Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Project by M/s. Mono Steel (India) Ltd. in Gujarat
[]
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) AMS-I.D. ver. 17
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 18,660
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Oct 12
Length of first crediting period. 7 years
DOE/AE TUEV-RHEIN
Period for comments 20 Jun 12 - 19 Jul 12
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Mono Steel (India) Ltd.
The operational/applicant entity working on this project has decided to make the Project Design Document (PDD) publicly available directly on the UNFCCC CDM website.
PDD PDD (n/a)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
No data about land aquisition. Public participation not proper as advertisement on the village pnachyat notice board only. thus avoding participation of villagers from other villages. Public participation needs to be doen again.
Submitted by: Paryavaraniya Vikas Kendra

Gujarat forum on CDM respectfully submit the following comments on the Project Design Document (PDD) for  Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Project by M/s. Mono Steel (India) Ltd. in Gujarat  at Village - Shiloj, Taluka - Una, District - Junagadh
Gujarat, India.

Selection of Location 
	Why this location has been chosen for this project?
Impact on Surrounding Environment 
	Will this project have an impact on temperature in surrounding area? 
	What would be impact of negative environmental conditions of area due to project? 
	What would be alternatives in that case? 
Benefit Criteria
	Is there any benefits from state/central government to develop the project?
Local Stakeholdersí Participation 
	Public notice was published in panchayat office (which is good) but not in daily newspaper. Not everyone goes to panchayat office while a local daily newspaper has a wider reach.
	Notice for the meeting was published only 10 days prior to the meeting while it ideally should be published atleast 30 days prior so that people do not make prior engagements.
	No special feedback session seems to be conducted where the local stakeholders can pose their concern. Seems like a one way communication where the representatives of the industry explained the villagers what they had to and the meeting ended.
	In the meeting, only 3 farmers and 2 panchayat members were present in the meeting which is a very poor number to hold the public consultation.
	Also, a major area of concern is that, the report says - not even a single area of concern was raised by the villagers. 
	The topics discussed in the meeting were general topics like benefits of solar power plant, about global warming and their project goals. But relevant issues like what resources they would be taking from the local environment, what effects that project can have on  local environment, wastage treatment mechanism, what amount from CDM earnings they would be contributing towards the well being of the local stakeholders were not discussed which are the foremost areas of concern impacting the villagers.
Social Well-being Ė Employment factor 
	How many skilled/unskilled people from surrounding area will be employed at this project during commissioning and operation?

Falguni Joshi 
Gujarat forum On CDM (Email Ė gujaratforumoncdm@gmail.com) 
(Gujarat Forum on CDM Ė is a network of Individuals & Organisations working on Environmental issue & Monitoring of CDM projects in Gujarat, India.)
Submitted by: Gujarat Forum on CDM


1.	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

2.	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


3.	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PPís that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  



4.	DOE to ensure that the PDD values are consistent and ensure that the CDM project is a genuine project
5.	DoE to check the Detailed Project Report and Feasibility Report which is submitted to the other agencies and Banks by Project owner and ensure that the values match with the DPR/FR  submitted to DoE also. 
6.	Careful study must be done so that the DPR/FR is not in different versions made and submitted with different purposes to different agencies, which is totally unacceptable, illegal and unethical. 
7.	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
8.	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
9.	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPRís and FRís. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 



10.	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CERís. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

11.	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then Iím sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.
12.	Project owner should show some undertaking letter from bank manager to DoE stating that both DPRís are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
13.	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 


Submitted by: lasith


The comment period is over.
* Emission reductions in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum that are based on the estimates provided by the project participants in unvalidated PDDs