CDM project activity/programme of activities registration request review form (CDM-REGR-FORM) (Version 03.0)

Reference number of the proposed CDM project activity/programme of activities (PoA) submitted for registration	4293
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration	Carroll’s Foods do Brasil & LOGICarbon – GHG Emission Reductions from Swine Manure Management System, Diamantino, MT, Brazil
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 37 and 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures, which validation requirement(s) may require review. A list of requirements is provided below. Please provide reasons in support of the request for review. Including any supporting documentation.
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 37 of the CDM modalities and procedures:
The participation requirements as set out in paragraph 28 to 30 of the CDM modalities and procedures are satisfied; Comments by local stakeholders have been invited, a summary of the comments received has been provided, and a report to the designated operational entity (DOE) on how due account was taken of any comments has been received; Project Participants have submitted to the DOE documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity, including transboundary impacts and, if those impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, have undertaken an environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as required by the host Party; The project activity is expected to result in a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, in accordance with paragraphs 43 to 52 of the CDM modalities and procedures; The baseline and monitoring methodologies comply with requirements pertaining to methodologies previously approved by the Executive Board; Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting are in accordance with decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP; The project activity conforms to all other requirements for CDM project activities in decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the Executive Board.
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures:
The DOE shall, prior to the submission of the validation report to the Executive Board, have received from the project participants written approval of voluntary participation from the designated national authority of each Party involved, including confirmation by the host Party that the project activity assists it in achieving sustainable development; In accordance with provisions on confidentiality contained in paragraph 27(h) of the CDM modalities and procedures, the DOE shall make publicly available the project design document; The DOE shall receive, within 30 days, comments on the validation requirements from Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited non-governmental organizations and make them publicly available; After the deadline for receipt of comments, the DOE shall make a determination as to whether, on the basis of the information provided and taking into account the comments received, the project activity should be validated; The DOE shall inform project participants of its determination on the validation of the project activity. Notification to the project participants will include confirmation of validation and the date of submission of the validation report to the Executive Board; The DOE shall submit to the Executive Board, if it determines the proposed project activity to be valid, a request for registration in the form of a validation report including of the project design document, the written approval of the host Party and an explanation of how it has taken due account of comments received.
There are only minor issues which should be addressed by the DOE/project participants prior to the registration of the project.
Additional information
1. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the input values to the investment analysis: (a) as it is not clear whether the input values were available at the time of the investment decision in line with the EB51 Annex 58 paragraph 6, in particular: (i) the O&M cost for the baseline scenario; (ii) the installation cost for the digesters; (iii) the installation cost for monitoring system; (iv) generator and equipment cost; (v) the O&M cost for generator; (vi) generator group cost; (vii) other equipment and installation costs; (viii) the methane production; (ix) the assumed electricity to methane ratio of 10.48 kWh/m3 of CH4; and (x) 35% electricity output of the generator; (b) as insufficient information was provided on how many projects have been compared nor the result of the comparison, in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b), in particular: (i) the electricity cost; (ii) the electricity consumption; (iii) the electricity sales price; (iv) the O&M cost for the baseline scenario; (v) the installation cost for the digesters; (vi) the installation cost for monitoring system; (vii) generator and equipment cost; (viii) the O&M cost for generator; (ix) generator group cost; (x) other equipment and installation costs; (c) as insufficient information was provided on how they have been validated in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (a) to (d), in particular: (i) the methane production; (ii) the assumed electricity to methane ratio of 10.48 kWh/m3 of CH4; (iii) 35% electricity output of the generator. 2. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the baseline scenario in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 33 (a) and paragraph 84. In doing so, the DOE should provide its independent opinion regarding the alternative scenarios to the project activity. 3. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the ex-ante parameters in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91, in particular Fgasm for aerobic lagoon with natural aeration and Fgasm for aerobic lagoon with forced aeration. 4. The PP is requested to include parameter FAer (fraction of volatile solids directed to aerobic treatment) in the monitor plan as per page 31 of ACM0010 v5. 5. The DOE is requested to explain how monitoring parameter LFAD (Fraction of methane leakage from anaerobic digester) has been validated in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 123 as no information was provided on how the parameter will be determined.
Date	25 Apr 11