Review Request Form
Submitted Request for Review Form (Version 03.0)
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
Title and UNFCCC reference number
of the project activity or
programme of activities (PoA) 		10443: "Madagascar Improved Cookstove Project by KCM"
Titles and reference numbers of
the component project activities
(CPAs) covered by the request for issuance
Date of the request for issuance 2019/10/17
Monitoring period to which
the request for issuance applies 		2019/01/01 - 2019/05/31
UNFCCC reference number of
the request for issuance 		10443-MP1-IRP1
SECTION 2: BASIS FOR REVIEW REQUEST
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 65 of the CDM modalities and procedures
(the annex to decision 3/CMP.1), the issues regarding which you request for review. Please tick the applicable boxes.
Incompetence
SECTION 3: COMMENTS SUPPORTING REVIEW REQUEST
Please elaborate the reason for requesting a review on the issues you indicated in section 2 above

1) Refer to paragraph: page 14 of AMS II.G version 9.

The DOE shall substantiate how it has verified the determination of the ex-post monitored parameter μy,i,j (Adjustment to account for any continued use of pre-project devices during the year y) of 99.82% as per the requirements stipulated on page 14 of AMS II.G version 9 since: (i) page 24 of the verification report states that it is derived from baseline stove use (0.082 t/yr), whereas the submitted survey sheet (i.e. cell O2 of tab “Monitoring Survey-µ”) indicates that the values of 99.82% is derived exclusively from the proportion of baseline stove in use and is not related to the adjustment value for baseline stove use (0.082 t/yr); and (ii) cell O5 of tab “Monitoring Survey-µ” shows that the proportion of baseline stove in use of the 13 samples in survey is 23%. In addition, the formula applied in calculating the adjustment factor shall also be specified in the monitoring report.

 

2) Refer to paragraph: paragraph 17(b)(c) and 24(a) of the standard “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities” version 07.

The DOE (i.e. page 24 of the verification report) confirms that the required precision of 10% was achieved for surveyed parameter μy,i,j,  however the relevant surveys in cell O7 and S9 of tab “Monitoring Survey-µ” in the submitted spreadsheet indicate 99.21% and 27.70% as precision achieved. The DOE shall substantiate how it has verified (i) the achieved precision of the relevant surveys and its compliance with paragraph 24(a) and 17(c) of the standard “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities” version 07; and (ii) the applicability of paragraph 17(b) of the sampling standard and the correctness of the correction to the survey estimates when sampling fails to meet required precision.

 

3) Refer to paragraph: paragraph 359(d) of CDM VVS for PoA version 2.

The values of ex-ante parameter fNRB,y “Fraction of woody biomass saved by the project activity in year y that can be established as non-renewable biomass”, determined as 0.966 for the three included CPAs were sourced from a sub-national survey report conducted by a third party (i.e. CEDII). Whereas, paragraph 39(a) of AMS II.G version 9 requires determining fNRB value through sub-national survey in accordance with methodological tool “Calculation of fraction of non-renewable biomass” and the calculation of fNRB as per the tool was not justified in the three CPAs. The DOE shall substantiate how it has verified the compliance of the calculations of  fNRB with the methodological tool “Calculation of fraction of non-renewable biomass”. Furthermore,  the calculation sheet of fNRB shall also be submitted, in which the sources of input values and justification on the compliance with specific paragraph of the tool shall be specified.