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) 		9948: "Impact Carbon Global Safe Water Programme of Activities (PoA)"
Titles and reference numbers of
the component project activities
(CPAs) covered by the request for issuance
Date of the request for issuance 2021/01/12
Monitoring period to which
the request for issuance applies 		2020/01/01 - 2020/03/21
UNFCCC reference number of
the request for issuance 		9948-MP4-IRP3
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: VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 340 (a)

The baseline water source is not mentioned in the monitoring report or emission reduction sheet. The included CPA-DDs (Section A.3) and the monitoring report (Section C.1) indicate that UltraFlo WPS will be fixed and applicable for piped water while UltraTab WPS is portable in nature and applicable for un-piped water. However, it is not clear from verification report how the DOE confirmed whether the implementation of the WPS is in accordance with the description provided in the included CPA-DDs and whether the installed WPS is compatible with the available water source. Therefore, the DOE shall verify how it determined that the WPS is implemented in accordance with description contained in the included CPA-DDs and the installed WPS is compatible with the available water source.

 

2) Refer to paragraph: Paragraph 15 of AMS-III.AV version 4 and VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 344

The DOE shall further substantiate how it has verified the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology, in particular the monitoring frequency of  parameter “operational units”, since the CPA-DDs states that the monitoring frequency for the parameter as “At least once per verification or biennially as per the monitoring requirements in the methodology”, which could lead to possibilities whereby the monitoring frequency not meeting methodology requirement (i.e. at least once every two years) when the verification / monitoring period is conducted with a time gap of more than two years.

 

3) Refer to paragraph: VVS-PoA ver. 02 Paragraph 304 (c)

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:

  1. There is no verification opinion on the implemented water purifier capacities (Tab "Assumptions" cells D9 and D10) of 10,000 L/unit (for UltraTab WPS) and 340,000 L/unit (for UltraFlo WPS);

  2. The residual capacity (i.e. Tab “Sales Database” column AA) data is not traceable. The residual capacities from MP3 (i.e. column AA of tab “Sales Database”) are given without any elaboration by CME. The DOE in its verification report did not provide a verification opinion on how these values are derived, and whether the residual capacity is an assumed capacity or an actual remaining capacity considering the actual volume and quality of raw water purified at CPA locations;

  3. The residual capacity of some purification devices indicates system continuous running until year 2073 or more (e.g. cell ‘AI14627’ of tab ‘Sales Database’), which is even beyond the device lifespan as described (i.e. 5 years) in page 15 of the monitoring report;

  4. Out of the 17051 schools using either UltraFLO or UltraTAB in the CPAs, 16940 schools indicate zero continuous supplies during this monitoring period (i.e. column ‘AB’ of tab ‘Sales Database’). 

Taking into account the above, the DOE is requested to;

  1. Substantiate how it has verified and concluded the installed water purifier capacities of 10,000 L/unit (for UltraTab purifier) and 340,000 L/unit (for UltraFlo purifier);
  2. Submit a traceable emission reduction spreadsheet for the calculation of the system residual capacities;
  3. Elaborate how a system’s continuous running end date can be beyond its lifespan (5 years);
  4. Substantiate continuous availability of safe drinking water to schools considering some water purifiers had no residual capacity from the previous monitoring period and received no supplies during the current monitoring period.

 

 

4) Refer to paragraph: VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 359 (d)

The DOE shall further substantiate how it has verified the appropriateness of applying 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 facts that the systems do not service the entire population (i.e. the students) during the school holidays.  Further, the DOE should also check following clarifications issued by the Meth Panel in this regard.

SSC_795: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/clarifications/05721

SSC_792: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/clarifications/57226