Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to explain the methodological choices for the calculation of the baseline, project emissions and emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PDD (page 41) states that the ex-post emission reductions achieved by the project activity (ERy,ex-post) based on monitored values for the year “y” will be used to cap the maximal emission reduction in any year. However, the relevant formulas in the methodology in paragraphs 18 and 19 are not included among the formulas for the calculation of emission reductions.

2: The PP/DOE are requested to include the details of each monitoring parameter listed as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
As per paragraph 30 (a) of AMS-III.D version 16: " The PDD shall describe the system used for monitoring the fraction of the manure handled in the animal manure management system (MS%,i,y), the average weight of the livestock (Wsite) and the livestock population (NLT,y) taking into account the average number of days the animals are alive in the farm in a specific year. The consistency between these values and indirect information (records of sales, records of food purchases) shall be assessed. Significant changes in livestock population and average weight shall be explained." The PDD does not describe the monitoring system information for those parameters and does not include the assessment of consistency as required.

3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
The DOE has shown (VR, p. 17) the comparison of key input values to the financial calculations (investments for flaring and power generation equipment, Operation and Maintenance, electricity prices) for the project activity vs. those of other similar swine manure projects in Brazil. However, the DOE has not provided a clear validation opinion on the appropriateness of the data used for the project activity, particularly as the other projects had different swine population and power generation capacities.

4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed each barrier presented as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 118 (a) and (b).
The DOE has not provided evidence or references to support its determination that the technological barriers claimed in the PDD are real. According to the VVM, para 117(a), "The DOE shall ensure that existence of barriers is substantiated by independent sources of data such as relevant national legislation, surveys of local conditions and national or international statistics. If existence of a barrier is substantiated only by the opinions of the project participants, the DOE shall not consider this barrier to be adequately substantiated."

5: The DOE is requested ensure that all FARs are related to either monitoring or implementation issues as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 38.
The DOE states (VR, p. 12) that the actual project starting date will be subject to verification by the verifying DOE. However, there is no FAR issued for this purpose.