Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification and certification report does not describe the implementation status of the project as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Scope: The verification report does not describe the reasons for the phased-implementation delay and/or does not present the expected implementation dates as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it confirmed that the information provided in the monitoring report is in accordance with that stated in the registered PDD in particular for measurement device for parameter PPJ,y. The registered PDD mentions the device being Toledo whereas the monitoring report mentions it as Weightech WT211.

2: Scope: The verification and certification 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 for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified YPJ the implementation of the sampling plan for parameter YPJ which information is not provided in section B.6.3 as per the Standard for Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities, version 05.0, paragraph 24, in particular whether the actual precision has met the requirement. Please refer to Appendix 4 of Guideline for Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities, version 04.0 for reliability calculation.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified by the applied methodology, the standardized baseline and/or the monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 400.
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following delays in calibration:
(a) for parameter YPJ. The DOE confirmed that maximum error has been applied in conservative manner. However it is not evident in the spreadsheet how this has been applied;
(b) for parameters PPJ,y and FPJ,charcoal which calibration as per the monitoring plan are done quarterly. For PPJ,y, the calibration was due on 10/04/2015 and 11/10/2015, but it was only calibrated on 18/04/2015 and 17/10/2015. For parameter FPJ,charcoal, the calibration was due on 11/10/2015, but it was only calibrated on 17/10/2015.

4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the calculation of the baseline emissions. The parameter CMBL,vehicle,y is calculated based on Nv,BL of 45.99 trips. This number of trips was based on the assumption of PPJ,y of 240,000 t during registration. However the actual PPJ,y during this monitoring period is only 171,358 tonnes.

5: Scope: The verification and certification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 403 (d).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the GWP of N2O being 310 for the second commitment period in line with the Standard for the application of the global warming potentials to clean development mechanism project activities and programme of activities for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.