Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The project description mentions that there is one open lagoon for the storage of manure and the project will replace the current open lagoon system with an anaerobic digestion system. However the VR page 20 also reports that "Since the existing lagoon was full of manure, a new one with the same capacity is in construction". The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency in the project description, while at the same time referring to requirement of VVM v1.2, paragraphs 67 to validate that the selected baseline methodology(ies) applies(y) correctly to the project boundary, baseline identification and algorithms and formulae used to determine emission reductions.


2: The DOE validated that the input values used in the financial calculations were based on the Project Application Report (March 2012) which contemplates the construction of pipelines for the supply of biogas to the households. In the VR the DOE mentions that for the household part, the cost in the contract of phase I is 0.4120 Million RMB, whereas in other sections the DOE mentions that the pipeline is excluded from the financial analysis. Thus it is not clear what is the real source or references used to validate the input values for the actual project activity. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency by including information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).


3: The DOE confirmed that the PP conducted the local stakeholders meeting on 30 April 2010 and in the validation report it is stated that: "Most of the comments from stakeholders considered that the project would bring positive impacts to the local economy and livelihoods of local people with increased job opportunities and tax income to local community." and "The majority of them expressed their support to the implementation of the project activity". However it appears that the local stakeholders comments was conducted with the original project design including a pipeline system to supply biogas to the households for cooking purposes. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency by including a clear validation opinion on the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 130(b) considering that the project design had significantly changed from the version which appears to be the one presented to the stakeholders.


4: The project activity was published for stakeholders comments on 24 Jun 2010 using the following methodologies: AMS-I.C. ver. 17 and AMS-III.D. ver. 16. However this request for registration has been submitted using the following methodologies AMS-I.F. ver.2, AMS-III.D. ver. 17 and AMS-I.D. ver. 17. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency, in particular referring to the requirement in EB25 report, paragraph 92 which mentions that "The Board agreed that in cases where during validation of a project activity the project participants wish to change the methodology applied from one approved methodology to another after the PDD was available to the public for comments (note the PDD is to be made public as received from project participants), the DOE shall make publicly available again, for 30 days, the CDM-PDD in accordance with paragraph 40 (a) and (b) of the modalities and procedures for the CDM".