Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The monitoring report does not contain a detailed description of the implementation status and actual operation of the CPA covered by the monitoring period, including relevant dates (e.g. construction, commissioning, start of operation). Please refer to version 3.0 of the PS-PoA, paragraph 258(d).
The CME divided the stoves in groups based on the time of distribution, stove model and stove type. It was observed, however, that a group of -stoves was distributed between 01/01/2020 and 31/12/2020 and the start date of the crediting period for all these stoves was assumed to be on 01/09/2020. This means that stoves distributed between 01/09/2020 and 31/12/2020 are claiming CERs for the whole period between 01/09/2020 and the end of the monitoring period.

2: The CME did not explain how the sampling has been conducted in accordance with the sampling plan in the registered monitoring plan. Please refer to version 3.0 of the PS-PoA, paragraph 263.
The following issues were identified with respect to the description of the sampling plan in he monitoring report:

a) The monitoring report only explains the sampling assumptions and calculation of the parameter "Efficiency of the device of each type i and batch j implemented as part of the project activity". A description of the sampling approach (including the calculation steps) for the other parameters included in the sampling plan, i.e. "Adjustment to account for any continued use of pre-project devices during the year y" and "Number of project devices of type i and batch j operating during year y" are missing;

b) The sum of samples in the last column of the table form page 18 of the monitoring report is equal to 87. This number does not match with the number of units sampled and indicated in the sheet “Monitoring Survey” from the calculation spreadsheet and no explanations were provided on the reason for the differences;

c) No explanations were provided with respect to the differences between (i) the ratio of the calculated sample size of each strata and the calculated sample size for all strata, and (ii) the ratio of the surveyed size of each strata and the total number of surveys conducted for all strata. For example, the share of stoves "Tier 3, 2021, Single Mouth 8 Portable with Insulation and Lining" (row 189 of the sheet "Sample Size Cal & results") distributed was equal to 234,410 units, which represent 21.11% of all units distributed; however, 43 units were surveyed which represent 4.23% of all units surveyed.

3: The DOE did not apply correctly a sampling approach in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”. Please refer to version 3.0 of the VVS-PoA, paragraph 297 and to version 9.0 of the Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities, paragraphs 30, 31 and 32.
The DOE applied sampling approach to verify the operation of the stoves through interviews with stove owners.

The verification report explains that an AQL of 1.0%, an UQL of 10.0%, and both consumer and producer risks equal to 5% were selected based on a table from the Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities, and conclude that a sample size of 10 should have been verified at least, and accordingly with 1 as the maximum number of discrepancies (acceptance number) between the verified data and the PP data - a higher sample size equals to 50 was selected.

However, according to this table, the sample size should have been 62 with an acceptance number of 2. In addition, the DOE did not explain whether the samples were selected based on the proportion of each of the different strata.