Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The CME is required to provide the calculations of baseline, project and leakage GHG emissions as per paragraph 269 of VVS PS version 1.
Issue: The PP/DOE is requested to submit the calculation spreadsheet which contains the monitoring results and traceable formulae for the calculation of emission reductions.

2: Scope: The DOE has not list each parameter required by the registered
monitoring plan and state how it verified the information flow (from data generation and aggregation to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring report. Please refer to VVS PoA v1.0 paragraph 349.
Issue: The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has verified the parameters Uy and efficiency as per the Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities version 4. In particular,
a) how it verified that a weighted average of Uy by vintage (i.e. 94.27% "Usage survey-Usage result-Cell CC28) is appropriateness instead of overall operational rate (i.e. 91.72% "Usage survey-Usage Result-Cell BV12) considering that the sampling size is calculated for all types of cookstove for all vintages as a single target group, instead of separated samplings for each type and vintage;
b) how the weighted average of efficiency (25.05%) is calculated from the survey data for different types and different vintages;
c) verification report page 28 confirms that 95/10 precision has been applied for cross CPA sampling, however it is observed in Annex 11 - WBT Excel Sheets that 90/10 precision has been applied.

3: 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 PoA v1.0 paragraph 358(d)
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the information on how it has validated the emission reductions calculation, in particular how the parameter Ny (adjusted for year equivalent fraction) is derived from monitoring parameters, considering there is no calculation available in the monitoring report or ER spreadsheet.

4: Scope: The DOE is requested to provide the assessment regarding whether the changes would adversely affect the conclusion of the validation report in respect of: (b) the compliance of the monitoring plan with applied methodologies; (c) the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring compared with the requirements in the regsitered monitoring plan. Please refer to VVS PoA v1.0 paragraph 270.
Issue: (a) The VVS PoA v1.0 paragraph 124(a) has defined that the parameter ex ante will not change during the crediting period and the update of ex ante parameter is neither under the scope of correction when there was not mistake identified nor under the scope of change of project design. The PP/DOE is requested to clarify how it is considered appropriate to change the ex ante parameter, such as Bold from 7.02 ton/HH/y for urban households and 4.97 ton/HH/y for rural households to single 5.28 ton/HH/y for mixed households.
(b) The sampling plan has been revised (e.g. page 16 of SSC-CPA-DD 1st) whereas the DOE has not validated as per VVS PoA v1.0 paragraph 265-268. The DOE is requested to further substantiate how the level of accuracy and completeness of monitoring/sampling are comparable to the register monitoring plan (e.g. page 32 of CPA-DD1 states that CPA will sample for groups 1) Uganda-Rural/EzyStove/Residential, and 2) Uganda-Urban/EzyStove/Residential Different sample groups could be formed to ensure sample populations were homogenous) or where the accuracy is reduced, the DOE shall request the coordinating/managing entity to apply conservative assumptions or discount factors.
(c) Further, the DOE has states that the 15% and 85% for urban and rural household proportion comes from the baseline survey, whereas the actual distribution of cookstoves to urban and rural households are neither specified in the eligibility criteria and CPA-DDs nor provided during the monitoring. The DOE is requested to justify the appropriateness of applying such proportion to calculate the weighted average of Bold.