FVR Seva Mandir V3.1 · Anjana Sharma** LV & TL Y B S Moorthy TE Mathsy Kutty ITR NA M.K. Halpeth...

PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRAR CARBON EMISSIONS SERVICES, INC 755 W. BIG BEAVER ROAD, SUITE 1380, TROY, MI 48084

VALIDATION REPORT

SEVA MANDIR

IMPROVED WOODSTOVES IN UDAIPUR - HELPING WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT IN INDIA

REPORT NO. C-1-I-03-S-0181_VA

REVISION NO. 3.1

PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRARS CARBON EMISSIONS SERVICES, INC

VALIDATION REPORT

Form: F-06.11 Revision: 1.2 Issue date: 14.03.2011 Revision date: 21.07.2011 2/113

Date of first issue: Project No: 09 November 2011 C-1-I-03-S-0181 Approved by and date: Organisational unit: Bilal Anwar - 18 January 2013 PJR CDM (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Client: Client ref.: Seva Mandir Mr. Sanjay Singhal

Project Name: Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment

Country: India Methodology: AMS-II.G Version: 03 Sectoral Scope: 03 Project Type and Technology: Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-

renewable biomass ER estimate: 42,559 tCO2e annual average

Size Large Scale Small Scale

Validation Status Corrective Actions Requested Clarifications Requested Full Approval and submission for registration Rejected

In summary, it is in PJRCES’s opinion that the Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment” in India, as described in the PDD version03.3 of “18 January 2013”, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM, all relevant host country criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-II.G, version03. DOE thus, requests the registration of the project as a CDM project activity.

Report No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No. Key words:

C-1-I-03-S-0181_Va 18 January 2013 3.1 Report title: Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment in India

Work carried out by: Team Leader : Ms. Anjana Sharma Team Member : Mr. Chirag Gajjar Team Member : Mr. Rohit Badaya Technical Expert : Mr. Y B S Moorthy

Work verified by: Independent Technical Reviewer : Ms. Mathsy Kutty Technical Expert : Mr. M.K. Halpeth

No distribution without permission

from the Client or responsible organisational unit

Limited distribution Unrestricted distribution


VALIDATION REPORT


ABBREVIATIONS BAU Business as usual CA Indian Companies Act, 1956 CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEF Carbon Emission Factor CER Certified Emission Reduction CL Clarification request CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent CM Combined Margin DNA Designated National Authority DRB Demonstrably renewable woody biomass DOE Designated Operational Entity FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAR Forward Action Request GHG Greenhouse gas(es) GoI Government of India GWh Giga Watt hour GWP Global Warming Potential EB Executive Board EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FCN Fair Climate Network ICS Improved Cookstove IOCL Indian Oil Corporation Limited IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LoA Letter of Approval LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas MNES Ministry of Non Conventional Energy Sources MoEF Ministry of Environment & Forests MoM Minutes of Meeting MP Monitoring Plan MW Mega Watt MWh Mega Watt Hours NBMMP National Biogas and Manure Management Programme NFAP National Forest Action Programme NGO Non-governmental Organisation NRB Non-renewable woody biomass NSSO National Sample Survey Organization


VALIDATION REPORT


ODA Official Development Assistance OM Operational Margin O&M Operation and Maintenance PCIA Partnership for Clean Indoor Air PDD Project Design Document PLF Plant Load Factor PJRCDM Perry Johnson Registrars Clean Development Mechanism PJRCES Perry Johnson Registrars Carbon Emissions Services, Inc PP Project Participants QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control QMS Quality Management System RGGLV Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak SHG Self Help Group SM Seva Mandir TJ Terra Joule UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VVM Validation and Verification Manual version1.2 YRC Youth Resource Centre


VALIDATION REPORT


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 OBJ E CT I VE .............................................................................................................................................6

1.2 SC O P E ......................................................................................................................................................7

2 VALIDATION TEAM AND QUALITY CONTROL......................................................................... 7

3 METHODOLOGY OF VALIDATION............................................................................................ 8 3.1 DESK REVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................8

3.2 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS .......................................................................................................................10

3.3 RESOLUTION OF CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS ..............................................11

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS.......................................................................................................... 13 4.1 PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................13

4.2 PROJECT DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................15

4.3 CREDITING PERIOD AND PROJECT DURATION ........................................................................................16

4.4 ELIGIBILITY AS SCALE OF PROJECT ACTIVITY ......................................................................................17

4.5 APPLICABILITY OF METHODOLOGY TO PROJECT ACTIVITY..................................................................18

4.6 PROJECT BOUNDARY ..............................................................................................................................19

4.7 BASELINE ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................19

4.8 ADDITIONALITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................20

4.9 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................................26

4.10 CALCULATIONS OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS................................................................................37

4.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................39

4.12 COMMENTS BY LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................39

4.13 COMMENTS BY PARTIES, GLOBAL STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS ..........................................................40

5 VALIDATION OPINION ........................................................................................................... 41

6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................................. 45

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 110


VALIDATION REPORT


1 INTRODUCTION The Seva Mandir (hereafter called PP or client or SM), has commissioned Perry Johnson Registrars Clean Development Mechanism, Inc 1 (then PJRCDM (India) Pvt. Ltd) hereafter called PJRCES or DOE) to perform a validation of the Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment project in India (hereafter called “the project”). This report summarises the findings of the validation of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and other relevant rules, including the host country legislation and sustainability criteria. UNFCCC criteria refer to:

Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol The CDM modalities and procedures The simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities and

the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board.

1.1 OBJECTIVE Purpose of this validation is to have an independent third party assessment of the project design. In particular, the project’s baseline, the monitoring plan (MP), and the project’s compliance with:

The requirements of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol; The CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in the Marrakesh Accord under

decision 17/CP.7; The annex to the decision: the simplified modalities and procedures for small scale

subsequent decisions made by CDM Executive Board, decision 4/CMP.1, annex II Other relevant rules, including the Host Country legislation and sustainability criteria.

The above requirements are validated, in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. Validation is seen necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders on the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission reductions (CERs).

1 The DOE accreditation has been shifted from Perry Johnson Registrars Clean Development Mechanism, Inc. to Perry Johnson Registrars Carbon Emissions Services, Inc. in due course of validation


VALIDATION REPORT


1.2 SCOPE The validation scope is given as an independent and objective review of the project design, the project’s baseline study and monitoring plan which are included in the PDD and other relevant supporting documents. The scopes of the validation are defined as below:

The Kyoto Protocol, in particular § 12 and modalities and procedures for the CDM Decision 2/CMP1 and Decision 3/CMP.1 (Marrakech Accords) Further COP/MOP decisions with reference to the CDM (e.g. decisions 4 – 8/CMP.1) Decisions and specific guidance by the EB published under http://cdm.unfccc.int Guidelines for Completing the Simplified Project Design Document (CDM-SSC-

PDD), and the Proposed New Small Scale Methodologies (CDM-SSC-NM) Baselines and monitoring methodologies (including GHG inventories) Management systems and auditing methods Environmental issues relevant to the sectoral scope applied for Applicable environmental and social impacts and aspects of CDM project activity Sector specific technologies and their applications Current technical and operational knowledge of the specific sectoral scope and

information on best practice

The information included in the PDD and the supporting documents have been reviewed against the requirements and criteria mentioned above and the QMS of PJRCES. The validation team has, based on the recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual employed a risk-based approach, focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of CERs. The validation is not meant to provide any consultation to the organization(s). However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvements of the project design.

2 VALIDATION TEAM AND QUALITY CONTROL The validation of the project activity has been carried out by qualified personnel in line with the procedures defined in PJRCES’s quality manual for validation and team definition. The validation report has undergone a technical review before requesting registration of the project activity. The technical review was performed by an independent technical reviewer.

Competency Task Performed Name Qualification Meth Technical Host DR SV RP Tech.


VALIDATION REPORT


Expert Area Country Exp.

Review

Chirag Gajjar VA Rohit Badaya* VA

Anjana Sharma** LV & TL

Y B S Moorthy TE Mathsy Kutty ITR NA

M.K. Halpeth TE - ITR NA

Note: 1) VA – Validator, LV – Lead Validator, TL – Team Leader, FE – Financial Expert, TE – Technical

Expert, ITR – Independent Technical Reviewer 2) DR – Desk review of PDD and documents, SV – Site Visit, RP – Final Report Preparation. 3) Technical Expert involved has the required Host country knowledge

* Team member have given inputs on the Final Validation Report Prepared. ** Supervision of Entire Validation Process.

3 METHODOLOGY OF VALIDATION The overall validation, from Contract Review to Validation Report & Opinion, was conducted using PJRCES’s internal procedures. The validation of the project activity is carried out in the following phases:

Desktop review of project design document (PDD) and other relevant documents Follow up interviews (site visits) with the relevant stakeholders Resolution of the identified corrective action requests (CARs), clarification requests

(CL) and forward action requests (FARs) if any, followed by the issuance of the final validation opinion and final validation report.

3.1 DESK REVIEW The desktop review includes:

A review of the PDD (including annexes) and the relevant supporting documents. The detailed list of documents reviewed throughout the validation process, are included in the section 6, under references.

Preparation of project specific validation protocol in line with the requirements of the validation and verification Manual

Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project proponent, the consultant, legal authorities and other stakeholders.


VALIDATION REPORT


Reporting of validation findings taking into account the public comments received on UNFCCC website

In order to ensure consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a validation protocol was used. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means of verification and the results from pre-validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes:

It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements that a CDM project is expected to meet;

It ensures a transparent validation process where the independent entity will document how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the determination.

The validation protocol consists of three tables: Table 1 (Mandatory Requirements); Table 2 (Requirement checklist); and Table 3 (Resolution of corrective Action and clarification request) as described in below The completed validation protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this report identifying Corrective Action Requests and clarification Requests.

Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements for CDM Project Activities Requirement Reference Conclusion

The requirements the project must meet.

Gives reference to the legislation or agreement where the requirement is found.

This is acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), a Corrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or non-compliance with stated requirements or a request for Clarification (CL) where further clarifications are needed.

Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

CDM Validation requirement

Remarks Evidence Conclusion

The various requirements as per para 37 of the CDM modalities and procedures, in line with the validation and verification manual version01.2

Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of validation are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable

The various sources that are referred to ascertain compliance to checklist questions.

The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached.


VALIDATION REPORT


Validation Protocol Table 3: Resolution of issues identified in Table 2 of the Validation Protocol Draft report

clarification requests, corrective action

requests and forward action requests

Ref. to checklist question in table

2

Summary of project owner response

Validation team conclusion

If the conclusions from the draft Validation are either a CAR, FAR or a CL, these should be listed in this section.

Reference to the checklist question number in Table 2 where the CAR, FAR or CL is explained.

The responses given by the project participants during the communications with the validation team should be summarised in this section.

This section should summarise the validation team’s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 2, under “Final Conclusion”.

3.2 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

During 12-13 September 2011, qualified validation team of PJRCES conducted physical site visit to the villages covered under the project activity located in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils of Udaipur district, Rajasthan. The objective of the site visit was to interact with the stakeholders and conduct the survey/02/ to cross-check the baseline survey results, conducted by PP. The information was collected in a survey form/02/ and the originals are kept for records. Seva Mandir (Project participant, SM), Fair Climate Network (CDM Consultant, FCN), and local stakeholders were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarised in the table below.

Table 1: List of Interviewed persons Sl. № Date Name Organization

/ Village Topic

/01/ 12 & 13 September 2011

Sudha Padmanabha (Sr. CDM Specialist)

Fair Climate Network

Ronak Shah (Program Co-ordinator)

Seva Mandir

Aditi Gupta (Development professional)

Seva Mandir

/02/ 12 & 13 September 2011

Narayan Ameta (General

Seva Mandir

Additionality of the project activity.

Environmental compliance. Estimated emission

reductions. Stakeholder consultation

process. Technology applied and

operational lifetime. Monitoring and reporting

procedures presented in PDD.

Calibration, internal audit


VALIDATION REPORT


Table 1: List of Interviewed persons Sl. № Date Name Organization

/ Village Topic

Secretary) and corrective action procedures.

Provision for training, operation and maintenance.

Prior CDM Consideration. Panni Nana lal Soma

Gadunia

Galali Shantadevi Manisha Kesharsinh Laxman

Bhawna

Ratan Devi Sugna Devi

Chourai

Kalta Ram

/03/ 12 & 13 September 2011

Ladu Devi Rajol

Local Stakeholder consultation meeting topics.

Baseline survey questionnaire

Food preparation Collection of Fuel wood Cooking environment Maintenance of cook stoves

Furthermore, interactions with Ms. Sudha Padmanabha from Fair Climate Network (CDM consultant for the project) became the basis to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified during the document review.

3.3 RESOLUTION OF CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS The objective of this phase of the validation was to resolve any outstanding issues which needed to be clarified prior to PJRCES’s positive conclusion on the project design. In order to ensure transparency, a validation protocol is customised for the project. The protocol shows in transparent manner criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes:

It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet; It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a

particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation.

Findings established during the validation can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of CDM criteria or where a risk to the fulfilment of project objectives is identified.


VALIDATION REPORT


Corrective action requests (CAR) are issued, where: i) Mistakes have been made with a direct influence on project results; ii) CDM and/or methodology specific requirements have not been met; or iii) There is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a CDM project or that

emission reductions will not be certified.

A request for clarification (CL) may be used where additional information is needed to fully clarify an issue. Additionally, a forward action request (FAR) may be raised during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review during the first verification of the project activity. The FARs so identified however, shall not relate to the CDM requirements for registration. The main changes between the PDD version 01.1, dated 29 July 2011, webhosted on the UNFCCC website and the final version03.3, dated 18 January 2013, of the PDD are as provided below:

Table 2: Changes in the final PDD version03.2 as compared to PDD published for global stakeholder consultation2

Sl. №

Parameter PDD version01.1 dated 29 July 2011 as compared to Final PDD version03.3 dated 18 January 2013

01 Improved Cook Stove Model

In the web hosted PDD, PP proposed to use Single Improved cook stove i.e. Aadi Maha Shakti model. In the final version03.3 of the PDD, PP has opted to use two different improved cook stoves Aadi Sri Shakti model and Greenway smart model. Since, both the models in the final version03.3 of the PDD have higher efficiency as compared to the earlier model; PP has opted to use models with higher efficiency. This in turn will not impact the scale and eligibility of the project activity.

02 Efficiency of Improved cook stoves

Web Hosted PDD version1.1. The Aadi Maha Shakti model has the thermal

efficiency of 30.8%/03/ Final PDD version03.3

Aadi Sri Shakti model has thermal efficiency of 40.29%/03/

Greenway smart stove has thermal efficiency of 32.098%/03/

2 https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/NPDDLU7ZM2YBC4QY96CG7I69QSRGXS/view.html


VALIDATION REPORT


The change in the efficiency does not affect the scale and eligibility of the project.

03 Energy Savings Per household.

The energy savings per household has been revised to 0.0097 GWh/household in the final PDD version03.3 as compared to 0.0091 GWh/household in the web hosted PDD. This was in view of a change in the final cook-stove being utilised for the project. However, the overall savings is restricted to 180 GWh for the entire project activity and thus, the number of households eligible under the project activity would vary between 17,899 to be 19,565 depending upon the model of Improved Cook Stove (ICS) used.

04 Cost of ICS Web Hosted PDD version1.1. The cost of Aadi Maha Shakti model is Rs. 1,398 per

stove/04/ Final PDD version03.3

The cost of Aadi Sri Shakti is Rs. 2,200 per stove/04/ The cost of Greenway Smart Stove is Rs. 1,250 per

stove/04/. Beside the major changes highlighted above, the final version03.3 of the PDD also uses or refers to latest version of relevant methodological guidance and tools. Also, it incorporates the changes in-line with the CAR/CLs identified in this report. Also, PP had done some editorial changes to make the final version03.3 of the PDD, clear and transparent.

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS The details of the assessment and the main results have been described below in accordance with the VVM version1.2 reporting requirements. The validation criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria are documented in more detail in the validation protocol in Appendix A.

4.1 PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

The section A.3 and Annex 1 of PDD identifies Seva Mandir as the project participants from the host Party India. No Annex I Party has been identified yet. Keeping in view the requirements of Validation and Verification Manual, PJRCES confirms that:


VALIDATION REPORT


PP has obtained the Letter of Approval/01/3 dated 09 May 2012 from Designated National Authority (DNA) i.e. National CDM Authority, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)4, Government of India5. The same was made available by the PP during the course of validation.

The validation team reviewed the LoA and confirmed following: The Party has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 26 August 2002; Voluntary participation in the proposed CDM project activity; Project contributes to the sustainable development in India (host Party).

The validation team was also able to confirm:

Precise title of the CDM project activity of the final PDD version03.3 referenced;

Letter of approval is unconditional to above information or any version of the PDD;

M/s Seva Mandir’s participation in the project activity has been authorized, as confirmed in the LoA issued by the DNA of the host Party.

The DNA of host Party has stipulated the social well being, the economic well being, the environmental well being and the technological well being as the four indicators for sustainable development6. Final PDD version03.3 describes all the sustainable development indicators, which sufficiently proves that project will lead to the sustainable development of the host Party. The DNA of India has issued a LoA on 09 May 2012, which confirms that the project assists in achieving sustainable development. An official confirmation that the project activity contributes to India’s sustainable development has therefore been provided.

The copy of the LoA was verified against the original LoA issued by the host country DNA (Government of India). The contents of the LoA and the signature of the authorized issuer were also compared with those of other approved cases issued by the host country DNA. Therefore, the validation team has confirmed the authenticity of the letter issued.

The project participant is Seva Mandir, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) having its registered office in India. The project does not involve public funding, and the validation did not reveal any information that indicates that the project can be seen as a diversion of official development assistance (ODA)/05/ funding towards India.

3 http://cdmindia.gov.in/project_details_view.php?id=624&oid=3&page=1&reporttype=1 4 http://moef.nic.in/index.php 5 http://cdmindia.gov.in/ 6 http://cdmindia.gov.in/approval_process.php


VALIDATION REPORT


4.2 PROJECT DESIGN

PDD template:

PP has used latest template of “Project Design Document Form (CDM-SSC-PDD) - version03” (latest available at the time of global stakeholder consultation process) for completing the PDD for the project activity. The PP also followed the guidance available in “Guidelines for completing the simplified Project Design Document (CDM-SSC-PDD) version 05”7 for completing all the sections of the PDD which is the latest at the time of global stakeholder consultation process.

Project Activity: The project activity will replace the inefficient traditional cook stoves with efficient

single pan CHULIKA and/or GREEN SMART cook stoves, in a drought prone, biomass deficient region of India. It is estimated the project would replace cook stoves in approximately 18,595 households. The project activity will use two different improved cook stoves (ICS’s).

Table 3: ICS Model wise details Particulars Aadi Shri Shakti Greenway Smart Stove

Manufacturer iSquareD Greenway Grameen infra Pvt. Ltd.

Thermal Efficiency/03/ 40.29% 32.098% Life time/06/ 9,875 hours 20,000 hours

Technical Specifications:

The technical specifications of both ICS Model have been provided in the PDD and were cross-checked with the technical specifications provided by the technology supplier/07/. While validating the details, the parameters with respect to the thermal efficiency and life time were given special emphasis and confirmed to be consistent.

Geographical location: PJRCES have cross-checked geographical coordinates i.e. the latitude and longitude

data provided by PP/04/ for Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils where the project activity is spread across.

Table 4: Location Details8 District Tehsil Latitude Longitude Udaipur Kherwara North 23° 59' 07" East 73° 35' 46"

7 https://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/034/eb34_repan09.pdf 8 http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html


VALIDATION REPORT


Rishabhdev North 24° 04' 33" East 73° 41' 33"

De-bundling: In accordance with Appendix-C of the “Simplified Modalities and Procedures for

Small-Scale project activities” PP has demonstrated that there is no CDM project activity or application to register another small scale project activity which is with the same project participants, in the same category and technology/measure, registered within previous 2 years and whose project boundary is within 1km of the project boundary of the proposed small scale activity. The same was also confirmed during the site visit and subsequent interviews with PP. PJRCES also visited the UNFCCC website 9 and confirmed that the proposed project activity is not a de-bundled component of a large project activity.

Based on the vetting of the information provided in the PDD and supporting documents submitted by PP, PJRCES considers the project description to be complete and accurate.

4.3 CREDITING PERIOD AND PROJECT DURATION

The project starting date is considered to be 01 January 2013 i.e. issuance of purchase order for the improved cook stoves (ICS). Since, the project activity is yet to be implemented and the date on which purchase order will be issued would become the earliest date at which either the implementation or construction or real action of a CDM project activity begins; thus, it is acceptable as the starting date. The same was found to be in-line with the latest guidance available at “Glossary of CDM terms version 06”10.

The operation life time of Aadi Sri Shakti Stove is 9,875 hours and that of Greenway Smart Stove is 20,000 hours, verified through technical specifications provided by the technology supplier/06/ and found to be in order. The baseline survey conducted by PP revealed that the average cooking time is 6 hours per day/08/. This was cross-checked by PJRCES during the survey visit/02/. Hence, the life time of both stoves in years is 4.5 years for Aadi Sri Shakti and 9 years for Greenway Smart Stove. Thus, PP would replace the either of the stoves at-least once in the crediting period. This was again confirmed through the interviewing villagers and PP during the survey visit. It is also, a part of an agreement between villagers and PP/09/.

PP has opted for fixed crediting period of 10 years. Considering the operational life time of 4.5 years and 9 years/06/ of both ICS and with one time replacement of the ICS already established in the project operations, the crediting period of 10 years is

9 https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html 10 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/glossary.html, http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/glos_CDM.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


considered reasonable.

PP has considered 01 January 2013 or date that the DOE had submitted a complete request for registration, whichever is later as the start date of the crediting period which is acceptable.

4.4 ELIGIBILITY AS SCALE OF PROJECT ACTIVITY

The project activity replaces the inefficient traditional stoves with two different types of efficient stoves.

PP has proposed to replace the traditional inefficient cook stoves used by villagers with efficient Aadi Sri Shakti Chulika and Greenway Smart Stove. Aadi Sri Shakti Chulika has thermal efficiency of 40.29% and Greenway smart stove has thermal efficiency of 32.098%/03/.

Further, as discussed in detail in section 4.9.1 of this report, PP has also fixed the thermal energy savings of 0.0097 GWh per household per year.

It is confirmed that the thermal energy savings under the project activity would be limited to 180 GWh (thermal equivalent for 60 GWh electrical) per annum. Thus, depending upon type of stoves distributed, the number of households covered under the project activity will vary between 18,000 (for 40.29% efficiency) to 19,546 (for 32.098%) efficiency. It is confirmed that the thermal energy savings under the project activity would be limited to 180 GWh (thermal equivalent for 60 GWh electrical) per annum. Since, the same is in-line with EB61, Annex21 and Decision 1/CMP.211, it is concluded that the project activity is eligible under small scale CDM activity.

Through interview of PP representative during the site visit by the validation team, it had been confirmed that the PP do not intend to increase the annual energy savings per household of the project activity. Thus, validation team is able to confirm that the total savings of the project will remain under 180GWh, the limits of small scale project activity Type II “Energy efficiency improvement projects – which reduce energy consumption, on the supply and/or demand side, shall be limited to those with a maximum output of 180 GWh/y (thermal)12 (i.e. 60 GWh/y equivalent)” during every year of the crediting period of ten years. Hence, PJRCES confirms that the project activity satisfies the criteria set out for use of the SSC M&P with respect to Type II activities.

Also, as confirmed in section 4.2 of this report, the project activity is confirmed not to be a de-bundled component of a larger activity.

11 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/cmp2/eng/10a01.pdf#page=3 12https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/A/M/_/AM_CLAR_VIIC5MTUUWR9PRPJL0EXOT3G2CKSFQ/Response%20SSC%20W

G%20provided.pdf?t=d0x8bTZvbnE0fDCNrpYHYTV8p0ZGOLXpPbJ_


VALIDATION REPORT


Hence, the project activity is eligible under Small Scale CDM Type II “Energy

efficiency improvement projects – which reduces energy consumption, on the supply and/or demand side, shall be limited to those with a maximum output of 60 GWh/y (or an appropriate equivalent)” activities.

4.5 APPLICABILITY OF METHODOLOGY TO PROJECT ACTIVITY

The project activity has applied the approved baseline and monitoring methodology: AMS-II.G version03, “Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass”, Sectoral scope 03 – Energy demand13, Category – Demand-side energy efficiency programmes for specific technologies14. The same is previously approved by CDM Executive Board during its 60th meeting.

The applicability of the methodology was confirmed by reviewing the justification against each applicability conditions given in the approved small-scale methodology AMS.II.G, version03. The applicability criteria have been discussed in details in the Appendix A, Table 2 and summary of the same is provide below:

The project activity replaces the inefficient traditional cook stoves with Aadi Sri Shakti Chulika and Greenway Smart Stoves at household level. The stoves use the non-renewable biomass and the project activity will result into efficient use of non-renewable biomass. This is in-line with para01 of AMS-II.G, version03 and hence, acceptable.

PJRCES was able to verify from the survey results/10/ that that the communities are using the non-renewable biomass since, 31 December 1989. It is confirmed that the Rajasthan has been a fuel wood deficit15 state and the supply has always been less than the demand since, 1980 by reviewing the Sector Review Report of Rajasthan, National Forest Action Programme (NFAP) and based on the study conducted by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 16and found to be in order. Thus, based on the review of the report PJRCES was able to confirm that the scenario has continued till date.

The validation team has assessed the applicability requirements and cross-verified with the supporting information, and interviewed the PP, technology supplier and found the project activity satisfies the applicability conditions of the methodology AMS.II.G, version03.

13 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/6U8JYO9XTLVZ8LJ7GUBSZP145BIDG2/view.html 14 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/COPMOP/08a01.pdf#page=52 15 http://rajforest.nic.in/?q=mutual-impacts-and-benefits-one 16http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5329e/x5329e0b.htm#annex%20%20%20list%20and%20classification%20of%20fuelwood%20sit

uations%C2%B9


VALIDATION REPORT


4.6 PROJECT BOUNDARY

Para03 of applied small scale baseline methodology AMS-II.G version03 delineates that “The project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the efficient systems using biomass”

The project boundary is thus composed of the individual households disseminated in the 136 villages, 39 Gram Panchayats in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils of Udaipur District, Rajasthan State, India that will use the efficient stoves under the CDM project activity. The same has been validated during the site visit and subsequent interviews with the PP & local villagers and found to be in order.

Table 5: GHGs involved in the project boundary GHGs involved Description Emission reductions

CO2 The inefficient traditional cook stoves uses more amount of fuel wood which results into higher CO2 emissions.

4.7 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

The project activity has applied the methodology AMS-II.G “Energy efficiency

measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass” version03. Para04 of the methodology pre-defines the baseline scenario.

As per the applied methodology, “in the absence of the project activity, the baseline scenario would be the use of fossil fuels for meeting similar thermal energy needs”. Thus, in-line with “General guidance to SSC CDM Methodologies – version17”, para19 and the guidance given therein PP is not required to demonstrate assessment of alternatives as the methodology itself provides baseline scenario and hence, acceptable.

To demonstrate and establish the baseline PP has conducted a baseline survey/08/. PP has estimated the “Average adult equivalent per household” in order to determine the amount of fossil fuel consumed per household covered within the project boundary of the project activity.

Average adult equivalent per household:

To determine average adult equivalent per household, PP conducted a baseline survey of 952 households with a total population of 5,681 members. Furthermore PP also, referred to “Evaluation survey of the National Programme on Improved Chulha” by


VALIDATION REPORT


National Council on Applied Economic Research.

PP has followed Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) guidelines17 /08/, wherein standard adult equivalent for male, female and children respectively were of 1, 0.85 and 0.5 adult. The values and survey were cross-checked by PJRCES and found to be acceptable. Using these values the adult equivalent has been calculated. The adult equivalent from both the studies is summarized in the table below.

Table 6: Adult Equivalent/08/ Based on NCAER Study Baseline Study (PCIA Guidelines)

Average Family Members

Adult Equivalent

Average Family Members

Adult Equivalent

Total 6.49 4.81 5.97 4.34

Since, the value of 4.34 is conservative; PP has used the same for estimation of annual savings per household. This is acceptable.

The validation team confirms following: All the assumptions and data used by the project participants have been listed in

the PDD, including their references and sources. All the documentation used is relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and

correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. A complete list of documents is provided in section 6 (references) of this report.

Assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline scenario are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable;

Relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances are considered and listed in the PDD;

The approved baseline methodology has been correctly applied to identify the most reasonable baseline scenario and the identified baseline scenario reasonably represents what would occur in the absence of the CDM project activity

The application of the baseline methodology is transparent and conservative.

4.8 ADDITIONALITY ASSESSMENT

The applied baseline and monitoring methodology i.e. AMS-II.G, version03 requires PP to apply the general guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies, information on additionality (attachment A to Appendix B).

17 http://www.pciaonline.org/files/KPT_Version_3.0_0.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


Latest versions of the following guidance, guidelines and tools have been applied for the project activity:

Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM, version04.0 (EB62, Annex13).

In-line with the above PP has followed information on additionality given in attachment A to appendix B latest version 0818 to demonstrate additionality. Thus, PP has opted to demonstrate additionality using option (a) i.e. Investment barrier. Furthermore, PP has demonstrated that a financially more viable alternative to the project activity would have led to higher emissions.

Following alternatives to the project activity have been identified: 1) Fossil fuels from solids such as Coal, Liquid fossil fuels such as kerosene and

gaseous fossil fuels such as LPG;

Use of Coal: As confirmed through review of baseline survey conducted, solid fossil fuels coal and charcoal are not used by the communities in this region. The same was also cross-checked during the survey visit conducted by PJRCES. Furthermore, PJRCES referred a study on energy ladder in India by Preeti and Malhotra/28/. As per the study, solid fuels are at the bottom of the energy ladder mix of present and future fuels used i.e. liquid fuels have preference over solid fuels. Thus, solid fuels have been eliminated as an alternative and are not considered for barrier analysis. This is in-line with the applied methodology.

Use of Kerosene: It has been confirmed during the site visit that only three litres of kerosene is supplied each month via the public distribution system in the project area of Udaipur district, at a subsidized rate of Rs.15.25 per litre, to ration card holders 19 . PP has also calculated the equivalent amount of Kerosene required per household based on the thermal energy need of the household and energy content of Kerosene which works out to be 23 litres of kerosene per month. This is required based on the cooking requirement of the household with average family size of 4.34 members/04/. The same have cross verified against the baseline survey and found to be acceptable. The cost of additional kerosene based on the average market price of Rs. 28 per litre works out to be Rs. 605 per month. PJRCES was able to confirm that the income of a household is less than Rs. 5000 per month and in some cases even less than Rs. 1000 per month in the project area through survey visit/02/. This

18 https://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/ssc/methSSC_guid05.pdf 19 http://www.statisticstest.rajasthan.gov.in/wpi.aspx, http://www.food.rajasthan.gov.in/documents/Kerosene_Orders.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


was found to be much lesser than the per capita income in India, which is 3,500$ per year20 i.e. 9.59$/day. Considering the living standard of the people in the region, this is a substantial cost for a household with a per capita income of less than 1$/day in the area of the project activity as confirmed through the baseline survey conducted by PP. Thus, it can be concluded that this is not a plausible alternative.

Use of LPG: PJRCES was able to confirm from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) website that the investment cost for LPG connection is Rs. 1,250/- 21 . Additionally, LPG hose pipe is Rs. 200 and stove cost is Rs. 1,80022. Depending upon the number of burners (1, 2 or even higher) the price of gas stoves starts from Rs. 455 23 onwards as confirmed through Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprsies (MSME). A 14.2-litre cylinder of LPG costs approximately Rs. 38124 after subsidy and would last an average family approximately less than a month. All these costs i.e. connection cost of Rs. 1,250, hose pipe cost of Rs. 200, minimum stove cost of Rs. 455, monthly cylinder cost of Rs. 381 make it economically not a viable option for local people. In addition, poor connectivity/accessibility due to the road infrastructre, as confirmed by PJRCES during the site visit, for refilling25 make it even more difficult and an unattractive alternative to the people. The Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) scheme to be launched in the project activity region looks at average monthly sale of 600 LPG cylinders of 14.2 kg and 1800 customers at monthly per capita LPG consumption of 5 Kg. This information was cross verified with the brochure of the RGGLV scheme/31/. As observed during the site visit and the survey conducted by PJRCES the monthly per capita estimated LPG consumption in the project area is 3.6 Kg. Thus, based on the established criteria of the RGGLV scheme, it is unlikely that the scheme would be launched in the region. It may be noted that it is observed that although the scheme has been announced but there is no actual implementation schedule available. The same is still unclear to date and hence, use of LPG as an alternative is highly unlikely for the income group included in the project activity.

2) Electricity: The number of household that are using electricity for cooking purpose is nil/11/. The same was confirmed by review of study published by National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme

20 http://www.indexmundi.com/india/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html 21 http://www.iocl.com/Products/LiquefiedPetroleumGasFAQ.aspx 22 http://www.prestigesmartkitchen.com/home-gas-stoves-l-p-gas-stoves 23 http://www.dcmsme.gov.in/publications/pmryprof/mechanical/ch13.pdf 24 http://www.statisticstest.rajasthan.gov.in/wpi.aspx Document: WPI / CPI-MPR (October-2011). 25 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/Reports-Publications/Access-Of-Poor/KeroseneLPG.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


Implementation, Government of India. PJRCES was also, able to confirm during the site visit that the households are situated in a remote location where there is no electricity supply and thus, this is not a plausible alternative.

3) Renewable energy technology such as Biogas: The cost of 2m³ of biogas is approximately 16,20026, which is confirmed by reviewing the scheme (National Biogas and Manure Management Programme (NBMMP)) launched by MNRE. This cost may further go up in the hilly areas. Furthermore, the National Sample Survey Organization NSSO study/11/ confirms that only 0.2% of the rural population uses biogas at national level. Even with the subsidy offered by the government the initial cost is too high for the family covered under the project activity and it can be concluded that this is not a plausible alternative.

4) Continuation of the current situation i.e. use of traditional cook stove; the continuation of the current situation would not require the families to invest in cook stoves as the traditional stoves are made of 3 stone with no cost and mud/clay/cement plastered stove built with nominal costs. The maintenance is also conducted in house by the housewives using locally available clay or mud. This was cross-checked during the site visit. Thus, the opportunity cost for regular construction and maintenance is considered negligible/12/. Since, the rural poor do not have much cash to spend on energy and use the fuels they collect to meet their cooking needs i.e. fuel wood/12/. Also, NSSO study/11/ confirms that, at the national level 75% of households and at the state level in Rajasthan 94% of households use firewood as the primary source of energy in rural areas. According to the NSSO 2010 report, fuel wood is the main source of energy for 94.4% families in rural Rajasthan. Compared to NSSO, 2008, there has been a 0.3% increase in the percent of families using fuel wood. Thus there is no investment barrier to the continued use of traditional cook stoves and non renewable biomass for cooking and continuation of current situation would result into the CO2 emissions as the traditional stoves are inefficient.

5) Implementation of the project in the absence of CDM revenue: Aadi Sri Shakthi model stove costs Rs. 2,200/04/ and GREENWAY SMART STOVE costs Rs. 1,250/04/ which is substantial initial cost for the user. The ICS may be more efficient, but is a serious barrier due to high initial capital costs. The facts supporting barriers are listed below.

Based on the survey conducted by PP in the project area, the target families are predominantly farming households, agriculture labourers and are below the poverty line with a per capita income of less than 1$/day. During the site

26 http://www.mnre.gov.in/schemes/decentralized-systems/schems-2/


VALIDATION REPORT


visit PJRCES has observed the actual living standard of the families & livelihood and was able to confirm that it is difficult for families to incur such high capital investment. The costs of both the stoves have been verified against the documents submitted by the supplier/04/.

Furthermore, a study conducted on micro-financing in below poverty lines households in India, confirms that the rural poor face severe difficulties in accessing savings and credit from the formal sector: 70% of marginal/landless farmers do not have a bank account and 87% have no access to credit from a formal source/12/. During the site visit PJRCES observed that the families have varying monthly income between Rs. 1000 to Rs. 5000 per month depending upon number of earning family members. Under these circumstances it becomes difficult for the families to arrange for high initial investment and bear the additional maintenance cost.

In addition to the above PP also, approached Indian overseas bank for a loan to finance the project activity. The request was rejected/23/ by the bank citing the reason of absence of any guarantee.

“National Biomass Cook Stove Initiative” launched by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy in December 2009 aimed at providing clean energy through achieving quality of energy services from cook stoves comparable to that of LPG. The initiative is, however, limited to only pilot-scale projects, enhancement of technical capacity by establishing state-of-the-art testing, certification and monitoring facilities, and strengthening R&D programmes in key technical institutions27. For the benefits of the initiative to reach the rural communities, at least 15 million improved stoves need to be distributed every year for the next decade to supply 87 percent of households across India/20/. Hence, in spite of nearly two decades of the existence of these programmes, their impact on the rural energy scenario and on the development scenario in general, has been limited as is evident from the low penetration level of modern fuels in rural areas/21/.

In-line with recommendation by the SSC working group (EB59, para36); PP has applied the simple cost analysis for the project activity. PJRCES was able to confirm following:

Involves distributed, household end-use energy efficiency measures i.e. ICS – since, the project activity will distribute the energy efficient ICS to the household and hence, project satisfies the criterion.

27 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=60448


VALIDATION REPORT


The project activity involves no other source of income except CER revenues – It

is validated by review of the sample end user agreement/09/ between the villagers and PP (i.e. Seva Mandir) that each family would be contributing 20% of the price of the ICS given to them. This amount collected would further be converted into village level funds and the same would be used for repair and maintenance of the ICS units installed during the crediting period. It was also noted by validation team that only the households that are entering into agreement with the PP are allowed to participate in the project activity. Furthermore, interviews conducted with PP in the presence of the villagers during the physical site inspection also revealed that this village level fund would also be spent on the training of the villagers regarding the upkeep and maintenance of the ICS installed. Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that though villagers have to shell out approx. 20% of ICS cost at the installation/registration time, however, that is used back for the repair and maintenance work of the units installed. And hence, it is evident that the village fund does not contribute to any additional revenue stream for the project proponent. This project depends solely on the additional CER revenue for the implementation and operations, hence, the application of simple cost analysis is deemed reasonable in PJRCES’s opinion.

PP will actually supply the ICS to individual households – it was validated by reviewing the Sample end user agreement/09/ that PP will supply the ICS to individual households. The same was further cross checked through the interviews conducted during the physical site inspection.

Hence, it can be concluded that implementation of the project activity without CDM revenues would not be possible.

From the above discussion and cross verification of the information with the references it can be concluded that the all the alternatives identified above faces investment barrier but the continuation of current practice does not face any barriers. Thus, in the absence of the project activity the households in the project area would continue to use the traditional 3 stone inefficient stoves that emits high amount of CO2 emissions.

Based on the barrier associated with the project activity, it is demonstrated that the project activity is not a likely baseline scenario and that the emission reductions due to the project activity are thus, additional.


VALIDATION REPORT


4.8.1 PRIOR CDM CONSIDERATION AND CONTINUED ACTION TO SECURE CDM STATUS

As validated in the section 4.3 of this report, the start date of the project activity is 01 January 2013.

The guidance provided in para2 of “Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” latest version04 (EB62, Annex13), the project activities with start date after 02 August 2008, the project participant must inform a Host Party designated national authority (DNA) and the UNFCCC secretariat in writing of the commencement of the project activity and of their intention to seek CDM status. Such notification must be made within six months of the project activity start date. “Such notification is not necessary if a project design document (PDD) has been published for global stakeholder consultation or a new methodology proposed to the Executive Board for the specific project before the project activity start date.”

In-line with the guidance above, the PDD has been published for global stakeholder consultation on 03 August 2011 which is earlier than the start date 01 January 2013 considered by PP and hence, PP is not required to notify EB or DNA of the host country.

Based on the documents submitted and discussions held, validation team is able to confirm that the:

PP is aware of the CDM benefits prior to the start date of the project activity. Proposed project activity would not have taken place without CDM status. The benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with

the project activity.

4.9 MONITORING PLAN Steps undertaken to assess feasibility of Monitoring plan (Para124(b) VVMver01.2):

The project activity applies the monitoring methodology AMS.II.G, version03, for the monitoring of emission reductions.

The monitoring plan as described in the PDD was validated through conducting the interviews with the project stakeholders during site visit. The parameters determined ex-ante and to be monitored ex-post have been discussed in detail in section 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 respectively, below in this report. This was further cross checked by reviewing the monitoring database design prepared by PP. The snapshots of the monitoring solution/32/ are kept for records.


VALIDATION REPORT


The validation team found that the list of parameters to be monitored ex-post is complete and in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology.

Validation team further interviewed the project stakeholders including PP and villagers in the project region during the physical site inspection to confirm the feasibility of the implementation of monitoring plan.

The responsibilities and authorities for project management, procedures for monitoring and reporting, and QA/QC procedures have been systematically established and formalized. The same is discussed in detail in section 4.9.3 below of this report. Data will be archived electronically until 2 years after the end of the crediting period.

Sampling Plan: As per the monitoring requirements for the proposed project activity – ηnew parameter

is monitored through sampling i.e. Checking the efficiency of representative sample thereof at least once every two years that they are still operating at specified efficiency.

Description of Sampling Plan: The outline of the Sampling plan provided in the Annex 4 of the PDD is in-line with

Appendix 3 of EB65 annex02 and hence, considered appropriate. It may be noted that the project activity will only be implemented phase wise post

registration of with CDM EB and hence, at present only an example of how Sample size will be determined based on the actual number of installations during each verification period is presented in the PDD. The present calculation of sample size is based on the assumption of 18,500 households and two types of ICS i.e. Chulika and Green Smart Stove and for explanation purpose only. The calculations were cross checked by validation team and found to be acceptable. Following is the outline of the sampling plan discussed in the PDD.

a. Sampling Design:

Objective: PP has clearly identified the objective of the sampling as “Checking the efficiency of representative sample thereof at least once every two years that they are still operating at specified efficiency” for the parameter ηnew. This is in-line with bullet (a), point (i) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.


VALIDATION REPORT


Reliability requirement: Furthermore, PP will ensure 95/5 confidence and precision level for verification while determining the sample size once the project activity is implemented. This is conservative than the guidance given in para09 of EB65 annex02 and bullet (a), point (i) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.

Target population: the target population is the households from Rishabhdev and Kherwara Tehsils of Udaipur district in the state of Rajasthan that are covered under the project boundary. The value will be determined once the project activity is implemented. This is in-line with para11(b) of EB65 annex02 and bullet (a), point (ii) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.

Sampling method: PP has followed the stratified random sampling approach which is in-line with the para12 and Appendix 2 of EB65 annex02 and bullet (a), point (iii) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate and hence, considered appropriate.

Sample Size: Sample size will be determined by PP using the following equation.

VNNVn 22

2

96.105.0)1(96.1

+×−≥

Where: 2

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛=

meanSDV

n Sample size N Total number of households (18,500) Mean Overall Mean SD Overall standard deviation 1.96 Represents the 95% confidence required 0.05 Represents the 5% relative precision PP will conduct a pilot study of minimum 3 stoves from each model and Tehsil to determine the mean and standard deviation. The overall mean and standard deviation will be estimated for both the models. The equations will be weighted according to the total number of households and model type in each Tehsil. The overall standard deviation is estimated as follows:

NSDgSDgSDgSDgSD ddccbbaa )()()()( 2222 ×+×+×+×

=


VALIDATION REPORT


Where SD Weighted overall standard deviation and SDa to SDd is the standard

deviation of the groups ga to gd Size of the group where ga to gd are the groups in the Tehsils with stove

models. N Population total

Nmgmgmgmgmean ddccbbaa )()()()( ×+×+×+×

=

Where: Mean Weighted overall mean ma to md Mean of the groups within Tehsils and the stove models Proportional allocation of number of households will be done to each of the Tehsils and stove model type. Hence, the size of the sample from each Tehsil and model type will be proportional to the size of the households where the project activity is implemented in each Tehsil and model types in the project area. The equation for each of the strata will be:

nNgn a ×=1

The samples will be drawn at random from the sampling frame. This will be done using random number tables or using the random number generator of appropriate software. The determination of Sample is found to be in-line with para11(c) of EB65 annex02 and bullet (a), point (iv) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.

Sampling Frame: PP will ensure complete listing of the households to which ICS has been distributed under the project activity along with unique appliance ID for each ICS distributed (both model types). Thus, the sampling frame prepared would be in agreement with the target population defined above. This is in-line with bullet (a), point (v) of Appendix 2 of EB65, annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.

b. Data:

Field Measurements: In-line with para15 of the applied methodology PP will conduct biennial checking of efficiency of representative sample of ICS through


VALIDATION REPORT


water boiling test to ensure that they are still operating at the specified efficiency and hence, considered appropriate.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control: PP will use the experts to conduct water boiling tests as per the standard testing protocol developed by PCIA. The mean value of the tests will be considered for emission reductions calculations. It will be tested for 95/5 precision (95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error). This is in-line with para16 of EB65 annex02 and hence, considered appropriate.

Analysis: PP will compare the mean efficiency that is estimated during the verification and the efficiency provided by the supplier. The lesser value of the efficiency will be used to ensure conservativeness of the ER calculation.

c. Implementation plan: For the implementation of the proposed project activity PP has developed an organizational structure as discussed in section 4.9.3 below of this report.

As per VVM ver01.2 para 124(a) it is in the opinion of PJRCES that the monitoring plan is in compliance with the approved applied monitoring methodology AMS-II.G. “Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass” version03. The monitoring plan will give opportunity for real measurements of emission reductions that will be accrued.

4.9.1 PARAMETERS DETERMINED EX-ANTE Following parameters are available at the time of validation and are determined ex-ante.

Bold is the “Quantity of woody biomass used in the absence of the project activity in tonnes”. The same was determined by conducting the baseline study of sample number of households i.e. 952 across the region. Based on the formula given in “A guide for woodfuel surveys, Chapter 3 Sample Design” by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, PP has calculated the size of the sample as 27128 29. This is determined on the basis of 90% precision along with the error margin of 10%. The sample size calculated is based on the simple random sampling and the same is in-line with guidance given in Appendix 2 of “Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and Programme of activities-version02” (EB65, Annex02)30. Furthermore, PP has conducted the baseline survey for 952 households instead of 271 households and thus covering a larger sample size, and a higher level of reliability of the data. The detailed calculation on Bold is provided as follows:

28 http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y3779E/y3779e08.htm#P624_108460 29 The sample size was cross checked by visiting the http://www.macorr.com/sample-size-calculator.htm 30 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Standards/meth/meth_stan05.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


Bold Quantity of woody biomass consumption Activity Data Value Source of data

Fuel wood Consumption (t/capita/yr) 0.74 Sample Survey/08/ No. of persons/family 4.34 Field Survey/08/

0.74 * 4.34 Fuel wood Consumption (t/family/yr) 3.21 Calculated

The fuel wood consumption of 0.74t/capita/yr has been sourced from the sample survey conducted by PP. The fuel wood consumption of 0.74t/capita/yr was estimated with 95% precision level and 5% of error margin. The same have been cross verified by PJRCES and found to be appropriate. The adult equivalent of 4.34 has already been demonstrated to be conservative in the section 4.7 of this report.

PP followed para08 of AMS-II.G version03 to determine Bold. As per the same Bold is determined using a Survey method with 90% precision level and error margin of 10%. The survey was conducted for 952 households against the required number of 271 households as per EB65 annex02. The survey results were further cross checked by validation team during the physical site inspection by conducting interviews with the villagers across the region. Validation team also compared the survey results conducted by PP with study/19/ conducted jointly by UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP). As per the joint study the fuel wood consumption was estimated to be 3.87t/family/yr. Thus, the value used by PP i.e. 3.21t/family/yr is conservative and hence, acceptable.

During the validation site visit, PJRCES validation team also noted that the fuel wood is procured primarily by two methods as follows:

By collecting the fuel wood from distant places By purchasing the fuel wood from market

It was further noted by validation team that the villagers were aware of both the methods of procuring the fuel wood and were able to respond to the queries raised by the validation team. Collection of fuel wood has been a common practice in the region more than 15-20 years and in the event when it is not possible for villagers to collect the fuel wood due to illness or any other unforeseen reasons the another method is used for procuring fuel wood i.e. purchasing the same from the market.

Thus, based on the discussion above and the physical site inspection PJRCES considers the survey to be in-line with applicable methodology and conservative.

Further, Bold is determined by multiplying the Per capita fuel wood consumption with the average adult equivalent in the project area (calculated with 95% precision level and error margin of 5%) and the same is in-line with para08 of AMS-II.G version03.


VALIDATION REPORT


This parameter also, represents the fuel wood consumption (per family per year) of the baseline scenario and hence, fixing of the same for the entire crediting period is appropriate. In-line with the above discussion thus estimated value of Bold i.e. 3.21 is considered appropriate and acceptable.

NCVbiomass: Net calorific value of the non-renewable woody biomass that is substituted. PP has opted for IPCC default value of 0.015 TJ/tonne (4.167 kWh/t31). The same is in-line with para05 of applied methodology AMS-II.G, version03 and hence, considered conservative and acceptable.

�old: Since, the project activity replaces the 3 stone fire system and stoves without chimney and grate, the default value of 0.10 is considered by PP. since, the same is in-line with para06, bullet number 2 under Option 2 of AMS-II.G, version03 and hence, considered acceptable.

Bysavings Expected Annual Savings per household: The annual expected savings per household by this project activity is 2.32t/household/year; the same is calculated using following formula. In case of higher efficiency of new appliances this value will remain fixed. Since, the same is in-line with para06, Option 2 of AMS-II.G version03 and hence, considered conservative and appropriate.

)1.(,new

oldoldsavingsy BB

ηη

−=

Based on above values the Bysavings is calculated as

yearhouseholdt

ysavings

//32.2

)3619.0

1.01(21.3 B

=

−×=

The same can be converted to thermal energy by multiplying the NCVbiomass Bysavings = 2.32 x 4.167 = 9.680 MWh/household/year = 0.0097 GWh/household/year

EFprojected_fossilfuel: Emission factor for the substitution of non-renewable woody biomass by similar consumers is considered to be 81.6 tCO2/TJ: The same is in-line with para05 of AMS-II.G, version03 and hence, considered conservative and acceptable.

31 Clarification about the threshold of thermal energy savings in AMS-II.G (SSC_233): https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/A/M/_/AM_CLAR_VIIC5MTUUWR9PRPJL0EXOT3G2CKSFQ/Response%20SSC%20WG%20provided.pdf?t=eTl8bWEwbXQ3fDCdEg8g7jqLgEVevtKCCEKi


VALIDATION REPORT


Fraction of woody biomass (fNRB,y): The fraction of woody biomass saved by the project activity in year y that can be established as non-renewable is:

DRBNRBNRBf yNRB +

=,

Where: NRB: Non-renewable woody biomass DRB: Demonstrably renewable woody biomass

PP has demonstrated that the NRB for the Udaipur district is 1,222,415 tonnes/year whereas DRB is 163,144 tonnes/year. These values were cross checked with the District Statics, 2010/10/ and found to be OK.

The fNRB,y have been calculated as 0.88. The calculations of fNRB,y have been cross checked against the source of information provided and found to be OK.

The fNRB,y have also been calculated based on the report of Forest Survey of India, 2011 and the value calculated was 0.91. Other study such as “study on demand and supply of fuel wood, timber and fodder in India”/10/ provides value of 0.99.

Thus, it can be concluded that the f NRB,y = 0.88 is conservative and hence, acceptable.

Diversion of non-renewable biomass saved under the project activity by non-project households: in-line with the AMS-II.G, version03, PP has multiplied the Bold with 0.95 to account for leakages and hence, 0.16t/household/year is acceptable.

As per Para91 VVMver01.2: As confirmed through discussions in the paragraphs above

Bold has been determined using survey method as per the guidance given in the para08 of the applied methodology. The survey results were cross checked by the validation team during the physical site inspection through interviews and the same were found to be satisfactory. The survey results were found to be satisfactory. The sampling procedure followed by PP was found to be in compliance with para06 to 17 of EB65 annex02. Thus, PJRCES considers that the parameter to be conservative and appropriate.

The other parameters such as NCVbiomass, �old and EFprojected_fossilfuel have been sourced from the applied methodology itself and hence, PJRCES considers the same to be conservative and appropriate.

Bysavings have been determined following the Option 2 under para06 of the applied methodology and hence, the same is considered to be conservative and appropriate.

f NRB,y has been determined following the guidance given in para08, 09, 10 and 11 of the applied methodology and the same have also been compared with other studies. The value estimated by PP was found to be least when compared with publically


VALIDATION REPORT


available data and hence, PJRCES considers the same to be conservative and appropriate.

4.9.2 PARAMETERS MONITORED EX-POST

According to the Paragraph15 to 21 of applied methodology, monitoring shall consist of (with respect to proposed CDM project activity)

No. of households in which ICS appliances will be used: PP has calculated the number of households at 18,500 for ER calculation. This will be monitored during crediting period. PP will monitor this number throughout the crediting period so that the project remains under the limits of the small scale Type II projects with savings restricted to 180 GWh (thermal) per year. The ER calculation presented in the PDD are based on this assumptions, however, the final emission reductions during the crediting period will be carried out based on the actual number of households where cook stoves have been installed. The number of units distributed will be entered into monitoring database maintained by the project developer. Each household receiving the energy efficient cook-stove will also sign an end user agreement/09/ which will also be the basis for the entry into the monitoring database. This parameter can further be cross checked with stock arrival and dissemination records maintained by PP. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

Start date of usage of appliances by the family: Since, the project activity is yet to be implemented and hence, the start date of the project activity is monitored. For each ICS appliance that is distributed in the project area, the information on the start date of use of appliance by individual family will be recorded in the respective End User Agreement entered with individual family and also stored electronically in the monitoring database along with identification number of the appliance and the type. It is to be noted that the End User Agreement will be signed with the Participating Family approximately one week after satisfactory functioning of ICS in their homes. This parameter can further be cross checked with stock arrival and dissemination records maintained by PP. Monitoring database based on the end user agreement is, in PJRCES’s opinion, an appropriate source for the start date of appliance. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

�new is the average value 0.3619 of the efficiency of the two different models. Since, the energy savings per house hold level is fixed and two numbers of ICS will be distributed per household, this is considered appropriate. The savings per


VALIDATION REPORT


household is calculated on the basis of this value. This would be monitored throughout the crediting period. PP will follow biennial testing using Water boiling test method. In-line with the applied methodology representative sample of the stoves will be tested for 95/5 precision (95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error). The same is in-line with the applicable methodology and hence, acceptable. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

Non-usage of ICS: PP will monitor the non-usage of the ICS in order to adjust the ER calculations for the days for which ICS was not operating. The ER calculations shall be adjusted based on the usage of non-renewable biomass in case of non-performance of ICS. The same will also be recorded in the electronic monitoring database. As and when the distributed ICS breaks down or requires maintenance, the beneficiary will inform the village monitor, who in turn will inform the zone worker/ maintenance team member for repair of the unit. A log book will be maintained for the reason of non-functioning and number of days under repair. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

Operation days of ICS: this is required to monitor the consumption of fuel wood since, the project would be implemented phase wise and this value would be used while calculating the emission reductions during the crediting period. The operation days of the ICS would be monitored and recorded in the monitoring database. Monitoring database also records the start date of the appliance and also the non-usage days of the appliance (based on the reporting by the individual households). Hence, based on this information, the yearly operational days would be calculated after deducting the non-operational days from the data. CDM desk worker and the project officer is responsible for the cross checking the data entries in the monitoring database. The same is deemed reasonable in PJRCES opinion. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

Number of improved cook stoves that would get replaced during the crediting period: In case where the ICS is damaged and replacement is necessary PP would monitor such instances in the monitoring database against the unique identification number of the damaged ICS. And the household will receive a new ICS with a corresponding new identification number (Appliance ID). The household will also sign a new end user agreement where the new unique identification number of the ICS is noted and updated on the monitoring database. A copy of the old agreement will be stapled with the new agreement, and the same will be updated on the monitoring database. The last date of use of the old ICS will be recorded. The same is reasonable in PJRCES opinion. PJRCES, in


VALIDATION REPORT


line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

The traditional cook stoves are disposed/not used in the households in which ICS is implemented: This is required to ensure that the households do not use the inefficient traditional stoves. PP would only enter into agreement with household only upon disposal of the traditional stoves after receiving the ICS appliance. Since, the same can easily be built again and hence, the same will also be checked through survey conducted for each of the beneficiary i.e. through 100% monitoring during the crediting period. PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of the VVM version1.2 confirms the feasibility of monitoring steps defined for this parameter.

Based on the discussion provided above, PJRCES, in line with para 124 (b) of VVM, version 1.2, confirms the feasibility of the defined monitoring plan within the project design.

4.9.3 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

PP will prepare a Standard Operation Manual to facilitate implementation of the project activity. PP proposes to distribute 2,300 stoves each month after the project registration and would be implemented within first year after registration.

PP will also appoint a CDM team to manage and supervise the implementation and operation of the project activity. Following is the summary of the team that will be responsible for project implementation and monitoring:

CDM Coordinator: PP will assign one co-coordinator at organizational level to for monitoring overall implantation of the CDM Project activity.

Project Officer: would be responsible for field implementation, supply of ICS, maintaining inventory and approving replacements.

Project Assistant: One project assistant at block level to manage technical issues related to monitoring software.

Zone CDM worker: One zone worker will be assigned per zone (6 for total 6 zones) and his/her responsibilities will include – effective field implementation, efficient supply of ICS and facilitation of replacement at zonal level

Maintenance Team: This will comprise of 2 people for each zone responsible for maintenance and repair. The person will undergo intensive training given by the manufacturer(s) on repair and maintenance of the ICS and will undertake the repairing of damaged ICS:

Village Monitors: The monitoring data collection at the household level will be carried out by Village Representatives selected from different sources, depending


VALIDATION REPORT


on PP’s activities and reach in the villages, selected from the village level institutions developed by PP, like SHGs (Self Help Groups), YRCs (Youth Resource Centres), etc. In villages where this will not be a feasible option, village representatives will be appointed separately in consultation with the village institutions. These could be existing part-time para-workers associated with any programme of the organization, or semi-educated women/men agreeing to undertake the task. One representative will be assigned to a cluster of 80 to 120 households.

The responsibility of each of the team member have been discussed and confirmed through interviews.

Each and every cook stove under the project activity will be monitored by an appliance codes. These appliance codes will be fed to digitised monitoring software against each household. A monitoring card at household level will be issued to record the daily usage.

A monthly visits and monitoring by village monitors will be conducted to cross verify the monitoring books.

All data will be archived electronically and will be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the last crediting period. Data would be stored through monitoring software package. The monitoring software package will include the following datasets:

Implementation Progress (at all levels of Project Area-village, zone, block) Participating Families Carbon Investor Budget Realization Breakdowns Stakeholders Inventory Stock at different levels

Validation Opinion (para124(c), VVMver1.2)

The validation team evaluated the relevant monitoring procedures provided in PDD with the requirements of the monitoring methodology. The monitoring arrangements described are feasible within the project design and PJRCES confirms the ability of the PP to implement the monitoring plan. The institutional arrangement with respect to data collection and archiving was confirmed during the site visit.

The application of the monitoring methodology is transparent and PJRCES considers that the project participants are able to implement the monitoring plan.

4.10 CALCULATIONS OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS


VALIDATION REPORT


The emission reductions are calculated by following the para05 of the applicable

methodology. fossilfuelprojected_biomassNRB,yy,savingsy EFNCVfBER ***=

Where:

yER : Emission reductions during the year y in tCO2e

y,savingsB : Quantity of woody biomass that is saved in tonnes. The value of 2.32 t/household/year is confirmed in section 4.9.1 above.

NRB,yf : Fraction of woody biomass saved by the project activity in year y that can be established as non-renewable biomass. The value of 0.88 is confirmed in section 4.9.1 above.

biomassNCV : Net calorific value of the non-renewable woody biomass that is substituted (IPCC default for wood fuel, 0.015 TJ/tonne)

fossilfuelprojected_EF : Emission factor for the substitution of non-renewable woody biomass by similar consumers. Use a value of 81.6 tCO2/TJ

Emission reductions accruable from the project activity are calculated as: Emission reductions (ERy) = 2.32 x 0.88 x 0.015 x 81.6 = 2.49 tCO2e/household/yr Based on 18,500 household = 46,065 tCO2e per year

Project Emissions: No project emissions have been considered in-line with the

applicable methodology.

Leakage Emissions: In-line with the applicable methodology Bold is multiplied by a net to gross adjustment factor of 0.95 to account for leakages. Bold adjusted for leakage (Bold x 0.95) = 3.05. Thus, Bysavings based on the Bold value adjusted for leakage = 2.21. Thus Emission reductions based on the revised value of Bysavings Emission reductions (ERy) = 2.21 x 0.88 x 0.015 x 81.6 = 2.37 tCO2e/household/yr Based on 18,500 household = 43,845 tCO2e per year Hence, Leakage Emissions = 2,220 tCO2e per year


VALIDATION REPORT


Hence emission reductions from the project activity are 43,845 tCO2e/annum

Through the validation process PJRCES has confirmed that:

All the assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD, including their references and sources

All documentation used by the project participants as the basis for assumptions and source of data is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD;

All values used in the PDD are considered reasonable in the context of the proposed CDM project activity;

The baseline methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions.

All estimates of the baseline emissions can be replicated using the data and parameter values provided in the PDD.

In summary, the GHG calculations are complete and transparent, and their accuracy has been verified. No other project emission or leakage sources contributing more than 1% and not mentioned by the methodology have been found.

4.11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

There is no mandatory legal requirement from Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) for carrying out EIA for replacement of inefficient traditional stoves, which was verified by means of the Schedule 1 of the EIA notification32 1994 given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under Environment (Protection) Act 1986. This was further confirmed by the Environment Impact Assessment Notification S.O. 1533 dated 14 September 2006 issued by the MoEF33.

4.12 COMMENTS BY LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS

32 http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/notif/eia.htm 33 http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf


VALIDATION REPORT


PP conducted the local stakeholder consultation/15/ in Kalal Bhawan, Kherwara,

Udaipur, Rajasthan where the proposed project activity would be implemented in order to reach out to the relevant stakeholders. The local stakeholders’ consultation meeting was conducted prior to the publication of PDD on the UNFCCC website. The stakeholders identified by PP were local villagers who are the major population of the particular area where the project is located, local policy makers, local officials and GS NGOs.

Kalal Bhawan, Kherwara, Udaipur, Rajasthan The meeting was organized on 25 February 2011. Invitations were sent to personal invitations letters and emails. PP opted for open house discussion for inviting comments. The same have been

reviewed by PJRCES and found to be acceptable.

The validation team verified the list of participants who attended the stakeholder meeting and confirms that stakeholder’s identified are relevant. The validation team also verified the minutes of meeting to note that no negative comments were received and the same was cross checked with the information obtained during follow up interviews with stakeholders during the site visit. The validation team is of the opinion that the local stakeholder’s consultation process was adequate giving fair opportunity for the participation by local stakeholders. The project has not received any adverse comments.

PJRCES considers the local stakeholder consultation carried out as adequate and follows the local practices.

4.13 COMMENTS BY PARTIES, GLOBAL STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS

PDD, dated 29 July 2011, was made publicly available on UNFCCC website (https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/W/G/E/WGERQ7LS91XTNUDBACYP5OH0M463IJ/Seva%20Mandir_PDD_2Aug11.pdf?t=c0d8bTZtbW1vfDB1IxbMKvki5z899LByAi8b) and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were invited to provide comments during a 30 days period from 03 August 2011 to 01 September 2011.

No comments were received.


VALIDATION REPORT


5 VALIDATION OPINION Perry Johnson Registrar Carbon Emissions Services, Inc (PJRCES) has performed a validation of the “Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment” in India. The validation was performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Development Mechanism and host country criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided DOE with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria. The host country is India and no Annex I country is identified. The host country fulfils the participation criteria and has approved the project and authorized the project participants. The DNA from India confirmed that the project assists in achieving sustainable development. The project correctly applies approved baseline and monitoring methodology “AMS-II.G. version03 (Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass)” The project results in reductions of CO2 emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 42,559 tCO2e per year over the selected 10 year fixed crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change. Adequate training and monitoring procedures have been implemented. In summary, it is in PJRCES’s opinion that the Improved Woodstoves in Udaipur - Helping Women and Environment” in India, as described in the PDD version03.3 of “18 January 2013”, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM and all relevant host country criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-II.G, version03. DOE thus requests the registration of the project as a CDM project activity.


VALIDATION REPORT


6 REFERENCES

/01/ Letter of Approval dated 09 May 2012, ref No: 4/2/2012-CCC, issued by National CDM Authority, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

/02/ Site Visit documents a. Site Assessment Plan dated 05 September 2011 by PJRCES, Inc. b. Opening and closing meeting form signed by Site assessment team leader from

PJRCES and PP representative from Seva Mandir. c. Attendance sheet dated 12 September 2011 and 13 September 2011 d. Survey Forms (local villagers) dated 12 September 2011 and 13 September 2011. e. Spreadsheet – Outcome of the survey

/03/ Efficiency of Different ICS a. Efficiency test report dated 20 January 2010 for Aadi Maha Shakti Model, issued by

CPRI b. Efficiency test report dated 12 March 2012 for Aadi Shri Shakti, issued by Gray

matter technologies c. Efficiency test report dated 20 October 2011 for Greenway Smart Stove, issued by

Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand./04/ Cost of ICS

a. Purchase order for sample Aadi Maha Shakti issued by Seva Mandir, dated 17 May 2011

b. http://chulika.co.in/donate_chulika c. http://www.thesmartceo.in/special-features/the-grassroots-innovators.html

/05/ Declaration for non-use of ODA by Seva Mandir, ref: SM/2012/507, dated 11 June 2012

/06/ Life time certificate a. Life Cycle Analysis for Chulika Aadi Sri Shakti ref: ACTS/REP/GT/12-01 dated

23 May 2012, issued by Advance characterization &Testing Systems Pvt. Ltd. b. Declaration for life time issued by Greenway Grameen Infra, dated 11 May 2012.

/07/ Tech Specification of ICS a. Technical Specification for Aadi Sri Shakti by iSquareD. b. Technical Specification for Greenway Smart Stove by Green Grameen Infra.

/08/ Adult Equivalent per Household a. “Evaluation survey of the National Programme on Improved Chulha” by National

Council on Applied Economic Research, 2001-02. b. Table: 4 “Standard Adult Equivalent”, Kitchen Performance test dated January

2007, issued by PCIA. c. Spreadsheet – SM Baseline Study V4 dated 06 July 2012, by Seva Mandir

/09/ End user Agreement – Sample End User Agreement between PP and villager. /10/ fNRB calculation

a. District Statistics, Directorate of Economics and Statistics of Rajasthan, 2010.


VALIDATION REPORT


b. State of Forest Report, Forest Survey of India, 2003. c. Ravindranath, N.H., Sudha, P & Sandhya Rao. 2001. Forestry for sustainable

biomass production and carbon sequestration in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6: 233-256.

d. FSI, 1996. Fuel wood, timber and fodder from forests of India: Demand and Supply of Fuel wood, Timber and Fodder in India. Forest Survey of India, MoEF, Govt. of India.

/11/ a. NSSO 2007, National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

b. Energy Sources of Indian Households for Cooking and Lighting, 2004-05. c. NSSO, 2010. NSS 64th Round: Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2007-08,

National Sample Survey, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India

/12/ P.Sharath Chandra Rao, Jeffrey B.Miller, Young Doo Wang, John B. Byrne. Energy microfinance intervention for below poverty line households in India. Energy Policy 37 (2009) 1694 - 1712

/13/ N.C. Saxena. Forest, People and Profit net equations for sustainability. Planning Commission, Govt. of India.

/14/ Reddy.B.S., Balachandra. P., Nathan.H.S.K. (2009). Universalization of access to modern energy services in Indian households - Economic and policy analysis. Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4645–4657.

/15/ Amulya K. N. Reddy. Science and technology for rural India, Current Science, Vol. 87, NO. 7, 10 October 2004

/16/ Ravindranath. N.H. and Balachandra. P. 2009. Sustainable bioenergy for India: Technical, economic and policy analysis. Energy, 34, 1003–1013.

/17/ Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). Annual report; 2001–02. http://www.mnre.gov.in/annualreport/2001_2002_English/ch3_pg10.htm

/18/ Soma Bhattacharya and Maureen L. Cropper. April 2010. Options for Energy Efficiency in India and Barriers to Their Adoption. A Scoping Study. RFF DP 10-20. http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-10-20.pdf

/19/ ESMAP (Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme). Clean household energy for India: reducing the risks to health. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2004.

/20/ Wilkinson, P et al., 2009. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Household energy. The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9705, Pages 1917 – 1929. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61713-X/fulltext#tbl5

/21/ Leena Srivastava and I.H. Rehman (2006). Energy for sustainable development in India: Linkages and strategic direction. Energy Policy 34,643–654.

/22/ Sinha, B. The Indian stove programme: an insider’s view – the role of society, politics,


VALIDATION REPORT


economics and education. National Institute of Science, Technology & Development Studies (NISTADS), CSIR, New Delhi.

/23/ Indian Overseas Bank Response dated 12 July 2011. /24/ Local Stakeholder consultation documents

a. Invitations in form of letters and emails to to Local people, Local policy makers, Local officials and GS NGO’s

b. Acknowledgment from Local people, Local policy makers, Local officials and GS NGO’s

/25/ AMS-II.G, Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass, version03

/26/ PDD version03.3, dated 18 January 2013 (and earlier versions) /27/ Attachment A to Appendix B, version08 /28/ Preeti Malhotra: Environmental implications of the energy ladder in rural India. Boiling

Point. Issue 42. Household energy and environment http://www.hedon.info/BP42_EnvironmentalImplicationsOfTheEnergyLadderInRuralIndia?bl=y

/29/ Kerosene Orders dated 17 April 2010, issued by Government of Rajasthan http://www.food.rajasthan.gov.in/documents/Kerosene_Orders.pdf

/30/ Kerosene and LPG Markets in India http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/Reports-Publications/Access-Of-Poor/KeroseneLPG.pdf

/31/ Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) scheme brochure http://www.iocl.com/Talktous/Brochure_RGGLV1261009.pdf

/32/ Snapshots of the monitoring software for propose project activity.


VALIDATION REPORT


APPENDIX A VALIDATION PROTOCOL


VALIDATION REPORT


TABLE 1 MANDATORY REQUIREMENT'S FOR CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM) PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Requirement Reference Conclusion About Parties 1. The project shall assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with part

of their emission reduction commitment under Art. 3. Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2 No Annex I Party

has been identified as yet

2. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in contributing to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC.

Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2. OK

3. The project shall have the written approval of voluntary participation from the designated national authority of each Party involved.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5a,CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a

CAR#01 OK

4. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in achieving sustainable development and shall have obtained confirmation by the host country thereof.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.2,CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a

CAR#01 OK

5. In case public funding from Parties included in Annex I is used for the project activity, these Parties shall provide an affirmation that such funding does not result in a diversion of official development assistance and is separate from and is not counted towards the financial obligations of these Parties.

Decision 17/CP.7,CDM Modalities and Procedures Appendix B, § 2

OK

6. Parties participating in the CDM shall designate a national authority for the CDM. CDM Modalities and Procedures §29

OK

7. The host Party and the participating Annex I Party shall be a Party to the Kyoto Protocol.

CDM Modalities §30/31a OK

8. The participating Annex I Party’s assigned amount shall have been calculated and recorded.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §31b

No Annex I Party has been

identified as yet 9. The participating Annex I Party shall have in place a national system for estimating CDM Modalities and No Annex I Party


VALIDATION REPORT


Requirement Reference Conclusion GHG emissions and a national registry in accordance with Kyoto Protocol Article 5 and 7.

Procedures §31b has been identified as yet

About additionality 10. Reduction in GHG emissions shall be additional to any that would occur in the

absence of the project activity, i.e. a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5c,CDM Modalities and Procedures §43

CL#02 CL#03 CL#04 CL#05

OK About forecast emission reductions and environmental impacts 11. The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related

to the mitigation of climate change. Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5b OK

For large-scale projects only 12. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity,

including transboundary impacts, shall be submitted, and, if those impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the Host Party, an environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as required by the Host Party shall be carried out.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §37c

OK

About small-scale project activities (if applicable) 13. The proposed project activity shall meet the eligibility criteria for small scale CDM

project activities set out in § 6 (c) of the Marrakech Accords and shall not be a debundled component of a larger project activity.

Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM Project Activities §12a,c

OK

14. The proposed project activity shall confirm to one of the project categories defined for small scale CDM project activities and use the simplified baseline and monitoring methodology for that project category.

Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM Project Activities §22e

OK

15. If required by the host country, an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project Simplified Modalities and OK


VALIDATION REPORT


Requirement Reference Conclusion activity is carried out and documented. Procedures for Small Scale

CDM Project Activities §22c About stakeholder involvement 16. Comments by local stakeholders shall be invited, a summary of these provided and

how due account was taken of any comments received. CDM Modalities and Procedures §37b

OK

17. Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited NGOs shall have been invited to comment on the validation requirements for minimum 30 days, and the project design document and comments have been made publicly available.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §40

OK

Other 18. The baseline and monitoring methodology shall be previously approved by the CDM

Executive Board. CDM Modalities and Procedures §37e

OK

19. A baseline shall be established on a project-specific basis, in a transparent manner and taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies & circumstances.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §45c,d

OK

20. The baseline methodology shall exclude to earn CERs for decreases in activity levels outside the project activity or due to force majeure.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §47

OK

21. The project design document shall be in conformance with the UNFCCC CDM-PDD format.

CDM Modalities and Procedures Appendix B, EB Decision

OK

22. Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting shall be in accordance with the modalities described in the Marrakech Accords and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §37f

OK


VALIDATION REPORT


Table 2: Requirements Checklist

CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion A. General requirements A.1 Project description and PDD

A.1.1 Does the PDD sufficiently cover all the relevant elements of the project activity, is accurate as per the planned and/or implemented scheme, and provides a clear understanding of the nature of the project activity?

→ The PDD includes the relevant elements of the project activity i.e. Title, Version and date of completion of PDD.

→ The PDD also includes the brief description about PP, purpose of the CDM Project activity, Pre-project scenario, baseline scenarios, and view of the project participants on the contribution of the project activity to sustainable development.

→ The project activity is implementation of fuel efficient cook stove “Chulika” (Improved Cook Stoves – ICS) in households where traditional fuel wood based cook stoves are used. The project proponent (PP) has indicated that the ICS will be distributed in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils of Udaipur district. The PP has indicated that implementation would be limited to 19,500 households.

→ The link (http://managedisasters.org/caseStudies01-rajasthan.asp#01) provided, does not specifically identify the Tehsils Kherwara and Rishabhdev as drought prone region but it covers 2,289 villages out of 2,290 villages in the Udaipur district and hence, acceptable.

Open Issues: → Further clarity is requested on the selection of households

→ PDD CL#01 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion for distribution of stoves.

→ The implementation plan of the project activity needs to be included in the PDD.

→ PP has mentioned Rishabhdev and Kherwada as blocks as per the submitted CERs excel sheet however the same has been written as Tehsils in the PDD. Please clarify.

→ PP has not mentioned the evidences/references of the thermal efficiency and energy savings in the Section A.2 of the PDD.

A.1.2 Is the project a new installation and already commissioned, or does the project involve alteration of existing installation or process?

→ The PDD indicates that the project will be implemented only after registration with UNFCCC. Hence, the project has been considered as new installation/future project as per the PDD, version 01.1 dated 29/07/2011.

→ PJRCES has made a visit on 12/09/2011 and 13/09/2011 to some of the villages on sample basis where Improved Cook Stoves (ICS) would be distributed.

→ It was found that PP had distributed the ICS in some of the villages on rotation for the villagers to test the ICS and provide their feedback.

→ PDD → Survey Visit

OK

A.1.3 What category does the project activity fall under:

Large scale CDM project Non-bundled small scale CDM

project with annual emission reductions more than 15,000 tonnes.

→ The project activity falls under the category of “non-bundled small scale CDM project with annual emission reductions more than 15,000 tonnes CO2e per year”.

→ A survey visit was conducted during 12th and 13th

September 2011 and it was confirmed that the project falls under the category of “non-bundled small scale CDM

→ PDD → ER Calculation

sheet. → Survey Visit

OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Bundled small scale with

annual emission reductions more than 15,000 tonnes.

Small scale CDM project activity with annual emission reductions less than 15,000 tonnes.

Has a site visit been carried out for the project activity? If not, pl justify

project with annual emission reductions more than 15,000 tonnes CO2e per year.

A.1.4 Is the PDD prepared in accordance with the latest guidance from the CDM EB available on the UNFCCC website.

→ The PDD has been prepared in line with the latest guidance from CDM EB. PP has used the latest version 03 (EB28, Annex34) of the CDM-SSC-PDD.

→ The PDD V01, dated 12/07/2011 submitted by the client did not meet the requirements of the Version 05 of “Guidelines for completing the simplified project design document (CDM-SSC-PDD) and the form for proposed new small scale methodologies (CDM-SSC-NM)” asgiven in Annex 09 to EB 34.

→ The same was brought out during the completeness check by DOE before webhosting the PDD for global stakeholder consultation and communicated to the client (F-06.14).

→ PP revised the PDD to make the same in-line with the Annex09, EB34 and the revised PDD V1.1 dated 29th July 2011 was then submitted for global stakeholder

→ PDD V01 dated 12/07/ 2011.

→ F-06.14. → PDD V1.1

dated 29/07/2011.

→ http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/PDDs_Forms/PDDs/index.html

Revised PDD V1.1 dated 29/07/2011 includes information as per the guidelines. Hence, OK.


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion consultation.

A.2 Participation and Approval A.2.1 Please include and confirm the

details of the participating project participants and the Parties involved.

→ PDD identifies private entity i.e. Seva Mandir as sole Project Participant.

→ PDD identifies India as host Party. PDD also states that Party involved do not wishes to be Project participant.

Open Issues → The details of the project participant and the host Party is

yet to be confirmed and verified from the Letter of Approval (LoA) from the host Party.

→ PDD CAR#01 OK

A.2.2 Has the participation of each project participant been approved by at least one Party involved, either in a letter of approval or in a separate letter specifically to approve participation?

→ LoA is yet to be received. → PDD identifies no other Party other than India.

Open Issues → The PP is requested to provide the LoA from DNA.

→ PDD CAR#01 OK

A.2.3 Has the letter of approval (LoA) been submitted and reviewed by the DOE? Please confirm if, the same was provided by the PP or directly by the DNA of the Party involved?

→ LoA is yet to be received → PDD CAR#01 OK

A.2.4 Does the LoA confirm the following: - Ratification of the Kyoto

→ PJRCES has visited the http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/country.pl?country=IN and confirms that Host Party “India” has ratified the

→ PDD CAR#01 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Protocol

- Voluntary participation - The CDM project activity

contributes to Host country’s sustainable development

- Title of the project activity is same as the PDD sent for registration

Kyoto Protocol on 26/08/2002. → LoA is yet to be received – title of project activity,

voluntary participation and confirmation to contribution to sustainable development will be confirmed through LoA

A.2.5 Is the LoA conditional to a specific version of PDD or the validation report?

→ LoA is yet to be received → PDD CAR#01 OK

B. Baseline and monitoring methodology B.1 Methodology applicability

B.1.1 Has the project proponent applied the relevant baseline and monitoring methodology that has been previously approved by the CDM Executive Board?

→ PP is using an approved CDM methodology under Type II - Energy Efficiency Improvement Projects, AMS II.G V03, “Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass”.

→ It is approved by CDM EB 60 and is in effect from 29/04/2011.

→ UNFCCC Web link:

→ http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/MLDN960OH41VWJPCZ23ERFUQT5BAGX

OK

B.1.2 Does the project activity meet all of the applicability criteria defined in the approved methodology? Please clarify.

DOE was able to confirm through PDD that Project activity meets all the applicability criteria of the approved methodology AMS II.G V03.

→ PDD → http://rajforest.

nic.in/mutual.htm

OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Applicability Criteria No. 1 → Project activity uses efficient Improved Cook stoves

which utilizes fuel wood. Fuel wood is classified as non-renewable biomass.

→ Thermal efficiency of ICS is stated to be 0.308 whereas traditional cook stoves have efficiency of 0.10. Justification of the efficiencies is provided under section B.4 of the PDD. Based on the above it is confirmed that PA meets the applicability criteria.

Applicability Criteria No. 2 → PJRCES has reviewed the PDD and was able to confirm

that based on the study conducted by The Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan available at http://rajforest.nic.in/mutual.htm, PP are able to demonstrate that non renewable biomass has been used since 31/12/1989. Hence, this applicability criterion is met.

Further PP has demonstrated following for Type II project activities. → The maximum Thermal energy savings for AMS II.G

should be 180 GWh/y (Ref: http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/AM_CLAR_VIIC5MTUUWR9PRPJL0EX

→ http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/AM_CLAR_VIIC5MTUUWR9PRPJL0EXOT3G2CKSFQ


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion OT3G2CKSFQ) PP has demonstrated that per based on the efficiencies of the stoves and NCV of fuel wood, the maximum energy savings per household comes to 0.0091 GWh. Thus for 19,500 households the thermal energy savings would be 177.24 GWh, hence this is acceptable.

B.1.3 Does the project activity involve any emissions within the project boundary that contribute to more than 1% of the total expected annual average emission reductions which are not addressed/considered in the methodology? Please explain if, any.

→ Since the fuel used in the ICS remains to be the firewood collected by the households, and will be used in the stoves and hence, no additional source of emissions is applicable to the project activity.

→ The site visit as well did not indicate any other source attributable to the project activity that might result in more than 1% emissions.

→ PDD → Survey visit → AMS II.G V03

OK

B.1.4 Does the project boundary defined include all emission sources and the clear demarcation on the physical and geographical boundary of the proposed CDM project activity? Is the selection of all emission sources (baseline, project and leakage) been justified?

→ The project boundary defined includes all emission sources as per the methodology and the selection of these sources is also justified.

→ The project boundary includes 19,500 stove user households in up to 136 villages, 39 Gram Panchayats in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils of Udaipur District, Rajasthan State, India.

→ The database of the households in 136 villages, 39 Gram Panchayats in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils is provided in Annex 3 of the PDD.

→ PDD → AMS II.G V03

OK

B.2 Baseline Selection


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion B.2.1 Does the methodology define a

specific baseline directly for the project type, or does it refer to a tool for arriving at the baseline for the project activity?

→ The methodology defines the baseline to be use of fossil fuels to meet the similar thermal energy demand. The project proponent has chosen to follow the same.


OK.

B.2.2 Has the CDM project activity considered all alternatives available to the project proponent?

→ The project activity is implementation of fuel efficient cook stoves in households where traditional mud cooking stoves are being used. The PP has carried out a survey of 26,076 households in 136 villages covering 39 Gram Panchayats in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils of Udaipur District, Rajasthan.

→ PJRCES has surveyed the villages included in the Project activity on sample basis and found that the villagers are using the fuel wood for thermal energy generation for cooking and heating the water.

→ Also, the villagers are purchasing 2-3 litres of kerosene per month which is primarily used in the kerosene lamp for lighting purpose.

→ PP has chosen following alternatives to project activity o use of LPG o use of Kerosene. o Renewable energy from Biogas o continued use of traditional cook stove for cooking o Implementation of Project activity in the absence of

CDM revenue. → PJRCES confirmed during the survey that solid fuels such


OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion as coal or charcoal are not used by the community.

B.2.3 Is the documentation of the baseline determination clear with respect to the following: - All assumptions and data used

by the project participants are listed in the PDD and related document to be submitted for registration.

- All Documentation is relevant as well as correctly quoted and interpreted

- Assumptions and data can be deemed reasonable.

- Relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances are considered and listed in the PDD and the same has been confirmed.

- The methodology is correctly applied to identify what would have happened in the absence of the CDM project activity proposed.

→ All assumptions and data have been listed in the PDD and corresponding documents have been provided.

→ The references provided are relevant to the type of project activity being implemented.

→ PP has provided a comparison of fuel required for equivalent energy generation for Fuel Wood, LPG and Kerosene.

→ PJRCES has reviewed the PDD and documents and following observations needs to be addressed by PP.

Open Issues: → PP has claimed that the kerosene is bought at a subsidized

rate of Rs. 10 per litre. During the site visit, it was found that the price per litre of Kerosene varies from village to village. In-line with the above observation, PP needs to justify the price considered for Kerosene per litre.

→ PP needs to provide source for market rate Rs. 30 per litre of kerosene.

→ Initial investment required for LPG is claimed to be Rs. 3000 does not confirm to the source provided.

→ Provide source for cost of Rs. 365 considered for 14.2 Kg cylinder.

→ During the survey it was observed that the per capita income varies hence, PP needs to justify the income of US$1/capita/day.

→ PDD CL#02 CL#03 CL#04 CAR#02 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion → Please justify the applicability of the NSSO study with

respect to the start date of project activity.

Determination of Bold → PP had conducted a sample survey 952 households of the

project beneficiaries. Result of the survey states that the per capita woody biomass consumption is 0.75±0.02 t/year at 95/5 confidence/precision level. According to the survey, the annual consumption of biomass per family is 3.23 t/yr (average adult equivalent/family is 4.34 members)

→ Survey population – 5,763 members from 952 households.

Open Issues → PP is requested to demonstrate in the PDD, how the value

of 4.72 for adult equivalent is arrived at. → PP is requested to demonstrate in the PDD how the value

of 4.34 for adult equivalent is arrived at. → PP needs to justify the conservativeness of the value of

4.34 for adult equivalent. → Also, it is unclear how adult equivalent value of 4.34

accounts for proportionate to the adults versus children. Demonstrate the same in PDD.

→ Spreadsheet: Refer Cell BI973 the value of 953 is unclear.→ The CERs generated per household as per the excel sheet

is 2.23tCO2/year however as per the PDD it is


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion 2.35tCO2/year

→ Please clarify the source of data for male to female ratio of 1.09.

→ The total population in the spreadsheet as per “Total members” column is 5,763 whereas cell N958 gives a value of 5,752 and PDD claims the population to be 5,758. Please clarify.

→ As per the applied methodology, → PP has provided reference of the report for ”Performance

test of wood burning stove” submitted by CPRI to ”Graymatter technologies”. PP has considered energy efficiency of cook stove based on the report as 30.8%, however it is not clear as how the same efficiency has been considered for the project activity. Hence clarification has been sought in this regard.

Determining ηold → PP has opted for default value of 0.10 provided by the

methodology. Hence, acceptable.

Determining ηnew → The Central power research institute has provided a report

on Performance test of Wood burning stove (Report No: CPRI/ECDD/71/10) dated 20/01/2010. The report provides the efficiency of the CHULIKA AADI as 30.8%.


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Open Issue: → Since the CHULIKA AADI will be distributed to 19,500

households. Also, the report specifies that the test results are limited to the items tested. In-line with the same PP is requested to clarify how performance test for one CHULIKA is considered adequate to arrive at the efficiency of all CHULIKA’s?

→ In-line with the applied methodology PP is requested to clarify and provide the exact reference for determination of ηnew.

Determining By,savings → The survey shows that 56% of the households have two

chulhas in the baseline and also it is stated that two single Pot CHULIKA stove will replace both the Chulha’s in the baseline.

→ The PDD also states that there will be two CHULIKA’s given to every household. During the survey, it was observed that the villagers would prefer to have two CHULIKA’s separately as preference.

→ PP has chosen to define By,savings at family level. → Also, the By,savings is limited to 2.18 t/household/year in

order to remain within the limit of small scale project activity. PJRCES has verified the PDD and found the same as acceptable.


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Open Issue: → PP is requested to clarify the option chosen for

determination of By,savings in line with para. 6 of AMS-II.G latest ver03.

Determining f NRB y → PP has demonstrated that the biomass is originating from

land areas that are forests and based on the document review it is confirmed that it satisfies all three conditions i.e. (i) land area remains a forest, (ii) Sustainable management practices are undertaken on these land areas to ensure, in particular, that the level of carbon stocks on these land areas does not systematically decrease over time and (iii) Any national or regional forestry and nature conservation regulations are complied with.

Open Issues → It is not clear the data provided under Table: 3 is for

which year? Also, justify the selection of data with respectto the start date of the project activity.

→ PP is requested to justify that “Any national or regional forestry and nature conservation regulations are complied with.”

→ Keeping the start date of the project activity, PP is requested to justify the applicability of the data used.

→ The mean annual increment should be 0.066 t/ha/year


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion (2.84% x 2.34)

→ In-line with above, please correct the value calculated for renewable biomass component for this land use.

→ Provide the source for Sustainable extraction rate i.e. 2 t/ha/yr

→ Provide exact reference for standing biomass/tree value i.e. 0.29.

→ The link: http://www.fsi.org.in/sfr2009/glossary.pdf is not working.

→ PP needs to justify the suitability of the data’s considered keeping in mind the start date of the project activity.

B.2.4 Have all the assumptions, calculations, rationale and other sources described in the PDD been verified to determine if the baseline scenario identified is reasonable.

→ The assumptions and calculations have been checked, and the discussion in B.2.3 would be applicable here as well.

→ PJRCES has conducted a survey based on sampling to assess the assumptions, calculations and rationale of the survey conducted on 952 households. It will reflect 95/5 confidence/precision level.

→ For 95/5 confidence level – 48 households could be surveyed.

→ PJRCES has survey 60 households in 6 different villages that would be participating in the project activity.

→ Report on the survey and analysis of the same is attached herewith.

→ Based on the survey PJRCES has raised concerns in the respective sections of the protocol.

→ PDD CL#02 CL#03 CL#04 CAR#02 OK

B.2.5 Cross check the information → PJRCES has cross checked the information provided in → PDD CL#02


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion provided in the PDD with other verifiable and credible sources, such as local expert opinion, if available

the PDD. → The discussion in section B.2.3 would be applicable here

as well.

CL#03 CL#04 CAR#02 OK

B.3 Additionality B.3.1 Is the tools applied to discuss

additionality in line with the CDM tools and documents provided CDM EB and the specific methodology applied for the project activity?

→ The PP has chosen Attachment A to Appendix B to demonstrate the additionality of the project. The same is in line with the guidance provided by CDM EB and is specific to the project activity.

→ PDD → Attachment A

to Appendix B

OK

B.3.2 If the start date of the project activity prior to the date of publication of the PDD for stakeholder comments it shall be demonstrated that the CDM benefits were considered necessary in the decision to undertake the project as a proposed CDM project activity in line with the “Guidance on the Demonstration and Assessment of prior consideration of the CDM”?

→ The start date of the project activity is in future and it has been stated in the PDD that the project would be implemented only with CDM revenue. The same was verified during site visit.

→ In addition to above in line with the Para 2 of EB-62 Annex-13 guidance “Guidelines on the Demonstration and Assessment of Prior Consideration of the CDM” V04 –the PDD has already been published for global stakeholder consultation before the project activity start date and hence, no F-CDM-Prior Consideration is required.

→ PDD OK

B.3.3 Does the PDD identify all credible alternatives to the project activity in order to assess

PJRCES has reviewed the PDD and found that all credible alternatives to the project activity have been identified as given below

→ PDD → Survey Visit

CL#02 CAR#02 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion additionality, if applicable? → Fossil fuels from solids such as Coal, Liquid fossil fuels

such as kerosene and gaseous fossil fuels such as LPG; → From grid Electricity; → Renewable energy technology such as Biogas; → Continuation of the current situation i.e. use of traditional

cook stove; → Implementation of the project in the absence of CDM

revenue. → PJRCES confirmed during the survey that solid fuels such

as coal or charcoal are not used by communities. → Based on the PDD: A household would require 269 kgs

of fuel wood per month as compared to 15.5 Kg of LPG and 23 Litres of Kerosene. The fuel wood is either purchased (costs Rs. 350/month based on survey) or collected from nearby areas (min: 2-3 Kms to 10 Kms). Kerosene would cost around Rs. 650/month. The LPG would require initial investment of Rs. 3000 and a 14.2 Kg LPG cylinder would cost Rs. 365 per month and last less than a month. PJRCES has verified the values against the sources provided and raised open issues in CAR#02 and CL#02.

→ Quantities of Fuels wood, LPG and Kerosene are derived based on analysis presented in the Annex 3. PJRCES has verified the figures against the sources provided and found acceptable.

→ It is claimed that biogas would require a high amount of


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion initial investment. PJRCES was not able to confirm the same since http://www.mnre.gov.in/adm-approvals/prog-ftbp.htm is not working.

→ It is claimed that only 4 households have biogas units. Provide evidence for the same.

→ Continued use of traditional cook stove for cooking: It is claimed that the fuel wood is available virtually free. During the survey visit, it was observed that in some of the villages, the family has to spend at least 300-400 Rs/month for fuel wood, which is also equivalent to one fifth (1/5) of the family’s monthly income. Please clarify.

→ Implementation of the project in the absence of CDM revenue: It is claimed that the initial investment of Rs. 1,398/- per CHULIKA is a barrier and families cannot afford the same since they all are below poverty line (BPL) with per capita income of less than 1 $/day. During the survey, it was observed that the families are below poverty line (through ration card) and the family monthly income varies between Rs. 1000 per month to Rs. 2000 per month. Hence, it can be concluded that it is a significant investment and is a barrier.

B.3.4 What are the barriers applicable to the project activity that have been discussed to prove the project additionality?

The PP has chosen to demonstrate the additionality of the project activity using the following barriers: → Investment barrier – claiming that the alternative to the

project activity does not involve any economic investment, as the continuation of current practice of

→ PDD OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion using collected firewood and fuel wood in inefficient mud or stone cooking stoves leads to higher GHG emissions.

B.3.5 Investment Analysis:

a) In case of investment cost analysis, pl confirm if a suitable indicator has been considered for the remaining alternatives available to the project activity.

b) In case of Benchmark analysis, pl confirm whether the benchmark applied is relevant to the type of the financial indicator

c) Is the period of assessment considered for the financials in line with the guidance?

d) Are the input values considered in the investment analysis are valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision taken by the project participant?

e) In cases where the financials source any input value from Feasibility Study Reports (FSRs) approved by National authorities ensure that the same is in line

→ The project proponent has not chosen investment analysis to demonstrate additionality, hence this is not applicable.

→ PDD OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion with the guidance in the VVM. (Paragraph 111 of VVM, ver 01.1)

f) Have any sunk costs, if any, been used for the financials?

g) Has the fair value/salvage value been considered at the end of the assessment period? Is the value considered for fair value in line with the guidance?

h) Has the depreciation and other non-cash items related to the project activity, which have been deducted in estimating gross profits on which tax is calculated, are added back to net profits for the purpose of calculating the financial indicators (e.g. IRR, NPV)

i) Have any cost of financing expenditures (i.e. loan repayments and interest) included in the calculation of project IRR? Pl ensure the same is not considered in IRR calculation.

j) In case the project involves


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion calculation of equity IRR, pl ensure that only the portion of investment costs, which is financed by equity is considered as the net cash outflow.

k) Has the financials been presented transparently in a separate spreadsheets with formulas readable for the DOE?

l) Sensitivity analysis: Have all variables, that constitute

more than 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues subjected to reasonable variation?

Have the results of this variation presented in the PDD and the spreadsheets (reproducible manner)?

Has a reasonable variation been considered in the sensitivity analysis in the project context?

B.3.6 Have the data, rationales, assumptions, justifications and documentation provided by Project Participants to

→ The project proponent has not chosen investment analysis to demonstrate additionality, hence this is not applicable.

→ PDD OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion demonstrate the additionality of the project been assessed and verified for the reliability and credibility? Assess the presented evidence using local knowledge and sectoral and financial expertise.

B.3.7 Barrier Analysis:

a) Has it clearly been demonstrated that the issues identified in project implementation prevent a potential investor from pursuingthe implementation of the proposed project activity without the project being registered as a CDM project activity?

b) Do any of the issues identified have a clear direct impact on the financial returns of the project activity, except in cases of issues related to risk (like technical risks), or barriers related to unavailability of sources of finance, been discussed?

c) Pl conclude if the barriers

a) The PP argues that the alternatives to the project activity either require no investment (as continuation of current scenario) or have prohibitive investment costs for the targeted population. The discussion in section B.3.3 would be applicable here as well.

b) The issues identified in the B.3.3 would also be

applicable here. The issues are raised in CL#02 and CAR#02.

→ PDD CL#02 CL#06 CAR#02 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion discussed are ‘real and prevent the implementation of the project but not prevent at least one of the possible alternatives’?

c) The PP has demonstrated that continuation of the current scenario of usage of firewood in inefficient mud or stove cooking stoves is the most possible alternative and the identified barriers do not affect this scenario. The same has been discussed in B.3.3 and found acceptable.

Open Issues: → Justify the applicability of referred literature or links with

respect to the start date of the project activity. → Justify the claim made that at least 15 million improved

stoves need to be distributed every year. The reference link does not support any such claim.

→ Justify the applicability of ref48: It refers to the year 2000.→ It is claimed that “It was noted that when women did not

perceive the usefulness of the stove, many parts were removed and reused for other purposes” the reference provided to support the claim is based on a study conducted in 1992-93. Justify the applicability of the evidence.

→ Support the claim that “Thus enough financial resources are required for operation and maintenance of stoves and subsequent replacement of stoves” with evidences.

→ PP is requested to submit the evidence to support the claim that “The local bank also refused to provide loans without guarantee, marginal money and collateral


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion security. Further, the bank is not willing to bank on market fluctuation of CER price for repayment. There is no risk free income stream in this project and the bank is not willing to lend for the project activity.”

→ Please clarify are there any two pot CHULIKA’s that will be distributed as a part of the project activity?

→ PP has considered two single pot CHULIKA’s per household with a savings in woody biomass limited to the 2.18 t/household/yr and thus energy savings is limited to 0.0091 GWh per household, the same is within the range for Type II project activities, hence acceptable.

B.3.8 Common practice analysis: Has a common practice analysis been carried out as a credibility check of the other available evidence used by the project participants to demonstrate additionality, in case of large-scale CDM project activities (unless the proposed project type is first-of-its kind). Pl confirm this is in line with the VVM and the additionality tools.

→ The PP has not carried out any separate “common practice analysis”, as this is a small scale project activity and is not required to do so.

→ PDD OK

B.4 Emission Reduction Calculations B.4.1 Baseline Emissions

B.4.1.1 Are correct equations and parameters used in accordance

→ The correct equations and formulae, as given in the approved methodology, have been applied in the


OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion with the approved methodology selected in calculating the baseline emissions?

calculation of baseline emissions.

B.4.1.2 In case of data and parameters that are not monitored throughout the crediting period, and have already been determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, assess that all data sources and assumptions are appropriate and calculations are correct, applicable to the proposed CDM project activity and will result in a conservative estimate of the emission reductions (less baseline emissions)

→ PP has indicated that 1-pot cooking stove would be provided. PP has provided the supporting document for the 1-pot efficiency. The same was verified and found acceptable.

→ PJRCES has verified the baseline emission calculation and found that the same has been conservatively estimated.

→ PP is requested to substantiate the life time of the ICS i.e. 5 years.

→ The conversion of 0.015 TJ/tonne to kWh/t is incorrect. → Further details are requested on the identification number

that would be given to each CHULIKA.

→ PDD → AMS II.G V03 → Spreadsheet

CL#07 OK

B.4.2 Project Emission B.4.2.1 Are correct equations and

parameters used in accordance with the approved methodology selected in calculating the project emissions?

→ No sources of project emissions defined in the methodology and hence none were chosen by the PP.


OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion B.4.2.2 In case of data and parameters

that are not monitored throughout the crediting period, and have already been determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, assess that all data sources and assumptions are appropriate and calculations are correct, applicable to the proposed CDM project activity and will result in a conservative estimate of the emission reductions (higher project emissions)

→ No sources of project emissions defined in the methodology and hence none were considered by the PP.

→ The same was also confirmed during the survey visit.


OK

B.4.3 Leakage Emissions B.4.3.1 Are correct equations and

parameters used in accordance with the approved methodology selected?

→ The PDD gives reference to the methodology and the potential source of leakage is discussed as well as its ex-ante emission calculations are also presented.

→ Also, in-line with §13(a) PP has considered the default value of 0.95 adjustment factor for Bold to account for leakages due to the use/diversion of non-renewable woody biomass saved under the project activity by non-project households/users that previously used renewable energy sources.

→ The case of transfer of equipment from outside the project


OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion boundary is also discussed and it is stated that no equipment transfer is taking place.

B.4.3.2 In case of data and parameters that are not monitored throughout the crediting period, and have already been determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, assess that all data sources and assumptions are appropriate and calculations are correct, applicable to the proposed CDM project activity and will result in a conservative estimate of the emission reductions (less baseline emissions).

→ The parameter required to assess leakage from the project activity is needed to be monitored during the implementation of the project activity. Instead of monitoring the same PP has opted the alternative to apply adjustment factor of 0.95 to account for leakages.


OK

B.4.4 Pl mention the expected emission reductions generated from implementation of the project activity.

→ The PDD indicates that the project activity would result in estimated emission reductions to the tune of 43,485 tCO2e.

→ PDD → ER Calculation

Sheet

OK

B.5 Monitoring Plan B.5.1 Does the monitoring plan defined

in the PDD, contain all necessary parameters required for calculating ‘baseline emissions’ in line with the methodology?

→ PDD defines following parameters to be monitored for calculation of baseline emissions.

No. of households in which CHULIKA appliances will be used


CL#08 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion → A sample of End user agreement to be submitted to

PJRCES.

Efficiency of CHULIKA → PP is requested to include the scenarios for change in the

efficiencies of CHULIKA during the crediting period. Include a scenario for a lower efficiency and higher efficiency.

→ Please clarify the number of CHULIKA’s that will be tested for accuracy.

→ Also, include a description on how much change in the efficiency is acceptable.

→ Also, include a procedure to apply the correction due to change in the efficiency.

→ Also, clarify in case of higher efficiency found during the testing how the PP will ensure that the overall savings will not cross the limit for Type II project activities?

B.5.2 Does the monitoring plan defined in the PDD, contain all necessary parameters required for calculating ‘project emissions’ in line with the methodology?

Non-usage of CHULIKA → PP is requested to include the procedure to deduct the

CERs for the non-functional days. Provide a sample calculation.

→ Also, PP is requested to clarify what are the details that are maintained in the log-book for non-functional CHULIKA.

→ Please clarify within how much time the non-functional CHULIKA will be replaced or repaired?


CL#09 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion The traditional cook stove are disposed/not used in the households in which CHULIKA is implemented → Please clarify the method of disposing the traditional cook

stove.

B.5.3 Does the monitoring plan defined in the PDD, contain all necessary parameters required for calculating ‘leakage emissions’ in line with the methodology?

→ The parameter required to assess leakage from the project activity is needed to be monitored during the implementation of the project activity. Instead of monitoring the same PP has opted for alternative to apply adjustment factor of 0.95 to account for leakages.


OK

B.5.4 Has the feasibility of the monitoring arrangements within the project design been confirmed through interviews and physical visits to the site, where required?

→ The feasibility of the monitoring plan was discussed during survey visit through interviews with local stakeholders and Seva Mandir.

→ PP has defined the organizational structure for monitoring during the crediting period.

→ A CDM Co-ordinator at Organizational level → One Project officer for the block Kherwara (as defined by

Seva Mandir) → One Project Assistant at block level → 6 Zone CDM workers for each of the 6 zones. → One Maintenance team comprising 2 persons per zone. → Apart from above there will be village monitors will be

appointed for data collection at household level. → The feasibility of the monitoring plan was discussed

during the survey visit and found acceptable.

→ PDD → AMS II.G V03 → Site Visit

CL#10 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion Open Issues → Define phase wise implementation of the monitoring plan → Please include the procedure for change of cook stove

during the Crediting period. Also, include the details how the change will occur at the end of 5th year.

B.5.5 The implementation of the monitoring plan, quality assurance and quality control procedures are verifiable

→ The monitoring plan defined is verified by the PJRCES. Also, the feasibility of the same will be checked during the site visit and findings shall be included.

→ The discussion in B.5.4 would be applicable here as well. → PP is requested to submit the outcome of the meetings

held at village, zone and block level. PJRCES discussed the same during the survey visit and verified the feedback of the women of project villages who participated in the testing of CHULIKA.

→ Please clarify in line with §16 – is there any procedure defined to check the operation of the CHULIKA? How it will be ensured that during the crediting period the CHULIKA will not be replaced by traditional stove?

→ Please submit a sample copy of monitoring card. Please clarify what if the monitoring card is not filled by the end user.

→ Please clarify what is the warranty period defined by the Manufacturer? Support the same with evidence.

→ PDD → Site Visit

CL#11 OK

C. Crediting Period C.1 Has the start date of the project activity

been defined in line with the latest EB → PP has defined a future date as a start date of the project

activity. Since, the project would only be implemented → PDD → Site Visit

OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion guidance? What has been defined as the start date of the project activity?

after registration and also, it was confirmed during the survey visit, hence it is acceptable.

→ 01/01/2012 has been defined as start date. C.2 Has a crediting period been clearly

defined in the PDD? → PP has defined fixed crediting period of 10 years. → The start date of crediting period is 01/01/2012.

Open Issue: → PP is requested to define the starting date of the crediting

period in-line with latest guidelines available at EB59, Annex12, para. 25.

→ PDD CL#12 OK

D. Local stakeholder consultation D.1 Have all relevant stakeholders been

identified for the project activity? → All relevant stakeholders’ have been identified for the

project activity. As the project is ultimately use of improved cook stoves, there has been a major participation by local women in the discussions.

→ This was checked during the survey visit and interviews and found acceptable

→ PP is requested to submit the documents related to local stakeholder consultation i.e. News paper publications, letters, emails, Notice/invitation, acceptance of invitation, Photographs, Attendance sheet, minutes of meeting, etc.

→ PDD → Local

Stakeholder Meeting Documents

CL#13 OK

D.2 What means have been used for the inviting comments from the stakeholders?

→ The stakeholders were invited by means of letters, emails and personal invitation. PP had also published an announcement in the new paper to invite comments.

→ PDD → Local

Stakeholder Meeting Documents

CL#13 OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion D.3 Does the PDD include a summary of

the comments received from the stakeholders?

→ PP is requested to include the summary of the comments received in the section E.2 of the PDD.

→ It has been requested to identify the stakeholders in the PDD who made comments.

→ PDD CL#13 OK

D.4 Has a report on the due account taken of any comments received been described clearly in the PDD?

→ The appropriateness of the response and necessary actions taken by the PP to the comments raised by the PP were discussed with stakeholders during survey visit and found acceptable.

→ PDD → Site Visit

OK

E. Environmental impacts Assessment E.1 Have the project participants

undertaken an analysis of environmental impacts and if the host country requires and environmental?

→ No environmental impact assessment needs to be carried out for the type of project activity, as defined under the current Host Country laws. The impact the project activity has on local biomass supply is discussed under biomass availability.

→ PDD → Ministry of

environment & forests

http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf

OK

E.2 Does the project create any adverse environmental effects? Have the same been recorded in the PDD?

→ The project activity does not have any adverse environmental impact as it is improvement of the efficiency of cook stoves. This was further checked during survey visit and interviews and found to be acceptable.


environment & forests


OK

E.3 Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country?

→ The project activity complies with the local environmental legislation.


environment &

OK


VALIDATION REPORT


CDM Validation Requirement Remarks Evidence Conclusion forests



VALIDATION REPORT


TABLE 3: RESOLUTION OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN TABLE 2 OF THE VALIDATION PROTOCOL

Draft report clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward

action request Reference Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion

CAR#01: a. PP is requested to submit Letter of

Approval from host Party DNA.

2nd Assessment

a. PP is requested to submit the application made to DNA and email communications.

/A.2/ a. The Letter of Approval will be

submitted as soon as we receive it from the DNA. The documents have been submitted for Host Country Approval.

a. Kindly find enclosed the Letter of Approval issued by the Indian DNA for the project activity.

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses a. PP is requested to submit the

application made to DNA and email communications.

CAR#01-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses a. PJRCES has reviewed the Letter

of approval dated 09 May 2012 issued by National CDM Authority, MoEF, GoI. The same confirms the Title of the project activity, Name of PP, Government of India has ratified the Kyoto protocol in August 2002, voluntary participation in the proposed CDM project activity, project contribution towards sustainable development of host Party and hence, issue is now closed.

CAR#01 is now closed. CAR#02: a. PP has claimed that the kerosene is

/B.2.3/ /B.3.3/

a. The cost of Kerosene through PDS is

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses a. PJRCES has reviewed referred


VALIDATION REPORT


bought at a subsidized rate of Rs. 10 per litre. During the survey it was found out that the price per litre of Kerosene varies from village to village. In-line with the above observation PP needs to justify the price considered for Kerosene per litre.

b. Initial investment required for LPG is claimed to be Rs. 3000 does not confirm to the source provided.

/B.3.7/ the same throughout Rajasthan irrespective of district, taluk or village. The cost of Kerosene is Rs.15.25/litre based on latest price indices for October 2011. (http://www.statisticstest.rajasthan.gov.in/wpi.aspx). The latest retail price distributed through the PDS has been revised in the PDD. The quantity of kerosene varies based on the type of ration card that the family has. Families without LPG connection are given 3litres/month. Thus there is no variation in the PDS subsidized rate of Kerosene from village to village.

b. The cost given in the website is only the cost of connection, regulator and deposit. As given in the website the cost for a connection is Rs. 1250+150 = 1400. In addition, as given in the footnote to this reference, there is additional cost of buying a stove and host pipe. A ISI certified double burner stoves costs about Rs.1800 (http://prestigesmartkitchen.com/gas-stoves-gas-stoves-c-23_50) and that of hose pipe is about Rs.200, thus totally costing more than Rs. 3000 as

link and confirms that the price of Kerosene is Rs. 15.25/litre and there is no variation in the subsidized rate. During the survey it was also observed that the families were having Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration cards, Above Poverty Line ration cards (APL) and Antyodaya ration cards and hence the justification provided by the PP is acceptable to DOE and the issue is closed.

b. Link provided is not working. PP is requested to provide corrected web link. Refer 2nd Assessment.


VALIDATION REPORT


c. Continued use of traditional cook

stove for cooking: It is claimed that the fuel wood is available virtually free. During the survey visit it was observed that in some of the villages the family has to spend at least 300-400 Rs/month for fuel wood, which is also equivalent to one fifth (1/5) of the family’s monthly income. Please clarify.

2nd Assessment b. Link provided is not working. PP is

requested to provide corrected web link.

mentioned in the PDD. c. As mentioned in Annex 3, the baseline

information, about 27% of the households also purchased fuel wood from the nearby fuel wood depot or the wood seller carrying wood on his camel along with collecting fuelwood. The biomass is available free. In cases, where the family do not have able bodied members or do not have the time to collect fuelwood, they pay for the labour to collect and deliver at their doorstep on camel or from the nearby wood depot. Otherwise, majority of the households collect fuelwood from forests, wastelands, common lands for free.

b. The web link URL has changed. The revised web link has been updated in the revised PDD.

c. PJRCES has verified the same –

line with the same issue is now closed.

CAR#02-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses b. PJRCES has reviewed web links:

http://www.iocl.com/Products/LiquefiedPetroleumGasFAQ.aspx and http://www.prestigesmartkitchen.com/home-gas-stoves-l-p-gas-stoves, and confirmed that the approximate price for initial investment required works out to be in the range of Rs. 3000 – 3500


VALIDATION REPORT


for 14.2 kg cylinder and hence, justification is acceptable. Issue is now closed.

CAR#02 is now closed. CL#01: a. Further clarity is requested on the

selection of households for distribution of Stoves.

b. The implementation plan of the project activity needs to be included in the PDD.

c. As per the submitted CERs excel sheet, “Rishabhdev and Kherwada” has been mentioned as blocks

/A.1.1/ a. As mentioned in Annex 3 (Baseline

Information), a demographic survey was conducted for 26,076 households in 136 villages falling under 39 Gram Panchayats of Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils. 98.23% of households are using traditional cook stove build of mud/brick/cement/stone thus depending on fuel wood or woody biomass for cooking. The improved cookstoves will be distributed among these households.

b. Implementation plan is already added in the PDD in section B.7.2.

c. Earlier block, now they are recognised as Tehsils. The correction has been made in the excel sheet.

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PJRCES has verified the

description and survey provided by project participant. Also, during the survey visit PJRCES observed that all the families were using the traditional cook stoves build of mud/brick/cement/stone and hence, the issue is now closed.

b. PJRCES has checked the revised PDDv02 section B.7.2 and hence, issue is now closed. Please clarify how the project start date (01/01/2012) is still valid since it has already been elapsed. Refer 2nd Assessment.

c. PJRCES has checked the corrections and found acceptable and hence, issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


however as per the Section A.2 of the PDD the same has been mentioned as Tehsils. Please clarify.

d. The CHULIKA cook stove saves 67.5% of household’s fuel wood. The CHULIKA stove has a thermal efficiency of 30.8%. Please mention the references/evidences for the above data in the PDD.

2nd Assessment b. PJRCES has checked the revised

PDDv02 section B.7.2 and hence, issue is now closed. Please clarify how the project start date (01/01/2012) is still valid since it has already been elapsed.

d. PP is requested to include the explanation in the PDD itself.

d. Based on thermal efficiency improvement, each households saves about 2.20 t/year (CER Calculation sheet) while in the baseline, the consumption is 3.26 t/hh/yr. The savings over the baseline fuel wood consumption (2.20/3.26*100 = 67%) is thus calculated.

b. The start date has been revised to 01/01/2013 in the revised PDD, as the project activity is still not registered as a CDM project and carbon finance not available yet for implementation.

d. The explanation has been included in the PDD.

d. PP is requested to include the explanation in the PDD itself. Refer 2nd Assessment.

CL#01-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses b. PJRCES has reviewed the revised

PDD and found that PP has revised the start date as 01/01/2013 and hence, issue is now closed.

d. PP has included that based on the improvement of chulika and “greenway smart stove”, each house hold saves emissions of 2.32 t/yr, while the baseline has now been revised from 3.26 t/hh/yr to 3.21 t/hh/yr and the same was cross verified with ER calculation sheet and found to be OK. Thus,


VALIDATION REPORT


this would result in fuel wood consumption to 72% of existing level. The necessary amendments have been reflected in the PDD and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#01 is now closed. CL#02: a. PP needs to provide source for market

rate Rs. 30 per litre of kerosene.

b. Provide source for cost of Rs. 365 considered for 14.2 Kg cylinder.

c. During the survey it was observed that the per capita income varies hence, PP needs to justify the income of US$1/capita/day.

/B.2.3/ /B.3.3/ /B.3.7/

a. This is based on the actual market price

in the project area, as mentioned by the communities.

b. Based on the latest market price, a LPG cylinder of 14.2 kgs costs Rs. 381. The same has been updated in the revised PDD and the source reference provided. Kindly also find enclosed the retail price as compiled by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Rajasthan.

c. The per capita income was compiled from the demographic data that was collected for 26,076 households. Kindly find enclosed the demographic

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. During the survey visit PJRCES

found out that the market prices per litre of kerosene based on ration card varied in the range of Rs. 15 to 20, hence, PP is requested to substantiate the price of Rs. 30 per litre. Refer 2nd Assessment.

b. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDDv02 and referred web link (http://www.statisticstest.rajasthan.gov.in/Upload/WPI_Oct_2011.pdf) and confirmed the price of Rs. 381 for 14.2 Kg cylinder and hence, the issue is now closed.

c. PJRCES has referred the web link (www.ncaer.org/downloads/Reports/HumanDevelopmentinIndia.pdf) published in 2010 and confirmed


VALIDATION REPORT


d. Please justify the applicability of

the NSSO study with respect to the start date of project activity.

survey sheet and the per capita calculations. This is also in conjuction with published data. (www.ncaer.org/downloads/Reports/HumanDevelopmentinIndia.pdf ), which shows that the rural per capita income per annum is Rs.5732, which is less than US$1/day. Kindly find enclosed the report.

d. The NSSO study, which is a nationwide survey, is conducted periodically and report released biennually. During the preparation of the PDD, 2008 publication was available. With the recent release of the 2010 report, this has been updated. This is further substantiated by the demographic survey conducted for 26,076 households in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils, which further substantiates the survey results. There has not been much change in the fuelwood pattern in the past 2 years. Thus it substantiates the data with

that the per capita income in Rural areas of Rajasthan is Rs. 5,732/- annually, which is even less than the US$1/day as considered by the PP based on the survey conducted by PP. Furthermore, during the survey conducted by PJRCES, it was observed that the Annual income of households was varying between Rs. 10,000 to 35,000 with minimum family size of 3. Hence, in-line with the above issue is now closed.

d. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDDv02 and revised NSSO study published in 2010. In-line with the justification provided the issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


e. The link: http://www.mnre.gov.in/adm-approvals/prog-ftbp.htm is not working.

2nd Assessment a. During the survey visit PJRCES found

out that the market prices per litre of kerosene based on ration card varied in the range of Rs. 15 to 20, hence, PP is requested to substantiate the price of Rs. 30 per litre.

regard to the start date of the project activity.

e. The weblinks is working. Kindly find enclosed the website as downloaded from the link here.

a. This price is that paid in the open market (not PDS) which varies from Rs. 20 to 40/litre. The average price is Rs.28/litre in the project area, which is considered for all calculations. This is updated in the revised PDD.

e. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDD and verified the information from the link provided and found the same acceptable and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#02-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 response a. PJRCES has reviewed the revised

PDD and found that PP has updated the price to Rs.28/litre. The same was cross checked during the site visit and found to be acceptable and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#02 is now closed. CL#03: Determination of Bold a. PP is requested to demonstrate in the

PDD, how the value of 4.72 for adult equivalent is arrived at.

b. PP is requested to demonstrate in the PDD how the value of 4.34 for adult equivalent is arrived at.

/B.2.3/ /Spreadshe

et/

a. The value of 4.72 adult equivalent is

based on survey conducted by NCAER, which is converted to adult equivalent. The explanation is further elaborated in the PDD.

b. This is based on the baseline survey conducted in 952 households, which is included in the CER calculations excel

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PP is requested to explicitly

specify the source referred. Refer 2nd Assessment.

b. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDD, Annex3 and found that the calculation has been included and


VALIDATION REPORT


c. PP needs to justify the conservativeness of the value of 4.34 for adult equivalent.

d. Also, it is unclear how adult equivalent value of 4.34 accounts for proportionate to the adults versus children. Demonstrate the same in PDD.

e. Spreadsheet: Refer Cell BI973 the value of 953 is unclear.

f. In the excel sheet, “name of beneficiary” has not been provided for all the households for which the data

sheet.

c. Thus based on the survey conducted by NCAER, this is a conservative value. Further explanation on conservativeness is added in the PDD.

d. The calculations are included in the CER excel sheet, wherein for each of the surveyed household, the adult equivalent is calculated based on the guidelines of PCIA and arrived at average adult equivalent for the region. The confidence level is also included in the revised PDD and CER calculations sheet.

e. The table is the descriptive statistics derived through the option of Microsoft Excel for Data Analysis. The corrected value - 952 is the count of number of Households in which the survey was conducted. The value shows the mean and variation at 90% confidence level. The number is rounded off to 2 decimals and CERs recalculations and included in the revised PDD.

f. Kindly find enclosed the updated excel sheet with the beneficiary details for all the households.

hence, issue is now closed. Issue is now closed.

c. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDD, Annex3 and found that the calculation has been included and hence, issue is now closed.

d. PJRCES has verified the excel sheet and Annex 3 and hence, issue is now closed.

e. PJRCES has reviewed the revised spreadsheet and found that the data has been corrected and hence, issue is now closed.

f. Revised excel sheetv2.1 addresses the concerns. Issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


has been provided. g. As per the “CER cal” spreadsheet in

the “SEVA MANDIR CER Calculations_V2” excel sheet, the CERs generated per household per year is 2.23 tCO2/year, however as per the page number 22 of the webhosted PDD, the value is 2.35. Please clarify.

h. Please clarify the source of data for male to female ratio of 1.09.

i. The total population in the spreadsheet as per “Total members” column is 5,763 whereas cell N958 gives a value of 5,752 and PDD claims the population to be 5,758. Please clarify.

j. Please submit the sample copy of the survey forms used by PP during the survey.

2nd Assessment a. PP is requested to explicitly specify

the source referred.

g. The revised value of 2.25 tCO2/year is

after consideration of leakage, while revised value of 2.37 tCO2/year is the emission reduction calculations.

h. This is based on the survey conducted in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils, the project area. The excel sheet is provided for your reference.

i. The total population is 5685 for 952 households. The totals have now been converted to formula to get the correct value. It has been corrected in the PDD as shown in the excel sheet.

j. Sample copies of the survey forms have been enclosed for your reference.

a. A table with the adult equivalent

calculations have been included in the revised PDD.

g. Value of Bold is not consistent

throughout the PDD. PP is requested to clearly mention in the PDD the value considered for arriving at the ER. Refer 2nd Assessment.

h. PP is requested to demonstrate the same in the Spread sheet and in the PDD. Refer 2nd Assessment.

i. Formula for calculating total members is not consistent in the spread sheet. Please also mention the date in excel sheet when each household was surveyed. Refer 2nd Assessment.

j. PJRCES has received the sample copies of the survey forms used by PP and hence, Issue is now closed.

CL#03-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver02 responses a. PJRCES has reviewed Annex3,

survey findings and found that PP has included the table and hence, issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


g. Value of Bold is not consistent throughout the PDD. PP is requested to clearly mention in the PDD the value considered for arriving at the ER

h. PP is requested to demonstrate the same in the Spread sheet and in the PDD.

i. Formula for calculating total members is not consistent in the spread sheet. Please also mention the date in excel sheet when each household was surveyed

g. After rounddown, it has been revised throughout the PDD.

h. This is based on the baseline survey conducted in Kherwara and Rishabhdev Tehsils, the project area, wherein the male to female ratio is 1.05. The excel sheet is provided for your reference.

i. The calculations have been added in the excel sheet, “Survey”. The dates of survey is already mentioned in the excel sheet. Kindly see column AF and AG for the dates of survey.

g. PJRCES has reviewed the revised PDD and found that PP has maintained the consistency and hence, issue is now closed.

h. PJRCES has reviewed the revised spreadsheet cell no “L961” in “Survey” workbook where, the male to female ratio has been calculated. The calculations were cross checked and found to be OK and hence, issue is now closed.

i. PJRCES has reviewed the revised spreadsheet submitted by PP and found the relevant calculations for total members have been added and the dates are indicated in the column AF and AG and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#03 is now closed. CL#04: Determining ηnew a. Since the CHULIKA AADI will be

distributed to 19,500 households. Also, the report specifies that the test results are limited to the items tested. In-line with the same PP is requested

/B.2.3/ a. The laboratory test is based on National

Standards test conducted based on the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 13152: Biomass Chulha – Specification, which is based on Water

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PP is requested to submit the test

reports from the vendors. Also, PP is requested to submit the vendor’s specifications for CHULIKA AADI. Refer 2nd Assessment.


VALIDATION REPORT


to clarify how performance test for one CHULIKA is considered adequate to arrive at the efficiency of all CHULIKA’s? In-line with the applied methodology PP is requested to clarify and provide the exact reference for determination of ηnew.

b. PP has provided reference of the report for “Performance test of wood burning stove” submitted by CPRI to “Graymatter technologies”. PP has considered energy efficiency of cook stove based on the report as 30.8%, however it is not clear as how the same efficiency has been considered for the project activity. Please clarify.

Boiling Test (WBT) protocol. The report justifies that the item tested is only for thermal efficiency and not for any other parameters of the stove. These stoves are produced time and again with the same specifications of materials and processes in a factory with intense quality control and randomly sampled in house for thermal efficiency in every batch of production (i.e. 2500 stoves). Test reports are bought out of materials from the vendors for quality assurance before start of production. Thus the performance test conducted in the CPRI laboratory is representative. Also the actual emission reduction will be further based on WBT conducted biennially in sample households.

b. Kindly find enclosed the WBT protocol specified for testing improved cookstoves for your reference. The stove performance conducted by CPRI is based on WBT conducted as specified by the national agency. There is an IS Standard 13152 (Part I):1991 on Solid Biomass Chulha-Portable(Metallic) by the Bureau of

b. PJRCES has reviewed the IS Standard 13152 (Part I):1991 on solid biomass Chulha portable Clause 11.1, Page number 10 and Annex A as submitted by PP. Here, the question is on applicability of single CHULIKA tested and how efficiency of the same applied to all the


VALIDATION REPORT


c. Also, the test report specifies that the test results are limited to the items tested.

Determining By,savings d. PP is requested to clarify the option

chosen for determination of By,savings in line with para. 6 of AMS-II.G latest ver03.

2nd Assessment a. PP is requested to submit the test

reports from the vendors. Also, PP is

Indian Standard. As per the said BIS, the thermal efficiency of solid biomass cookstoves should be more than 25%, The aforesaid standards are being used for testing and approval of various single pot metallic improved cook-stoves in the country (http://www.mnre.gov.in/prog-nbci.htm). Thus the national performance test has been adopted to determine the energy efficiency.

c. This test report is limited to the item tested which is the thermal energy efficiency and not any other tests.

Determining By,savings d. Option 2 has been used for

determination of Bysavings. This is added in the PDD.

a. Kindly find enclosed the tests

submitted by the manufacturer and tests

CHULIKA’s under project activity. Further the standard is not traceable in the report provided for the “Performance test of wood burning stove” submitted by CPRI. Refer 2nd Assessment.

c. Response is not in-line with the query. Report clearly states the “test results relate only to items tested, which are selected and submitted by the client mentioned above” and hence, not relating to thermal energy efficiency but the CHULIKA. Refer 2nd Assessment.

Determining By,savings d. Revised PDDv02, Section B.4,

page#12 addresses concerns and hence, the issue is now closed.

CL#04-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver02 responses a. PJRCES has reviewed the

certificate from third party i.e.


VALIDATION REPORT


requested to submit the vendor’s specifications for CHULIKA AADI.

b. PJRCES has reviewed the IS Standard 13152 (Part I):1991 on solid biomass Chulha portable Clause 11.1, Page number 10 and Annex A as submitted

conducted by CPRI. The model Aadi Maha Shakti has been withdrawn and replaced by Aadi Sri Shakthi. The test report of Chulika (Aadi Sri Shakti model) which is of higher efficiency has been released by the manufacturer, which will be implemented in the project area. Thus the efficiency of Chulika has been revised from 30.8% to 40.29%, which is based on IS 13152. Based on further stakeholders feedback, The test reports of GREENWAY SMART STOVE is also included, which would be implemented along with CHULIKA in the project area. The weighted thermal efficiency has been taken into consideration for estimating emission reductions in the PDD, considering 50%-50% implementation of both stoves. The actual number of households (limited to energy savings of 180 GWh) and ER calculations will be based on implementation of stove model.

b. Refer the response above.

Indian School of Mines dated 20 October 2011 & quotation from iSquare D dated 12 June 2012 and confirmed the efficiencies of 32.098% and 40.49% respectively. PJRCES also, reviewed the technical specifications submitted by vendor and cross checked the PDD for the same and hence, issue is now closed.

b. PJRCES has reviewed the certificate from third party i.e. Indian School of Mines dated 20 October 2011 and confirmed


VALIDATION REPORT


by PP. Here, the question is on applicability of single CHULIKA tested and how efficiency of the same applied to all the CHULIKA’s under project activity. Further the standard is not traceable in the report provided for the “Performance test of wood burning stove” submitted by CPRI.

c. Response is not in-line with the query. Report clearly states the “test results relate only to items tested, which are selected and submitted by the client mentioned above” and hence, not relating to thermal energy efficiency but the CHULIKA.

c. The thermal energy efficiency test report of the manufacturer is submitted along with the test report of third party scientific laboratory. As can be seen from these reports, the thermal energy efficiency of Aadi Sri Shakthi Model Chulika is in concurrence.

that the test has been conducted in-line with 13152 (part 1) and hence, issue is now closed.

c. PJRCES has reviewed the energy efficiency test reports submitted and confirmed that the thermal energy efficiency of Aado Sro Shakthi Model Chulika is in concurrence and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#04 is now closed. CL#05: Determining f NRB y a. It is not clear the data provided under

Table: 3 is for which year? Also, justify the selection of data with respect to the start date of the project activity.

b. PP is requested to justify that “Any

/B.2.3/ a. The Table 3 of land use pattern for

Udaipur district is based on District Statistics Handbook, Udaipur, Department of Economics and Statistics, Udaipur, 2010, the latest available during the preparation of PDD. Thus the fNRB,y is calculated based on the latest available land use data.

b. The trend observed for determination

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. In-line with the justification

provided and revised PDDv02 the issue is now closed.

b. Explanation is traceable in the


VALIDATION REPORT


national or regional forestry and nature conservation regulations are complied with.”

c. Keeping the start date of the project activity PP is requested to justify the applicability of the data used.

d. The mean annual increment is not calculated correctly.

e. In-line with above please correct the value calculated for renewable biomass component for this land use.

f. Provide the source for Sustainable extraction rate i.e. 2 t/ha/yr

of fNRB,y is not occurring due to the enforcement of any local/national regulations. This is added in the PDD.

c. The latest data for the land use is applied to determine f NRB y. The data for standing biomass is also based on latest data available from the FSI, 2011 which is published periodically. The annual growth rate is from published literature and is a function of the forest type. Thus it does not vary considerably year to year. Also growth rates or annual growth rates are not determined year to year and requires enormous field studies, analysis to obtain the data.

d. It is rounded off to 2 decimals. Hence reads 0.07 t/ha/year. It has been rounddown to 4 decimals. But this does not effect the NRB calculations as can be seen from the CER calculations excel sheet.

e. The calculations as shown in the excel sheet are based on actual values without rounding off. After rounddown, the values are the same.

f. This is the same paper Ravindranath et. al, 2001.

revised PDD. Issue is now closed.

c. PP has used data for year 2011. The same has been cross checked with the reference provided and hence, issue is now closed.

d. PJRCES has reviewed the revised spreadsheet and found that it has been rounded off to 4 decimals. The value is now cross checked with ER calculation and found to be OK. Issue is now closed.

e. PJRCES has reviewed the calculations and found that values remain the same and hence, issue is now closed.

f. PP is requested to submit the same. Justify the applicability of


VALIDATION REPORT


g. Provide exact reference for standing biomass/tree value i.e. 0.29.

h. The web link: http://www.fsi.org.in/sfr2009/glossary.pdf is not working.

i. PP needs to justify the suitability of the data’s considered keeping in mind the start date of the project activity.

2nd Assessment f. PP is requested to submit the same.

Justify the applicability of the paper keeping in mind the start date of the project activity.

g. This value is derived based on standing stock (volume) in Culturable Non Forest Area divided by the number of trees in this land category. The source of information is latest report of the Forest Survey of India.

h. The same has been provided as a pdf file for your reference. The URL has changed for the document and it has been updated to http://www.webline.co.in/fsi/sfr2009/glossary.pdf

i. All the data provided is the latest statistics of land use pattern from government sources. f. The exact reference is provided in

the excel sheet and has also been submitted to the DOE. The fNRB has been calculated based on the latest report of Forest Survey of India. Based on this data, the fNRB for Rajasthan is 0.91. But for calculations of ER in the PDD, we

the paper keeping in mind the start date of the project activity. Refer 2nd Assessment.

g. Reference give in spreadsheet have been cross checked and hence, issue is now closed.

h. PJRCES has reviewed the revised web link http://www.webline.co.in/fsi/sfr2009/glossary.pdf and confirms the definition of CNFA and hence, issue is now closed.

i. In-line with the above and revised PDDv02, issue is now closed.

CL#05-Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses. f. PJRCES has reviewed the

reference and cross checked the information provided in the spreadsheet. PP has retained the conservative estimate of 0.88 as calculated in the spreadsheet and hence, acceptable. Issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


have retained 0.88, thus being conservative. Thus based on the start date of the project, the calculations done at the district level are still conservative and justified.

CL#05 is now closed.

CL#06: a. Justify the applicability of referred

literature or links with respect to the start date of the project activity.

b. Justify the claim made that at least

/B.3.7/ a. The National Programme of Improved

Stove (NPIC) was implemented with subsidy from 1993 and continued till 2000. Thus all the published relevant literature of ICS with respect to its operation is pertaining to this period. After the period, there were no subsidies and programmes to implement improved cookstoves. All the references with regard to barrier analysis is from the national programme that was implemented during the implementation and immediately after the programme. These issues are generic and still applicable to the activity of this nature irrespective of the start date of the project activity.

b. Kindly see table 5 of the paper which speaks of the scenario of distribution of


provided this issue is now closed.

b. Complete document has now been reviewed and value is verified and


VALIDATION REPORT


15 million improved stoves need to be distributed every year. The reference link does not support any such claim.

c. Justify the applicability of ref48: It

refers to the year 2000. d. It is claimed that “It was noted

that when women did not perceive the usefulness of the stove, many parts were removed and reused for other purposes” the reference provided to support the claim is based on a study conducted in 1992-93. Justify the applicability of the evidence.

e. Support the claim that “Thus

enough financial resources are required for operation and maintenance of stoves and

15 million stoves / year for a decade. The paper is enclosed for your kind consideration.

c. This is further substantiated with the NSSO data of 2010, wherein modern fuel has still not penetrated rural India. Thus additional reference of NSSO is also added.

d. The learning of Improved cooks stove project are based on the NPIC programme implemented during 1990s. The situation since then in the rural areas have still not changed much with 75% of households at the national level and 94% of households in Rajasthan still using firewood as the primary source of energy in rural areas. The barriers to implementation of improved cook stove in India is from the extensive studies of the NPIC programme.

e. The various parts of stoves have varying operational lifetimes, which require replacement periodically. Financial resources are required for monitoring of stoves too at village level through village level volunteers.

f. Kindly find enclosed the letter from the

hence, issue is now closed.

c. In-line with the latest study NSSO data of 2010, issue is now closed.

d. The claim that 75% of households at national level and 94% households in Rajasthan still using firewood is cross checked by reviewing “NSSO 2010. Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2007-08. National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.” Issue is now closed.

e. Explanation is accepted and the same has been cross checked during site visit and hence, issue is now closed.

f. PJRCES has reviewed the


VALIDATION REPORT


subsequent replacement of stoves” with evidences.

f. PP is requested to submit the

evidence to support the claim that “The local bank also refused to provide loans without guarantee, marginal money and collateral security. Further, the bank is not willing to bank on market fluctuation of CER price for repayment. There is no risk free income stream in this project and the bank is not willing to lend for the project activity.”

local bank to support the claim that “The local bank also refused to provide loans without guarantee, marginal money and collateral security.

document submitted by the PP and hence, the in-line with the same issue is now closed.


CL#07: a. PP is requested to substantiate the

life time of the ICS i.e. 5 years. b. The conversion of 0.015 TJ/tonne

to kWh/t is incorrect.

/B.4.1.2/ a. Kindly find enclosed the tests that

substantiates the life time of CHULIKA as 5 years.

b. The conversion of 0.015 TJ/tonne to kWh/t has been corrected in the PDD. Find enclosed the revised PDD with corrections.

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. Supporting document submitted by

PP does not provide the summary or conclusion of the tests conducted. Further it is not clear how PP has termed the usage hours in 5 years as life of the CHULIKA. Refer 2nd Assessment.

b. It is still incorrect. Also, PJRCES did not find any change in section B.4 as indicated in various places of revised PDDv02. Refer 2nd


VALIDATION REPORT


c. Further details are requested on

the identification number that would be given to each CHULIKA.

2nd Assessment a. Supporting document submitted by PP

does not provide the summary or conclusion of the tests conducted. Further it is not clear how PP has termed the usage hours in 5 years as life of the CHULIKA

b. It is still incorrect. Also, PJRCES did not find any change in section B.4 as indicated in various places of revised PDDv02.

c. Identification number would be etched

on each of the CHULIKA at the factory itself which will be unique to each of the improved cook stove.

a. PP has submitted revised documents.

b. The conversion of 0.015 TJ/tonne to MWh/t has been corrected in the revised PDD.

Assessment. c. In-line with the justification issue

is now closed.

CL#07 – Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses a. PJRCES has reviewed the revised

PDD and supporting documents. It is confirmed that the life of the Greenway Smart Stove is 20,000 hours and of Chulika is 9,875 hours. Issue is now closed.

b. Revised PDD, section B.4 is now corrected in line with clarification SSC_223 and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#07 is now closed. CL#08:

a. A sample of End user agreement to be submitted to PJRCES.

b. PP is requested to include the

scenarios for change in the efficiencies of CHULIKA during the crediting period. Include a scenario for a lower efficiency and higher efficiency.

/B.5.1/ a. A sample of the End User Agreement is

hereby submitted.

b. The efficiencies will be based on actual water boiling test that will be carried 2 years once, ex-post, after implementation. Even if the stove has higher efficiencies, to be conservative, 30.8% will be considered for emission

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PJRCES has reviewed the sample

of End user agreement and hence, issue is now closed.

b. Response does not address the scenarios under scenario if, lower efficiencies are found. Also, PP is requested to provide complete discussion on the same in the PDD. Refer 2nd Assessment.


VALIDATION REPORT


c. Please clarify the number of

CHULIKA’s that will be tested for accuracy.

d. Also, include a description on how

much change in the efficiency is acceptable.

e. Also, include a procedure to apply

the correction due to change in the efficiency.

f. Also, clarify in case of higher

efficiency found during the testing how the PP will ensure that the

reduction calculations c. The number of CHLIKAs that will be

tested will be determined based on occupancy and demographics differences with a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin of error for the sampling parameter. This will be determined after the implementation of the project activity and an understanding of the occupancy and demographics.

d. The actual change in efficiency as tested through water boiling test ex-post biennually will be applied to estimate the emission reductions.

e. The actual thermal efficiency as determined through Water Boiling Testing conducted ex-post will be applied to calculate the emission reductions. This is already included in the PDD, under section B.7.1 under the heading “Ex-post calculation of emission reductions, for each year”.

f. In case of higher efficiency found during the testing, the minimum of 30.8% will still be applied, thus being

c. Further, detail is requested on how

the same will be determined. Refer 2nd Assessment.

d. Response does not answer the query. Refer 2nd Assessment.

e. Since, as cited by PP above in response to CL#04 above, 25% efficiency for cook stoves from biomass is required. Further clarify, if the same limit will be applicable under project activity and also, if, efficiency during the tests identified is less than 25% than how the same will be handled? Refer 2nd Assessment.

f. In case of average higher efficiencies, PP will apply the value of 30.8% to remain within


VALIDATION REPORT


overall savings will not cross the limit for Type II project activities?

2nd Assessment b. Response does not address the

scenarios under scenario if, lower efficiencies are found. Also, PP is requested to provide complete discussion on the same in the PDD.

c. Further, detail is requested on how the same will be determined.

d. Response does not answer the query.

conservative and also not to cross the limit for Type II project activity.

b. The efficiencies will be based on actual

water boiling test that will be carried 2 years once, ex-post, after implementation. Even if the stove has higher efficiencies, to be conservative, 40.29% will be considered for emission reduction calculations. Three stoves of each model, vintage wise will be determined. This is included in the revised PDD.

c. The actual change acceptable is not less than 25% (as fixed by MNRE to qualify as improved cook stoves).

d. The lower efficiency that will be considered is 25%. Efficiencies lesser than 25% will not be considered for emission reduction. The stoves will be replaced by new stoves with higher efficiencies.

the small scale limit. Since, this is conservative and hence, issue is now closed.

CL#08 – Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 b. In case of average higher

efficiencies, PP will apply the value of 40.29% to remain within the small scale limit. Since, this is conservative and hence, issue is now closed.

c. PJRCES has reviewed the actual change and confirms that it is not less than 25% and thus, in-line with the guidance given by MNRE this is acceptable and hence, issue is now closed.

d. The explanation on change in the efficiency acceptable. PP has defined that the efficiency lesser than the 25% will not be considered for ER calculations and hence, issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


e. Since, as cited by PP above in response to CL#04 above, 25% efficiency for cook stoves from biomass is required. Further clarify, if the same limit will be applicable under project activity and also, if, efficiency during the tests identified is less than 25% than how the same will be handled?

e. The lower efficiency that will be considered is 25%. Efficiencies lesser than 25% will not be considered for emission reduction.

e. In-line with the assessment of above point this issue is now closed.


a. PP is requested to include the procedure to deduct the CERs for the non-functional days. Provide a sample calculation.

/B.5.2/ a. As mentioned in section B.7.1, the ex-

post calculation of emission reductions, for each year is calculated as follows Number of appliances operating per year (Ny,j)

∑=

=iyN

jjyjyiy tnN

,

1,,, .

Where: ny,j = Appliance operating per year and vintage ty,j = Fraction of operating time per household (appliance(s)) per vintage ty,j accounts for the fraction of operating time; i.e. deducting the non-usage days.


provided and revised PDDv02 issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


b. Also, PP is requested to clarify what are the details that are maintained in the log-book for non-functional CHULIKA.

c. Please clarify within how much time the non-functional CHULIKA will be replaced or repaired?

d. Please clarify the method of

disposing the traditional cook stove.

2nd Assessment d. Please further clarify how it will be

ensured that all the traditional stoves will be destroyed during the distribution of CHULIKA.

b. The details that will be maintained will be the Beneficiary ID, the from and to date of non-usage, date repaired and reason for non usage.

c. The aim to reduce the downtime as much as possible. Thus the effort would be to replace it as the earliest.

d. The traditional cook stove is mud stove/3 stone stove. The traditional cookstove will be destroyed at the time of distribution of CHULIKA.

d. The revised End User Agreement has been provided with the necessary changes.

b. PP has included necessary details in section B.7.2 and hence, issue is now closed.

c. Since, the aim is to reduce the downtime, explanation is acceptable and hence, issue is now closed.

d. Please further clarify how it will be ensured that all the traditional stoves will be destroyed during the distribution of CHULIKA. Refer 2nd Assessment.

Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 response d. PJRCES has reviewed the sample

user agreement with villagers and hence, issue is now closed.


CL#10: a. Define phase wise implementation

of the monitoring plan. b. Please include the procedure for

change of cook stove during the

/B.5.4/ a. The phase-wise implementation plan is

mentioned in the section B.7.2. in the PDD.

b. As mentioned in the PDD, in case of full replacement, the household will

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PJRCES has reviewed the revised

PDDv02 and hence, issue is now closed.

b. In-line with the justification provided and revised PDDv02


VALIDATION REPORT


Crediting period. Also, include the details how the change will occur at the end of 5th year.

receive a new Improved Cook Stove with a corresponding new appliance code. A new end user agreement where the new code is mentioned will be signed. A copy of the old agreement will be stapled with the new agreement, and the same will be updated on the monitoring database. The last date of use of the damaged ICS will be recorded.

issue is now closed.


a. PP is requested to submit the outcome of the meetings held at village, zone and block level.

b. Please clarify in line with §16 – is there any procedure defined to check the operation of the CHULIKA? How it will be ensured that during the crediting period the CHULIKA will not be replaced by traditional stove?

/B.5.5/ a. A single meeting was conducted at

Kherwara, the outcome of which is included in the PDD.

b. The monitoring will ensure the continuous operation of CHULIKA. The weekly once monitoring conducted ensure that the CHULIKA is in place and working and they have not reversed to using CHULIKA. Though the methodology specifies biennually, it will be done weekly once to ensure that all the CHULIKAs will be in use. This is not only for emission reduction purpose, but to ensure that timely repair and maintenance is undertaken and the downtime is minimum.

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. In-line with the revised PDDv02,

issue is now closed.

b. PP has clarified that primary source is logbook monitoring and secondary source is software monitoring for verification purpose. Issue is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


c. Please submit a sample copy of

monitoring card. Please clarify the procedure followed when monitoring card is not filled by the end user.

d. Please clarify what is the warranty

period defined by the Manufacturer? Support the same with evidence.

2nd Assessment d. PP is requested to submit

acknowledged (by manufacturer) copy of the document submitted.

c. The monitoring card will be designed and implemented once the project is registered and implemented. Though the methodology describes monitoring biennually, it will be done weekly. Steps will be taken to ensure that it is filled in regularly. Where the household members are not able to keep the daily record, as mentioned in the PDD, the respective village monitors will help in doing that during their meetings/visits.

d. Kindly find enclosed the invoice from the Manufacturer with terms and conditions, which mentions the warranty period is for a year.

d. Kindly find enclosed the invoice from

the Manufacturer.

c. In-line with the justification provided issue is now closed.

d. PP is requested to submit acknowledged (by manufacturer) copy of the document submitted. Refer 2nd Assessment.

CL#11 – Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver2.0 responses d. PJRCES has reviewed the

quotation dated 12 June 2012 from iSquare D. the cost indicated is Rs. 1632 per Chulika. Issue is now closed.

CL#11 is now closed. CL#12: a. PP is requested to define the starting

date of the crediting period in-line

/C.2/ a. The starting date of the crediting period

has been revised in-line with latest

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. Revised PDDv02 addresses the

concern and hence, issue is now


VALIDATION REPORT


with latest guidelines available at EB59, Annex12, para. 25.

guidelines available at EB59, Annex12, para. 25.

closed. CL#12 is now closed.

CL#13: a. PP is requested to submit the

documents related to local stakeholder consultation i.e. News paper publications, letters, emails, Notice/invitation, acceptance of invitation, Photographs, Attendance sheet, minutes of meeting, etc.

b. Please identify the stakeholders that have made comments.

c. PP is requested to include the summary of the comments received in the section E.2 of the PDD.

2nd Assessment a. PJRCES did not receive any of the

supporting documents referred in the response

b. Identity of the stakeholders who made comments is still not clarified in the PDD

/D.1/ /D.3/

a. The GS local stakeholder report is

enclosed that incorporates all the required documents related to local stakeholder consultation i.e. News paper publications, letters, paper publications, emails, notices/invitations, acceptance of invitation, Photographs, Attendance sheet, and minutes of meeting.

b. The stakeholders that have made comments are included in the local stakeholder’s meeting report.

c. The revised PDD is submitted with summary of comments received in section E.2 of the PDD.

a. The emails have been forwarded to

your email id for you reference.

b. The stakeholders along with their identity that have made comments are included in the local stakeholder’s

Assessment of DVRv1.0 responses. a. PJRCES did not receive any of the

supporting documents referred in the response. Refer 2nd Assessment.

b. Identity of the stakeholders who made comments is still not clarified in the PDD. Refer 2nd Assessment.

c. Revised PDDv02 includes the summary of comments received and hence, the issue is now closed.

CL#13 – Refer 2nd Assessment. Assessment of DVR ver02 responses a. Emails have been received and

verified and hence, issue is now closed.

b. Revised PDD have been verified. PP has clarified identity of the stakeholders who made comments


VALIDATION REPORT


meeting report. and hence, issue is now closed. CL#13 is now closed.


VALIDATION REPORT


APPENDIX B VALIDATION TEAM DETAILS


VALIDATION REPORT


Team Member Role Experience Anjana Sharma Validator

and Team Leader

Anjana Sharma holds a Bachelor in Chemical Engineering. She has a combined experience of 10 years. Prior to her entry into the CDM world, she worked for 3 years in Chlor-Alkali industry wherein she was involved mainly in the plant operations, energy conservation measures and QMS. During her stint in industry, her technical responsibilities included involvement in day-to-day plant operations, analysis of consumption of different inputs to the Chlor-Alkali process (primarily the raw material, power, fuels like FO/HSD for boilers etc) on daily basis and preparation of consolidated monthly report. Apart from above technical part, she was also an internal auditor for ISO 9001. She has been trained as an internal auditor for QMS as well as Lead Auditor for QMS (ISO 9001) and EMS (ISO 14001). Her experience in CDM includes 5 years and 4 months (as on date) in validation and verification of projects in regulated as well as non-regulated market. Prior to joining PJRCES, she worked as a CDM Validator and Technical Reviewer at a DOE other than PJRCES for 4 years. She has handled validation and verification of numerous CDM projects, both in India & abroad in different areas like renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste heat recovery, waste handling and disposal (especially landfill gas recovery and utilization, and waste water treatment), fuel switch etc. Her sufficient sectoral competence in renewable energy based energy generation, energy efficiency and waste handling and disposal is sufficiently demonstrated through her education qualification, industry experience and experience in CDM.

Chirag Gajjar Validator 5 years of rich Experience in the fields of CDM/Climate Change – worked as CDM Consultant and working as GHG Auditor with PJRCES. CDM/VCS Projects - Preparation and Review of Project Information/Concept Note, CDM – Project Design Documents, (PDD), VCS 2007 – Project Description (PD) for Renewable energy projects under Scope 1, Facilitation during Validation & Verification – responding to CARs/CLs, revision in the methodology under Scope 4 (manufacturing sector), facilitating the sale of CERs, As a DOE review of projects under Scope 1 for renewable energy projects. In addition to the above, also have experience in GHG Accounting and CSR Assurance services.


VALIDATION REPORT


GHG Accounting – Estimation, Development of Empirical models as per GHG Protocol, verification of the GHG emissions of the organization as per ISO14064. CSR – Verification of the Key Performance of indicators related to Waste, Energy and water under Corporate Sustainability Report as per GRI G3 guidelines.

Rohit Badaya Validator Rohit has specialization in paper technology in the domain of Chemical engineering, has done an extensive research in CDM related areas of Indian paper industries. He has experience in the sectors of renewable energy, energy efficiency and waste handling. He has provided CDM related technical and financial consulting to industries like dairy, distilleries and industries manufacturing tiles, textiles, plastics, paper, guar gum etc. He has CDM documentation experience (PDD development, Host country approval, Validation report preparation etc.) in the sectors of renewable energy and energy efficiency. In addition, he worked with DOE in validating CDM projects related to fuel switch, wind, hydro, energy efficiency and Waste heat recovery and validating VCS projects in the sector of renewable energy.

Y B S Moorthy Sector Expert – 03

Mr. Moorthy is a Mechanical Engineer (1986), with PG Dipoma in Energy Management from National Productivity Council and is a certified energy auditor. Subsequently he worked in National Thermal Power Corporation and worked on improving the energy efficiency in thermal applications. Between 1991 and 1994 he conducted energy audits in a variety of thermal applications, including biomass and suggested improvements. Mr. Moorthy also has experience of fuel switch between high carbon (Coal) to low carbon (natural gas) fuels especially in thermal applications. His qualification as a Technical Expert for validation of biomass based energy efficiency projects is thus sufficiently demonstrated through his experience in energy auditing and fuel switch in the industry.

Mathsy Kutty Independent Technical Review

She has a strong background in climate change & Environment related issues and DOE back ground of (5 years) Validating and verifying projects in sectors like Renewable energy (Sectors TA 1.1 and TA 1.2 of latest accreditation standard), Energy Efficiency (Sectors TA 1.1 of latest accreditation standard), Waste handling (Sectors TA 13.1 and TA 13.2) and Manufacturing Industries (Sector SS 4 of latest accreditation standard). She has worked in more than 10 projects in the waste heat recovery in cement and steel sector including projects from South East Asia. Has reviewed and registered more than 100 projects in different capacities i.e. as CDM validator/ verifier/Project Manager/Technical Reviewer.


VALIDATION REPORT


M.K. Halpeth Sector Expert – 03 at ITR stage

Mr. M. K. Halpeth is a post graduate in Electrical Engineering (1970), with initial 27 years of experience in the design, installation and operation of Hydro-electric power projects in India. Subsequently he joined Tata Energy Research Institute as team leader for conducting Energy Audits in a variety of applications starting from small scale house hold thermal and electrical applications to large scale utilities and industrial applications. In 2002, he became the Fellow and Head of TERI’s, Bangalore office, who is specialised in energy auditing. Under his dynamic leadership, TERI has undertaken several energy management projects, including biomass assessment, rural energy development and management and technology improvement studies and evolved energy management policies for Government of India. Mr. Halpeth and his team from TERI were also actively involved in capacity building for CDM in the country, bringing together all the elements of society for sustainable development. Thus he is full conversant with CDM modalities and procedures. His qualification as a Technical Expert for validation of biomass based energy efficiency projects is thus sufficiently demonstrated through his experience in TERI as the head of national energy monitoring, policy making and energy auditing agency.

FVR Seva Mandir V3.1 · Anjana Sharma** LV & TL Y B S Moorthy TE Mathsy Kutty ITR NA M.K. Halpeth...

Documents

Transcript of FVR Seva Mandir V3.1 · Anjana Sharma** LV & TL Y B S Moorthy TE Mathsy Kutty ITR NA M.K. Halpeth...