Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The revised PDD does not contain a summary of impacts of the proposed or actual changes to the registered CDM project activity regarding: a) the applicability and application of the applied methodology under the project activity has been registered; b)compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology; c) the level of accuracy and completeness in the monitoring of the project activity; d) the additionality of the project activity; e) the scale of the project activity (PS v1, para 219)
Issue: The project are has been revised from 4,373 hectares to 3,137.32 hectares, however the estimation of the net anthropogenic GHG removals is still based on a project area of 4,373 hectares.

2: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The Emissions from biomass loss (woody and non-woody) is calculated to be 55,373 tCO2 for the monitoring period (4861_CER sheet 17 Oct 12, worksheet 'Removals 2', Cell I 56). However according to the revised spreadsheet submitted under PRC, the total biomass loss corresponding to Year 2011 amounts to 175,541.58 tCO2 (Appendix 1 - 08_ColombiaAR_TARAM V1.4_PRC, worksheet 'Aexa', Cell BR 31). The DOE shall provide further explanation on how the Biomass loss calculated is in accordance with the method described in the spreadsheet and the revised PDD.

3: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVS v2, para 246 (d))
Issue: According to the methodology AR-AM0004 v.4, uncertainties in the estimation of the actual net GHG removals by sinks may arise especially when global default values for the biomass expansion factor (BEF) are used. When default data from IPCC literature is used, whenever possible and necessary, they should be been checked for consistency against available local data specific to the project circumstances (page 32). The DOE closed CAR 6 related to the use of the BEF value of 3.4, based on the EB 67 withdrawal of the “Guidelines on conservative choice and application of default data in estimation of the net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks”. However the DOE shall provide further information on how it verified that the BEF value of 3.4 (IPCC) meets the methodological requirements of uncertainties and conservative approach.