07:08 28 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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 verification report does not list each parameter presented in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. The verification provides only the list of six parameters that are reported in the monitoring report. The parameters used in the emission reduction calculations are also not reported in the monitoring report.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The DOE has assessed that the calibration is not required for the measuring instruments involved in the project. However, the instruments are regularly checked but such details covering the whole monitoring period are not provided in the verification report. Also, the DOE verified that the GPS is sent to other company for the calibration but the details of the calibration are not provided in the verification report.
3: 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 DOE is requested to explain how it assessed the appropriateness of the formula used for emission reduction calculations given that the equations used (in cells P1863, P1949, P2355, P4372 in the worksheet CLB.1) for the estimation of "Commerical Volume (Vp)" in the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet for the species Cupressus lusitánica are not consistent with the equations provided in the monitoring report (page 57).
4: Scope: The certification report does not indicate the monitoring period under verification and/or the corresponding number of CERs requested by the DOE.
Issue: The verification period has been reported inconsistently as 06 June 2002 to 09 September 2012 in page 3 of the certification report.
1: 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 verification report does not list each parameter presented in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. The verification provides only the list of six parameters that are reported in the monitoring report. The parameters used in the emission reduction calculations are also not reported in the monitoring report.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The DOE has assessed that the calibration is not required for the measuring instruments involved in the project. However, the instruments are regularly checked but such details covering the whole monitoring period are not provided in the verification report. Also, the DOE verified that the GPS is sent to other company for the calibration but the details of the calibration are not provided in the verification report.
3: 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 DOE is requested to explain how it assessed the appropriateness of the formula used for emission reduction calculations given that the equations used (in cells P1863, P1949, P2355, P4372 in the worksheet CLB.1) for the estimation of "Commerical Volume (Vp)" in the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet for the species Cupressus lusitánica are not consistent with the equations provided in the monitoring report (page 57).
4: Scope: The certification report does not indicate the monitoring period under verification and/or the corresponding number of CERs requested by the DOE.
Issue: The verification period has been reported inconsistently as 06 June 2002 to 09 September 2012 in page 3 of the certification report.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: