Gold Standard Verification Report

Project Title Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project ERM CVS Reference 2689.V2 Gold Standard Project Reference Number GS 966 Client Name The Paradigm Project Client Address 1431 Regency Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 The United States of America Gold Standard Verification Report ERM Certification and Verification Services 2nd Floor, Exchequer Court 33 St Mary Axe London EC3A 8AA Version Control Date Version 01 03 August 2016 (Draft verification report) Version 02 30 November 2016 (Final verification report) ERM Certification and Verification Services 1 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Table of Contents 1. Project information... 4 2. Verification Opinion and Certification Statement... 5 3. Introduction... 6 3.1. Verification Objectives... 6 3.2. Scope and basis of verification work... 6 3.3. Appointment of Team Members and Technical Reviewer... 7 3.3.1. Verification Team Member Profiles... 7 3.4. Verification activities... 7 3.4.1. Desk review... 8 3.4.2. Site Visit... 8 3.4.3. Reporting... 11 3.4.4. Independent technical review... 12 4. Verification Findings... 13 4.1. Status of open issues from validation and previous verification... 13 4.2. Project Implementation in accordance with the PDD... 19 4.2.1. Overview of project design... 19 4.3. Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology... 24 4.4. Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan... 24 4.4.1. Overview of monitoring system... 24 4.4.2. Completeness of monitoring parameters... 31 4.4.3. Data and parameters monitored... 32 4.4.4. Management and operational system... 46 4.5. Data and parameters determined at registration and not monitored... 48 4.6. Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions... 50 4.7. Other observations... 51 4.8. Assessment of sustainability monitoring... 51 4.8.1. Completeness of sustainability monitoring parameters... 51 4.8.2. Sustainability indicators monitored... 51 5. Remediation Requests... 55 5.1. Minor Issues... 71 Annex A: Reference Documents and Interviews... 72 ERM Certification and Verification Services 2 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Abbreviations CAR CDM EB CER CL CO 2 CO 2e DOE ER FAR GHG GS GWP IPCC PDD PP QA/QC UNFCCC VVS Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board Certified Emission Reduction(s) Clarification Request Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Designated Operational Entity Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse Gas Gold Standard Global Warming Potential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change CDM Validation and Verification Standard Project specific abbreviations BWBT DSF HH ICS WT KPT MKS PoU WCFT baseline water boiling test Dispensers for Safe Water household improved cooking stove Water Treatment kitchen performance test monitoring kitchen survey point of use water consumption field test ERM Certification and Verification Services 3 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

1. Project information Project Title Gold Standard Project reference Project Location Host Party Annex I Party(s) Project Participants Methodology Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project GS966 Kenya Kenya n/a The Paradigm Project Methodology version number Dated 11/04/2011 Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption Monitoring report version submitted for verification Final monitoring report version Version 01 Version 04 dated 16 November 2016 Monitoring Period 01 May 2015 30 April 2016 Date(s) of Site Visit 27-30 June 2016 (stove technologies) and 04-07 July 2016 (water technologies) Date/version of PDD Version 19 dated 17 December 2015 Crediting Period 26 April 2010 25 April 2017 Number of emission reductions certified 609,156 tco 2 equivalent (2015 vintage: 381,853 tco 2e; 2016 vintage: 227,303 tco 2e). It was also confirmed that in the previous monitoring period, there was an over-issuance of 4,697 tco 2 equivalent (2014 vintage: 2,553 tco 2e; 2015 vintage: 2,144 tco 2e) ERM Certification and Verification Services 4 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

2. Verification Opinion and Certification Statement ERM Certification and Verification Services (ERM CVS) was commissioned by The Paradigm Project to verify and certify the emissions reductions reported for the period 01 May 2015 30 April 2016 as set out in the monitoring report of the project activity Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project, Registration Reference GS966. Basis of verification Responsibilities of ERM CVS Responsibilities of Project Participants ERM CVS Opinion ERM CVS based its verification work on: the approved Gold Standard methodology applied in the project design document (PDD) the revised PDD the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) Gold Standard requirements version 2.2 and guidance ERM CVS is responsible to provide an independent verification conclusion on the reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for the project during the relevant monitoring period. The verification activities included desk review, site visit, close out of open issues, preparation of report and technical review. The Project Participants (PPs) are responsible for the preparation of the information and GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions of the project on the basis set out within the applicable monitoring plan. Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the project activity is implemented and operated as described in the revised Project Design Document. The GHG emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report dated 16 Nov 2016 were found to be appropriately measured and calculated in accordance with the applied monitoring methodology Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (11/04/2011) and the monitoring plan set out in the revised Project Design Document, Version 19 dated 17 December 2015. Based on the verification activities undertaken, ERM CVS concludes that the reported emission reductions for the monitoring period 01 May 2015 30 April 2016 are fairly stated. Total GHG emission reductions certified 609,156 tco 2 equivalent (2015 vintage: 381,853 tco 2e; 2016 vintage: 227,303 tco 2e). Report approved by Signature Name: Melanie Eddis Date 30 November 2016 ERM Certification and Verification Services 5 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

3. Introduction This report sets out the methodology and conclusions of the verification process and the ERM CVS Certification Statement. ERM CVS assessed and verified whether the implementation of the project activity and the steps taken to report emission reductions comply with the Gold Standard criteria and relevant guidance provided by the Gold Standard, and the CDM Executive Board where relevant. 3.1. Verification Objectives As set out in the Gold Standard Requirements, verification means the periodic independent review and ex post determination by a Designated Operational Entity of monitored reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that have occurred as a result of a registered project activity during the verification period. The objective of the verification is to establish whether sufficient evidence exists to confirm, to reasonable assurance: Whether the project activity has been implemented and is being operated as per the PDD /04/ and the Gold Standard Passport /05/ and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project activity are in place. Whether the applied monitoring plan /04/ is in compliance with the relevant approved Gold Standard monitoring methodology /06/ Whether the monitoring report /01/ and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with the monitoring plan and applicable Gold Standard requirements. Whether the emission reductions as set out in the Monitoring Report /01/ have been measured, calculated and reported in accordance with the requirements of the carbon monitoring plan /04/ and the sustainability monitoring plan in the Gold Standard Passport /05/. Whether the reported data meet the key principles of data quality and are complete, reliable, consistent, accurate, valid, transparent and conservative. 3.2. Scope and basis of verification work The verification is an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the DOE. Based on the key project information set out on page 2, the verification addresses the implementation and operation of the project activity as set out in the PDD /04/ and the Gold Standard Passport /05/, and the information and reported emissions reductions set out in the monitoring report prepared by the project participant (PP) for this monitoring period. The verification tests the data and assertions set out in the monitoring report prepared for this monitoring period by the PPs and is based on the approved methodology /06/ applied in the PDD (latest revision) /04/ the Gold Standard Passport and its sustainability monitoring plan /05/ previous verification reports /09-10/ Gold Standard Requirements version 2.2 and Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.2 and its Annexes the CDM Validation and Verification Standard (VVS) except where Gold Standard rules or procedures are different Other information and references relevant to the project activity s reported emission reductions - refer to Annex 1 for full set of documents The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. The monitoring report is assessed, using a rules based approach, against the principles of accuracy, relevance, credibility, reliability, completeness, consistency, and transparency. Conservativeness is applied throughout the process to ensure that emission reductions are not overstated. ERM CVS conducts all its work under strict rules to safeguard impartiality and ensure the independence of the verification team. The verification does not provide any consulting or recommendations for the client. However, stated requests for clarifications ERM Certification and Verification Services 6 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the monitoring activities. 3.3. Appointment of Team Members and Technical Reviewer Based on ERM CVS s review of the project, a verification team was established that takes into account the coverage of the technical area(s), sectoral scope(s) and relevant host country experience for verifying the emission reductions achieved by the project activity in the relevant monitoring period for this verification Personnel who undertook this verification were: Verification Team Role CDM Knowledge Gold Standard Knowledge Technical Area Host country Participated in site visit? Neringa Pumputyte Lead verifier Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sushmita Seelam Verifier Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Technical Review Role CDM Knowledge Gold Standard Knowledge Expertise relevant to Technical Area Host country Participated in site visit? Huoyun Li Technical Reviewer Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3.3.1. Verification Team Member Profiles Neringa Pumputyte is a lead assessor and technical reviewer at ERM CVS, where she works on validations and verifications of CDM and Gold Standard projects and Programmes of Activities (PoAs), as well as assurance assignments. She has 6 years of experience in climate change and GHG emission reductions, having worked as a consultant and project developer prior to joining ERM CVS. Neringa has successfully completed 7 validations of PoAs in the sectors of renewable energy, energy demand, and manufacturing; 5 Gold Standard verifications in the sector of energy demand; and worked on project validations in the sectors of landfill gas and fugitive emissions (oil and gas), as well as corporate GHG assurances. She has led development of the Gold Standard programme in ERM CVS. Before joining ERM CVS, Neringa worked on hydro, cook stove and animal waste handling projects as a project developer. Neringa has completed the ERM CVS CDM training, Gold Standard training, and GHGMI renewable energy training. Neringa also has a BSc and MSc in Geography, and an MSc in Environmental Change and Management from the University of Oxford. Sushmita Seelam is a Lead Assessor and a Client Account Manager (CAM) based in London and has been with ERM CVS since July 2012. She is involved in conducting validations and verifications for CDM & Gold Standard Projects and Programmes of Activities (PoAs) under Scope 1: Energy industries (renewable/non-renewable sources), Scope 3: Energy demand, as well as in GHG Assurance projects and EU-ETS engagements in various sectors. Prior to ERM CVS, Sushmita had been working in the sustainability consulting service industry for three years. As a consultant, she has been involved in the development of over 25 CDM and VCS projects in various sectors. Her work also involves research and experience in supply chain evaluation, resource footprinting and life cycle assessment of commodities, with a focus on water and GHG footprinting for sectors such as global energy, agricultural commodities etc. Sushmita holds a B.E. in Environmental Engineering and an MSc in Environment and Sustainable Development. She also completed the ERM CVS CDM validation and verification training and the CDM Gold Standard training. 3.4. Verification activities The verification approach is based on the approach depicted in the CDM VVS and Gold Standard rules, procedures and guidance where they are different from CDM. The verification activities are designed to evaluate: Whether sufficient evidence is available, both in terms of frequency (time period between evidence) and in covering the full monitoring period; The source and nature of the evidence (external or internal, oral or documented, etc); Cross checks with comparable information available from sources other than that used in the monitoring report, where ERM Certification and Verification Services 7 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

possible. 3.4.1. Desk review A detailed desk review was undertaken prior to the site visit. This included the PDD and its carbon monitoring plan /04/, the Gold Standard Passport and sustainability monitoring plan /05/, the applied monitoring methodology /06/, previous verifications reports /09-10/, relevant external data and reports, on-site documents, and relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the Gold Standard, and the CDM Executive Board where relevant. The desk review included A review of the data and information presented to verify completeness and consistency in accordance with relevant Gold Standard requirements A review of the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements/surveys, quality of metering equipment is relevant, sampling plan, and the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures An evaluation of data management and the QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions. A complete list of all documents reviewed is contained in Annex 1. 3.4.2. Site Visit A site visit to the project activity was undertaken during 27-30 June 2016 (for stove technologies) and 04-07 July 2016 (for water technologies) to assess implementation and operation of the project activity and to review evidence, and interview key personnel to confirm evidence associated with the data generation, aggregation, calculation and reporting of the monitoring parameters. The site visit addressed: An assessment of the project implementation and operation as per the PDD /04/ and the Gold Standard Passport /05/ (including visiting households and water points where the project has been implemented); Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters; Interviews with relevant personnel to confirm that the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan /04/. A list of all interviewees is included in Annex 2. A cross-check between information provided in the monitoring report /1/ and data from other sources such as log books, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources to establish the existence of a clear audit trail and records that validate or invalidate the stated data; A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions; A review of assessment made in determining sustainability indicators; Identification of quality control procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters The site visit included the following: Interviewing The Paradigm Project and EzyLife staff on operations and implementation of stove technologies Interviewing Evidence Action - DSW (Dispensers for Safe Water) staff on operation, implementation and monitoring of community water technologies Reviewing electronic sales and monitoring databases and checking against a sample of paper receipts/forms where paper forms are used Meetings with project s implementation partners, key personnel involved in monitoring and data collection Visiting households and water points where project s units are located and used, and interviews with the end users The following table lists the households, institutions and community locations visited during the site visit. ERM Certification and Verification Services 8 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Cluster End users interviewed Location Household wood Esther Wambua (5-6 year old stove) Machakos County, Ndalani, Matuu location Priscilla Kalondu (5-6 year old stove) Elizabeth Mueni Masila (5-6 year old stove) Joyce Auma (2-3 year old stove) Milkah Achieng (2-3 year old stove) Joshua Ouma (2-3 year old stove) Beatrice Ochieng (0-1 year old stove) Benta Odindo (0-1 year old stove) Hannah Mbithe (1-2 year old stove) Josephine Mutua Michael (1-2 year old stove) Annastacia Wanza (1-2 year old stove) Jacinta Mwanzia (4-5 year old stove) Jane Wambua (4-5 year old stove) Josephine Mutuku (4-5 year old stove) Paulina Kiloko Kilonzi (4-5 year old stove) Susan Kilonzo (4-5 year old stove) Jacinta Syomiti Wambua (4-5 year old stove) Anna Nduku Mwangi (4-5 year old stove) Machakos County, Ndalani, Matuu location Machakos County, Ndalani, Matuu location Homa Bay, Shauri Yako Province Homa Bay, Shauri Yako Province Homa Bay, Shauri Yako Province Homa Bay, Shauri Yako Province Homa Bay, Shauri Yako Province Machakos County, Ndalani sublocation, Kyaoni village Machakos County, Ndalani sublocation, Kyaoni village Machakos County, Ndalani sublocation, Kyaoni village Machakos County, Ndalani sublocation, Kateki town Machakos County, Ndalani sublocation, Kateki town Machakos County, Matuu location Machakos County, Matuu location Machakos County, Matuu location Machakos County, Matuu location Machakos County, Matuu location Household charcoal Mary Mbatha (1-2 year old stove) Machakos County, Kyemutheke location Mary Kalukwa Kiilu (1-2 year old stove) Jacinta Karemi Njiru (1-2 year old stove) Danson Kimeu (1-2 year old stove) Dorcas Kavuli (1-2 year old stove) Damaris Munyao (1-2 year old stove) Machakos County, Kyemutheke location Machakos County, Kyemutheke location Makueni County, Enguli location Makueni County, Enguli location Makueni County, Enguli location ERM Certification and Verification Services 9 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Community water treatment Josephine Ndivo (1-2 year old stove) Joel Mukoma Ikonyi (1-2 year old stove) Dorcas Mulaki (1-2 year old stove) Christine Festus Wambua (1-2 year old stove) Stella Musoi (1-2 year old stove) Jennifer Mbithe (1-2 year old stove) Justina Wanza Kimeu (0-1 year old stove) Abigail Mwende/ Akinyi Muli (0-1 year old stove) Mary Adhiambo (name not noted) Celestine Owino Mary Atieno Everlin Anyango Celestine Akoth Margret Nyawire Salome Otieno Magdalene Ochieng Margaret Owino Claudia Otieno Julia Onyango Janet Auma Amos Omondi Caroline Adhiambo Jane Auma Magdaleno Omundi Syprose Adhiambo Elisabeth Amollo Margaret Otieno (named not noted) Makueni County, Enguli location Makueni County, Enguli location Makueni County, Kesikeu location Makueni County, Kesikeu location Makueni County, Kesikeu location Makueni County, Kesikeu location Makueni County, Kesikeu location Makueni County, Barazani location Siaya County, Ugunja, Ramunde sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Ramunde sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kathieno A sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kathieno A sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kathieno A sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kathieno A sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kathieno A sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Tingare East sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Tingare East sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Tingare East sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kagonya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kagonya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Kagonya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Nyalenya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Nyalenya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Nyalenya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Nyalenya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Nyalenya sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location ERM Certification and Verification Services 10 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Tobias Oduor Milka Ayuma Magdalene Odhiambo Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location Siaya County, Ugunja, Karadolo sub-location The verification team aimed to visit: For stove clusters, the number of units that is the square root of the number units surveys by the PP. As the PP used several surveys for the same clusters, the verification team used the monitoring kitchen surveys as the guiding survey for selecting a sample for the site visit. For the community water cluster, in this verification the DOE wanted to increase the number of water points to about 8, and visit 2-4 households per water point. The following table compares the number of units sampled by the PP during the monitoring period with the number of units planned to be sampled in the verification plan, and the number of units actually visited during the time available. Please note that after the verification site visit the PP carried out additional surveys to address some of the verification s findings but these are not reflected in the following table as the table indicates the basis that was used to select the DOE s sample for the verification site visit. Cluster PP monitoring survey sample size DOE s planned sample DOE s sample visited Household wood stoves 281 17-18 18 Household charcoal stoves 215 14-15 14 Community water treatment 1552 20 users at 8 water points 24 users at 9 water points 3.4.3. Reporting After the site visit, a draft report is prepared with the preliminary findings of the verification. Where it is not possible to confirm compliance, the verification team raised findings as follows: Clarification Request (CL): where information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable requirements have been met. Corrective Action Request (CAR): This is issued where: o o o 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 that will impair the estimate of emission reductions; Issues identified in a Forward Action Request (FAR) during validation (or previous verification) to be verified have not been resolved by the project participants. The verification process may be stopped until this information has been made available to the verifiers satisfaction. Failure to address a CL may result in a CAR. Information or clarification provided as a result of a CL may also lead to a CAR. Forward Action Requests (FAR) may also be raised for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period. These have no impact upon the completion of the current verification activity. After satisfactory close out of CARs and CLs, the final report presents the verification activities undertaken, the issues raised, ERM Certification and Verification Services 11 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

and explains how these issues have been closed out to enable the final verification conclusions to be made. 3.4.4. Independent technical review The verification activities and content of the report are subject to a review by an independent technical reviewer. The role of the Technical Reviewer is to provide oversight that all procedures have been followed by the verification team and all conclusions justified and supported by evidence. The Technical Reviewer will either accept or reject the recommendations made by the verification team. ERM Certification and Verification Services 12 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

4. Verification Findings 4.1. Status of open issues from validation and previous verification ERM CVS reviewed the validation report for this project /08/, the three previous verification reports /09-10/ and the Gold Standard reviews of the project registration and the last two issuances /11-12/. It is noted that some FARs were closed out in previous verifications. The remaining open FARs have been addressed as follows: Forward Action Request Date and document (Validation or verification) Verification activities undertaken to close the FAR Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not Validation: FAR 1 The PP received a letter of approval to incorporate chemical treatment tablets into the overall project design. However, there is a lack of clarity surrounding appropriate monitoring methodologies for chemical treatment. Emission reductions shall not be claimed for chemical treatment tablets until the Gold Standard issues a chemical treatment directive Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /08/ Chemical treatment tablets are not included in the project during this monitoring and verification period. Validation FAR 1 can therefore be closed for this verification period. Validation: FAR 2 Anecdotal evidence obtained from HH surveys during the site visit indicates that stoves are used for space heating during the wet season, and this can lead to leakage. As defined by the methodology, the PP is required to conduct on-going, quarterly monitoring and this will capture whether leakage is a concern. Please ensure that monitoring occurs in the wet season in each region of the country Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /08/ The project has been updated to a different methodology which requires annual (rather than quarterly) surveys. However in early 2015, Paradigm created a concept to monitor household activities continuously throughout the year rather than in a concentrated period of weeks each year/41/, and received feedback from the GS that this procedure was allowed by the methodology/40/. The PP put forward that this approach as it aims to capture data that is more representative of actual usage patterns of users rather than relying on them to recall activities that may have happened in the past. Monitoring in this monitoring period was therefore envisaged to be conducted entirely using continuous monitoring methods, but due to shortage of staff Paradigm was not able to complete a full 12 month cycle using this approach. Some of the monitoring was therefore conducted using Jacob Kithinji s team of Nairobi University using an annual monitoring approach. Jacob Kithinji s surveyors have conducted previous monitoring surveys for the project in the past. The monitoring surveys conducted by both teams included questions on whether stoves are used for space heating, and if so whether this is using residual heat after cooking, or whether it involves the stoves being lit specially for heating. If users reported that the stove was sometimes lit especially for heating purposes, they were asked to report approximate fuel usage proportions associated with this. Based on the monitoring survey for household wood stoves, almost all households reported that they do not use their improved stove specially to heat their home. Only 9 household out of the 302 surveyed households reported using their improved stove specifically for heating purposes and that they use the additional fuel ERM Certification and Verification Services 13 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

after cooking food or specifically start the stove for this purpose/03/. Based on the monitoring survey for household charcoal stoves, a total of 8 households reported using their improved stove specifically for heating purposes, however 7 out of 8 households clarified that this is done using the residual heat left over after cooking as opposed to lighting the stove specifically for heating purposes/03/, therefore the use of the stove in these cases is not specifically for heating purposes. Therefore only 1 household reported specifically starting their stove for heating purposes. During the site visit, which was done about 4 months after the PP s monitoring, ERM CVS also asked about space heating and observed 3 households using the stoves for heating purposes, however all 3 households reported that they use residual heat left over after cooking as opposed to lighting the stove specifically for heating purposes. Therefore based on review of the survey results for both charcoal and wood stoves it can be confirmed that the number of households reporting using their ICS for space heating is negligible. Moreover ERM CVS observed on site that many stoves are used in kitchens which are outside of the house and separate from the living space anyway. The project is implemented throughout Kenya and weather conditions vary throughout the country from the low-lying hot coastal region and Western and Nyanza provinces to cooler, higher altitude regions including much of the Rift Valley province. In many parts of the country cooler, rainier weather predominates in November-December and April-May. Therefore in the past Paradigm has found it is difficult to schedule a monitoring survey at a time when the whole country is experiencing a cool period. This issue is expected to be addressed for future verifications when the PP moves towards 100% continuous monitoring. Continuous Monitoring aims to ensure monitoring of households across all seasons, collecting data in real time that accurately reflects the activities of the household in across all seasons and variations. The surveys for this monitoring period were conducted during February-May 2016 (for wood and charcoal stoves) and additional surveys were carried out to during August October 2016 for wood stoves (to address CARs/CLs raised as part of the verification process). Based on average monthly temperature and rainfall profiles, February-May period and also August October period approximately corresponds to average conditions in terms of both temperature and rainfall. Conducting surveys only during the rainy season is logistically difficult because of poor accessibility (unpaved roads can become impassable for motor vehicles). The monitoring surveys for wood stoves and charcoal stoves in this monitoring period were therefore carried out in average weather conditions (covering wet as well as dry seasons) for most parts of the country. The PP s monitoring survey questions aimed at understanding possible leakage due to stoves being used for heating purposes, are appropriate based on ERM Certification and Verification Services 14 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

ERM CVS sector knowledge. Validation FAR 2 can therefore be closed for this verification period. GS review for approval of design change: FAR 1 The Kitchen Tests are not carried out for baseline and project scenario (s) for new Cookstoves, Institutional Stoves and Water Treatment system (household and community level). The DOE shall validate the performance test(s) for identified clusters at the time first verification, when new technology (ies) is added to the project activity. No new technology has been added to the project activity during this monitoring period. Validation: FAR 6 As and when new stove or water filters other than those described in the PDD are added to the project activity, PP shall seek Approval for Project Design Changes from registered project activity by Gold Standard Validation report, dated 30 November 2011 /08/ No new stoves or filters other than those described in the PDD have been added to the project activity during this monitoring period. 1 st Verification: FAR 5 The DOE shall validate the feedback received and actions taken by PP during each verification. During the site visit, DNV asked HHs and stove distributors about the performance of the stove and if they had any complaints or suggestions for improvement. HHs reported a preference for the Envirofit stove because it looked better than the JikoPoa. Stove distributors informed DNV that they require more marketing support from the PP in order to increase sales. Future verifications should consider the status of the PPs support to stove distributors. 1 st Verification report, dated 12 December 2011 /09/ Household Wood and Charcoal Stoves Based on the interviews carried out with the Paradigm and EzyLife during the verification site visit/iv1/iv2/iv3/, the PP encourages feedback via its network of sales representatives ( EzyAgents ) and distributors. According to interviews with the Manager of sales agents working for Paradigm (EzyLife)/IV2/, each consumer is provided with the telephone number of the sales representative and can call to follow up with any queries, issues, or complaints. These are normally dealt with by the agent or representative, but faulty stoves will be returned to EzyLife and replaced, and the returns will be recorded in EzyLife s database. End users also have the contact details of EzyLife on the Carbon Rights Waiver sticker /49/ which is on the packaging of the household stoves. Ezylife provides support to stove distributors in various ways. According to interviews carried out during the site visit, EzyLife provides support to distributors via its network of sales agents known as EzyAgents. In the past, EzyAgents normally liaised with potential distributors in order to make bulk sales to the distributors. In November of 2014, Paradigm re-launched its Kenyan operations and revamped its direct sales force of EzyAgents, local sales people who are directly trained, branded and managed by Paradigm s local operating entity, EzyLife. Most stoves are now sold directly to end users by EzyAgents and are on hand to provide information, training and support concerning the technologies. ERM CVS had previously reviewed the EzyLife Kenya Product Catalogue /66/, and the EzyLife Product Information Guide /67/. The PP has therefore provided ERM Certification and Verification Services 15 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

ongoing marketing support to stove distributors/partners, including materials such as a product catalogue /66/ and product information guide /67/. The EzyLife employee and distributor record also includes a record of number of people trained /71/. Chlorine Dispensers Chlorine dispensers have been functional for a number of years now, with the same technology. DSW mainly collect feedback via promoters (community members elected by the community to be promoters and contact points for chlorine dispensers) with whom field officers have regular contact. Based on interviews with Evidence Action s field staff and a sample of promoters at water points visited, recent changes made in response to feedback and calls for maintenance were a change of the handle as after several years of usage the handle was becoming stiff. Verification FAR 5 can therefore be closed for this verification period. 1 st Verification: FAR 6 As and when new stove or water filters other than those described in the PDD are added to the project activity, PP shall seek Approval for Project Design Changes from registered project activity by Gold Standard 1 st Verification report, dated 12 December 2011 /09/ No new stove or water filter types were added to the project activity in this verification. 1 st verification FAR 6 can therefore be closed for this verification period. 2 nd verification, FAR 1: For new community water purification points, the PP should consider an alternative way of communicating carbon rights transfer to the users of the water points, which would provide a form of evidence that carbon rights were explained to the users. 2 nd Verification Report, dated 25 June 2013 /10/ No new community water points have been included in the project during this monitoring period, as confirmed by reviewing the database during the site visit at Evidence Action offices. As confirmed during visits to a sample of water points with dispensers, for the existing water points the situation remains the same: stickers are available on part of the units but not all as they often get removed, whilst replacing them with the metal plates is too costly for the existing units. Community education meetings continue to be the main means for communicating the waving of carbon rights, as confirmed during the interviews on site. 3 rd Verification, FAR 2 A total sales record was maintained for each project scenario ( cluster ) continuously in electronic format by the project coordinator, in line with the methodology. However, no evidence was found of the cross-checks done for institutional stoves. Since no new institutional stoves were sold during this monitoring period, the implementation of the cross checks on institutional stove sales will be verified at the next verification. 3 rd Verification Report, dated 07 October 2014 /10/ Institutional stoves are not included in the project for this issuance, hence FAR 2 from the 3 rd verification can be closed for this verification. ERM Certification and Verification Services 16 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

The PP should describe the cross checks that were done for institutional stove sales and detailed customer data, if any, and present the information to the DOE for the next verification. 3 rd issuance, GS Review, FAR#2: The PP is requested to use the Guidelines for carrying out usage surveys to determine the usage rate for the PoU non-chemical treatment (see www.goldstandard.org/energy /rulesrequirements, under Rule Updates ) for future issuances. Gold Standard review of the third issuance /12/ The PoU non-chemical treatment is not part of the project for this monitoring period. 4 th verification FAR 01 According to the monitoring plan, a representative sample of each quarter s sales should be selected for follow-up by the VER director, and the sales would be cross-checked against paper receipts or electronic records. ERM CVS interviewed the Paradigm Project s headquarters and Kenyan office staff and noted that a check for any duplicates is performed, and then a small sample of sales records are spot checked by telephone with the end users. However the proportion of stove sales spot checked, and the procedure for this have not been standardized. 4 th issuance verification report, 17 Dec 2015 /10/ PP s response in the MR, in response to the FAR, is as follows: The PP has standardized this process per the system below: Stove registration data is submitted weekly by the sales staff in electronic form. Once received, the local M&E Manager reviews the data for completeness and checks for any duplicate serial numbers. Following the initial review, the M&E Manager works with the Accountant to match registration data to invoices and payments. Each registration record must have a corresponding invoice number. Synchronizing accounting and customer registration data serves as a check and balance on both systems. Once this matching is complete, the M&E manager spot checks at least 5% of the data by making phone calls to the end customers. However, based on interviews during the site visit, ERM CVS noted that the above checks were not carried out during this monitoring period. Please refer to CAR 1. CAR 1 was subsequently closed. Please refer to the remediation form for further details. CAR 1 4 th verification FAR 02 Households estimate an 96% decrease in diagnosis of respiratory illness or infections and a 96% decrease in associated times a family member missed school or work as a result of such infections since they started to use their improved stove. Such high figures may present an overestimation by some users in the extent to which their new stove has made a difference, but it is clear that the perception is there that the improved 4 th issuance verification report, 17 Dec 2015 /10/ PP s response in the MR, in response to the FAR, is as follows: The PP has reviewed the questions for bias and confirmed that they are neutrally worded. However, the PP agrees that the actual % reduction reported is very likely overstated due to the nature of the monitoring often relying on memory with respondents who may be recalling a baseline scenario that occurred several years ago. Since SD indicator monitoring relies heavily on selfreported outcomes and cannot reliably eliminate biases, the PP suggests simply testing the following alternate language to see if results seem more realistic or clearer: a. Since buying the improved stove, have you noticed any changes in the amount of smoke in the kitchen? [If yes] Are you noticing more or less smoke? b. Since buying the improved stove, have you FAR 1 FAR 1 ERM Certification and Verification Services 17 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

stoves do improve the situation of this sustainability indicator. FAR 02 was raised to request the PP to consider the wording of the survey questions to avoid leading bias where possible in the sustainability indicator questions. noticed any changes in your eyes being itchy, red, or irritated? [If yes] Is there more or less irritation, itchiness, etc.? c. Since buying the improved stove, have you noticed any changes in how much you cough while cooking? [If yes] Is it more or less? d. Over the last year, has anyone in your HH been diagnosed with respiratory illness/infections (including pneumonia, bronchitis, coughing, pain in chest) at a clinic or by a doctor? [If yes] How many times has someone had to see a doctor for respiratory illness this year? Is this more or less often than before you bought the stove? Can you estimate how much more or less? Is it twice/half as much? More/less than that? The PP has revised and tested/refined language similar to that described above for this monitoring period and the results from the monitoring survey have been reviewed by ERM CVS. Taking into consideration both household wood and charcoal stoves, about 87% households now report fewer respiratory illnesses/infections and about 92.4% households now report a decrease in associated times a family member missed school or work as a result of such infections since they started to use their improved stove/03/. The numbers reflect a better understanding of the questions posed to the households in order to assess the situation of the Air Quality sustainability indicator. Furthermore, 96.7% of households reported a decrease in smoke, about 97.9% households reported a decrease in cough while cooking and about 96.11% of households reported a decrease in itchiness or irritation of the eyes while cooking since they started to use their improved stove/03/. The overall perception of the improvement of air quality since the ICS usage is very positive. During the site visit, ERM CVS noted that the wording of the questions required quite a lot of explanation from the surveyors in order to get a response from the households. In a number of cases ERM CVS found that respondents reported a different answer to the one they gave in the monitoring survey. The differences do not indicate that the scoring of the indicator would change. Nevertheless the PP should consider some further improvement of the wording to capture the information as clearly as possible. FAR 1 4 th verification FAR 03 The PP has carried out cross checks on distribution data of household wood and charcoal stoves however these were not documented in writing. FAR 03 was raised for the PP for formalize the cross checking process by keeping some written records of the cross checks performed on distribution data of household wood and charcoal stoves in future monitoring periods. 4 th issuance verification report, 17 Dec 2015 /10/ PP s response in the MR, in response to the FAR, is as follows: The PP will add "cross-checked and notes columns to the DCD to allow for those cross-checking registrations to confirm that an individual record was cross-checked and to note anomalies found (if any). However, interviews during the site visit and a subsequent review of the DCD/33/ have confirmed that the above steps have not been performed. Please refer to CAR 2. CAR 2 was subsequently closed. Please refer to the remediation form for further details. CAR 2 ERM Certification and Verification Services 18 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

4 th issuance GS review FAR 01 The PP shall comply for future issuances with the minimum sample size for water quality tests, which complies with a 90/10 confidence/precision. The sample size can be calculated by applying webbased tools, like e.g. http://www.raosoft.com/sampl esize.html 4 th issuance GS review document /12/ ERM CVS has reviewed the sample size calculations for the water quality testing. However the monitoring report does not include description how this FAR was addressed. CL 1 was raised. CL 1 was closed when the monitoring report was revised to include the description of how this FAR was addressed. CL 1 4.2. Project Implementation in accordance with the PDD As per VVS section 9.4.1, ERM CVS evaluated the conformity of the project activity and its operation with the PDD. This assessment was undertaken on the basis of the site visit, review of documents and interviews with relevant personnel. During the site visit, ERM CVS assessed whether all features of the project as described in the PDD are in place and that the PP has operated the project in accordance with operational criteria set out in the PDD. The project covers distribution and sales of a number of cooking stoves and water purification devices. The volumes of sales are not projected in the PDD. 4.2.1. Overview of project design The project promotes the use of efficient and clean household energy and safe water technologies, and in turn generates carbon credits in the voluntary market based on the greenhouse gas emission reduction of these technologies. The project works through local organisations, NGOs and local distributors to provide Kenyans with healthy and efficient cooking practices and greater access to safe drinking water. The Project disseminates clean cooking and safe water treatment technologies throughout Kenya. The project includes six different types of technologies, out of which only three have been implemented in this Monitoring Period: Household wood stoves, Household charcoal stoves and Community water treatment. The Project has not sold, distributed or monitored any Point of Use Chemical Water Treatment technologies (not yet been implemented for this project), Point of Use Non-Chemical Water Treatment technologies, or Institutional Wood Stoves during this monitoring period, and is not claiming credits for previously sold or distributed technologies of these types during this monitoring period, therefore these Project Scenarios have been omitted from this monitoring period. The project scenarios (also known as clusters ) included in the project are: Household wood stoves o Sales/Distribution Partners: EzyLife o Stove Models: JikoPoa, Envirofit G3300 & M5000, EzyStove Household charcoal stoves o Sales/Distribution Partners: EzyLife, BURN Manufacturing o Stove Models: Envirofit CH5200, BURN Jikokoa (Burn Design Lab HH Charcoal Stove) Community water treatment o Sales/Distribution Partners: DSW o Chlorine Dispenser Technology Institutional wood stoves o Not implemented in this monitoring and verification period. Point of Use (PoU) non-chemical water treatment o Not implemented in this monitoring and verification period. PoU chemical water treatment o Not implemented in this monitoring and verification period. The implementation and operation status of the project was verified as follows: ERM Certification and Verification Services 19 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project

Compliance question Verification activities undertaken Verification findings (including justification/substantiation of information, data and evidence) Draft / CAR/CL Final / Not What is the Implementation and operation status of the project? Are all physical features of the project activity in place as per the PDD? Review of the monitoring report /01/ and registered revised PDD /04/ Review of project sales and installation records /13, 34/ Interviews with The Paradigm Project staff and project partners during the site visit listed in A.2. Visits to a sample of households, and community water treatment points The project originally consisted of 6 project scenarios (also known as clusters), however it has not sold, distributed or monitored any Point of Use Chemical Water Treatment technologies, Point of Use Non-Chemical Water Treatment technologies, or Institutional Wood Stoves during this monitoring period, therefore these Project Scenarios have been omitted from this monitoring period. The project scenarios implemented are in line with the project design of those scenarios in the registered PDD. Each of the three project scenarios included in this monitoring period are described in more detail below: 1) Household wood stoves: a) Jikopoa unskirted model: the stove is manufactured in Kenya. b) Jikopoa skirted model: this is a modified model of Jikopoa stove based on feedback from the users and is also manufactured in Kenya. c) Envirofit G3300: the stove is now manufactured in Kenya. d) Envirofit M5000: the stove used to be imported into Kenya. It is no longer being sold e) EzyStove: parts are imported into Kenya and then the stoves are assembled in Nairobi. CL 2 CL 3 All of the above types of stoves used to be sold by EzyLife and its distribution partners in the past. Now under the new Paradigm operations launched since November 2014, EzyLife exclusively sells these stoves directly to customers. Furthermore, in addition to the above stove types, some units of EcoZoom Dura 24cm and 28cm stoves had been sold by the PP but these stoves are not credited or included in this monitoring period because the original design of these stoves did not meet the requirement of their efficient being within +/-5% of the efficiency of the models already included, and therefore these models have not yet been added to the project design. Based on visual inspection of stoves, interviews with a sample of users, and review of the reports of water boiling tests and baseline field tests carried out by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group /36/ and Dr Kithinji /35/, the stoves design features are similar. It has already been verified in previous monitoring periods that the efficiency of all the stove models are within +/- 5% of each other. Therefore all 5 models can be deemed similar and can be included in the same project scenario. For the purpose of calculating ERs, household wood stoves are split into two groups/sub-clusters: beneficiaries who before the project intervention used charcoal (small group) Sub-Cluster A, and all other users, which essentially are users who used wood or a combination of wood and other fuels (which is the largest proportion of sales in this cluster) Sub-Cluster B. Within the household wood cluster, some stoves were distributed to households within refugee camps through a partnership with the World Food Programme (WFP) in the Kakuma and Dadaab refugee camps. However monitoring ERM Certification and Verification Services 20 Paradigm Healthy Cookstoves and Water Treatment Project