ping - Recommen dations for Ugastove, A. Training to CIRCODU by CEIHD: Attached is a folder containing the contract for this audit (CAR 4 Ugastove CEIHD Audit Contract). Training in sales auditing was provided in November and December 2008, by phone and in person, by Matt Evans, Director of Business Development at CEIHD to the following employees of CIRCODU: Godfrey Muhwezi Kenneth Owen Juliet Muhwezi Joseph Arneitwe B. Training by CIRCODU to Ugastove staff: team conclusion BVC Response Training records and communications on the same have been provided, hence CAR 4 is Closed CAR 4 Ugastove- CIRCODU Following a sales and record keeping audit performed by CIRCODU with guidance from 32

33 Training Log CEIHD in November 2008, a training need was identified and the identified training was provided to Ugastove by CIRCODU (and CEIHD). As a to training needs identified during the audit, CIRCODU prepared a written set of record keeping recommendations to Ugastove and provided Ugastove with on-the-job training on implementation of best recordkeeping practices, which is referred to in the second from CIRCODU to CEIHD in the attachment labelled CAR 4 to CIRCODU outlining cross checking to be performed in audit. The document containing proposed recommendations can be found in CAR 4 CIRCODU Recordkeeping Recommendations for Ugastove. This was originally submitted to Ugastove in December team conclusion 33

34 2008. CIRCODU used the list of recommendations as the basis for a training to Ugastove staff members during December 2008 and January 2009: team conclusion Jesse Sekibombo, Director of Operations Paul Kakaire, Financial Director The list of those trained is maintained by Ugastove (CAR 4 Ugastove-CIRCODU Training Log). The training itself is described in from Jesse Sekibombo (CAR 4 Sekibombo Training ). CAR 5 - The 3 rd party expert s was required as per the procedures to report on the methods Table 1 3 (c ii) Prior to January 1, 2009, CIRCODU conducted a 3 rd party sales record cross check as part of a comprehensive sales audit with methods documented within the BVC Response The methods used for such cross-checks and their findings have been provided (CAR Sales Check) hence the 34