final verification report for the gold standard project

FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N° CCL210GS824/SHICS/26072013, Rev. 2 Formulated February 2013 1

Final Verification Report

For the Gold Standard Project Activity

“Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” in Kenya

For

Co2balance UK

Gold Standard ID Number GS 824

Monitoring Period: 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013

(Both days included)

Report No: CCL210GS 824/SHICS/26072013

Report Date: 175-042-2014, Ver. 43

Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd. Block-A, Ground Floor 374 Rivonia Boulevard Rivonia, Johannesburg

Republic of South Africa 2128

FM 4.9 Verification Report Template VVS GS N° CCL210GS824/SHICS/26072013, Rev. 2 2

374 Rivonia Boulevard, Ground Floor, Block A, Rivonia, Johannesburg, RSA, 2128 Formulated February 2013

I. PROJECT DATA

Project title: Shimba Hills Improved Cook stoves

Registration No. / Date: GS 824 / 24-01-2011 Scale: Small

Monitoring period: 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013 Monitoring Period Number:

2nd

Methodology: “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1

Sectoral Scope / Technical Area:

1,3,13/ 1.1, 3.1, 13.1

Final Monitoring Report: 174/0411/20143 version 096

Average emission reductions:

Estimated: 56,773 tCO2e/yr Verified: 568,369853 tCO2e/yr

Country Project participants Party considered a project participant

Contract party

Republic of Kenya Co2balance UK No

II. VERIFICATION TEAM (compliance of § 228 b of VVS)

Verification Team Role

Full name Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical

Areas)

Team

leader

Acting/tra

inee T

eam

Leader

Local E

xpert

Team

Mem

ber

(Auditor)

Technic

al E

xpert

Acting/T

rain

ee T

ech.

Expert

Tra

inee A

uditor

Technic

al R

evie

wer

Expert

to T

R

Pankaj Kumar 1.2, 1.1. 3.1, 4.5, 13.1 X X

Barun Kumar 1.2 X

Adam Simcock -- X

Amit Anand 1.2, 13.1 X

Vikash Kumar Singh 1.2, 3.1, 13.1 X

R V Nesari 1.1 X

III. VERIFICATION REPORT Verification Phases and Status:

Desk Review Follow up interviews, On Site Assessment

Resolution of outstanding issues Corrective Actions / Clarifications Requested

Full Approval and Submission for Issuance Rejected

APPROVAL

Technical Reviewer

Amit Anand

18/12/2013

Final Approver

Priyesh Ramlall

175/042/2014

Distribution

No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organizational unit

Limited Distribution

Unrestricted distribution



Abbreviations

BAU

BFT

Business As Usual

Baseline Field Test

CCL Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd.

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CL

CO

Clarification Request

Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

DOE

DVR

Designated Operational Entities

Draft Validation Report

EB

EF

CDM Executive Board

Emission Factor

FA Final Approval

FAR

FT

FVR

GS

Forward Action Request

Field Test

Final validation Report

Gold Standard

GHG Greenhouse gas (es)

IPCC

KPT

KS

MKS

MP

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Kitchen Performance Test

Kitchen Survey

Monitoring Kitchen Survey

Monitoring Plan

PM

TSPM

RSPM

Particulate Matters

Total Suspended Particulate Matter

Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VVS

Validation and Verification Standard



Verification Opinion — summary

Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd has performed 2nd

periodic verification of the registered Gold Standard project activity “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” having GS registry number GS824 for the period 01-01- 2012 to 31-05-2013. The verification team assigned by the DOE concludes that the VER/GS Project Activity as described in the registered GS PDD (version 1.9, dated 26-10-2012) and monitoring report (version 096, dated 174-0411-20143), meets all relevant requirements of the Gold Standard and also relevant UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and paragraph 56 and 62 of CDM M & P, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. The verification has been conducted in accordance with GS Version 2.1 requirements along with the UNFCCC VVS version 5.0

Verification methodology and process

The Verification team confirms the contractual agreement/15/

dated 26/07/2013 between the DOE, Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd and the Project Participant,Co2 balance UK. The team assigned for this GS verification project meets all the requirements as per Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd.’s internal procedures including the UNFCCC requirements for the team composition and competence. CCL has conducted a thorough contract review as per UNFCCC and Carbon Check procedures and requirements. The verification has been performed as per the requirements described in the Gold Standard Requirements; Gold Standard Toolkit and VVS version 5.0 and constitutes the review and completion of the following steps:

- Reviewing the registered PDD (version 1.9, dated 26-10-2012), including the monitoring plan and the corresponding validation report and the Gold Standard Passport, the Sustainability Matrix and monitoring data;

- Confirm the monitoring report has been made available to the Gold Standard Registry;

- Desk review of the MR, previous verification reports (if applicable), deviation request and requests for the revision of monitoring plan (if applicable) and other relevant documents including documents related to the projects activities in emission reductions. Review of the applied GS monitoring methodology “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1;

- Review of any CMP and EB decisions, clarifications and guidance /clarification of the Gold Standard Secretariat;

- On-site assessment and interview with the local stakeholders and households (end users) (from 23-09-2013 to 25-09-2013)

- Issuance of Draft Verification Report (DVR) dated 14-10-2013

- Resolution of CARs and CLs raised during verification process

- Issuance of Final Verification Report

In Carbon Checks opinion, the project activity was correctly implemented according to applied monitoring methodology, monitoring plan and the registered PDD

/06/. Through the review and on site

visit, the verification team confirms that the project has resulted in the 568,369853 tCO2 emission reductions during the 2

nd monitoring period. The GHG emission reductions and non-GHG parameters

were correctly calculated/monitored on the basis of the approved monitoring methodology “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1 and the monitoring plan contained in the registered Project Design Document (version 1.9, dated 26/10/2012)

/06/.

Carbon Check as a DOE therefore issues a positive verification opinion expressed in the attached Certification statement, and certifies that the emission reductions from the project “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstves” for the monitoring period reduced the GHGs of 568,369853 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for the applied verification period i.e. 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013 (including both days).



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Objective 6

1.2 Scope 6

1.3 Project Activity Description 7

2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Desk review 9

2.2 Background documents: 10

2.3 On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders 11

2.4 Resolution of outstanding issues 14

2.5 Internal quality control 16

2.6 Verification Team 16

3. VERIFICATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Project implementation 17

3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) 20

3.3 Compliance of the Actual monitoring with monitoring plan in the PDD 22

3.4 Monitored parameters 24

3.5 Monitoring responsibility 26

3.6 Deviation from and/or Revision of the registered monitoring plan 27

3.7 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions 27

3.8 Assessment of actual emission reductions with the estimate emission reductions in PDD 3029

3.9 Compliance with the sustainability monitoring plan 3130

3.10 Monitoring of Gold Standard Sustainability Indicators 31

3.11 Issues remaining from the previous verification period or during validation 3534

3.12 Quality and Management System Assurance 3534

APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................................... 3736

APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................................... 3837



1. INTRODUCTION The Co2balance UK has commissioned the Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd. to perform an independent verification of the GS Project Activity “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” (hereafter referred to as “project activity”). This report summarises the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of Gold Standard requirements version 2.1 and toolkit and paragraph 62 of the CDM M & P, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board and Gold Standard Secretariat. Verification is required for all registered GS/CDM project activities intending to confirm their achieved emission reductions and proceed with request for issuance of CERs. This report contains the findings and resolutions from the verification process and a statement for the certified emission reductions.

1.1 Objective

Verification is the periodic independent review and ex post determination of both quantitative and qualitative information by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions that have occurred as a result of the registered/validated GS project activity during a defined proposed monitoring period. Certification is the written assurance by a DOE that, during a specific period in time, a project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified. The objective of this verification was to verify and certify emission reductions reported for the “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” for the period 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013. The purpose of verification is to review the monitoring results and to verify that the monitoring methodology was implemented according to the monitoring plan of the registered PDD and used to confirm the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources, is sufficient, definitive and presented in a concise and transparent manner. Other non-GHG parameters shall also be assessed as per the requirement of GS. Verification of emission reductions for Gold Standard crediting is only for eligible greenhouse gases. In particular, the monitoring plan, monitoring report and the project’s compliance with relevant GS/UNFCCC and host Party criteria are verified in order to confirm that the project has been implemented in accordance with the previously registered project design and conservative assumptions, as documented in-line with applied approved monitoring methodology.

1.2 Scope

The scope of the verification is:

To verify the project implementation and operation with respect to the registered PDD

To verify the implemented monitoring plan with the registered PDD and applied approved baseline and monitoring methodology.

To verify that the actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD.

To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data/ and express a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement.

To verify that reported GHG emission data and other non-GHG parameters as per the requirement of GS is sufficiently supported by evidence(s).



Carbon Check scope of verification as a third party verifier is to verify project emission reductions and sustainable development impacts against the requirements set out by the Gold Standard. The verification shall ensure that the reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified. The verification comprises a review of the monitoring report over the monitoring period from 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013 and based on the registered PDD in part of the monitoring parameters and monitoring plan, emission reduction calculation spread-sheet

/13/, monitoring

methodology/B03/

and all related evidence/2.1/

provided by project participant. On-site visit and stakeholders and households interviews were also performed as part of the verification process.

1.3 Project Activity Description

The project activity, “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, curb deforestation and improve air quality by manufacturing and disseminating wood fuel efficient biomass stoves to households in coastal and inland province of Kenya, within the rural communities: Muhaka, Golini, Maungu and Kasigau. The project has disseminated 10,8946 stoves (1157 Brick Rocket Stoves & 97379 CZK wood stoves) during the monitoring period which was confirmed through stove distribution database

/14/.

In order to prove that both stove models (BRS/CZK) installed in the Shimba Hills Project can be considered as one project scenario (be within +/- 5%), a field based Water Boiling Test was conducted and result of which discussed in response to CAR 1

Results suggests both models of stove have been shown to be operating at +/- 2% of each other, which is well within the requirements of the methodology (+/- 5%). This confirms that both stoves can be considered identical for monitoring purposes i.e. they are the same project scenario. The laboratory test certificate obtained for the CZK stove was 34.67%, which is substantially different than the field test recorded at 21%. As the laboratory test on the CZK stove was conducted on one brand new stove, with only three repeats and the field test on 19 separate working stoves, PP maintain that the field test is a much more accurate measure of the stove efficiency under real operating conditions and hence is the appropriate value to be compared with the BRS stove (23%).

During this monitoring period, only efficient wood based biomass stoves distributed within the project boundary.

The project activity has disseminated 10,8946 stoves (97379 CZK & 1157 BRS cookstoves) during the monitoring period, with an estimated GHG offset during this monitoring period of 568,369853 tons CO2e. Number of stoves distributed confirmed with sales records

/14/ and it

was also confirmed with technical drawings/11/

that these stoves are wood stoves. Co2balance stove are considered “rocket” stoves. The ICS (Improved Cookstoves) installed are of a fixed construction of clay bricks and mortar, using a ‘rocket’ style design.

As per the cluster / scenario definitions established in the PDD as per the baseline survey, the project has to date focussed on the “non-institutional biomass users: rural” cluster which was confirmed with usage survey

/18/. As per registered PDD, ver. 1.9 (26/10/2012), project

divided into two clusters- Cluster A (Maungu/ Kasigau) and cluster B (Golini / Muhaka)

The value of fNRB taken from third party report by C4Ecosolutions /04/

which is in line with applied methodology. As per applied GS methodology, option (b) of Annex 1 (Non-renewable biomass (NRB) assessment opted for NRB assessment which is similar to CDM approved methodology AMS II.G, v02

/B05/. fNRB value fixed at the time of validation. Verification team

confirmed that NRB assessment based on publicly available and verifiable data. The value of NRB can be re-assessed voluntarily at any time and is compulsory on each renewal of crediting period which is in line with registered PDD. The value of fNRB for cluster A considered as 0.73 whereas for cluster B, this value taken as 0.97.

These Improved biomass cook stoves are built to reduce use of wood and therefore related indoor air pollutants from incomplete combustion of fuel wood (CO and PM). This project reduces greenhouse gas emissions by disseminating efficient biomass cook-stoves that have



been proven through testing/12/

and also verified during onsite observation and interview with house hold users to be more efficient than traditional three stones & traditional stoves models in the host country of Kenya.

Using BRS & CZK Improved Cookstove provides the following benefits:

• Reduce unsustainable wood harvest and hence reduce the rate of deforestation

• Reduces fuel wood cost for households and communities and save fuel/fodder collection time.

• Contributes to the preservation of wood resources so as to avoid inter-communal conflict over resources.

• Provides employment with regards to local monitoring survey, distribution of cook-stoves etc.

• Provides health benefits e.g. coughing and irritation of eyes as well time saving during the cooking process.

Based on above, the verification team confirm that the project is in line with the plans contained in the registered PDD.

2. METHODOLOGY

The verification consists of the following four phases: 1. Completeness check of the Emission Reductions Monitoring report and Gold Standard

Sustainability Monitoring Report, and submission to the Gold Stand Registry and Project Administration System;

2. Review of project documentation (monitoring plan, monitoring report, monitoring methodology, project design document, applicable tools in particular attention to the frequency of measurements, quality of metering equipment’s including calibration requirements, QA/QC procedures and other relevant documents and regulations);

3. On-site visit (including follow-up interviews with project stakeholders,). The on-site assignment includes the following;

An assessment of implementation and operation of project activity with respect to registered PDD;

Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters;

Interview with relevant personnel to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented and in accordance with monitoring plan of the PDD;

Cross check of information and data provided in the monitoring report with plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources;

Check of monitoring equipment’s, calibration frequency and monitoring practice in-line with methodology and PDD;

Review of assumptions made in calculating the emission reduction;

Implementation of QA/QC procedure in-line with the PDD and methodology requirement.

Issuance of Draft Verification Report (DVR)

3. RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL VERIFICATION REPORT AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT. The following sections outline each step in more detail. Duration of Verification:

Signing of Letter of Engagement: 26-07-2013 (signed contract received)

On Site Visit: 23-09-2013 to 25-09-2013



Reporting/Calculations/Technical Review and QA/QC

3.1 Desk review

The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the verification:

Reference Document

/01/ Monitoring Report version 1 (webhosted), dated 12-09-2013

/02/ Monitoring Report version 069, dated 174-0411-20143

/03/ Baseline Study & Survey by German Garcia Ibanez dated 15/04/2010

1. Baseline Sampling Plan Description 2. Baseline Statistical Analysis 3. HH Kitchen survey data (Excel file) dated 30/07/2012 4. Kenya KPT data dated 26/07/2012

/04/ fNRB Report by C4Ecosolution , ver. 02, dated 07/04/2011

/05/ Registered GS-VER-PDD, Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves, ver. 1.6 dated 08-04-2011.

/06/ Revised GS-VER-PDD, Ver. 1.9 dated 26/10/2012

/07/ Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report

/08/ Gold Standard Validation Report “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” (GS850) Report No. 2010/072/GS/01 dated 15-04-2011

/09/ Carbon Baseline assessment of the BRS & CZK Improved wood stoves by German Garcia Ibanez dated 15/04/2010

/10/ Training procedures and records of the personnel involved in GHG monitoring: 1. Carbon Record Procedure 2. Co2balance UK Ltd warranty policy documents 3. Training records from Co2balance UK that training is provided to personnel

involved in the survey & sampling.

/11/ Technical drawing: BRS & CZK stove

/12/ Stove Efficiency test analysis report for both BRS & CZK stoves

/13/ Work sheet: 1. HH Kitchen survey data (Excel file) 2. Kenya KPT data 3. Emission Reduction Summary sheet 4. Sales database (Confidential)

/14/ 1. Samples sales records/warranty card from 01/01/2012 to 31-05-2013 (monitoring period)

2. Sales Record Spread Sheet



Reference Document

/15/ Letter of engagement (contract) signed between Co2balance UK Ltd. and Carbon Check Pty Ltd. for the 2

nd verification of GS project “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” dated

26/07/2013

/16/ Photos of Stakeholders/HH during onsite interview and survey

/17/ Evidence for the local public of Kenya employed by this particular GS project: Contract agreement between Co2balance UK and local partners for sales and distribution of cookstoves

/18/ Usage survey by Co2 balance UK dated 30/07/2013

/19/ Incorporation certificate of company i.e. Co2balance UK Ltd

/20/ Gold Standard Passport version 1.3

/21/ Stove efficiency test report dated 09/02/2011 by University of Nairobi- Deptt. Of chemistry

/22/ Household selection spread sheet based on random sampling

/23/ Email communication from GS dated 11/10/2012 confirming approval of deviation request

During the desk review, Carbon Check applied the standard auditing techniques to assess the quality of information provided.

3.2 Background documents:

Ref no. Reference Document

/B01/ 1. Validation and Verification Standard version 05.0 2. Project Standard version 05

/B02/ Gold Standard specific rule/guidelines/standard: 1. Gold Standard tool kit (GSv2.1_Toolkit) 2. GSv2.1-Requirements 3. GS-annexes to toolkit

/B03/ Applied baseline and monitoring Gold Standard Voluntary Methodology, “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1

/B04/ 1. Guideline: Completing the monitoring form, version 03.2 2. Template of MR available on UNFCCC website

/B05/ AMS-II.G, Version 02

/B06/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 2: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html

/B07/ Sampling guidelines, Annex. 6, EB 74

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html



3.3 On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders

An OSV was performed by members of the verification team from 23-09-2013 to 25-09-2013. During the course of OSV following activities were performed:

i. An assessment of the implementation and operation of the registered project activity as per the registered/validated PDD;

ii. A review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the GHGs monitoring data and parameters;

iii. Interviews with relevant personnel including household end users to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD;

iv. A cross check between information provided in the monitoring report and data from other sources such as , sales record, work sheet, usage survey, Monitoring kitchen survey and Kitchen Performance Test (KPTs) or similar data sources etc;

v. A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions;

vi. An identification of quality control and quality assurance procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters.

vii. Verification of the monitoring of sustainable development indicators as stipulated in the registered PDD.



The project representatives and stakeholders interviewed:

Name Organization Topic Means of interview

1.

Jack Ayieko Co2balance

Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves

In person

2.

Dominic Karani

Co2balance Project Implementation Plan, Stoves Distribution Plan, Sales Records, Replacement of old/damaged stoves, Financial benefits to the end user of stoves

In person

3.

Richard Iliffe

Co2balance

MR, GHG and non-GHG parameters, project implementation/operation, compliance of monitoring plan with monitoring meth, registered PDD, ER calculation.

In person

4. Brosdos Zakah

Co2balance


In person

5. Nancy Machaslo

Co2balance


In person

6. Constance Mutonya

Co2balance


In person

7. Kenneth MukurU

Co2balance


In person

8. Masiam Moyo Local Stakeholder (end user)

Onsite inspection and Interview In person

9. Suleman Mwasasai Local Stakeholder (end user)


10. Sudi Salim Local Stakeholder (end user)


11. Zainab Mbeyu Local Stakeholder (end user)


12. Masussa Suleman Local Stakeholder (end user)


13. Mwaka Tsenoga Local Stakeholder (end user)


14. Biwiza Abdul Local Stakeholder (end user)


15. Fatuma Hamyis Local Stakeholder (end user)


16. Asha Mustafa Local Stakeholder (end user)


17. Rehima juma Local Stakeholder (end user)


18. Mohammed Massah Local Stakeholder (end user)


19. Mwanakombo Ali Local Stakeholder (end user)


20. Mishi Abdala Local Stakeholder (end user)




21. Patrick Woria Local Stakeholder (end user)


22. Hamish Hazzi Local Stakeholder (end user)


23. Mwanasit Omar Local Stakeholder (end user)


24. Moyo Salim Local Stakeholder (end user)


25. Mwanaisha Malala Local Stakeholder (end user)


26. Mwasiti Bakari Local Stakeholder (end user)


27. Fatuma Omar Local Stakeholder (end user)


28. Halima Juma Local Stakeholder (end user)


29. Mwasiti Mwalimu Local Stakeholder (end user)


30. Elisa Sanghuran Local Stakeholder (end user)


31. Mbeyu Tsimba

Local Stakeholder (end user)


32. Josephine Madago Local Stakeholder (end user)


33. Catherine Chanchalo Local Stakeholder (end user)


34. Godana Dabasa Local Stakeholder (end user)


35. Julius Kiluye Local Stakeholder (end user)


36. Devota Mwawuja Local Stakeholder (end user)


37. Getrude Rijani Local Stakeholder (end user)


38. Ana Musenyi Local Stakeholder (end user)


39. Kisangayu Dio Local Stakeholder (end user)


40. Mercy Mwanginbe Local Stakeholder (end user)


41. Benson Masai Local Stakeholder (end user)


42. Silas Mwamburi Local Stakeholder (end user)


43. Nalenza Mugaza Local Stakeholder (end user)


44. Anre kilingo Local Stakeholder (end user)


45. Margret Ezara Local Stakeholder (end user)


46. Daphine Gombo Local Stakeholder (end user)


47. Florence Nzcege Local Stakeholder (end user)




Standard auditing techniques has been applied by CCL to assess and verify the quality of information provided during the course of verification. In line with the requirements of paragraph 24, Annex 6 of EB 74/

B07/, CCL has verified a total

of 40 samples during the onsite visit.

Carbon Check’s sample size of 40 households for onsite visit is deemed to be appropriate with the reasoning discussed below:

Project Proponent taken sample size of 100 for Kitchen Performance Test (KPT). Number of sample selected by the verification team (40) is an adequate number to assess the appropriateness (acceptance) of the sampling during this verification in line with paragraph 24, Annex 6 of EB 74 (Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and Programme of activities)

/B07/

Carbon Check selected acceptable quality level (AQL) at 0.5% and unacceptable quality level (UQL) at 10% based on 5 % producer’s risk and 10% consumer risk In line with the guidelines provided in paragraph 29 of annex 6 of EB 74

/B07/. The preset acceptance number at 0.5%

AQL was determined as 1(Cp table of paragraph 29 annex 6, EB 74)/B07/.

CCL’s onsite visit of the sampled 40 households revealed no discrepancy/ies (DOE’s sample that do not agree with the PP’s sample records), which was in line with preset acceptance number of 1 as per Annex 06 of EB 74, ver. 4.

/ B07/

Hence, CCL confirms that PP’s survey/sampling records to be acceptable and assessment of acceptance of PP’s sampling has been conducted in line with the requirements of the annex 6 of EB 74

/B07/

Through the above-mentioned activities the verification team confirmed the following Gold Standard project aspects in relation to the project activity:

The implementation and operation of the project activity is as described in the monitoring plan in the registered PDD.

The operational and data collection procedures are implemented as per the monitoring plan in the PDD

The information flow for generating, grouping and reporting of the monitored parameters

Procedures to avoid double counting are in place.

3.4 Resolution of outstanding issues

The objective of this phase of the verification is to resolve any outstanding issues (issues that require further elaboration, research or expansion) which have to be clarified/corrective action done prior to final DOE’s conclusions on the project implementation, monitoring practices and achieved emission reductions. In order to ensure transparency a verification protocol is completed for the project activity. The protocol shows in transparent manner criteria (requirements), means of verification and resulting statements on verification of actual project activity against identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes:

It organises in a table form, details and clarifies the requirements, GS project is expected to meet GS/CDM requirements;

It ensures a transparent verification process where the DOE will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification.

It ensures that the issues are accurately identified, formulated, discussed and concluded in the validation report.

It ensures the determination of achieving credible emission reductions from the project activity.



The verification protocol consists of two tables. Table 1 reflects the verification requirements and reference to the materials used to verify the project activity against those requirements, as well as means of verification, reference to Table 2 (i.e. tables of findings) and preliminary and final opinion of the DOE on every particular requirement listed in table 1.

Verification Protocol Table 1: Requirement checklist

Checklist question Verification Team Comment/MoV

Reference Findings comments references, data source / Draft Conclusion

Final Conclusion

The checklist items in Table 1 are linked to the various requirements the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections. Each section is then further sub-divided as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity.

The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the assessment of the Verification team and how the assessment was carried out. The reporting requirements of the VVS and Project Standard shall be covered in this section.

Gives reference to the information source on which the assessment is based on

Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is fulfilled (OK), or a CAR, CL or FAR is raised (see below). The assessment refers to the draft verification stage.

In case a corrective action or a clarification request the final assessment at the final verification stage is given.

The findings of verification process are summarized in the tables below.

Finding (reference section of table 1) xx

Classification CAR CL FAR

Description of finding (DOE)

Corrective Action or clarification #1

(PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or further information for clarification as per finding)

DOE Assessment #1

The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added.

Conclusion

Tick the appropriate checkbox

To be checked during the next periodic verification

Outstanding finding (not closed)

The finding is closed

In Table 2 FAR, shall reflect the forward actions initiated by the verification team if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period. The completed verification protocol for this project is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings during the verification can be interpreted as a non-compliance with CDM criteria or a risk to the compliance. Corrective action requests (CARs) are raised, in case:

(a) Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting and has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient;

(b) Modifications to the implementation, operation and monitoring of the registered project activity has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants;

© Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions, which will impair the estimate of emission reductions;



(d) Issues identified in a FAR during validation/previous verification(s) that are not been resolved by the project participant(s) to be verified during current verification.

Requests for clarification (CLs) are raised, if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. A forward action request (FAR) is raised during verification to highlight issues related to project implementation/monitoring that require review during the subsequent verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM requirements for issuance.

3.5 Internal quality control

The final verification report has been technically reviewed before being submitted to the project participant and GS registry. The technical review performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with CCL’s qualification scheme for CDM/GS validation and verification.

3.6 Verification Team

Carbon Check has appointed a competent team as per the Accreditation Standard and Carbon Check internal procedures, the team is outlined below:

Background information for verifiers: Pankaj Kumar: is an appointed Lead auditor and technical expert for technical area 1.1, 1.2 and 3.1, 13.1& 4.5. He holds a Master’s of Science in Environment Management from Forest Research Institute, Dehradun and Post Graduate Diploma in Environmental Law from NLSIU, Bangalore. He has participated in around 70 CDM, VCS and GSs validations and verifications. He has been involved in the GS verification of 0.75 MW Kerala Wind Power Project (GS 561) and Up Energy’s Improved Cookstove Carbon Project, Uganda (GS 1044) and Dissemination of Fuel Efficient Biomass Stoves and Water Purification Systems in Tanzania (GS 850). He has also attended Gold Standard DOE Webinar and listed as Gold Standard Fast track eligible auditor. He has been involved in the following CDM projects that have been submitted to UNFCCC for Request for Registration (UNFCCC Reference Numbers: 0925, 6181, 6924, 7492, 7531, 7535, 7536, 7608, 7607, 7638, 7781, 7816, 7841, 7887, 8239, 9310, 9438, 9315, 9296, 0795, 7632). Barun Kumar: Is an appointed technical expert in technical area 1 and 13. He holds an M.Sc. Ecology & Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry Central University, Puducherry and B. Sc Environment & Water Management, A.N. College, Patna Magadh University. He has been involved in the following CDM projects that have been submitted to UNFCCC for Request for Registration (UNFCCC Reference Numbers: 0925, 6181, 6924, 7492, 7531, 7535, 7536, 7608, 7607, 7638, 7781, 7816, 7841, 7887). He has attended Social Carbon Training and in house verification course as well as Gold Standard Webinars

Verification Team Type of Involvement

Full name Appointed for Sectoral Scopes (Technical

Areas)

Su

pe

rvis

ing

th

e w

ork

De

sk r

evie

w

Site

Vis

it +

In

terv

iew

Re

po

rt a

nd

pro

toco

l

Writin

g

Te

ch

nic

al E

xp

ert

In

pu

t

Re

po

rtin

g S

upp

ort

Te

ch

nic

al R

evie

we

r

Pankaj Kumar 1.2, 1.1, 3.1, 4.5, 13.1 X X X X X

Barun Kumar 1.2, 13.1 X X

Adam Simcock -- X

Amit Anand 1.2, 13.1 X

Vikash Kumar Singh 1.2, 3.1, 13.1 X

R V Nesari 1.1 X



Adam Simcock: is local host country expert for this project. He has experience in clean and renewable energy sector particularly in enterprise-based energy access project development, research, baseline studies, and project management, support and facilitation of organizational and business linkages and networks within the renewable/alternative energy sector.

4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS The findings of the verification are described in the following sections. The verification criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results of verification are documented in detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A.

4.1 Project implementation

The project has disseminated 10,8946 BRS & CZK wood stoves during the monitoring period which was confirmed through stove distribution database

/13/.

Project Participants: Co2balance UK

Title of project activity: Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves.

UNFCCC/GS registration No: GS 824

Applied Baseline and monitoring methodology:

Gold Standard Voluntary Methodology “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1

Project Scale: Small Scale

Location of the project activity: Kenya

Project’s crediting period: 01-06-2010 to 31-05-2017

Reported monitoring Period verified in this verification:

01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013

As part of the site visit, the verification team was able to confirm that the project implementation is in accordance with the project description contained in the registered GS PDD

/06/ of 26-10-2012. The verification took cognizance of § 187, 188 & 191 of CDM Project

Standard and § 225 (a) and § 226 of VVS/B01/

. Project physical features ( technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering equipment)

The project activity is to replace conventional/traditional three stones stoves in coastal and inland province of Kenya, within the rural communities : Muhaka, Golini, Maungu and Kasigau. The project has disseminated 10,8964 stoves (97379 CZK & 1157 BRS wood stoves) during the monitoring period which was confirmed through stove distribution database

/13/.

During the 2nd

monitoring period (01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013), project activity has disseminated 10,8946 cookstoves and thus replaced conventional three stones in Kenya. The project activity, “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” is replacing inefficient stoves (traditional 3 stone stoves and traditional stoves) to improved biomass stoves in coastal and inland province of Kenya. The project activity has disseminated 10,8946 stoves (97379 CZK & 1157 BRS wood stoves) during the monitoring period, with an estimated GHG offset during this monitoring period of 568,369853 tons CO2e. Number of stoves distributed confirmed with sales records

/13/ and it was

also confirmed with technical drawings/11/

that these stoves are wood stoves. The ICS installed in this project is of a fixed construction of clay bricks and mortar, using a ‘rocket’ style design. This consists of a horizontal (combined) fuel and air intake, terminating in a firebox with a vertical outlet on which the cooking pot rests. Relative to the three-stone fire, this type of stove allows higher combustion temperatures to be reached and improved fuel/air mixing, which increases combustion efficiency. This reduces the amount of smoke produced. There is no chimney as such, draft is created by the temperature difference



between the low inlet and the outlet, and the hot combustion gasses pass out of the top directly onto the cooking pot in order to achieve high levels of thermal transfer. Despite the combustion gases remaining in the house, the improved combustion efficiencies mean that smoke levels are dramatically reduced. As per the cluster / scenario definitions established in the PDD as per the baseline survey, the project has to date focussed on the “non-institutional biomass users: rural” cluster which was confirmed with usage survey

/18/.

As per registered PDD (26/10/2012)/05/,

project divided into two clusters- Cluster A (Maungu/ Kasigau) and cluster B (Golini / Muhaka)

The value of fNRB taken from third party report by C4Ecosolutions

/04/

which is in line with applied methodology. As per applied GS methodology, option (b) of Annex 1 ( Non-renewable biomass (NRB) assessment opted for NRB assessment which is similar to CDM approved methodology AMS II.G, v02. fNRB value fixed at the time of validation. Verification team confirmed that NRB assessment based on publicly available and verifiable data. The value of NRB can be re-assessed voluntarily at any time and is compulsory on each renewal of crediting period which is in line with registered PDD. The value of fNRB for cluster A considered as 0.73 whereas for cluster B, this value taken as 0.97.

Apart from reduction in greenhouse gases, the project offering co-benefit to user to relief from high fuel cost, save time for fuel collection and/or improved health due to less indoor pollution during the cooking process. During on site visit, verification team checked the design and technology of stoves of different users, which are in line with the description provided in registered PDD

/06/ and technical drawing

/11/ provided by the PP.

There is no change observed from the registered monitoring plan of the registered PDD.

Any Project Design Change been sought and approved by EB for the project?

Yes

No

“Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves” GS-VER project was registered on 24/01/2011. Deviation request submitted to Gold Standard on 13/08/2012 to change the methodology applied at the time of registration. Subsequently Methodology changed and revised PDD approved by GS on 11/10/2012

/23/

Projected activity is implemented in line with the registered PDD i.e. dissemination of efficient cook stoves in the host country of Kenya to the house holds previously using the conventional three stones stoves. 10,8946 stoves are distributed under the proposed monitoring period. Types of stove are distributed under the implemented project:

BRS & CZK Total stoves sold during the monitoring period (01-01-2012- 31-05-2013)

Type of stove Sale year Total Number of sold stoves

BRS & CZK 2012 57090

2013 0

Total 10,8946

No new stoves sold in this monitoring period. The total number of cook-stoves sold during monitoring period verified from stoves sale data base

/13/ and found to be correct.

Apart from reduction in greenhouse gases by the dissemination of fuel efficient wood stoves, the project offering co-benefit to user to relief from high fuel cost, save time for fuel collection and/or improved health due to less indoor pollution during the cooking process.



During on site visit, verification team checked the design and technology of stoves of different users, which are in line with the description provided in registered PDD

/06/ and technical

drawing/11/

provided by the PP. There were no changes observed from the registered monitoring plan of the registered PDD

/06/.

Monitoring procedure of GHG data is found sufficient and in accordance with the procedures stipulated under the registered monitoring plan. The verified timeline of the project’s implementation is as follow: Milestone of the project activity Timeline Assessment by the verification team

Starting date of operation: (Note: Project implementation i.e. usage of the disseminated efficient cook stoves )

02-04-2009 The start date of project is 02-04-2009, which is the date of investment commitment. The verification team checked the registered PDD

/05/,in which the starting date of project is

02-04-2009 and same was cross verified from the evidence of project start date i.e. investment recommendation note/

04/

Start date of project activity is 02/04/2009 which is investment decision date which was accepted at project registration stage as project start date.

Registration of the project activity 24-01-2011 Verification team verified the registration of the project activity from the GS registry and found appropriate. The same can be accessed from the link provided below:

http://mer.markit.com/br-reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=103000000002105

Crediting period

2nd

monitoring period 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013

Registered PDD, sales records were checked, which was further substantiated during onsite visit and interviews with local stakeholders and end users of the project stoves (households)

The project activity was implemented and stoves installed as described in the registered PDD. On the basis of site visit, interview and the reviewed project documentation along with documentary evidences, it can be confirmed that the project implementation is in accordance with realized technology. The project has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD with GS secretariat. The monitoring and sustainable development indicators parameters are also monitored as per the registered PDD and GS guideline and found to appropriate. Verification Team summarizes major changes between initial/webhosted Monitoring Report and final version of Monitoring Report for submission as follows:

Subject Initial/webhosted Monitoring Report

/01/ Final/verified

Monitoring Report /02/

Change(s)

Project title / Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves

Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves

No change

Project Participants involved

Co2balance UK Ltd.

Co2balance UK Name of PP corrected in MR in line with approved PDD. CAR 2 was raised in this regard and closed successfully.

Project location Kenya Kenya No change

CER calculations 59,431 tCO2e/year 568,369853 tCO2e/year For emission Reduction






(amount of emission reduction)

Calculation': the project technology days were not deemed conservative by GS as they were based on 2012 project technology days [2012 PTD/12 * 5 (months operational in 2013) on sheet 'A 4.3 Estimated ERs']. Therefore PP inserted a sheet for 'ex-ante calculation 2013' where they included the exact PTDs for the stoves operational in those 5 months in 2013 and calculated more conservative ERs which confirmed by verification team and found to be correct and this the reason why total CER reduced as compared to 1st version of MR

Monitoring (period dates and period)

01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013

01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013

No change

Crediting period ( type / start date)

01-06-2010 to 31-05-2017

01-06-2010 to 31-05-2017

No change

Any other change NA NA NA

The verification team has also assessed the monitoring and impact on the sustainable development indicators by the project implementation and found to be appropriate as per the registered PDD

/06/

Based on above, verification team concludes, that, the monitoring period is reasonable and the operation of the project activity is in accordance with the registered PDD

/06/. The

verification took cognizance of § 188,189 and 190 of CDM Project Standard and § 217 b (i), 225 (a), 226 (a), (b) and 228 (b) and (c) of VVS version 05.

4.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s)

Any Revision in Monitoring plan is sought and approved by EB for the project?

Yes

No

No revision in Monitoring Plan is sought.

The verification team determined against all the information provided in MR, whether in-line with the applied monitoring methodology.

Verification Requirements Criteria fulfilled

Assessment by the verification team

Any Deviation been sought and approved by EB for the project.

Yes

No

No deviation from methodology is found.

Is complete set of data for the specified monitoring period available

Yes

No

Complete set of data for the specified monitoring period i.e. 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013 was provided by the PP, which was verified on sample basis by the verification team and found to be appropriate.



Verification Requirements Criteria fulfilled

Assessment by the verification team

Is the required information provided in the monitoring report been cross-checked with other sources (ex – plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis)

Yes

No

Verification team has verified the data submitted by PP during onsite inspection and document review. 40 random selected samples of cookstoves (end users) were checked and all the relevant information was verified, Including the interview of the local households. Sales record

/14/ along

containing all the required mentioned information, e.g. serial number, date of sale, name of the end users etc. were verified to be appropriate. In addition to the sales record compiled by CO2balance, Kenya team, baseline assessment of the BRS & CZK improved wood stoves by German Garcia Ibanez /03/

was assessed. Total number of the stoves sold, KPT, baseline survey and user survey data along with the emission factor which was verified from the IPCC report are the main parameters based on which the real ERs are accrued during this applied monitoring period and verified to be accurate by the verification team. Assessment of sampling /survey done by PP has been discussed in sec. 2.3 above.

Is the calculation of baseline emissions and project activity emissions and leakage been in accordance with the formulae and methods described in monitoring plan and the applied methodology?

Yes

No

The formulae and methods used in calculation of emission reduction are consistent with the registered PDD

/06/ and

the applied GS methodology/B03/

.

Are all assumptions used for emission calculation have been justified

Yes

No

All the assumptions used for emission calculation were justified in the MR and registered PDD.

Is appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values have been correctly applied

Yes

No

Default values taken in the calculation of ERs are cross-verified from the registered PDD and the IPCC default values and found to be appropriate.

Does the monitoring methodology provides any provision of verification for parameters other than monitoring of GHG data and shall be specific to the applicability criteria of applied methodology.

Yes

No

NA

Based on above, the verification team confirms that the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD

/06/ of 26-10-2012 is appropriately followed in the monitoring report by the

project activity and also in accordance with the applied approved monitoring methodology, i.e. “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 1

./B03/

The monitoring plan along with sampling & survey of the cookstoves for baseline as well as the project case is described in the registered PDD

/06/. The baseline survey

/03/ performed by a

third party “German Garcia Ibanez”. Survey reports along with Kitchen performance Test and Kitchen Survey report submitted by the PP. The verification team cross checked these information and survey method during onsite visit. During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in the PDD

/06/) have been

verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination



method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The verification took cognizance of § 194 of CDM Project Standard and § 229 to 232 and 225 (d) 237, 243, and 244 of VVS version 05.

4.3 Compliance of the Actual monitoring with monitoring plan in the PDD

Any Revision in Monitoring plan is sought and approved by EB for the project?

Yes

No

No revision in Monitoring Plan is sought.

Does the monitoring report provide line diagram showing all relevant monitoring points?

Yes

No

Line diagram for monitoring point is not applicable as the project monitoring is based on the sales data of cookstoves and third party survey report. There is no monitoring equipment applied as per the registered PDD and applied methodology.

The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD of 26-10-2012 and applied approved GS methodology

/B03/.

During the course of verification, all relevant monitoring parameters have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, and applied QA/QC procedures. According to the methodology, a Total Sales Record, Detailed Customer Database, and Project Database are maintained. Continuously, while KPTs and Kitchen survey are to measured/estimated parameter values and review and revise the cluster lists held in the Project Database; emission reduction calculations are carried out on the basis of the survey and/or field test results most applicable to each stove according to its age. Co2balance UK contracted the German Garcia Ibanez, performed several field-based assessments to determine the effect of improved cooking stoves on fuel consumption in households for baseline scenario. In multiple locations in coastal and inland province of Kenya, fuel savings and other aspects related to usage of BRS & CZK wood stoves were measured by the CO2Balance UK in accordance with methodology. The verification team reviewed the monitoring plan in the PDD

/06/ and compared it against the

requirements of the applied methodology /B03/

and confirms that appropriate provisions are included for the monitoring and reporting procedures, data management, and QA/QC procedures, including maintaining the detailed customer database and project database and found in line with the §229 of the VVS version 05

/B01/.

The sampling plan implemented by the PP is in accordance with the applied approved monitoring methodology

/B03/ and registered PDD

/06/. The third party sampling and survey

company (German Garcia Ibanez)CO2 balance , Kenya project team appropriately performs cluster-sampling in line with the applied methodology and best suited for this type of project. CCL confirms that the monitoring plan has been properly implemented by the PP in accordance with the registered PDD and applied methodology. Following are the assessment points as follows: Monitoring and Usage Survey: Monitoring Kitchen Surveys were carried out on a quarterly basis using smaller sample sizes. This was due to the fact that in previous version of PDD

/05/ PP used Gold Standard

Methodology ‘Energy Efficiency – Domestic Methodology for improved cook-stoves and kitchen regimes V.02’ projects at the time and did not take into account the new MKS requirements of Energy Efficiency – Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption V.01.



Two monitoring survey is conducted in this monitoring period. First MKS conducted between Feb. 2012 to Sept. 2012 and 2

nd MKS conducted in July 2013 whereas usage survey

conducted between July 2012 to July 2013. . The PP (Co2balance UK) has carried out kitchen surveys and KPT and covered total of 100 stoves. Kitchen Surveys were therefore administered on all two type of stoves (BRS & CZK ) within the project regions which was confirmed with Baseline assessment report by German Garcia Ibanez

/03/.

Two types of surveys have been conducted within the sample group in both the clusters, Cluster A (Maungu/ Kasigau) and cluster B (Golini / Muhaka) to properly capture the baseline scenario in the region, these are the kitchen Survey and the Kitchen Performance Test; both are conducted at the household level. The Kitchen Survey is a qualitative assessment of cooking habits, fuel use and demographic indicators that is also used to screen households for suitability of KPTs, a quantitative measure of wood fuel use which was verified by baseline report

/03/

This monitoring survey conducted between Feb. 2012 to Sept. 2012 and again in July 2013. Usage survey is performed during the month of July 2012 - July 2013. Monitoring survey to be conducted one year after registration i.e. 24-01-2011 in accordance with the requirement of the applied approved GS monitoring methodology

/B03/ of page 23 and 24 of section C, as

per methodological conditions, monitoring survey shall be conducted after 24-01-2012. Verification team assessed the monitoring and usage survey report read with applied methodology by Co2balance UK

/B03/ which was found to be in line with the onsite visit

observation after interview with the end users (HHs) and also the interview with the PP. Methodology and procedure followed to calculate the usage rate is assessed to be appropriate by the verification team as the number of sample taken randomly selected from the project regions of the host country of Kenya where BRS & CZK stoves were distributed at the time of survey. For this assessment a total of 100 samples were taken. Sample size taken is more than 100 required by the methodology and hence assessed to be ample and appropriate and already validated by validating DoE and approved by GS. Leakage Assessment: As per Kitchen Survey and Kitchen performance Test conducted by PP, there has not been any leakage at this verification (assessment period). Assessment of leakage is performed in line with requirement of applied GS methodology section II.6. Verification team also observed during onsite visit and interview that there has not been any leakage associated with this project during this monitoring period. All end users receive a warranty card

/10/ upon the purchase of their stove which explains that

ownership rights over carbon credits are being claimed by Co2balance UK. This warranty card

/10/ has been reviewed both during the site visit as well as in electronic form after the site

visit. Kitchen Performance Test:

A paired KPT/13/

was performed by by in-country CO2balance staff German Garcia Ibanez using “Before and After” study design. Kitchen performance test (KPT) is to determine the effect of improved cook stoves on

fuel consumption in households along with other socio economic impact such as time of fuel collection, time for cooking and money savings due to reduced fuel consumption along with the health benefits etc. The test was performed by CO2 Balance UK (PP). There has not been any change in the baseline KPT as the baseline for the first crediting period (project applied for 7 year renewable crediting period) is fixed. KPT is performed in line with the requirements of Annex 4 of GS methodology “Kitchen Performance Test: Procedure for fuel consumption measurements for improved cook stove

Formatted: Default Paragraph

Font, Font: (Default) Cambria, 12pt, (Asian) Chinese (PRC), (Other)English (U.K.)

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial,

10 pt, (Asian) Chinese (PRC),(Other) English (U.K.)

Formatted: Font: (Asian) Chinese

(PRC), (Other) English (U.K.)

Formatted: Default Paragraph

Font, Font: (Default) Cambria, 12pt, (Asian) Chinese (PRC), (Other)English (U.K.)



activities”. KPT is performed in both the cluster A (Maungu & Kasigau) and cluster B ( Muhaka & Golini) of coastal and inland province of Kenya. All the work sheet

/13/ where values are used for emission reduction calculation along with

sustainable development indicators were verified to be in accordance with the onsite observation and interview with the HHs and PP. NRB Assessment: The NRB is fixed by the PP at the time of validation as 0.73 for cluster A and 0.97 for cluster B for the first crediting period, which has not been changed for this 2

nd verification and hence

is acceptable to the verification team. Total Sales Record: CCL has reviewed the sales records

/13//14/, which the PP has maintained in both electronic and

paper records i.e. sales receipts and warranty cards. The records include all data required by the monitoring plan. Furthermore, CCL crosschecked randomly selected electronic records to ensure that they accurately reflected the respective paper records of each sale and further verified a sample of these paper sales receipts/warranty cards while conducting the Site Visit. Data recording and maintenance and archival was assessed and verified during the site visit and interview in the Co2balance UK office in Kenya. Continuous data entry and recording is maintained by entering each stove type on daily basis along with paper receipt, which is monthly verified by the country manager and quarterly assessed by the CEO of the Co2balance UK. The accuracy of maintaining sales record is found to be adequate by the verification team. Project Database: The Project Database includes all information required by the methodology, including sales by cluster, results of the KSs and KPTs, factors affecting emission reductions, and adjustments to emission reduction calculations. Mechanism to avoid double counting: PP has an effective system to maintain the records of every particular stove sold in the project activity both in electronic and paper forms. Stoves has an individual unique serial number, which avoids any chance of double counting in the entire crediting period which was verified with cook stoves sales database

/14/ and also verified during OSV. During OSV,

randomly stoves serial no. in stove data base cross checked with sale receipts stored as hard copies and found to be correct. Based on above CCL can confirm that the characteristics of the HH sampled for this verification do not differ from the characteristics of the HH sampled for the KPT, Further, the stoves assessed during the site visit were all found to be properly labeled, and the PP have ownership right on emission reductions accrued from this project activity which was confirmed by stove delivery slip. Therefore, it is concluded that the project is not double-counting emission reductions.

4.4 Monitored parameters

PP (CO2balance UK) itself did perform cluster sampling in line with applied methodology /B03/

. CO2 balance UK has performed several field-based assessments to determine the effect of improved cooking stoves on fuel consumption in households. In multiple locations throughout coastal and inland province of Kenya, fuel savings and other aspects related to usage of BRS & CZK wood stoves were measured between Feb.to September 2012 and July 2013. PP has considered more than 100 samples required by applied methodology. The results were presented in the final report to Co2balance UK which summarizes findings from the assessment of the BRS & CZK stoves.



Verification team confirms that, sample size taken by PP were ample and appropriate and during OSV. The monitored parameters of the project are in line with the registered PDD

/06/ and the applied

GS methodology/B03/

. Brief descriptions of the monitored parameters are listed below: (i) Mass of woody biomass combusted in the baseline per household per day –

Mass of woody biomass combusted in the project per household per day (Pb,p,y) Daily firewood consumption in Kg/hh/day is measured by Kitchen Performance Test (KPT), which is performed before and after purchase of the improved cook-stove, in units of kilograms per household-day (kg/HH-day). The sampling and survey of household for the KPT is done by PP itself which is verified during on-site visit and interview with the CO2balance UK, Kenya team and end users. Paired sampling was done by the CO2balance UK to ascertain the high level of accuracy for fuel consumption and net fuel saving. The monitoring of quantity of fuel consumed in baseline scenario b during year y (Pb,

y) is fixed ex ante and in project case p during year y (Pp, y) is done before this verification period hence it is concluded that measuring and reporting frequency is in accordance with registered monitoring plan and applied approved monitoring methodology. Based on KPT, Mass of woody biomass combusted in the baseline per household per day – Mass of woody biomass combusted in the project per household per day (Pb,p,y) calculated as 0.0088 t_biomass/stove/day.

(ii) Usage rate in project scenario p during year y (Up,y): The usage survey provides a single usage parameter that is weighted based on drop

off rates that are representative of the age distribution for project technologies in the total sales record. As per methodology, usage surveys should commence after the first verification and this is 2

nd verification. PP has conducted usage survey in July.

2013 considering 100 sample size and estimate usage rate as 0.94 for cluster a and 0.98 for cluster b.

The monitoring frequency of the usage rate (Up,y) is annually or at the time of request

for issuance, which is in compliance as this survey is conducted for this verification period, hence, it is concluded that measuring and reporting frequency is in accordance with registered monitoring plan and applied approved monitoring methodology.

Usage rate for project scenario P in year y that accounts for uptake and drop off rate of the project technology. The operational lifetime of the stove is seven years minimum, based on the fact that a maintenance and refurbishment programme will be conducted throughout the crediting period. (Up,y):

(iii) Technologies in the project database for project scenario p through year y (Np,y):

The source of the data for Np,y is the total sales record. The value measured through continuous monitoring is total 10,8946 BRS & CZK stoves sold. The monitoring equipment of the sales records are, manual warranty cards and Microsoft Excel which was checked and verified by the verification team during onsite visit. Verification team assessed and verified the total sales record of technologies in the project database (electronic and paper records, i.e. sample sales records/warranty or sales receipt) on the sample basis, which are monitored on continuous basis and found to be appropriate.

(iv) Leakage in project scenario p during year y (LEp,y):



The purpose of the leakage estimation is to determine and quantify the sources of leakage and accounted in the emission reduction calculation. German Garcia Ibanez has done the leakage assessment during baseline survey and Co2 balance , Kenya project team has done monitoring survey and there were no leakage found. Verification team analysed the baseline survey report (German Garcia Ibanez)

/03//09/ which were

cross checked during on site observation and interview with the Co2 balance UK Kenya team as well as HHs.

Monitoring frequency of this parameter is every two years as per the registered monitoring plan, which is found to be in compliance applied monitoring methodology.

EX-Ante Parameters: Parameter CO2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuels in

baseline scenario (includes production, transport and use. ( EFfuel)

Default values used: 112 tCO2/TJ

Purpose of data Baseline emission Calculation

Source and Verification of the source 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Tables 1.2/1.4

Parameter CO2 emission factor arising from use of wood fuels in baseline scenario (includes production, transport and use) EFfuel

Default values used: 8.692 tCO2/TJ

Purpose of data Baseline emission Calculation

Source and Verification of the source CH4 and N2O: IPCC 2006 GL for emission factors and NCVs, IPCC SAR 1996 for GWPs.

Parameter Non-renewability status of woody biomass fuel in baseline scenario i during year y, fNRB,i,y

Default values used: 0.73 for cluster A & 0.97 for cluster B

Purpose of data Baseline emission calculation

Source and Verification of the source fNRB Study for Kenya conducted according to approved methodology

Parameter Net calorific value of the fuels used in the baseline, NCVfuel

Default values used: 0.0156 TJ/ton

Purpose of data Baseline emission calculation

Source and Verification of the source Calculation based on IPCC defaults

In summary, the verification team confirms that all the ex-ante and ex-post parameters are monitored in accordance with the approved monitoring plan

/06/ and applied methodology

/B03/.

The verification took cognizance of § 191,192 and 193 of CDM Project Standard and § 225, 233 to 246 of VVS version 05.

4.5 Monitoring responsibility

Verification team evaluated the management systems in place to implement the monitoring of the project activity. This included the organisational structure, roles and responsibilities, data collection, transfer and aggregation procedures, training of personnel

/10/, data storage and

archiving and emergency procedures for the monitoring system. On the basis of onsite interview with the employee of Co2balance UK, involved in the project monitoring and data collection, inspection of data storage log book & equipment’s and document review. Co2balance UK has appointed Education & Liaison Officer in all the regions of project activity who are handling stove distribution in coastal and inland province in Kenya through local contractors. Carbon Check can confirm that the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are appropriate and effective for the project type and hence in accordance with monitoring plant of the registered PDD and applied monitoring methodology.



4.5.1 Accuracy of equipment

The main measuring instrument used in monitoring period is weighing scale which was brand new at the time of monitoring and no calibration required, which is found to be appropriate and in line with registered PDD

/05/

. Furthermore neither the registered PDD(= registered monitoring plan) nor applied GS monitoring methodology for this particular project technology, describes the requirement of calibration of monitoring equipment’s. Verification team confirms that the monitoring tasks, such as kitchen surveys (KSs, kitchen performance tests (KPTs), assessment of leakage, usage surveys and monitoring of social

and environmental indicators are were carried out by in-country CO2balance staffcarried out by a third party German Garcia Ibanez contracted by the PP. German Garcia

Ibanez is a group of experts specialized in household energy studies and surveying. This information on the third party agency has been confirmed during the OSV. Hence, verification team confirms the creditability/competency of the 3

rd party agency. This also confirms the

credibility and authenticity/accuracy of test/survey done by the 3rd

party agency.

4.6 Deviation from and/or Revision of the registered monitoring plan

This is the 2nd

periodic verification of registered GS project and after a thorough assessment during documents review, onsite visit and interview with the local stakeholders (HHs/end users) it can be concluded that there has not been any deviation and/or revision of the registered monitoring plan.

4.7 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions

The Project Proponent submitted all the relevant data and parameters required to be monitored to the verification team along with the monitoring report. All the parameters required to monitored are as per the registered PDD have been monitored and reported in the monitoring report. CCL reviewed the calculation worksheet

/13/ for the emission reduction

calculation for the monitoring period 01-01-2012 to 31-05-2013. CCL confirms that the formulas, conversions, aggregations and factors are consistent with the monitoring plan in the PDD. The reported data was checked as follows: - All the necessary data and all the parameters required to be monitored in the registered PDD

/06/ were reviewed to ensure accuracy;

- The Project Sales Database kept electronically

/14/ was reviewed along with an interview with

the person responsible for data entry and data review from the Co2balance UK, to confirm the number of stoves sold during the monitoring period. Sample sales receipts were also assessed for further check. In this project, the baseline and project fuels are the same, as are baseline and project emissions factors. Hence PP has used equation (1) in the methodology, which combines the calculation of baseline, project and leakage into one equation and consolidated emission reduction calculated which is in line with applied methodology

/B03/.

The overall GHG reductions achieved by the project activity in year y are calculated as follows:

ERy = Σb,p (Np,y* Up,y* Pp,b,y* NCVb,fuel * (fNRB,b,y * EFfuel,CO2+EFfuel,nonCO2))– Σ LEp,y

Where:



Σb,p Sum over all relevant (baseline b/project p) couples

Np,y Cumulative number of project technology-days included in the project database for project scenario p against baseline scenario b in year y

Up,y Cumulative usage rate for technologies in project scenario p in year y, based on cumulative adoption rate and drop off rate revealed by usage surveys (fraction)

Pp,b,y Specific fuel savings for an individual technology of project p against an individual technology of baseline b in year y, in tons/day, as derived from the statistical analysis of the data collected from the field tests

fNRB,b,y Fraction of biomass used in year y for baseline scenario b that can be established as non-renewable biomass (drop this term from the equation when using a fossil fuel baseline scenario)

NCVb,fuel Net calorific value of the fuel that is substituted or reduced (IPCC default for wood fuel, 0.015 TJ/ton)

EFb,fuel,CO2 CO2 emission factor of the fuel that is substituted or reduced. 112 tCO2/TJ for Wood/Wood Waste, or the IPCC default value of other relevant fuel

EFb,fuel,nonCO2 Non‐CO2 emission factor of the fuel that is reduced

LEp,y Leakage for project scenario p in year y (tCO2e/yr) The above consolidated equation used for estimation of emission reduction is in line with methodology

/B03/ and registered PDD

/06/

In accordance with the applied methodology, annual emission reductions are calculated as follows: The project proponent elected to use a fixed baseline in line with the chosen methodology. As the baseline fuel and project fuel are the same and the baseline emission factor and project emission factor are considered the same, the total number of ERs is calculated using the equation above. Please see section D.2 for details on each parameter used in the calculation. Over the 17 month crediting period the project has generated emission reductions equivalent to 56,36958,853tCO2.

As two clusters (a & b) are involved in the project, total emission reduction calculation cluster wise for year 2012 is as follows:

Cluster A (b1)

Project Technology Days N(p,y)

2,905,3082,905,674

technology-days

Cumulative usage U(p,y) 0.8894

Specific Fuel Savings for an individual technology P(p,b,y) 0.0088 t/day

Net calorific value of fuel reduced NCV (b, fuel) 0.0156 TJ/t

Fraction of non-renewable biomass fNRB 0.73

Emissions Factor CO2 for woodfuel EF(b,fuel,CO2) 112 tCO2/TJ

Emissions Factor CH4 for woodfuel EF(b,fuel,nonCO2) 7.54 tCO2/TJ

Leakage for project scenario LE(p,y) 0 tCO2/year

ER b1,y 31,207.17512 tCO2e

ER b1,y 33,3339.14 TCO2e

Formatted: Tab stops: 8.63 cm,

Left

Formatted: Right



And Cluster B (b2) as follows:

Cluster B (b2)

Project Technology Days N(p,y)

1,081,8961,0822,62

technology-days

Cumulative usage U(p,y) 0.968

Specific Fuel Savings for an individual technology P(p,b,y) 0.0088 t/day

Net calorific value of fuel reduced NCV (b, fuel) 0.0156 TJ/t

Fraction of non-renewable biomass fNRB 0.97

Emissions Factor CO2 for woodfuel EF(b,fuel,CO2) 112 tCO2/TJ

Emissions Factor CH4 for woodfuel EF(b,fuel,nonCO2) 7.54 tCO2/TJ

Leakage for project scenario LE(p,y) 0 tCO2/year

ER b2,y 16,493842

.63094 TCO2e

Where project technology days (number of stoves * number of days operating in year y) were calculated one month in arrears to ensure a conservative result. Where cumulative usage is calculated using an annual survey confirming whether the stove is still in use (i.e. it has not dropped off). Where leakage has been estimated according to the requirements of the methodology. The emissions reductions for Cluster A (b1) and Cluster B (b1) were added together to calculate the overall emissions reductions for 2012 then added the emission reduction for 2013 using the same calculation with different project technology days– ERy.

Year ER - Estimation of annual

emissions reductions/ TCO2e

# months stoves

operational

2012 47,700.8150,182 12

2013 8,66971 5

ERy = ER b1,y + ER b2,y 56,36958,853 TCO2e

Total verified emission reductions during the reported monitoring period (i.e. 01/01/2012 to 31/05/2013) is 56,369 58,853 tCO2e, this is based on the total number of 10,8946 stoves disseminated during this monitoring period.

4.7.1 Leakage emissions

Leakage was reassessed during the most recent monitoring kitchen performance test /08/

and kitchen surveys

/03/, which concluded that there are no sources of leakage. It was assessed

through analysis of both monitoring survey results and kitchen performance test results. This includes assessment following leakage sources:

a) Displaced technologies being used outside project boundary,

b) Biomass saved is used by non-project users,

c) Project significantly impacts non-renewable biomass fraction,



d) Compensation for loss of space heating and

e) Successful marketing leading to substation of cleaner technologies.

There is no evidence that additional leakage is present beyond that which is already incorporated in the paired KPT approach to measuring fuels savings. These findings were cross-checked from section 2.1. German Garcia Ibanez report

/03/,

4.8 Assessment of actual emission reductions with the estimated emission reductions in PDD

Estimated emission reduction in the PDD and actual accrued emission reduction in the MR over the applied monitoring period was comprehensively assessed by the verification team, through documents review; onsite visit to the house holds end users of project technology i.e. cook stoves and interview with them. The comparison of estimated/ex-ante value with monitored value of the parameters for emission reduction for year 2012 and 2013 covering the applied monitoring period:

Parameters Ex-ante

value Monitored actual value

Change (Yes/No)

Conclusion

Total Number of VER (2012-13)

56,773 tCO2e

56,369 58,853 tCO2e

Yes The main reason marginal decrease for increase in actual emission reduction in monitoring period as compared to estimated ER in approved PDD is as follows:

A project KPT revealed a greater wood fuel saving than was estimated during the initial project studies which verified with KPT analysis /13/ and found to be correct

Different comulative usage surveys being different in 2012 and 2013. Cumulative usage of the stoves decreased for cluster A for year 2012, which was verified with usage survey /18/ and results found to be appropriate and consistent with MR

The Usage Survey revealed that the cumulative usage of the stoves has increased to 94% in cluster A and to 98% in cluster B which verified with usage survey sheet /18/ and results are found to be appropriate and consistent with value mentioned in MR

Between 01/01/2012 and 31/05/2013 the project technology days for the stoves installed in cluster A were 4,096,008524 and 1,525,296812 in cluster B, with 10,8946 stoves in operation which was cross checked with stove sale database/ 14/ and ER sheet / 14/ and found to be correct



As the project KPT revealed greater wood fuel savings, the value for the Specific Fuel Savings for an individual technology has also increased from 0.0066 to 0.0088 as verified with KPT analysis / 03/

In summary, verification team confirms the actual emission reduction is higher than the estimate of the registered/approved PDD for the current monitoring period. Based on above, verification team concludes that, the cause for the increase of accrued CER’s for the current monitoring period (01/01/2012 – 31/05/2013) is appropriately justified by the PP, which has, been verified and accepted by the Verification team. The verification took cognizance of § 195 & 196 of CDM Project Standard and § 228 (c) of VVS version 05.

4.9 Compliance with the sustainability monitoring plan

Sustainability monitoring plan in the registered PDD and GS passport is completely followed by the PP and the same is followed in the Monitoring report. No changes are found from the sustainability-monitoring plan of PDD and GS passport. The same was assessed and verified by the verification team during on site visit. All the non-neutral indicators are monitored and verified by the verification team which were found to be in line with onsite observation finding. and also the third part survey report (German Garcia Ibanez)

/03/.

4.10 Monitoring of Gold Standard Sustainability Indicators

The verification team checked the sustainable development indicator parameters during the site visit and interview. Following Include the discussion on any additional parameters that are monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan for sustainability indicators as referred in the Gold Standard Passport, ver. 1.3/20/ and monitoring report (version 06 dated 4/11/2013). Indicator Monitoring

Source Variables, Unit and Frequency of measurement

Assessment

Air Quality Kitchen Performance Tests & Kitchen Surveys

As outlined in the GS Passport, total suspended particulate matter (TSPM) & Respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM) will be monitored by proxy measurement of wood fuel savings. The justification for this approach explained in section F.2 of the passport. Two monitoring techniques employed to ascertain ongoing effect of the project on air quality, monitoring kitchen survey (MKS) and kitchen performance test (KPT) Frequency of KPT & kitchen surveys annually

This was monitored via surveys conducted by CO2balance UK, Kenyan project team. All personnel of Co2balance UK, involved in the survey were interviewed during OSV and found to be competent. The DoE checked the field and laboratory test results of the stoves being implemented in the project to confirm that they significantly reduce particulate matter (TSPM & RSPM) and other health damaging particulates, so the conclusion drawn by CO2 balance UK survey team are consistent with other sources separate from the project. During OSV, verification team also interviewed the households people where these improved stoves has



been implemented and they confirm substantial reduction in indoor air pollution as improved cook stoves emit very less smoke as compared to conventional stoves in baseline scenario. KPT study shows that wood fuel combustion has decreased as a result of the project ( from 14.77 to 5.40) Hence DoE confirms the air quality improvement in current monitoring period.

Soil Condition Kitchen Performance Tests & Kitchen Surveys

As outlined in the GS Passport, soil erosion and soil organic content will be monitored by proxy measurement of wood fuel savings. The justification for this approach explained in section F.2 of the passport. Two monitoring techniques employed to ascertain ongoing effect of the project on soil erosion and conservation of soil organic matter, monitoring kitchen survey (MKS) and kitchen performance test (KPT) Frequency of KPT & kitchen surveys annually

This was monitored via surveys conducted by trained survey team of CO2balance UK, Kenyan project team. All personnel of Co2balance UK, involved in the survey were interviewed during OSV and found to be competent. The DoE checked the field and laboratory test results of the stoves being implemented in the project to confirm that there is substantial reduction of wood fuel consumption resulting into reduction in wood fuel harvesting from local forests which ultimately helps to reduce soil erosion and it also helps in conserving soil organic matter which is caused to high level of wood fuel harvesting, so the conclusion drawn by CO2 balance UK survey team are consistent with other sources separate from the project. During OSV, verification team also interviewed the households’ people where these improved stoves have been implemented and they confirm substantial reduction in wood fuel harvesting. Hence DoE confirms the soil condition improvement in current monitoring period.

Biodiversity Kitchen Performance Tests & Kitchen Surveys

As outlined in the GS Passport, impact on biodiversity i.e. reduction of available habitats due to high levels of fuel wood harvesting be monitored by proxy measurement of wood fuel savings. The justification for this approach explained in section F.2 of the passport. Two monitoring techniques employed to ascertain ongoing effect of the project on biodiversity, monitoring kitchen survey (MKS) and kitchen performance test (KPT) Frequency of KPT & kitchen surveys annually

This was monitored via surveys conducted by trained survey team of CO2balance UK, Kenyan project team. All personnel of Co2balance UK, involved in the survey were interviewed during OSV and found to be competent. The DoE checked the field and laboratory test results of the stoves being implemented in the project to confirm that there is substantial reduction of wood fuel consumption resulting into reduction in wood fuel harvesting from local forests which ultimately helps to reduce impact on biodiversity by conserving available habits, so the conclusion drawn by CO2 balance UK survey team are consistent with other sources separate from the project. During OSV, verification team also



interviewed the households’ people where these improved stoves have been implemented and they confirm substantial reduction in wood fuel harvesting. Hence DoE confirms the Biodiversity conservation in current monitoring period.

Quality of employment

Stove contractor records- collated

Number of contracts/ people employed by project in host country and no. of training events organised for people employed. Frequency of monitoring – continuously.

Anecdotally, during the site visit, verification team interviewed the personnel employed by the project and confirmed that wages are above local norms and that they are paid on time. Moreover the working conditions are safe and appropriate. Sample contract between CO2 balance UK & local stove distributor

/17/

checked and training records/10/

are also checked to ensure that training has taken place with the key employees who are currently engaged with the project.

Livelihood of the poor

Kitchen Performance Tests & Kitchen Surveys

As outlined in the GS Passport, impact on livelihood of the poor by way of reduction in amount of money spent on wood fuel.The justification for this approach explained in section F.2 of the passport. Two monitoring techniques employed to ascertain ongoing effect of the project livelihood of the poor, monitoring kitchen survey (MKS) and kitchen performance test (KPT) Frequency of KPT & kitchen surveys annually

This was monitored via surveys conducted by CO2balance UK, Kenyan project team. All personnel of Co2balance UK, involved in the survey were interviewed during OSV and found to be competent. The survey results indicated both time and money savings. During the site visit, in which dozens of homes were visited, the most common response among stove users was that they appreciate that the stove saves them time for now collecting wood and money because they don’t have to buy wood. Therefore the survey results were found credible. During OSV, DoE interviewed the household and during interaction verification team asked question about mode of sourcing of woods and money spent on buying of woods in baseline and project scenario and they confirm that they need to spend less time in firewood collection and their expenditure on buying of fire wood also reduced significantly after implementation of improved cook stoves in their households. Hence, DoE confirms significant improvement in livelihood of poor in this monitoring period.

Access to affordable and clean energy services

Kitchen Performance Tests & Kitchen Surveys

As outlined in the GS Passport, increased access to affordable and clean energy services monitored by proxy using change in volume of fuel consumption .The justification for this approach explained in section F.2 of the passport.

This was monitored via surveys conducted by CO2balance UK, Kenyan project team. All personnel of Co2balance UK, involved in the survey were interviewed during OSV and found to be competent. The survey results indicated access to affordable and clean energy services by change in volume of fuel



Two monitoring techniques employed to ascertain ongoing effect of the project on access to affordable and clean energy services, monitoring kitchen survey (MKS) and kitchen performance test (KPT) Frequency of KPT & kitchen surveys annually

consumption. During the site visit, in which dozens of homes were visited, households confirmed that reduction in fuel wood consumption. and there is sharp decline in volume of traditional fuel (wood) consumption among stove beneficiaries. Therefore the survey results were found credible. During OSV, DoE interviewed the household and during interaction verification team asked question about pattern of fuel consumption before and after implementation of improved cook stoves in their households. Hence, DoE confirms that implementation of stove resulted into substantial reduction in traditional fuel consumption in this monitoring period.

Human and institutional capacity

Stove contractor/ project developer records- collated & Kitchen survey

Continuous monitoring by project developers regarding training programme provided to all staffs before commencing work for the company and time spent by women for collection of wood Frequency of monitoring – continuously. Kitchen survey - Annually

Anecdotally, during the site visit, verification team interviewed the personnel employed by the project and confirmed that all Education & Liaison officer appointed in the field were provided training programme by Co2balance UK. In kitchen survey, an analysis done by PP on time spent on wood collection by women. Hence DoE confirms that project implementation has provided number of employment opportunities and thus contributing to improve the human and institutional capacity in the present monitoring period.

Quantitative employments and income generation

Project developer records- collated

Project developer’s record for household income generation from people employed. Salaries paid to employees used to assess income generation Frequency of monitoring – continuously.

Anecdotally, during the site visit, verification team interviewed the personnel employed by the project and confirmed that wages are above local norms and that they are paid on time. Sample contract between CO2 balance UK & local stove distributor

/17/

checked and project developer records suggested total income generation resulting from people employed for the project activity. For this monitoring period, verification team checked the project developer’s record for salaries paid out which is more than the target fixed in Passport Hence, DoE confirms that there is major improvement on the baseline.

Technology transfer and self reliance’

Stove contractors/ Project developer records- collated

Number of training workshops organised to teach people

to build the stove Frequency of monitoring – continuously.

Anecdotally, during the site visit, verification team interviewed the PP and in country project team personnel employed by the project and confirmed that there were no further trainings on stove construction in this monitoring period, this can only report a neutral impact on the ‘Technology transfer and self reliance’ GSP indicator which was confirmed by verification team during OSV and

Formatted: Font: Arial, 9 pt,

English (U.K.)

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 7.62

cm + 15.24 cm

Formatted: Font: Arial, 9 pt,

English (U.K.)



interaction with PP.

4.11 Issues remaining from the previous verification period or during validation

This is the 2nd

periodic verification with period 01/01/2012 to 31/05/2013 and there was no FAR from first verification .

4.12 Quality and Management System Assurance

The project’s management system was reviewed to determine the effectiveness of its implementation. The monitoring plan has clearly prescribed the management and operational procedures for monitoring, recording, data management, and training in accordance with the registered PDD

/06/ dated 26/10/2012. CCL verified the same through document reviews and

site visit interviews the management system and quality assurance procedures and has found them to be appropriate and effective. The verification team confirms that the management system of the project is in place; with the responsibilities properly identified and in place. A monthly check of data and record monitored continuously is monthly cross verified by the country manager and then by CEO of the Co2balance UK after every three months and also an internal audit for data accuracy and recording an archival practice is performed by the CEO of the company. The same was confirmed during visit of Co2balance in Kenya with the employees including data entry and recording manager, country manager and CEO and verification team found it sufficient in order to achieve quality management system in place for this project type.

4.13 Photographs from onsite visit

Team Leader/Technical Expert, Project Participant, local stakeholders and Local Guide on site.



APPENDIX A

CARBON CHECK Certification statement for the Verification Report CCL210GS824/SHICS/26072013

Carbon Check (pty) Ltd, the DOE, has performed the verification of the registered GS project activity “GS Registration Number GS824 “Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves”. The project activity is designed to generate emission reductions by dissemination and use of efficient cook stoves, which minimises the fuel wood consumption and hence resulting in social benefits such as money savings, time saving and health benefits etc.

The project participants are responsible for the collection of data in accordance with the monitoring plan and the reporting of GHG emissions reductions from the project. It is DOE’s responsibility to express an independent verification statement on the reported GHG emission reductions from the project. The verification is carried out in-line with the VVS and Gold Standard requirements. The verification was performed to identify the compliance of the project activity with implementation and monitoring requirements, and to verify the actual amount of achieved emission reductions, through obtaining evidence and information on-site that included i) checking whether the provisions of the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan were consistently and appropriately applied and ii) the collection of evidence supporting the reported data.

This statement covers verification period of 517 days between 01-01-2012 and 31-05-2013.

The DOE has raised 07 clarification and 7 corrective action requests, all of which have been successfully resolved and closed out.

The DOE considers it necessary to give reasonable assurance that reported GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan in the registered PDD are fairly stated.

The DOE, hereby certifies that the project activity, achieved emission reductions by sources of GHG equal to 56,36958,853 tCO2 equivalent and all monitoring requirements have been fulfilled and is substantiated by an audit trail that contains evidence and records. Carbon Check is of the opinion that the project activities is in line with the Gold Standard principles and certify 56,369 58,853 tCO2 emission reductions.

2013-12-19 2014-02-15 Priyesh Ramlall Final Approver Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd

Pankaj Kumar Team Leader Carbon Check (Pty) Ltd



APPENDIX B

Carbon Check Gold Standard Verification Protocol

Shimba Hills Improved Cookstoves

Report No. CCL210GS824/SHICS/26072013



Carbon Check’s Checklist question Ref. MoV1

Findings, comments, references, data sources

Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

1. Project implementation

1.1 Have all physical features proposed in the registered PDD been implemented at the project site?

§ 184 of CDM Project Standard and § 225 (a), 226 (a) and 227 (a) of VVS version 03.

/MR/

/GSPP/

/PDD/

DR, SV

As per Passport and PDD, project activity involves in distribution of efficient cook stoves which is explicitly explained in MR

OK

OK

1.2 Has the project activity been operated in accordance with the project scenario described in the registered PDD and relevant guidance?

Reference: §75 and § 185 of CDM Project Standard and § 225 (a), 226 (a) and 227 (b), (c) of VVS version 03.

/MR/

/GSPP/

/PDD/

DR, SV

As per Passport and PDD, project activity involves in distribution of efficient cook stoves which is explicitly explained in MR

OK

OK

1.3 If the project activity is implemented on a number of different locations, has the Monitoring report provided the verifiable starting dates for each site?

§ 188 of CDM Project Standard and 227 (a) of VVS version 03.

/MR/

/XLS/

DR

SV

Project activity promotes the sale of improved energy-saving biomass stoves and hence multiple locations are involved in the project. Project Proponent provided the usage start dates of the stoves in the usage record worksheet. These dates were checked during the site visit.

CAR 1 is raised as

Status and implementation including time table under section A.1 of the MR is not correctly and sufficiently described with regards to the following points:

1. In sec. A.1, no. of ICS distributed in 2nd

monitoring period not discussed and GHG reduction resulting from 2

nd

monitoring also not mentioned 2. Two types of stoves BRS and CZK

distributed in this monitoring period and

CAR 1

OK

1 MoV = Means of Verification, DR = Document Review, I = Interview, www = internet search.





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

for this deviation request was submitted to GS. PP need to explain when deviation request was submitted and when it was approved by GS. Supporting evidences/ email communication need to be provided

3. In sec. A.3 of MR, name of host country mentioned as Kenya only which is not consistent with registered PDD and name of PP is also not consistent with reg. PDD

4. No. of stoves sold year wise not presented in MR up to the end of monitoring period. Also provide break up of BRS & CZK stoves distributed month wise in sec. B.1.Efficiency certificates for both the stoves need to be provided for verification.

1.4 Is the diagram provided of the project layout (including a diagram of the project boundary and the labelling and location of each meter and other equipment) included and consistent with what was found at site? Is the description in the MR consistent with the registered PDD?

/MR/

/GSPP/

/PDD/

DR

SV

Project description provided under section A.2 of the MR is as per the registered PDD, metering is not involved in the project as this is a cook-stove project.

OK OK

1.5 Is the start date of monitoring period consistent? /MR/

/PDD/ DR

Start date of Monitoring period taken by project proponent is 01/01/2012. As 1

st monitoring period

was upto 31/12/2011, start date of 2nd

monitoring period as 01/01/2012 is correct

OK OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

1.6 Is the monitoring report consistently filled with respect to all sections as required by its guideline of filling the monitoring report?

/MR/ DR

As there is no specific guidelines stipulated and mandated by Gold Standard hence PP has used UNFCCC template for monitoring report with all required information for verification and monitoring. Following findings has been raised in relation to template used for MR:

1. Template used for MR is not latest one 2. PP need to follow the UNFCCC

Guidelines for completing the monitoring report form ver. 3.2

3. On front page of MR, no. of monitoring period not mentioned and whether first and last date included in this MP, also not mentioned

4. Name of PP also not consistent with approved PDD

5. Estimated amount of GHG emission reduction for this monitoring period in the registered PDD is also not clear and not consistent with approved PDD.

6. In sec. D.3 of MR, Sampling plan for KS & KPT not described. PP requested to explain sampling plan in view of guidelines for Sampling, ver. 3.0, Annex 8 of EB 75

CAR 2 OK

1.7 Does the CER’s obtained for the monitoring period within the limit of estimate in the registered PDD? Is the claimed CER’s justifiable?

/MR/ DR

Monitoring report does provide the comparison of estimated emission reduction and achieved emission reduction. However, actual CERs in the monitoring period are higher than estimated CERs in the registered PDD. PP have clarified the reasons in section E.6 of MR

OK

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

1.8 Is the monitoring system provided in line diagrams showing all relevant monitoring points?

/MR/

DR

SV

No line diagram is provided to present monitoring system in the monitoring report as this is a cook stove project, however, a rigorous monitoring of the other purposes related to the project activity like Sales, Baseline Kitchen Surveys, Baseline Kitchen Performance Test, Non-Renewable Biomass Baseline Study and Monitoring Kitchen Surveys has been done through Establishing sales database to track number of stoves sold and determine clusters for kitchen surveys, Determining baseline scenarios (clusters), Determining baseline and project level wood consumption, Determining percentage of non-renewable biomass and Determining if clusters are still representative respectively. This is provided in the monitoring report and was confirmed during the site visit.

OK

OK

2. Monitoring plan and methodology

2.1 Is the monitoring plan established in accordance with the monitoring methodology?

§ 186 of CDM Project Standard and § 229 of VVS version 03.

/MR/ /DR/

/SV/

In section C of MR, it is mentioned that Monitoring plan as provided in the MR is as per the registered PDD dated 18/04/2011 but verification team is of the opinion that MR is based on 2

nd approved PDD dated 26/10/2012.

PP requested to clarify.

CL 1

OK

2.2 In case the implemented monitoring plan defers from the monitoring methodology, has any requests for revision to or deviation from the monitoring methodology been officially communicated to the CDM EB?


Deviations are required to be approved by the UNFCCC. Deviations need to be registered with the GS foundation as per GS Toolkit 1.6 “Additionality

/MR/ /DR/

Yes, deviation request was submitted to GS for change in applied methodology. PP need to transparently describe when approval request was submitted to GS and when it was approved and all supporting evidences to be provided for verification. PP also need to explicitly mention in the MR that monitoring plan in 2

nd monitoring

period is based on revised approved PDD or previously registered PDD.

CAR 3

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

and conservativeness deviations”.

2.2.1 Have the above changes to the monitoring plan been approved by the CDM EB?

/MR/ /DR/ Yes, deviation request approved by GS

Resolution depends on

closure of CAR 3

OK

3. Monitoring and the monitoring plan

3.1 Is monitoring established in full compliance with the monitoring plan, contained in the registered PDD (or new monitoring plan approved by the CDM EB)?

§ 191of CDM Project Standard and § 233 of VVS version 03.

/MR/ /DR/

/SV/ Refer CAR 3

Resolution depends on closure of CAR 3

OK

3.2 Are all baseline emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions? Are there any differences between the methodology and the monitoring plan in the registered PDD?

Have all the parameters and default values are correctly and transparently applied to calculate the monitored GHGs emission reduction?

/MR/ DR

Under section D.1 monitoring parameter tables, the monitored values of the monitoring parameter for GHGs emission reduction calculation, source of data along with details of monitoring equipment, frequency and their calibration information etc. are provided. However following findings raised:

1. Table used in sec. D.1 & D.2 is not as per the MR filling guidelines, ver. 3.2

2. In sec. D.1, parameter Pb,p,y (ex ante) not included in MR whereas it is mentioned in approved PDD dated 26/10/2012

3. In sec. D.2, for parameter Pb,p,y, in justification of the choice of data, it is mentioned that KS & KPT as described in sec. B.4 but there is no such section in MR

CAR 4

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

3.2.1 Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency?

/MR/ DR

Kitchen survey to be conducted one year after registration of project activity before every verification. PP need to provide the detail of KS conducted for this verification in MR.

CL 2

OK

3.2.2 Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan?

/MR/ DR

As all monitoring has been carried out by in-country CO2balance staff conducted by 3rd party, German Garcia Ibanez, which is in line with registered PDD.

OK

OK

3.3 Are all project emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions?

/MR/ DR Not applicable OK

OK

3.3.1 Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency?

/MR/ DR Not applicable OK OK

3.3.2 Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan?

/MR/ DR Not applicable OK

OK

3.4 Are all leakage emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions?

/MR/ DR

Yes, all leakage emission parameters monitored carried out by in-country CO2balance staff by 3

rd

party, German Garcia Ibanez which is in line with registered PDD, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions.

OK

OK

3.4.1 Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency?

/MR/ DR Please refer checklist question 3.4 above.

OK

OK

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 9pt, English (U.K.)

Formatted: Not Superscript/Subscript

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 9pt, English (U.K.)





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

3.4.2 Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan?

/MR/ DR Please refer checklist question 3.4 above.

OK

OK

3.5 Were all monitoring parameters available and verifiable through the whole monitoring period? /MR/

DR

SV

All the monitoring parameters are available and verifiable as project proponent has provided all sources of data used in the monitoring report.

OK OK

3.5.1 In case, only partial monitoring data is available and PP(s) provide estimations or assumptions for the rest of data, was it possible to verify those estimations and assumptions? /MR/

/ER/

DR

SV

Complete set of monitoring data is available with PP and same was checked during the site visit and sample copies of the data is obtained by the validation team for future records.

However there are some discrepancy in excel spread sheet of ER calculation.

CAR 5 raised for all anomalies in ER sheet.

CAR 5

OK

3.6 Was management and operation system established and operated in accordance with the monitoring plan?

/MR/ DR

SV

Management and operation system is established and operated in accordance with the registered monitoring plan.

OK

OK

3.7 Was it possible to verify that involved management and operations personal is fully aware of the responsibilities and perform all operations according to the registered monitoring plan and internally developed manuals?

/MR/ DR

SV


OK

OK

3.8 Does the monitoring system provide organizational structure, role and responsibilities, emergency procedures? /MR/

DR

SV


OK

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

3.9 Have any uncertainties identified being addressed?

/MR/ DR

SV


OK

OK

3.10 Has there being any deviation from the Sustainable Development Matrix? What is the Carbon Checks opinion of the severity of the deviation? The GS will then inform on the required action.

/MR/

/GSPP/ DR

There is no deviation found in the monitoring report from the sustainable development matrix of the passport.

OK

OK

3.11 Does monitoring report contain a clear and transparent organisation structure with regards to flow of information of data, data monitoring, and archiving and data protection?

/MR/ /DR/


OK

OK

3.12 Is there any procedure of training to the personal involved in the GHG monitoring described and documented?

/MR/ /DR/

Training details for the personnel involved in the GHG monitoring not described and documented in MR. PP requested to provide supporting evidences regarding training imparted to stove contractors and personnel involved in GHG monitoring and project monitoring.

CL 3

OK

4. Parameters

4.1 Monitored parameter

Title:

Indication:

Units:

Estimated value (ex-ante):

Measured value (ex-post):

/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Non-renewability status of woody biomass fuel in scenario i during year y

Indication: fnrb,i,y

Units: Fractional non-renewability

Estimated value (ex-ante): mentioned

This parameter is fixed ex ante.

OK

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion


Title:

Indication:

Units:



/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Quantity of fuel that is consumed in baseline scenario b during year y

Indication: Pb,p,y

Units: t_biomass/stove/day

Estimated value (ex-ante): not mentioned

Measured value (ex-post): mentioned

Refer CAR 4

OK


Title:

Indication:

Units:


Measured value (ex-post): /MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Usage rate in project scenario p during year y

Indication: Up,y

Units: Fraction

Estimated value (ex-ante): not mentioned


In this monitoring period, usage rate for cluster A – 0.94 & for cluster B – 0.98. However, PP need to provide appropriate justification to support that usage rate considered in conservative along with usage survey which is to be conducted annually as MR but approved PDD says biennially.

QA/QC procedure for this parameter is also not clear. Please clarify.

CL 4

OK


Title:

Indication:

Units:



/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Technologies in the project database for project scenario p through year y

Indication: Np,y

Units: Project technologies credited (units)



Value of Np,y calculated for cluster A & cluster B not clear. Please explain how it has been calculated?

CL 5 OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

4.6 Default parameter

Title:

Indication:

Units:

Default/Used value:

/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: CO2 emission factor arising from use of fuels in baseline scenario

Indication: EFfuel,CO2

Units: tCO2/TJ

Default/Used value: 112

OK

OK


Title:

Indication:

Units:

Default/Used value:

/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Non-CO2 emission factor arising from use of fuels in baseline scenario

Indication: EFfuel,nonCO2

Units: tCO2/TJ

Default/Used value: 8.692

In MR, this parameter mentioned as CO2 emission factor from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario which is not correct

CL 6

OK


Title:

Indication:

Units:

Default/Used value:

/MR/

/PDD/ DR

Title: Net calorific value of fuels used in baseline scenario

Indication: NCVfuel

Units: TJ/ton


OK

OK

5. Calculations





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

5.1 Have all the calculations related to the baseline emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology?


/MR/

/Meth/ DR

Yes, all the calculations related to the baseline emission been carried out according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology. However, statement in sec. E.1 & E.2 of the MR regarding use of equation for calculation of baseline & project emission calculation is contradictory. Please refer methodology, give proper justification regarding use of equation in Sec. E.1 & E.2 and provide detail ER calculation in sec. E.4 and also discuss approach step by step.

sec. E.7 of MR is missing. Please refer latest MR template, ver. 3.1

Sec. E.5 need to be updated as per latest template. Estimated GHG reduction mention in sec. E.5 is not consistent with value mentioned on front page of MR

CAR 6

OK

5.2 Have all the calculations related to the project emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology?

/MR/

/Meth/ DR

As per methodological conditions, project emission not applicable.

OK

OK

5.3 Have all the calculations related to the leakage emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology?

/MR/

/KPTR/ DR

Yes, Leakage emission have been investigated and assessed I MR as per applied methodological condition.

OK

OK

6. Sustainability Monitoring

6.1 Have all non-neutral indicators been monitored as per the sustainability monitoring plan?

/MR/

/GSPP/ DR

Yes, all non- neutral indicators has been monitored as per the sustainability monitoring plan.

However, in MR, add one paragraph before sustainable development indicator that these

CL 7

OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

parameters are as outlined in GS passport

6.2 Have the methods to monitor data changed? And are they suitable to the project scale and type?

/MR/

/GSPP/

DR

SV

No methods to monitor data are found to be changed in the current monitoring period. Methods to monitor the data in the monitoring report is cross checked from the gold standard passport, also same were verified during the site visit.

OK

OK

6.3 Has the way of monitoring been followed? With the inclusion of dates and parameters? /MR/

/GSPP/

DR

SV

Way of monitoring is being followed in the current monitoring period; same is checked during site visit from the registered PDD. Monitoring report is also in conformity with the registered PDD and actual situation at site.

OK

OK

6.4 Have mitigation measures been put in place to prevent the risk of the violation of the safe guarding principle of “Do No Harm” assessment or to neutralise a Sustainable Development Indicator that is being monitored? /MR/

/GSPP/ DR

Being a type of efficient cookstove project especially in the country like Kenya is a real sustainable development program by Co2balance UK Ltd. As per onsite verification interview with the local stakeholders (end users of stoves) it is confirmed that mitigation measures is in place to prevent the risk of violation of the safe guarding principle and mentioned sustainable development indicator being correctly monitored and found to be appropriate by the project activity.

OK

OK

6.5 Has all the data in the Sustainability development matrix been verified and cross checked against available sources of project data? Has it been described how sustainable development would be affected if a variance occurred?

/MR/

/GSPP/ DR

Yes, all the data in the sustainability development matrix been verified and cross checked against available sources of project data.

OK OK

7. Other

7.1 Are there any issues from the previous validation/verification? (i.e FARs, requests/approvals for RMP)

/ValR/

/MR/ DR

Yes, one FAR need to be addressed in 2nd

verification

CAR 7 OK





Draft conclusion

Final conclusion

7.2 Has the project ever received any requests for reviews or incompletes from the UNFCCC or GS Secretariat? /MR/

/GS/ DR

Project is a GS VER (GS 824) project and it has not received any incompleteness or review question. Same was checked from the GS website.

OK

OK

7.3 The evaluation of the status of mitigation and compensation measures has been verified.

/MR/

/PDD/

/GSPP/

/CIR/

DR

SV

Yes, mitigation and compensation measures have been assessed by the verification team by means of review of GS passport, PDD, MR, GGI monitoring survey report, and on site interview with the end users of cook stoves and found to be appropriate.

OK

OK

Table 2: List of findings (CARs/CLs)

Finding (reference section 1.3 of table 1) 1





Description of finding (DOE) As per Passport and PDD, project activity involves in distribution of efficient cook stoves which is explicitly explained in MR Project activity promotes the sale of improved energy-saving biomass stoves and hence multiple locations are involved in the project. Project Proponent provided the usage start dates of the stoves in the usage record worksheet. These dates were checked during the site visit. CAR 1 is raised as Status and implementation including time table under section A.1 of the MR is not correctly and sufficiently described with regards to the following points: 1. In sec. A.1, no. of ICS distributed in 2nd monitoring period not discussed and GHG reduction resulting from 2nd monitoring also not mentioned 2. Two types of stoves BRS and CZK distributed in this monitoring period and for this deviation request was submitted to GS. PP need to explain when deviation request was submitted and when it was approved by GS. Supporting evidences/ email communication need to be provided 3. In sec. A.3 of MR, name of host country mentioned as Kenya only which is not consistent with registered PDD and name of PP is also not consistent with reg. PDD 4. No. of stoves sold year wise not presented in MR up to the end of monitoring period. Also provide break up of BRS & CZK stoves distributed month wise in sec. B.1.Efficiency certificates for both the stoves need to be provided for verification.



1.ICS distributed in 2nd

MP now discussed in section A1 and total VERs also included 2. This is discussed in section 2.3 – the date of deviation request submission and approval now included for transparency. 3. Host country and company name now matches registered PDD 4. The number of stoves built/sold up to the end of the monitoring period is now clarified. Efficiency certificate only available for CZK stove, BRS was not tested as per statement in MR. Break up of BRS and CZK stoves monthly distribution figures is now provided.




DOE Assessment #1

The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the

finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action

and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added.

1. OK, as no new stove distributed in 2nd

monitoring period as mentioned in sec. A.1 of revised MR, PP requested to mention the no. of stoves considered for calculation of GHG reduction in 2

nd

monitoring period. 2. OK, In sec. 2.3 of revised MR, date of deviation request submitted to GS and subsequent

approval by GS now included. Verification team also confirmed that deviation request approved before 1

st verification and this is 3

rd verification. Finding closed.

3. In registered PDD, UK is also one of the party but in MR, name of UK removed. Please clarify. 4. OK. However in the registered PDD, it is mentioned that field WBTs for both stoves will be

carried out to assess their efficiency prior to request of issuance and in supplementary excel sheet provided has 30% assumed stove efficiency for BRS stove. Please clarify how efficiency of BRS stoves established for this monitoring period and efficiency certificates of CZK stoves also not provided.


(PP shall write a detailed and clear corrective action or

further information for clarification as per finding)

1. The number of stoves considered for calculation in the 2nd

monitoring period is now mentioned 3. Noted and corrected 4. The results of the field WBT analysis show that the thermal efficiency of the BRS stove is 23% while the efficiency for the CZK stove is 21%, therefore they are within +/-5% (meeting the requirements of the methodology). Efficiency Certificate of CZK stoves is attached as well as the WBT analysis for BRS and CZK stove. In the supplementary Excel Sheet provided (sheet ‘B3 BRS Output’), the efficiency of BRS is now correctly stated as 23% (not 30%).

DOE Assessment #2

1. OK, total no. of stoves distributed in this monitoring period now updated in sec. A.1 of revised MR, finding closed 3. Name of all project participants in MR now consistent with registered PDD, finding closed.

4.WBT analysis for BRS and CZK stoves not provided. In MR, stove efficiency for CZK & BRS stoves considered as 21% and 23% respectively but the stove efficiency certificate provided does not have these values.





4. In order to prove that both stove models (BRS/CZK) installed in the Shimba Hills Project can be considered as one project scenario (be within +/- 5%), a field based Water Boiling Test was conducted. PP chose to use a field WBT for the following reasons:

to be moved) – as opposed to tests

conducted in a laboratory. – the laboratory test was done on

a new stove

larger than that required in the laboratory (3 times on one stove only) giving a more accurate average The following results were recorded:

BRS CZK

Test Component N= 18 N=19

High power test (cold start) 20% 19%

High power test (Hot start) 25% 18%

Low Power (simmer) 21% 24%

Average 23% 21%

As can be seen from the table above, both models of stove have been shown to be operating at +/- 2% of each other, which is well within the requirements of the methodology (+/- 5%). This confirms that both stoves can be considered identical for monitoring purposes i.e. they are the same project scenario. The laboratory test certificate obtained for the CZ stove was 34.67%, which is substantially different than the field test we recorded at 21%. As the laboratory test on the CZK stove was conducted on one brand new stove, with only three repeats and the field test on 19 separate working stoves, we maintain that the field test is a much more accurate measure of the stove efficiency under real operating conditions and hence is the appropriate value to be compared with the BRS stove (23%).

DOE Assessment #3

4.Justification provided for stove efficiency conducted for both BRS & CZK stoves are in line with registered PDD and applied methodology which suggests that if efficiency of both types of stoves are in range of (+/- 5%), both stoves can be considered identical for monitoring purposes. Finding closed

Conclusion









Description of finding (DOE) As there is no specific guidelines stipulated and mandated by Gold Standard hence PP has used UNFCCC template for monitoring report with all required information for verification and monitoring. Following findings has been raised in relation to template used for MR:

1. Template used for MR is not latest one 2. PP need to follow the UNFCCC Guidelines for completing the monitoring report form ver. 3.2 3. On front page of MR, no. of monitoring period not mentioned and whether first and last date included

in this MP, also not mentioned 4. Name of PP also not consistent with approved PDD 5. Estimated amount of GHG emission reduction for this monitoring period in the registered PDD is also

not clear and not consistent with approved PDD. 6. In sec. D.3 of MR, Sampling plan for KS & KPT not described. PP requested to explain sampling plan

in line with registered PDD.



1.Latest template now applied (version 3.1) 2.Noted 3.No. of MP now given and from indicates the start date 4. Name of PP now harmonised 5.GHG reduction for this MP is given in title page and in section E.7. GHG reductions are not consistent with PDD (version 1.9 – post GS design change, 26/10/2012) and the reasons for this are given in section E.6 6. PP has followed the GS guidance on sampling as per the applied methodology (100 usage surveys, 100 project KPTs per cluster). At least 100 KS were also supplied at time of registration in line with GS requirement. This is clarified on MR D.3. Following an FAR, 100 MKS were conducted during this monitoring period.




DOE Assessment #1


1. PP has used now latest UNFCCC template for MR, finding closed. 2. PP shall provide affirmative statement that latest UN guidelines has been used to fill the MR template

version 3.1 3. Number of monitoring period now mentioned in revised MR and PP has also indicated that first and

last of the monitoring period included in monitoring period. Finding closed

4. Name of PP in revised MR is consistent with registered PDD, finding closed. 5. Response provided for actual GHG reduction in this monitoring period but verification team raised

query about the estimated amount of GHG reduction (40,075) on first page of MR for this monitoring period.

6. In sec. D.3 of revised MR, sampling requirement adopted for kitchen survey, usage survey and KPT mentioned. PP has chosen 100 samples based on random sampling which is in line with applied methodology, finding closed.




2. PP has followed the UNFCCC Guidelines for completing the MR form. 5. The estimated amount of GHG reduction on the first page of MR is now corrected

DOE Assessment #2

2. PP has used latest UNFCCC template for MR and all details are in accordance with latest corresponding UN guidelines, finding closed. 5. PP has revised estimated amount of GHG reduction for the monitoring period on front page of MR, finding closed.

Conclusion





Finding (reference section 2.2, 2.2.2 & 3.1 of table 1) 3


Description of finding (DOE) Deviation request was submitted to GS for change in applied methodology. PP need to transparently describe when approval request was submitted to GS and when it was approved and all supporting evidences to be provided for verification. PP also need to explicitly mention in the MR that monitoring plan in 2

nd monitoring

period is based on revised approved PDD or previously registered PDD.



Finding (reference section 2.2, 2.2.2 & 3.1 of table 1) 3



Deviation request occurred during MP 1 (first issuance) and so has already been verified. The dates are indicated in the MR to support this assertion in section B2.3.

DOE Assessment #1


Details of deviation request submission and subsequent approval by GS, included in revised MR. However, date of final revised PDD (24/10/2012) as mentioned in sec. B.2.3 in revised MR not correct.




Noted and corrected

DOE Assessment #2

Date of final revised PDD is corrected in sec. B.2.3 of revised MR, CAR closed.

Conclusion





Finding (reference section 3.2, 4.2 of table 1) 4


Description of finding (DOE) Under section D.1 monitoring parameter tables, the monitored values of the monitoring parameter for GHGs emission reduction calculation, source of data along with details of monitoring equipment, frequency and their calibration information etc. are provided. However following findings raised:

1. Table used in sec. D.1 & D.2 is not as per the MR filling guidelines, ver. 3.2 2. In sec. D.1, parameter Pb,p,y (ex ante) not included in MR whereas it is mentioned in approved PDD

dated 26/10/2012 3. In sec. D.2, for parameter Pb,p,y, in justification of the choice of data, it is mentioned that KS & KPT as

described in sec. B.4 but there is no such section in MR



Finding (reference section 3.2, 4.2 of table 1) 4



1. Latest templates and tables now applied (version 3.1) 2. Parameter Pb,p,y (ex ante) is not included in sec. D1 as it is a monitoring parameter. It is therefore included in section D.2. 3. Noted and corrected: “KS & KPT as described in sec. B.2.3”.

DOE Assessment #1


1. Sec. D.1 & D.2 corrected in revised MR in line with MR filling guidelines ver. 3.2 of UNFCCC, Finding closed.

2. Parameter Pb,p,y (ex ante) need to be monitored, hence included in sec. D.2 of the MR which is in line with registered PDD, finding closed.

3. Not corrected in revised MR. It still says as described in sec. B.4 but there is no such section in MR.


The assessment shall encompass all open issues in the

finding. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action

and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added.

3. Noted and corrected: “KS & KPT as described in sec. B.2.3”.

DOE Assessment #2

3.Necessary correction made in MR, finding closed

Conclusion





Finding (reference section 3.5.1 of table 1) 5


Description of finding (DOE) 1. In excel sheet “Supplementary data Shimba Hills, v2.xls”, “tab B.6.4 summary of ex ante ERs” , there is some error, please correct it

2. In tab ‘B3 BRS output’, efficiency of stove assumed 30 % which is not consistent with efficiency mentioned in MR. Please clarify

3. Also provide one tab for sampling and how sample size arrived in view of latest sampling guidelines, v3, EB 75.



1. Noted and corrected 2. Noted and corrected in tab ‘B3 BRS output’. The correct stove efficiency as determined by project

WBTs is 24%, as stated in the MR 3. PP has followed the GS guidance on sampling as per the applied methodology, at least 100 KS were

supplied at time of registration in line with GS requirement. At least 100 MKS were conducted during this MP as per FAR from first verification.




DOE Assessment #1


1. Necessary correction made and error in excel sheet “Supplementary data Shimba Hills, v2.xls”, “tab B.6.4 summary of ex ante ERs” removed, finding closed.

2. No correction made in tab “B3 BRS output”. It still shows 30% stove efficiency. As mentioned by PP, correct stove efficiency determined by WBTs, PP shall provide evidence.

3. Verification team agreed that 100 households selected for sampling but how those 100 HHs chosen for MKS, that need to be explained in separate excel sheet and also in sec. D.3 of MR.




2. Noted and corrected in tab ‘B3 BRS output’. The correct stove efficiency as determined by project WBTs is 23%, as stated in the MR. The WBT analysis detailing these results is supplied . 3. As per the Methodology a Usage Survey was conducted on a sample size of 100 households randomly selected from the distribution record. Please find the Excel attached showing the process of the online research randomizer used. It is now mentioned in D.3. as well.

DOE Assessment #2

2. WBT analysis detailing these results provided by PP which appears to be appropriate and acceptable to verification team, finding closed. 3. Usage survey conducted on 100 household randomly selected from the stove distribution record. PP has used online research randomizer to choose the households which was verified by usage survey excel spread sheet provided by PP and found to be correct and in line with applied methodology and registered PDD, finding closed.

Conclusion







Description of finding (DOE) All the calculations related to the baseline emission been carried out according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology. However, statement in sec. E.1 & E.2 of the MR regarding use of equation for calculation of baseline & project emission calculation is contradictory. Please refer methodology, give proper justification regarding use of equation in Sec. E.1 & E.2 and provide detail ER calculation in sec. E.4 and also discuss approach step by step.

sec. E.7 of MR is missing. Please refer latest MR template, ver. 3.1

Sec. E.5 need to be updated as per latest template. Estimated GHG reduction mention in sec. E.5 is not consistent with value mentioned on front page of MR






Noted and corrected. Equation 1 of the methodology was applied for each project scenario In sec. E.2 In Sec. E.1 & E.2 the equation was applied as per page 14 of the methodology: “When the baseline fuel and the project fuel are the same and the baseline emission factor and project emission are considered the same, the overall GHG reductions achieved by the project activity in year y are calculated as follows:

Corrected, in sec. E.4 detailed ER calculation is now provided Corrected, in sec. E.5 is now updated as per latest template Figure in sec. E.5 is corrected and harmonised with the value mentioned on the front page.

DOE Assessment #1


The statement “Baseline emissions are not calculated using equation (1) of the methodology, see E.2 below” provided in sec. E.1 of MR is not clear.

In this project, the baseline and project fuels are the same, as are baseline and project emissions factors. In this case it is necessary to use equation (1) in the methodology, which combines the calculation of baseline, project and leakage into one equation rather than separating them out. Details of equations which is provided in sec. E.2, need to be provided in sec. E.4 rather.

In sec. E.4, total emission reduction calculated as 50640.43 which does not match with total emission reduction (59,431) of this monitoring period and as estimated in excel sheet.

In sec. E.5 of MR, value of estimated GHG reduction for this monitoring period as per registered PDD is not clear and seems to be incorrect and it also mentions period 01/06/2010 to 31/12/2011 which is confusing.




The statement provided in sec. E.1 is now rephrased for clarity.

The details of equations which was provided in sec. E.2 is now provided in sec. E.4

The total emission reduction of this monitoring period is now corrected in sec. E.4

The value of the estimated GHG reduction is now corrected according to the registered PDD. The monitoring period is corrected as well.




DOE Assessment #2

PP has rephrased the statement regarding use of methodology for calculation of GHG reduction in sec. E.1 of revised MR.

Details of equation for ER calculation now provided in sec. E.4 of the revised MR.

Total emission reduction in sec. E.4 of the revised MR corrected in consistent with ER spread sheet for this monitoring period.

In sec. E.5 of the revised MR, value of estimated GHG reduction for this monitoring period corrected in line with registered PDD and date of monitoring period also corrected.

CAR closed.

Conclusion





Finding (reference section 2.1of table 1) 1


Description of finding (DOE) In section C of MR, it is mentioned that monitoring plan as provided in the MR is as per the registered PDD dated 18/04/2011 but verification team is of the opinion that MR is based on 2

nd approved PDD dated

26/10/2012. PP requested to clarify.



Noted and corrected, the MR is based on 2nd

approved PDD (version 1.9) dated 26/10/2012

DOE Assessment #1


In section C of revised MR, now it is explicitly mentioned that current monitoring report based on 2nd

approved PDD dated 26/10/2012, not previous one.

Conclusion







Finding (reference section 3.2.1, of table 1) 2


Description of finding (DOE) Kitchen survey to be conducted one year after registration of project activity before every verification. PP need to provide the detail of KS conducted for this verification in MR.



The detailed Monitoring KS excel file is uploaded to the registry.

DOE Assessment #1


PP has provided excel spread sheet for Kitchen survey for verification and also uploaded on GS registry.

Conclusion







Description of finding (DOE) Training details for the personnel involved in the GHG monitoring not described and documented in MR. PP requested to provide supporting evidences regarding training imparted to stove contractors and personnel involved in GHG monitoring and project monitoring.



Evidence on training for personnel involved in GHG monitoring and project monitoring is uploaded to the registry.

DOE Assessment #1


Training records provided for verification which found to be appropriate.




Conclusion







Description of finding (DOE) In this monitoring period, usage rate for cluster A – 0.94 & for cluster B – 0.98. However, PP need to provide appropriate justification to support that usage rate considered is conservative along with usage survey which is to be conducted annually as MR but approved PDD says biennially.

QA/QC procedure for this parameter is also not clear. Please clarify.



As per deviation request was submitted to Gold Standard on 13/08/2012 and was approved on 11/10/2012, project has changed methodology to Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralised Thermal Energy Consumption (version 1). The PDD is a typo as the meth requirement is to conduct annually; we have therefore followed the meth requirement. QA/QC procedure has been clarified.

DOE Assessment #1


OK, However, usage survey not provided for verification




Please find the usage survey now attached.

DOE Assessment #2

PP has provided usage survey dated 30/07/2013 which found to be correct and values in MR are consistent

with usage survey

Conclusion









Description of finding (DOE) Value of Np,y calculated for cluster A & cluster B not clear. Please explain how it has been calculated?



Project Technology days are calculated as follows:

Crediting of stoves is assumed to begin one day after installation.

The number of stoves installed is multiplied by the number of days they are in operation in the given year, which gives the project technology days for each stove

The technology days are added together for all stoves in operation which is

2.897.735 in 2012 and 1.190.850 in 2013 for Cluster A

1.079.305 in 2012 and 443.550 in 2013 for Cluster B Project technologies days were monitored using an electronic database derived from the installation date. Any duplicates (highlighted with yellow on the Excel sheet ‘PTDs Cluster A’ and ‘PTD Cluster B’) identified though GPS coordinates were removed from crediting.

DOE Assessment #1


Justification provided for calculation of Np,y for cluster A & cluster B found to be correct and in line with ER sheet

Conclusion







Description of finding (DOE) Title: Non-CO2 emission factor arising from use of fuels in baseline scenario

Indication: EFfuel,nonCO2

Units: tCO2/TJ


In MR, this parameter mentioned as CO2 emission factor from use of wood fuel in baseline scenario which is not correct



Corrected, the figures of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions as well as for NCV are now included for both baseline and project scenario.




DOE Assessment #1


Necessary changes made in revised MR with regard to all parameters in baseline and project scenario.

Conclusion





Finding (reference section 6.1of table 1) 7


Description of finding (DOE) All non- neutral indicators has been monitored as per the sustainability monitoring plan.

However, in MR, add one paragraph before sustainable development indicator that these parameters are as outlined in GS passport



Corrected.

DOE Assessment #1


Necessary changes made in revised MR and now it is clear that all parameters outlined in GS passport included in MR under parameters to be monitored.

Conclusion





FAR from 1

ST Verification:



Description of finding (DOE) PP shall increase sample size to 100 in future verifications in line of methodology. ( FAR raised by GS in 1st verification)






The FAR and the sampling guidance were followed as per the applied methodology, in which 100 MKS were carried out for populations greater than 1000.

DOE Assessment #1


In view of FAR raised by GS in previous verification, Kitchen survey conducted on 100 households which is in line of applied methodology.

Conclusion







Appendix D

Certificates of Competence

final verification report for the gold standard project

Documents