Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The CPAs (9948-0023 to 9948-0037), implemented in Kenya, were included on 18/11/2018 and applied a fNRB value (0.928) established as per the provisions of Information note SSC WG Meeting 37. Further, the DOE (VR page 19) verifies that the parameter is determined by sourcing a default value (0.92) from UNFCCC SSC WG 37th Meeting Report for Kenya and multiplying it with the percentage of population using non-renewable woody biomass/fossil fuel. However, it is not clear how: (a) the fNRB value used from SSC WG meeting 37, Annex 14, is valid for the CPAs included on 18/11/2018 since the considered default value for Kenya expired on 18/09/2017 and a fNRB value has been determined as monitoring parameter as per the PoA-DD (page 49) and CPA-DDs e.g. CPA-DD023 (page 15); and (b) the shares of renewable and non-renewable woody have been determined in line paragraph 7 of AMS-I.E. ver. 5 as defined in the PoA-DD and the CPA-DD.

2: The CME/DOE shall provide information on how it is appropriate to apply the entire days covered by the monitoring period when calculating parameter QPWy (i.e. quantity of purified water for drinking during the year y), given the facts that the systems do not service the population (i.e. the students) during the school holidays.

3: The registered PoA-DD and the included CPAs mention that the sales database will include information on the address and contact details (name and phone number if available) of the end user. The DOE (verification report page 19) confirms that the database contains the address of the users. However, no information is provided on the name of the user (institution) where the water purification systems have been implemented. The DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified the implementation and operation of the registered CDM PoA and the included CPAs in accordance with the description contained in the registered PoA-DD and included CPA-DDs.

4: For the parameter “operational units”, the monitoring frequency is indicated as “continuous” in some CPAs and others as “At least once per verification or biennially”; and “Once per verification” in the monitoring report and the verification report. However, the applied methodology (AMS-III.AV. ver. 04, paragraph 15) requires the monitoring frequency as “at least once every two years (biennial)”. The DOE shall provide further information on how it verified that the monitoring plan complies with the applied methodology.

5: The DOE cross-verified continuous availability of safe drinking water based on the interviews with the institution heads, copies of Purchase Order and Delivery Notes, and further confirmed that the subsequent supplies are reported in the emission reduction spreadsheet. The CME/DOE shall address the following:
i. The CPA-DDs (section A.3) indicate that one tablet (UltraTab) treats 100 Liters whereas the emission reduction spreadsheet (Tab “assumptions” cell D8) indicates that wWater purification capacity of one unit of UltraTab as 10,000 Liters;
ii. It is not clear what was supplied in case of UltraTab under columns ‘E’ and ‘AD’ (Tab “sales database”) e.g. whether UltraTab tablets are supplied or any device/water tank is provided to the institution.
iii. The water purification capacity of one unit of Multi-barrier UV is stated as 4, 088,232 liters water (Tab "Assumptions" Cell D10) and refers to the registered CPA-DD for CPA 04 whereas such value could not be traced back in the respective CPA-DD;
iv. The system continuous running end date (Tab “sales database” column AK) is indicated as year 2080 or more (i.e. cells AK2877, AK2907 and AK2931), which is beyond the device lifespan as described (i.e. 5-to-7 years) on page 15 of the monitoring report.