23:03 03 May 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Issue: In regard to the increase of the population in the sites Fazenda Chapadão and Sítio Lote 23 Qda, the DOE is requested to explain how this does not impact the project activity, in particular how the baseline considered in the registered PDD would have still been applicable with this increase of the population.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE needs to explain how it concluded that the monitoring has been implemented as per the registered monitoring plan, in particular for parameters: (i) Wsite. The monitoring report page 24 shows that the parameter was obtained by weighting of a representative sample of animals. However, the monitoring plan does not have provision to sample this parameter; (ii) Tbiogas and Pbiogas, measured by technician on monthly basis. Please explain how this is in accordance with the monitoring plan .
3: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following parameters: (a) "Site Inspection", in particular how it crosschecked this parameter in regard to relevant regulation considered by the site; (b) Flare efficiency, in particular how it verified that the efficiency had been correctly determined, in the absence of the information regarding what the manufacturer's specification is.
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Issue: In regard to the increase of the population in the sites Fazenda Chapadão and Sítio Lote 23 Qda, the DOE is requested to explain how this does not impact the project activity, in particular how the baseline considered in the registered PDD would have still been applicable with this increase of the population.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE needs to explain how it concluded that the monitoring has been implemented as per the registered monitoring plan, in particular for parameters: (i) Wsite. The monitoring report page 24 shows that the parameter was obtained by weighting of a representative sample of animals. However, the monitoring plan does not have provision to sample this parameter; (ii) Tbiogas and Pbiogas, measured by technician on monthly basis. Please explain how this is in accordance with the monitoring plan .
3: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following parameters: (a) "Site Inspection", in particular how it crosschecked this parameter in regard to relevant regulation considered by the site; (b) Flare efficiency, in particular how it verified that the efficiency had been correctly determined, in the absence of the information regarding what the manufacturer's specification is.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: