15:58 22 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: In the request for PRC, the project activity request changes in parameters, equations, or methods used in tree biomass estimation. EB66, Annex 24 requires compliance of the changes with the “Tool for demonstration of applicability of allometric equations and volume equations in A/R CDM project activities”. However, the DOE did not provide information on how it has verified the compliance with the relevant tools. In doing so, the DOE shall specify the changes for each specie and which paragraph of the relevant tool has been followed to verify the compliance. Please refer to A/R Methodological Tool “Demonstrating appropriateness of allometric equations for estimation of aboveground tree biomass in A/R CDM project activities” Version 01.0.0 and A/R Methodological Tool “Demonstrating appropriateness of volume equations for estimation of aboveground tree biomass in A/R CDM project activities” Version 01.0.1.
2: Sampling activities have been applied in the monitoring. Paragraph 24 of the standard “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities” Version 07.0 requires verifying whether the required confidence/precision has been met. However, the monitoring/verification report does not provide information on the achieved precision of each sampling parameter, nor provide information on how the DOE has verified the precision of sampling actually achieved.
3: To determine the carbon stock of species, parameter CFs (Carbon fraction of biomass) are ex-ante determined. However, the parameter CFs are not applied consistently, for example (a) a carbon fraction for roots of 0.48 is stated in page 17 of the monitoring report whereas a carbon fraction of 0.5 is applied in the ER sheet to determine the carbon stock in roots (e.g. column T in tab “Tree Biomass”); and (b) a carbon fraction of biomass for Shrub species (0.45) is applied in the ER sheet (i.e. cell E4 in tab “Standard Values”) whereas such value is not defined in the monitoring report (i.e. section D.1). The DOE shall provide information on how it has verified the applicability and correctness of those values.
4: The equations applied to estimate biomass are not consistently presented in the submitted documented. For example, (a) Table E.4.1 of the monitoring report (Allometric equations for tree biomass) does not include equation for Quercus sp (DBH) whereas such equation is applied in the ER sheet (i.e. cell D16 to I16 of tab “Standard Values”); (b) page 37 of the monitoring report states an equation of using root-shoot ratio to determine root biomass whereas different equations are applied to determine root biomass (i.e. column G-I, N-P and U-W of tab “Standard Values”). The DOE is requested to address the inconsistency and provide information on how it has verified the applicability of the equations for biomass estimation.
1: In the request for PRC, the project activity request changes in parameters, equations, or methods used in tree biomass estimation. EB66, Annex 24 requires compliance of the changes with the “Tool for demonstration of applicability of allometric equations and volume equations in A/R CDM project activities”. However, the DOE did not provide information on how it has verified the compliance with the relevant tools. In doing so, the DOE shall specify the changes for each specie and which paragraph of the relevant tool has been followed to verify the compliance. Please refer to A/R Methodological Tool “Demonstrating appropriateness of allometric equations for estimation of aboveground tree biomass in A/R CDM project activities” Version 01.0.0 and A/R Methodological Tool “Demonstrating appropriateness of volume equations for estimation of aboveground tree biomass in A/R CDM project activities” Version 01.0.1.
2: Sampling activities have been applied in the monitoring. Paragraph 24 of the standard “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities” Version 07.0 requires verifying whether the required confidence/precision has been met. However, the monitoring/verification report does not provide information on the achieved precision of each sampling parameter, nor provide information on how the DOE has verified the precision of sampling actually achieved.
3: To determine the carbon stock of species, parameter CFs (Carbon fraction of biomass) are ex-ante determined. However, the parameter CFs are not applied consistently, for example (a) a carbon fraction for roots of 0.48 is stated in page 17 of the monitoring report whereas a carbon fraction of 0.5 is applied in the ER sheet to determine the carbon stock in roots (e.g. column T in tab “Tree Biomass”); and (b) a carbon fraction of biomass for Shrub species (0.45) is applied in the ER sheet (i.e. cell E4 in tab “Standard Values”) whereas such value is not defined in the monitoring report (i.e. section D.1). The DOE shall provide information on how it has verified the applicability and correctness of those values.
4: The equations applied to estimate biomass are not consistently presented in the submitted documented. For example, (a) Table E.4.1 of the monitoring report (Allometric equations for tree biomass) does not include equation for Quercus sp (DBH) whereas such equation is applied in the ER sheet (i.e. cell D16 to I16 of tab “Standard Values”); (b) page 37 of the monitoring report states an equation of using root-shoot ratio to determine root biomass whereas different equations are applied to determine root biomass (i.e. column G-I, N-P and U-W of tab “Standard Values”). The DOE is requested to address the inconsistency and provide information on how it has verified the applicability of the equations for biomass estimation.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: