DAKFOCAM Wastewater project
Host party(ies) Viet Nam
Methodology(ies) AMS-III.H. ver. 16
AMS-I.C. ver. 18
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 17,970
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jul 11
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
Period for comments 13 May 11 - 11 Jun 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation ecotawa AG
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 (1391 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
It is evident from the PDD that the values are consistent and it is definitely forged and cooked up values to show a non CDM project as a CDM project. What is this? 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. After careful study of PDD it is found that DPR/FR is in different versions made and submitted with different purposes to different agencies which is totally unacceptable, illegal and unethical. PP/Consultant may 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. 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. In this particular project there is clear cut evidence that DPR/FR values are changed/ fabricated mischievously and intentionally. This 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. 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. This project is a fabricated and fake CDM project and must be rejected by the DOE right away. DOE should not support this kind of projects otherwise CDM EB should suspend this DOE for at least one year. 
Submitted by: zhong zhou li

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