Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
The 10 CPAs (9948-0003 and 0005-0013), implemented in Nigeria, were included in year 2017 and applied the fNRB value (0.93) established as per the provisions of Information note SSC WG Meeting 37, Annex 14. Further, the DOE (VR page 31) verified that the parameter is determined by sourcing the default value (0.93) from UNFCCC SSC WG 37th Meeting Report for Nigeria 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, dated 20/07/2012 is valid for the 10 CPAs (9948-0003 and 0005-0013) included in year 2017 considering that fNRB value has been determined as monitoring parameter in the PoA-DD (page 49) and CPA-DDs e.g. CPA-DD0005 (page 17); and,
(b) the shares of renewable and non-renewable woody biomass have been determined in line with paragraph 7 of AMS-I.E. ver. 5 as defined in the PoA-DD and the CPA-DD.

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 fact that the systems do not service the population (i.e. the students) during the school holidays/weekends.

The DOE cross-verified continuous availability of safe drinking water based on the interviews with the users and delivery notes, and further confirmed that the subsequent supplies are reported in the emission reduction spreadsheet. However, it is observed in the emission reduction spreadsheet that:
(a) 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 water purification capacity of one unit of UltraTab as 10,000 Liters;
(b) The assumed capacity of one unit of Multi-barrier UV purifier in tab "Assumptions" is stated as 4,088,232 Liters water and the parameter refers to the CPA-DDs, whereas such value for the UV purifier could not be traced back in the respective CPA-DD;
c) The system continuous running end date (Tab “sales database” column AK) is indicated as year 2034 or later (e.g. cell ‘AI64’ of tab ‘Sales Database’), which is beyond the device lifespan as described (i.e. 5-to-7 years) in page 15 of the monitoring report.
d) It is not clear what was supplied in case of UltraTab under columns ‘E’ and ‘AB’ (Tab “sales database”) e.g. whether UltraTab tablets are supplied or any device/water tank is provided to the institution.

a) 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.

b) As per the CPA-DD-0006 (page 3), the technology to be distributed is mentioned as UV disinfection devices; however, the MR (page 15) and the VR (page 21) state that 845 number of UltraFlo devices were distributed. The DOE shall clarify how it verified the implementation of this CPA in compliance with the technology stated in the CPA-DD.

For the parameter “operational units”, the monitoring frequency is indicated as “once per verification” in CPA-DDs, 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, particularly in case where the future verification occurs after two years.