01:35 24 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The submitted PRC does not contain a revised PDD (in both clean and track-change versions) (PCP v7, para 146 (c)).
Issue: The PP/DOE submitted a request for a PRC which includes changes in planted area, species composition, technology applied and number of sample plots. Further, the VR (pg. 48) indicates that during the site visit variations were observed in spacing. EB 66 Annex 24 para 4 indicates these changes “do not require prior approval from the CDM EB”. It is further noted that the PRC assessment opinion (pg.14) has indicated that “A revision of the PDD is not required (in case of temp. Changes and A/R specific changes (defined as minor))”. However, in accordance with paragraph 146(c) of the PCP ver 07.0, a request for approval of post-registration changes shall contain a revised PDD in both clean and track-change version as part of the documentation. The PP/DOE are requested to submit a revised PDD.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain information on the sampling plan in accordance with the AR Methodological Tool; EB 58 Annex 15 (PS v7, para 61).
Issue: The MR (Section D.3) has described the sampling procedure, sample size, locating of the sample plots, layout of the sample plots and assessment of adequacy of the sample size. A sample size of 152 plots was calculated. The DOE (VR pg. 54) confirmed the calculated sample size (152 sample plots) is correct and has been presented transparently in a spreadsheet. However, the mentioned spreadsheet has not been submitted.
3: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: The values listed on columns L, M, N and O (ER calculation spreadsheet worksheet_ “Biomass_AR Tool14, Version 04.1”) are not traceable. These values are related change in tree biomass per hectare and were used for determining the uncertainty factor (27.43%).
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v7, para 273 (b))
Issue: The DOE (PRC assessment opinion pg. 11) has verified a change in species composition as part of the submitted PRC. However, the VR (pgs. 48 and 52) indicates that the species planted are observed to be consistent with the registered PDD. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency between the PRC assessment opinion and the verification report.
1: Scope: The submitted PRC does not contain a revised PDD (in both clean and track-change versions) (PCP v7, para 146 (c)).
Issue: The PP/DOE submitted a request for a PRC which includes changes in planted area, species composition, technology applied and number of sample plots. Further, the VR (pg. 48) indicates that during the site visit variations were observed in spacing. EB 66 Annex 24 para 4 indicates these changes “do not require prior approval from the CDM EB”. It is further noted that the PRC assessment opinion (pg.14) has indicated that “A revision of the PDD is not required (in case of temp. Changes and A/R specific changes (defined as minor))”. However, in accordance with paragraph 146(c) of the PCP ver 07.0, a request for approval of post-registration changes shall contain a revised PDD in both clean and track-change version as part of the documentation. The PP/DOE are requested to submit a revised PDD.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain information on the sampling plan in accordance with the AR Methodological Tool; EB 58 Annex 15 (PS v7, para 61).
Issue: The MR (Section D.3) has described the sampling procedure, sample size, locating of the sample plots, layout of the sample plots and assessment of adequacy of the sample size. A sample size of 152 plots was calculated. The DOE (VR pg. 54) confirmed the calculated sample size (152 sample plots) is correct and has been presented transparently in a spreadsheet. However, the mentioned spreadsheet has not been submitted.
3: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: The values listed on columns L, M, N and O (ER calculation spreadsheet worksheet_ “Biomass_AR Tool14, Version 04.1”) are not traceable. These values are related change in tree biomass per hectare and were used for determining the uncertainty factor (27.43%).
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v7, para 273 (b))
Issue: The DOE (PRC assessment opinion pg. 11) has verified a change in species composition as part of the submitted PRC. However, the VR (pgs. 48 and 52) indicates that the species planted are observed to be consistent with the registered PDD. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency between the PRC assessment opinion and the verification report.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: