1 validation report gyapa ics ghana_final 27-04-2010

8/7/2019 1 Validation Report Gyapa ICS Ghana_final 27-04-2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-validation-report-gyapa-ics-ghanafinal-27-04-2010 1/43

VALIDATION REPORTGYAPA IMPROVEDCOOK-

STOVES INGHANA

GHANA

FINALREPORTNO. 2009-9229

REVISIONNO. 03

CDM Validation Report TemplateVersion 5.0, November 2006

This is a report template to be used for the validation of CDM projects. Guiding text is presented in italic letters, as here.

This document must be seen in conjunction with theValidationand Verification Guidelines



GS-VERValidation, No. 2008-9229, rev. 03 2

Date of first issue: Project No.:14/09/2009 01 996 TIE 2120 9229 DOE: Or anisational unit:TÜV Rheinland ( CDM- E-0013 / JI- E-0012 )TIE

Client: Client ref.:Climate Care ( JP Morgan Ventures EnergyCor oration

Dr. Adam Harvey, Tom Owino

Project Name: Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in GhanaCountry: GhanaMethodology: Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes Version: 01 GHG reducing Measure/Technology: Improved Cook-Stoves ( Energy-Efficiency ) ER estimate: 167,279 tCO2e per annum Size

Large ScaleSmall Scale

Validation Phases:Desk ReviewFollow up interviewsResolution of outstanding issues

Validation StatusCorrective Actions RequestedClarifications RequestedSubmission to technical reviewFull Approval and submission for registrationRejected

In summary, it is TÜV Rheinland’s opinion that the “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves”-project in

Ghana, as described in the PDD of 09 April 2010, meets all the relevant requirements of theUNFCCC for CDM project activities, criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring andreporting, as well as requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard and correctlyapplies the baseline and monitoring methodology “Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves andKitchen Regimes”, version 01. After all corrective action and clarification requests could be resolvedTÜV Rheinland recommends to submit the request for registration for the project activity directly toGold Standard Foundation (GS-TAC).

Re ort No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No.2009-9229 27/04/2010 03

Report title: Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana

Work carried out b :Kurt SeidelYou Cui

No distribution without permission fromthe Client or responsible organisational unit

Address:Limited distributionTÜV Rheinland Immissionsschutz und Energiesysteme GmbH

Am Grauen SteinD – 51105 Cologne, Germany Unrestricted distribution




AbbreviationsExplain any abbreviations that have been used in the report here.BM Build MarginCAR Corrective Action Request

CDM Clean Development MechanismCEF Carbon Emission FactorCER Certified Emission ReductionCL Clarification requestCO2 Carbon dioxideCO2e Carbon dioxide equivalentDNA Designated National AuthorityFCAR Forward Corrective Action RequestGHG Greenhouse gas(es)GJ Giga jouleGWP Global Warming PotentialIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIRR Internal rate of returnLOA Letter of ApprovalMP Monitoring PlanMVP Monitoring and Verification PlanNGO Non-governmental OrganisationNPV Net Present ValueODA Official Development AssistanceO&M Operation and maintenancePDD Project Design DocumentUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGS Gold Standard

TAC Technical Advisory Committee




TABLE OF CONTENTS

EFFICIENT COOKING WITH GYAPA IMPROVED STOVES ............................................ 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION ........................................... 5

2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 62.1 Objective 62.2 Scope 6

3 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 63.1 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation 8

3.2 Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders 123.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues 143.4 Internal Quality Control 163.5 Validation Team 16

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 164.1 Participation Requirements 164.2 Project Design 174.3 Baseline Determination 20

4.4 Additionality 234.5 Monitoring 264.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions 324.7 Environmental Impacts 334.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders 334.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs 344.10 Gold Standard Requirements 35

Appendix A: Validation Protocol




1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION

The DOE E-0013„TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. ( TÜV Rheinland )” has performed a validationof the “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves”-project in Ghana. The validation was performed onthe basis of UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Development Mechanism and host countrycriteria, as well as the Gold Standard Validation & Verification Manual for Voluntary Offset Projects and criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-upinterviews have provided TÜV Rheinland ( the verifier ) with sufficient evidence to determinethe fulfilment of stated criteria. After resolving of the raised corrective action and clarification requests TÜV Rheinland has considered to submit the request for registration for the project activity to Gold Standard Foundation.

The project is a voluntary carbon offset project under the Gold Standard and no approval of the host country Ghana is required. The Designated National Authority of the host country

Ghana was asked to acknowledge the project activity and has confirmed with a letter, dated 10 August 2009, that it has taken note of the project and the efforts of the project proponentsin promoting improved cooking devices in Ghana..

The validation did not reveal any information that indicates that the project can be seen as adiversion of official development assistance (ODA) funding towards Ghana. The project correctly applies the methodology “Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and KitchenRegimes”, version 01.

By application of improved fuel-efficient charcoal stoves for domestic and restaurant use,improved fuel-efficient residential wood stoves and improved fuel-efficient institutional wood

stoves the project will reduce fuel consumption, which results in reductions of CO2 emissionsthat are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It isdemonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductionsattributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of theproject activity.

The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 167,279tCO2e per year over the first 7-year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast hasbeen checked, and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that theunderlying assumptions do not change. Adequate training and monitoring procedures havebeen implemented.

In summary, it is TÜV Rheinland’s opinion that the “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves”-project in Ghana as described in the PDD version 04 of 20 April 2010 meets all relevant requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard and all relevant host country criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology“Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”, version 01. After allcorrective action and clarification requests could have been resolved the verifier TÜV Rheinland recommends to submit the request for registration for the project “GyapaImproved Cook-Stoves in Ghana” as a Gold Standard VER project activity directly to Gold Standard Foundation (GS-TAC).




2

INTRODUCTION

JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation has commissioned TÜV Rheinland to perform avalidation of the “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves”– project in Ghana (hereafter called “theproject”). This report summarises the findings of the validation of the project, performed onthe basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for consistentproject operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 12 of theKyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures and the subsequent decisions by theCDM Executive Board and the requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the GoldStandard.

2.1

Objective

The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party to assess the project design.In particular, the project's baseline, monitoring plan, and the project’s compliance withrelevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria are validated in order to confirm that the projectdesign, as documented, is sound and reasonable and meets the identified criteria. Validation isa requirement for all CDM projects as well as Voluntary Offset projects under the GoldStandard and is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of theproject and its intended generation of verified emission reductions (VERs).

2.2

Scope

The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project designdocument (PDD). The PDD is reviewed against the criteria stated in Article 12 of the KyotoProtocol, the CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in the Marrakech Accords, therequirements for Voluntary Offset Projects under the Gold Standard and the relevantdecisions by the CDM Executive Board, including the approved baseline and monitoringmethodology. The validation team has, based on the recommendations in the Validation andVerification Manual /38/ and the GS-VER-VVM /13/ employed a risk-based approach,focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and thegeneration of VERs.

The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the project participants.

However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided inputfor improvement of the project design.

3

METHODOLOGYThe validation consists of the following three phases:I a desk review of the project design documentsII follow-up interviews with project stakeholdersIII the resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validation report andopinion.




The following sections outline each step in more detail.

I Desk Review Phase- Contract Review

- Document Review of the PDD- Compliance check of the PDD with applied baseline and monitoring methodology andmethodological tools

- Assessment of Additionality of proposed VER Project- Assessment of the PDD according to its consistency, transparency and trueness- Receipt of a copy of Pre-Feasibility Assessment of Gold Standard from project

proponent

II Follow-Up Interviews Phase- Issue of First List of CARs and CLs- On-Site Assessment of project site (Interview with project developer, consultant and

local stakeholders)

III Resolution of Outstanding Issues- Issue of Final List of CARs and CLs considering the first response to the First List of

CARs and CLs in combination with a draft validation report- Receipt of a copy of the response of the project proponent to the Pre-Feasibility

Assessment of Gold Standard- Resolving of CARs and CLs and other open issues- Issuance of Final Validation Report

The project applies the GS-Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen RegimesV.01 “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”.

This methodology was developed for the Gold Standard

Foundation by J.P. Morgan Climate Care for large-scale projects disseminating improvedcook-stoves. The relevant CDM-methodology AMS-II.G. “Energy Efficiency Measures inThermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass” is not applicable, because the scale of theproject activity is exceeding the threshold for small-scale project activities of type II “Energyefficiency improvement projects”. The used GS-Methodology, even not an approved CDMmethodology, and its application is justified to be the best available methodology at the timeof PDD preparation.

The validation process was guided by a validation checklist, which aims to ensure atransparent validation process.

The review of documentation includes the compliance check with the methodology used inthe carbon emissions reduction calculation, and assessment of the project baseline and projectadditionality.




3.1

Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation

The team has for this assignment decided to check all factors and issues with the sameemphasis, but has also during its preparations identified the key risks which might lead tolower emission reductions than projected in the project design and has determinedcompliance with GS-VER standard and the applied GS-Methodology and other relevantcriteria:

• Assessment of the completeness and appropriateness of the submitted project designdocument (PDD)

• Assessment of the project’s contribution to sustainable development in the hostcountry

• Assessment of the soundness of the project baseline• Assessment of the completeness and appropriateness of the project monitoring plan• Assessment of the planned operational management and technical/ engineering

practices as well as quality assurance procedures to be applied by project proponents• Assessment of the methodology and the assumptions made to estimate the emission

reductions produced over the project’s selected crediting time• Assessment whether social and environmental impacts of the project are sufficiently

addressed

The basis for the validation has been version 1 of the project design document (PDD) dated30 May 2008; version 2 of the project design document (PDD) dated 12 March 2009; version3 of the project design document (PDD) dated 10 August 2009 and 14 September 2009,version 3-1 of 30 November 2009 and finally version 4 of 20 April 2010, including Annexes;the pre-feasibility assessment of Gold Standard Foundation of 22 September 2008 to theretroactive registration request of 27 August 2008; the response of J.P.Morgan Climate Careof 19 February 2009 to Gold Standard Foundation; the initial list of CARs and CLs of thevalidation team of TÜV Rheinland of 16 October 2008; the response of J.P.Morgan ClimateCare to TÜV Rheinland of 9 April 2009; the feedback of TÜV Rheinland of 8 July 2009; theresponse of J.P.Morgan Climate Care, dated 28 July 2009 and the feedback of TÜVRheinland of 10 August 2009; and finally the feedback of TÜV Rheinland of 25 Novemberafter phone conversation with Gold Standard Foundation; the response of J.P.Morgan ClimateCare, dated 25 November 2009 and 1 December 2009, the Registration review from GoldStandard, dated 16 February 2010: the response of J.P.Morgan Climate Care, dated 09 Apriland 23 April 2010 and other relevant information listed in the table below and the GS-

Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 “Indicative Programme,Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”.

The project operator in the host country Enterprise Works / VITA has in addition supplied thevalidation team with instructions from its management system as well as detailed raw dataneeded for the crediting period. The review of documentation includes the validation of themethodology used in the carbon emissions reduction calculation, and assessment of theproject baseline and project additionality.

The conclusions of this assessment are listed in the enclosed validation protocol ( Appendix Ato this report ).




The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the validation:

/1/ Pioneer Carbon Ltd and Enterprise Works / VITA Ghana: PDD “Gyapa ImprovedCook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version: 30-5-08 ( Version 1 ), Date: 30 May 2008

/2/ ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and Enterprise Works / VITAGhana: PDD “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version: 2, Date: 12 March2009

/3/ ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and Enterprise Works / VITAGhana: PDD “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version 3, Date: 12 March2009 ( 10 August 2009 )

/4/ ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and Enterprise Works / VITAGhana: PDD “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version 3, Date: 14 September2009

/5/ Report of the STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION FORUM FOR THE PROJECT:GYAPA IMPROVED COOKSTOVES IN GHANA of May 23, 2008, Accra Ghana

/6/ EWV and JP Morgan CC Kitchen Survey Report Gyapa Ghana, dated 28/05/2008

/7/ Fuel Saving of Gyapa Cookstoves in Ghana, 2008 by T. J. Heaton ( Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, 1 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3TG, UnitedKingdom ), dated May 28, 2008

/8/ Analysis of Non-Renewability Biomass (NRB) Fraction of Charcoal and Wood-Fuelsin Ghana, Annex 6.3 of Project Design Document: Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves inGhana, Dr Adam Harvey, ClimateCare, Oxford, UK, 30 May 2008

/9/ Field Report, Kitchen Performance Testing and the Fuel Saving of Gyapa Cook Stovesin Ghana (5th November to 6th December 2008), Tom Owino Oduol and Joash Obare;JP Morgan ClimateCare

/10/ Calculation Sheets Gyapa Ghana, Annex to PDD of 14/09/2009

/11/ Approved GS methodology “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and MonitoringMethodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes” version V.01

/12/ CDM Methodological Tool “Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality”

version 05/13/ GS Validation and Verification Manual (GS V1)

/14/ GS VER Manual for Project Developers (GS V1)

/15/ Template of GS-VER-PDD (GS V1)

/16/ GS Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications (17.12.2007)

/17/ Request of Climate Care for Pre feasibility assessment of GS to Retroactiveregistration: Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana (ID: GS 407) of August 27th 2008

/18/ Pre feasibility assessment of GS to Retroactive registration request: Gyapa Improved




Cook-Stoves in Ghana (ID: GS 407) of August 27th 2008, dated September 22nd 2008

/19/ Gyapa Improved Stoves in Ghana: Pre-feasibility requests from Gold Standard TAC 22Sept 2008, Response of JP Morgan CC of 19/02/2009

/20/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories/21/ EW/VITA: Baseline survey analysis – Template, dated 27/02/2008

/22/ Response letter of DNA Ghana to Enterprise Works / VITA to project, dated 10 August2009

/23/ IEA/OECD (2006 ): Chapter 15 - Energy for Cooking in Developing Countries

/24/ FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005

/25/ FAO Spatial wood fuel production and consumption analysis of selected Africancountries (08.2005)

/26/ Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (12.2001)

/27/ Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT COUNTRY REPORTS GHANA,FRA 2005 – Report 052

/28/ FRA 2005 Global Tables

/29/ Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, FAO Forestry Paper 147

/30/ Energy sector reform, energy transitions and the poor in Africa, by Gisela Prasad,Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, 23 April 2008

/31/ The impact of power sector reform on poor households in Africa, by Gisela Prasad,Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, May 2006

/32/ International Emission Trading Association (IETA) & the World Bank’s PrototypeCarbon Fund (PCF):Validation and Verification Manual. http://www.vvmanual.info

/33/ AMS-III.G.“Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-RenewableBiomass” ( EB 37, version 01 of 1 February 2008 ).

/34/ GS-VER Validation Protocol for GS-VER Project “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves inGhana”-Project; Initial List of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests, dated16/10/2008

/35/ Initial Response of JP Morgan CC to the List of CARs and CLs, dated 09/04/2009

/36/ Feedback of TÜV Rheinland to the Response of JPMorgan CC to the List of CARs andCLs of 08/07/2009

/37/ Response of JPMorgan CC to the List of CARs and CLs, dated 28/07/2009

/38/ Feedback of TÜV Rheinland to the Response of JPMorgan CC to the List of CARs andCLs of 10/08/2009

/38/ Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Manual, draft, EB 44




meeting

/39/ GUIDANCE ON THE DEMONSTRATION AND ASSESSMENTOF PRIOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CDM. EB 41 meeting

/40/

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (CDM-

PDD) AND THE PROPOSED NEW BASELINE AND MONITORINGMETHODOLOGIES (CDM-NM), Version 07, EB 41 meeting

/41/ International Federation of Agricultural Producers:Doc WO 11/09 „NATIONALEXPERIENCES ON CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION BYLYDIA SASU (GHANA)”

/42/ WHO “Evaluation of the costs and benefits of household energy and healthinterventions at global and regional levels” (2006 )

/43/ GHANA LIVING STANDARDS SURVEY REPORT OF THE FIFTH ROUND(GLSS 5),Ghana Statistical Service, September 2008

/44/ GHANA IN FIGURES 2008

/45/

Interventions to Reduce Child Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution in DevelopingCountries: Behavioral Opportunities and Research NeedsBrendon R. Barnes, Health and Development Research Group, Medical ResearchCouncil of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa

/46/ Ghana: household welfare indicators

/47/ United Nations Development Programme in Ghana “A Brief Analysis of the LPGsector in Ghana” ( UNDP, November 2004 )

/48/

UNDP “Enhancing Access to Sustainable Energy Services for the Poor in Ghana” (

Annual Work Plan 2007 ) “What can we learn from household surveys on inequalitiesin cooking fuels in sub-Saharan Africa?” by Camos Daurella and Vivien Foster, datedFebruary 2009

/49/

“Emissions of greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from charcoal making inKenya and Brazil, David M. Pennise,Kirk R. Smith, Environmental Health Sciences,University of California, Berkeley, California. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol106 October 27 2001”

/50/ JP Morgan CC: Annex 7 - Chronology of Project Events

/51/ Annex on Responses of JP Morgan CC to CAR 06,CAR 09 and CAR 12, dated10/08/2009

/52/ Forest Governance in Ghana, An NGO perspective, A report produced for FERN byForest Watch Ghana,March 2006

/53/ EB 49 Report, Annex 22, GUIDELINES ON THE DEMONSTRATION ANDASSESSMENT OF PRIOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CDM (version 03)

/54/ EB 50 Report, Annex 13, GUIDELINES FOR OBJECTIVE DEMONSTRATIONAND ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS (Version 01)

/55/ AMS- III.K. Avoidance of methane release from charcoal production by shifting fromtraditional open-ended methods to mechanized charcoaling process, Version 04

/56/ AM0041 “Mitigation of Methane Emissions in the Wood Carbonization Activity forCharcoal Production”, Version 01




/57/ ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and Enterprise Works / VITAGhana: PDD “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version 3-1, Date: 30November 2009

/58/ GHANA GYAPA STOVES PROJECT: Summary of Consultations Conducted

/59/ GHANA GYAPA STOVES PROJECT: Summary of Stakeholder Feedback Round

/60/ List of NGOs/Government Agencies Consulted in the Gyapa Project DevelopmentCycle

/61/

ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and Enterprise Works / VITAGhana: PDD “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana”, Version 4, Date: 20 April2010

/62/

Registration review feedback from Gold Standard, dated 16 February 2010: GyapaImproved Cook-Stoves in Ghana (ID: GS 407), date of request for registration: 14December 2009

/63/ Gyapa Improved Stoves in Ghana: Registration review feedback from Gold Standard,dated 16 February 2010; Response of JP Morgan CC of 09/04/2010

/64/ Calculation Sheets Gyapa Ghana, Annex to PDD, version 4, dated 20/04/2010/65/ EnterpriseWorks/VITA”GYAPA Aben dad a, Warranty Information”

/66/ Approved GS methodology “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and MonitoringMethodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes” version V.02

/67/

Carbon Markets for Improved Cooking Stoves, a GTZ guide for project operators, 3rd

revised edition, February 2010; Authors: Michael Blunck, Carola Griebenow, MonikaRammelt; Published by GTZ-HERA – Poverty-oriented Basic Energy Service

/68/

New proposed LSC CDM methodology “Switching to biomass residues as the fuelsource for individual stoves, Version 1; Submission date :14/04/09; Rejection date:16/10/2009 (EB 50)

/69/

Kitchen Performance Test (KPT), Prepared by Rob Bailis with input from Kirk R.Smith and Rufus Edwards (Household Energy and Health Programme, ShellFoundation; KPT Version 3.0, January 2007 )

/70/ Glossary of CDM terms, Version 05 (EB 47 meeting report, dated 19 August 2009)

/71/

PDD “Improved Household Charcoal Stoves in Ghana” (GS-VER-PDD), developed byE+Carbon according to the “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and MonitoringMethodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes, Version 1”, Version4.1, dated 8 September 2010

3.2

Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders

Identify any personnel who have been interviewed and/or provided additional information tothe presented documentation.




Date Name Organization Topic

02/06/200803/06/200804/06/200805/06/200806 – 12/0801-12/0901-04/10

Tom Owino Odual

Dr. Adam Harvey

J.P. Morgan VenturesEnergy Corporation

- Environmental impacts- Project technology- Status of project- Stakeholder consultation

process- Baseline determination

and emission reductions- Monitoring plan- Monitoring plan of

sustainable indicators- Additionality- Kitchen Test and Kitchen

Survey02/06/2008

03/06/200804/06/200805/06/200811/03/2010

EnterpriseWorks/VITA

Ghana OfficeAccraMr. Atsu Titiati,Country Director;Mr. Seth Mahu,Component ProgramManager;Mrs. Mina H. Lassey,M&E Specialist;EnterpriseWorks/VITAHeadquarterWashington DC, USMr. Jon Naugle,Technical Director

EnterpriseWorks/VITA - Local stakeholder process

- Background information- Personnel Training

- Initial checking of dailymonitoring records andspreadsheets

- Kitchen Survey and

Kitchen Test

- Monitoring

03/06/200804/06/2008

Diverse harware shopsand manufacturers inGreater Accra area

Stove distributors andmanufacturers( liner, metal frame,assembly )

- Manufacturing ( liner,

metal frame, assembly )

- Supply chain

- Price of stoves

- Sales records

- Warranty system

- Baseline scenario(Cooking with LPG,

electricity, other stove

types)

04/06/2008 Mr. Wisdom Ahiataku-TogoboHead-RenewableEnergy

Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Ghana

- Energy Policy of Ghana

regarding energy sources

for households with focus

on cooking




3.3

Resolution of Outstanding Issues

The objective of this phase of the validation is to resolve any outstanding issues which needbe clarified prior to TÜV Rheinland’s positive conclusion on the project design. In order toensure transparency a validation protocol is customised for the project. The protocol shows intransparent manner criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results fromvalidating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes:• It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a GS-VER project is expected to meet;• It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a

particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation.

The validation protocol consists of two tables. The different columns in these tables aredescribed in the figure below. The completed validation protocol for the “Gyapa ImprovedCook-Stoves”-project in Ghana is enclosed in Appendix A to this report.Findings established during the validation can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of CDM orGS-VER criteria or where a risk to the fulfilment of project objectives is identified.Corrective action requests (CAR) are issued, where:i) mistakes have been made with a direct influence on project results;ii) CDM / GS-VER and/or methodology specific requirements have not been met; oriii) there is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a GS-VER project or that

emission reductions will not be certified.

A request for clarification (CL) may be used where additional information is needed to fullyclarify an issue.

Findings established during the validation may be that:i) the validation is not able to obtain sufficient evidence for the predicted emission reductionsor part of the reported emission reductions.ii) the validation has identified material misstatements in the predicted emission reductions.Emission reductions with evident material misstatements shall be discounted in order toachieve a conservative and reliable result during the verification period.

A forward action requests (FAR) may be issued, where:• the actual project monitoring and reporting practices require attention and /or adjustmentfor the next consecutive verification period, or• an adjustment of the monitoring plan is recommended.

In the context of FARs, risks may be identified, which may endanger the delivery of emissionreductions in the future, i.e. by deviations from good reporting or management procedures. Asa consequence, such aspects should receive a special focus during the next verification.




Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements for CDM Project Activities

Requirement Reference Conclusion

The requirements theproject must meet.

Gives reference to thelegislation or agreement where therequirement is found.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK ), aCorrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or non-compliancewith stated requirements or a request for Clarification (CL) where further clarifications are needed.

Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

Checklist Question Reference Means of verification (MoV)

Comment Draft and/or Final Conclusion

The variousrequirements in Table 2are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. Thechecklist is organised in

different sections,following the logic of thelarge-scale PDDtemplate, version 03 - ineffect as of: 28 July2006. Each section isthen further sub-divided.

Givesreference todocumentswhere theanswer tothe checklist

question or item isfound.

Explains howconformance withthe checklist question isinvestigated.Examples of means

of verification aredocument review(DR) or interview(I). N/A means not applicable.

The section isused to elaborateand discuss thechecklist questionand/or theconformance to

the question. It isfurther used toexplain theconclusionsreached.

This is either acceptablebased on evidenceprovided (OK ), or acorrective action request(CAR) due to non-compliance with the

checklist question (Seebelow). A request for clarification (CL) is used when the validation teamhas identified a need for further clarification.

Validation Protocol Table 3: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarificationsand corrective actionrequests

Ref. to checklistquestion in table 2

Summary of projectowner response

Validation conclusion

If the conclusions from thedraft Validation are either a CAR or a CL, theseshould be listed in thissection.

Reference to thechecklist questionnumber in Table 2where the CAR or CL isexplained.

The responses given bythe project participantsduring thecommunications with thevalidation team should be summarised in thissection.

This section should summarisethe validation team’sresponses and finalconclusions. The conclusionsshould also be included inTable 2, under “FinalConclusion”.

Figure 1 Validation protocol tables




3.4

Technical Quality Control

The draft validation report including the validation findings is based on the results of thedesk-review, study of background information and the results of the on-site assessment.Comments from the global stakeholder consultation process were invited. No comment fromthe global stakeholder consultation process has been received. The final validation report willundergo a technical review before submission to the project participants and subsequentrequesting registration of the project activity with Gold Standard Foundation.The technical review will be performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance withTÜV Rheinland’s qualification scheme for CDM validation and verification.

3.5

Validation TeamRole/Qualification Last Name First Name Affiliation

GHG auditor trainee(2008)GHG auditorSectoral scopes 1,13( since 10/2009 )

Cui You TÜV RheinlandImmissionsschutz undEnergiesystemeGmbH, Germany

Team leaderSectoral scopes1,2,3,13

Seidel Kurt TÜV RheinlandImmissionsschutz undEnergiesystemeGmbH, Germany

The CV of each individual validation team member is available upon request.

4

VALIDATION FINDINGS

The main findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The validation criteria(requirements), the means of verification and the complete list of results from validating theidentified criteria are documented in more detail in the validation protocol in Appendix A.

4.1

Participation Requirements

Referring to Part A, Annex 1 of the PDD.

The project participant in the host country is Enterprise Works / VITA (EWV). Theinternational carbon consultant for this project is ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures EnergyCorporation) in cooperation with Enterprise Works / VITA (EWV). The host Party Ghanameets the requirements to participate in the CDM. Anyhow, the project is being implementedin Ghana as a voluntary carbon project. As such, a formal host country approval is notrequired. The Ghanaian DNA has been officially informed of the project and has issued anofficial letter, dated 10 August 2009, recognizing the proposed voluntary offset projectactivity.




It is deemed reasonable to close therefore the related corrective action and clarificationrequests and go ahead with the voluntary offset project “Gyapa Improved Cook Stoves inGhana” as GS-VER project. In case the general framework will change a conversion into aCDM project might be feasible. Therefore it is obvious that a participating Annex I partycould not yet be identified at this stage of validation.The DNA of the prospective Annex I country involved could therefore not yet officiallyauthorize a project participant, which is not requested for voluntary carbon offset projects.

Relevant Corrective Action Requests ( CARs ) and Clarification Requests ( CLs ) could besuccessfully resolved and are summarized in Annex A ( Validation Protocol ) and if appropriate under section 4.10. for transparency reasons.

4.2

Project DesignReferring to Part A and B of the PDD.

Title of project activity:Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in GhanaProject Participants:Project developer: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation; Project partner: Enterprise Works/VITA (EWV); Local partner in the host country: EnterpriseWorks/VITA (EWV)Location of the project activity:The project is located primarly in Accra and other urban, peri-urban and rural areas of Ghana.

The project has its origin in former awareness campaigns for improved cooking stoves inGhana in order to protect its forest resources.There are two phases of the project. Phase I of the project began in 2002 ended in December2006. This phase was primarily a set up phase which elaborated indoor air pollution,improved stove design, trained producers and developed a distribution network for improvedcooking stoves with focus on the improvement of indoor air pollution.Phase II of the project started in October 2006 and will be completed in 2013. Phase II isplanned to focus on developing the commercialised distribution of the improved stove design.The ultimate goal of the project is to facilitate a nationwide shift from inefficient exploitationof fuel wood and charcoal to sustainable and efficient use of fuel wood and charcoalrespectively. The whole chronology of project events is listed in Annex 7 /50/.

It has has been checked and reviewed if the methodology applicability criteria /11/ have beenmet by the project activity, and it could be concluded that all methodology applicabilitycriteria of the approved GS methodology “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and MonitoringMethodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes” version 01 have beenfulfilled.

Apart from avoiding GHG emissions by reduced wood and charcoal combustion, the projectalso contributes to improvements in a number of areas: Avoidance of overexploitation of theforests; reduction of airborne particles emission and associated respiratory diseases; reduction

of purchased fuel costs, transfer of technology to people within the supply chain and end users( households, commercial and public users ) and creation of employment opportunities withinthe supply chain.




The applied GS-Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01“Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stovesand Kitchen Regimes” was developed for the Gold Standard Foundation by J.P. MorganClimate Care for large-scale projects disseminating improved cook-stoves. The relevant

CDM-methodology AMS-II.G. “Energy Efficiency Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass” is not applicable, because the scale of the project activity isexceeding the threshold for small-scale project activities of type II “Energy efficiencyimprovement projects”.

The used GS-Methodology, even not an approved CDM methodology, and its application isjustified to be the best available methodology at the time of PDD preparation, as it wasdeveloped special for this project activity because of lack of an appropriate methodology atthe time of the decision to develop the project as a GS-VER project.The project involves the manufacturing and distribution of three categories of stoves of thebrand “Original Gyapa” with the following features:

Dimension ( centimeters)Stove SizeDescription

ApplicationHeight Top Diameter

Small Domestic use 21.0 ± 0.5 26.5 ± 0.5Medium Domestic and non-

domestic (commercial,institutional)

25.0 ± 0.5 32.0 ± 0.5

Large Non-domestic (comer-cial, institutional)

38.5 ± 0.5 47.5 ± 0.5

The improved charcoal stove reduces fuel consumption by introduction of an insulatedcombustion chamber which increases combustion efficiency and retains heat.While these stoves will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they simultaneouslyprovide co-benefits to users and families in the form of relief from high fuel costs and reducedexposure to health-damaging airborne pollutants.The project reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through production and use of charcoal as cooking fuels, by introducing widespread use of efficient charcoal stoves(including those used by institutions such as schools) which replace existing inefficient stovesprimarily in Accra, the capital of Ghana, with expanding sales throughout the country.Currently inefficient and polluting cooking regimes are deeply established in the culture. Theproject aims to break this mould and move large populations away from conditions underwhich GHG emissions are unacceptably high, and health effects are unacceptably inhumane,for the women and children spending long hours each day in conventional kitchens. Thecarbon finance provides a basis for maintaining a professional commercial relationshipbetween the user and the disseminators, while also introducing an affordable price, a qualityguarantee and a warranty system. The quality assurance strategy is a major benefit of carbonfinance. It has the potential to introduce a new set of quality expectations amongst consumersand so shift the critical mass of prevailing practice away from inefficient cooking. The project

contributes significantly to the mitigation of climate change and the region’s sustainabledevelopment and is designed as a voluntary Gold-Standard project.




The project’s system boundaries are clearly defined as the geophysical area of Ghana wherefuel woods and the resulting produced charcoal are expected to be available for collectionduring the project duration.

The project owner has seriously considered VERs in the decision to develop the project,which has been confirmed with relevant documents in the course of the validation process. Anadditional written endorsement for the project activity as Voluntary Offset Project by theDNA of Ghana in an official letter, dated 10 August 2009 /22/ has been received by EWV.

A renewable crediting period of 7 years has been chosen for the project, starting from 1November 2009 with a retro-active period of 2 years from 1 November 2007 until October2009.

The emission reductions are estimated to be 167,279tCO2eq per year in averageand1,170,952tCO2eqover the first seven-year crediting period.

The project activity is a large-scale energy efficiency project with predicted average thermalenergy savings of more than 180 GWh per year, which is the threshold for AMS-II.G CDM-projects according to the clarification on the threshold of thermal energy savings in AMS-II.G(F-CDM-SSCwg ver 01 SSC_233 ) and also according to the Gold Standard, version01(revised) with more than 60,000 tCO2e per year, based on the adaptation of GS VER SSCthresholds to CDM thresholds according to “Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updatesand Clarifications”, dated December 17th 2007 /16/.

Human activities over the years have resulted in the decline of our natural forest in Ghana. Itis estimated that only 20% of the original forest is still not changed or damaged. Bushfires,agriculture , logging, fuel wood gathering, mining, etc are considered as the direct causes of the lost of the forest’ basic nature. This is worsen by high population growth ( 3.1% p.a.),rural population not enforcing rules of management properly and past management practices/41/.

According to a previous household survey in Ghana /43/ most households in Ghana (79%)live either in rooms in compound houses or other types of rooms. About 45 percent (26percent in urban areas and 59 percent in rural areas) of the households in Ghana own thehouses they live in. Almost four-fifth (79%) of households in urban areas has electricity forlighting as against 27 percent of households in rural areas. Charcoal is the most popularsource of cooking fuel for urban households (52.6 %) whereas firewood is the main source of cooking for rural households (80.2%). There are around 2,382 thousand households with apopulation of 8.4 million in urban areas including Greater Accra ( 796 thousand householdswith 2.6 million population and 3,148 thousand households with a population of 12.3 millionin rural areas, see the following table on page 19:




Table: Mean household size, estimated population in private households, and estimatednumber of households by region and locality

According to above statistical data, the distribution of cooking fuels and the distribution of cooking technology, it would mean that the predicted sales of domestic charcoal stoves of 477,000 pieces would be equivalent to around 20.0 % in urban areas of Ghana and 8.6 % inGhana in total, which are deemed to be only feasible with help of carbon finance.

4.3

Baseline DeterminationReferring to Part B and Annex 2 of the PDD.Background Information:

Dry conditions and prolonged droughts create conducive conditions for spread of wild firesthus destroying forests with serious consequences. Increased population growth has also ledto increased deforestation because of increased demand for food and fuel.

Ghana suffers from rapid deforestation and destruction of biodiversity. Between 1900 and1990 Ghana lost 80% of its forest cover (8m ha – 1.6m ha) . Satellite pictures of statemanagedforest reserves taken in 1990 and 2000 demonstrate rapid deforestation within these reservesas well; some lost as much as 90% of cover in this short period. There are no more recentmeasurements, but communities and Forest Watch Ghana members working at the forestfringe continue to report rapid shrinkage of forests. Official estimates suggest that logging isproceeding at about four million m3 per year – 4 times the sustainable rate . The loggingindustry is objectively propelled by an installed primary and secondary capacity that is 6times the sustainable supply of wood from Ghana’s forests .




Moreover forest is of high economic importance due to its household uses. Ghana’s forestindustry has undergone changes attributed to population pressure. Biomass is the dominantenergy resource for households and small scale industries.

The table below show actual figures from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005:

FAO (2005): Reduction of forest cover in Ghana

Forest Other wooded landArea Annual change rate Area

1990 2000 2005 1990-2000 2000-2005 1990 2000 20051000

ha1000

ha1000

ha1000ha/yr % 1000

ha/yr % 1000ha

1000ha

1000ha

7.448 6.094 5.517 -135 -2,0 -115 -2,0 0 0 0

Growing stock Growing stock perhectare

(1000 m³/yr) (m³/ha/yr)

1990-2000 2000-2005 1990-2000 2000-2005-7.100 -6.200 0,10 0,08

The fraction of non-renewable biomass can be calculated either by subtracting the meanannual increment from annual harvest data (if data is available) or by qualitatively assessing itthrough surveys and other methods. Non-renewable biomass baseline (NRBB) research istypically performed via desk research combined with visits to local experts in forestry andenergy. Interviews and site visits held in-country generate the data used in the quantitative

determination of the percent non-renewability in the area.The Analysis of Non-Renewability Biomass (NRB) Fraction of Charcoal and Wood-Fuels inGhana, Annex 6.3 of Project Design Document Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana,written by Dr Adam Harvey, ClimateCare, Oxford, UK, 30 May 2008, revised v2 30 onOctober 08, states a non-renewable biomass fraction Xnrb of 96 % on the total forest area inGhana. This resulting amount for Non-Renewability Biomass (NRB) Fraction of Charcoaland Wood-Fuels is higher than another approach, based on a study of Berkeley AirMonitoring Group of August 2008, using FAO 2005 data, which results in a non-renewabilityfraction of woodfuel for Ghana of 73%, to be applied to both charcoal and fuelwood. It isintended by the project proponents of the “Improved Charcoal Stove (Toyola Coalpot)

Project” in Ghana to undertake after two years a follow-up biomass non-renewability study, inorder to capture any significant changes due to the efficient stove project and any others /71/.

FAR 2: It has to be analysed and substantiated with sufficiently credible evidence of independent third parties until the first verification and during the crediting period, that thepre-determined non-renewable biomass fraction Xnrb of 96 %, compared to 73 %, resultingfrom another approach with the input parameters MAI = 8,025,000 m3 and H = 29,450,000m3 is realistic and also conservative. Otherwise a more conservative approach has to beapplied.

FAR 2 is covered by the chosen approach of a biennial review of NRB, based on the evolvingbaseline option, which is applied for the project activity.




The non-renewable biomass fraction Xnrb of 96%, based on qualitative assessment (NRBanalysis, Annex 6.3) will be biennial reviewed and is therefore fixed for 2 years only, whichis close to reality.

FAR 2 can therefore be considered as resolved and can be closed.The table below shows the availability of basic utilities by locality. The main sources of lighting for households are kerosene and electricity (both at 49%). Kerosene is the main lightsource for households in rural areas (72%), while electricity is the main source for urbanhouseholds (79%). More than half of households (54%) use wood as the main cooking fuel.Charcoal ranks second (31%). In urban areas, 53 percent of households use charcoal forcooking. In the rural areas, about four fifths of households use wood while 14 percent usecharcoal. A larger proportion of urban households (20%) use gas for cooking than ruralhouseholds (9.5%). However, in Accra proportion of household using gas is relatively high(34.5%).

The following table below shows that nearly all households use wood fuel ( 18.5 – 80.2 % )and / or charcoal ( 13.8 – 52.6 % ). The next cooking fuels are Gas ( 1.5 – 20.0 % ), Kerosin( 0.2 – 1.2 % ) and Electricity ( 0.1 – 0.5 % ).

Table: Households by locality and use of basic utilities ( percent )




People spend on average, one hour and 16 minutes on cooking and about 30 minutes oncollecting firewood per day, see table below:

Various literatures from own background investigation and summarised in the PDD andannexes, have been assessed in addition by the validation team, which comfirms the abovedescribed situation in Ghana, that the majority of urban households use charcoal. Charcoaland wood are transported into the cities from rural areas where it is sold at many small outlets.For the urban poor, biomass is the main source of fuel energy, but there is increasing use of charcoal. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity are used by only a small minority forcooking. Urbanization increases deforestation by increasing the demand for charcoalproduction, the primary fuel among urban dwellers. Charcoal manufacturing accelerates

deforestation more than firewood, because, unlike firewood which can be obtained from deadbranches and stems in the rural countryside, it involves felling live trees. In conjunction withurbanization, migration and industrialization also contribute to deforestation.

Prevention of human exposure to indoor smoke is another important aspect of the currenthousehold energy systems of Ghana. When charcoal or firewood is burnt on simple traditionalstoves, they often do not combust completely and the result is a high level of emissions(including particulates) which can cause high levels of indoor air pollution when combinedwith poorly ventilated conditions. This indoor air pollution can have a severe impact onhealth. The respiratory and immune systems can be damaged by the particulates from smoke.The women gathering wood spending several hours daily, incur cuts, bruises, sprains,

fractures, skin irritation, allergic reactions, insect and snake bites, and other injuries.

Baseline Determination:

The baseline determination is transparent and reasonable following the guidance from theapplied GS-Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 “IndicativeProgramme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and KitchenRegimes”. The project boundary is defined as the kitchens used by the project population(Gyapa Stoves purchasers); this is distinct to the Reachable Fuel Collection Area, which is thegeographical area of Greater Accra and Kumasi with step-wise expansion to whole Ghana.Relevant Corrective Action Requests ( CARs ) and Clarification Requests ( CLs ) could besuccessfully resolved and are summarized in Annex A ( Validation Protocol ) and if appropriate under section 4.10. for transparency reasons.

4.4

AdditionalityReferring to Part B of the PDD.

There has not been any public announcement of the described project activity going aheadwithout VERs. VER revenue is the only external source of funding, the project activity couldnot go ahead without revenues from VERs, which has been confirmed during on-siteassessment and follow-up interviews.




The main purpose of the project is to reduce the consumption of firewood with the improveddesign of cooking stoves with better combustion efficiency and insulation to prevent heatfrom escaping. There are around 7 million people relying on charcoal and around 12 millionin Ghana relying on firewood for daily cooking in Ghana.

The improved cookstoves will contribute to reduce the consumption of charcoal. In theabsence of the project, the rate of firewood chopping for cooking or charcoal making wouldcontinue. The use of the improved efficient charcoal and wood stoves of the brand “OriginalGyapa” will result in emission of less airborne particles and as a subsequence an improvementof the living conditions of the users and in a reduction of charcoal and firewood consumptionthroughout the design-based better combustion efficiency, besides of the facts, that the use of more efficient cook stoves is narrowing the gap between the rising fuel wood needs of agrowing population and the diminishing forest resources. In the absence of the project, therate of firewood chopping for charcoal making would continue.

This country analysis for Ghana summarized under chapter 4.3. concludes that the currentcharcoal production practices are not sustainable. The natural regeneration of forests is far tooslow to produce enough fuelwood to cover the demand.

This concluded that the natural forests of Ghana, host to immense biodiversity kept onreducing by around 2%/year since the 1990s, or an average loss of 115,000 ha per year from1990-2005. Ghana has the dubious distinction of being the first country to have lost a majorprimate species since the Convention on Biological Diversity came into force: the red colobusmonkey has been extinct since 2003 because of destruction of its habitat.

The project was supported with the kitchen tests and kitchen field surveys and furtherresearch on the additional impact of the market entry of the new improved cooking stoves onfire wood and charcoal saving. This assessment concluded positively on project additionality.

Prior to the implementation of the project, the new technology was not required by any law orregulation, it was in no way representing common practice in Ghana, nor was it representingthe least cost option for cooking. Hence, the project can be considered additional under theapplied additionality criteria.

The additionality of the project has been established using the “Tool for the demonstrationand assessment of additionality” version 05 approved by the CDM-EB.

TÜV Rheinland was able to verify that the incentives from VER revenue were seriouslyconsidered prior to the start of the project activity as substantiated with further evidence.

The starting date of the project activity is exactly the 12th of October 2007, when the VERPAwas signed for the project activity between. J.P. Morgan Climate Care and EnerpriseWorks/Vita, which included a $100,000 up-front payment for the development of the carbonasset of the project activity and preparation of the project activity for a continuous productionof emission reductions with a periodic monitoring as a pre-requisite for enjoying carbonfinance as way of sustaining the project over the crediting period. The starting date 12th of October 2007 is before the 2nd of August, 2008 and hence in accordance with the CDM

glossary of terms /70/.




It was anyhow agreed to use in chapter C.1.1. for simplification the 1st of November 2007,when the implementation of the project has begun, which has no further impact on emissionreduction calculation.

As part of the validation work during on-site assessment ( discussion with the representatives

of Enterprise Works Vita and of J.P. Morgan Climate Care ) and follow-up and resolving of the issued relevant CARs and CLs, namely CL02, CL03, CL 05 has the chronology of events,which convincingly demonstrates the need for carbon finance for a long-term success of theproject activity, as a separate annex ( Annex 7 )/50/ be provided to the validation teamtogether with version 3 of the PDD /4 /, dated 14 September 2009. The referenced documentshas been reviewed by the validation team and can considered as appropriate. This document( Annex 7 )/50/ has been also uploaded to the GS registry as further evidence.

The alternatives to the project activity, listed in the PDD have been further elaborated duringthe on-site assessment and follow-up interviews and are considered as complete and incompliance with legislation and regulations in the host country Ghana.

Instead of an investment analysis the project proponents have applied a barrier analysis toprove the additionality of the project activity. The following barriers have been presented:

• Technological Barriers with regard to equipment, skilled labour and technology risk• Barriers due to Prevailing Practice

The described barriers are plausible and could be observed during on-site assessment andinterviews with various stakeholders in Ghana. It became clear through additional backgroundresearch and interviews with local authorities and NGOs that the presented barriers wouldprevent the project activity but not prevent the baseline of the project activity.

The region for the common practice analysis has been defined by the project proponent as thehost country, even this could be extended to Sub-Saharan Africa, which has similarcharacteristics with regard to economic situation, poverty and deforestation from the view of the validation team.

The validation team has reviewed sources such as the Gold Standard Website and theUNFCCC Website for projects of similar technology and size in this region and came to theconclusion, that besides of the proposed project activity similar projects of similar size areunder implementation in Uganda, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Benin, Kenya, Senegal, Sudan,South Africa and in Ghana, all applying as GS-VER projects. The project activity in Ghana,

developed by Toyola Energy Limited (TEL) with support of E+Carbon, is based of a spin-off of the artisans Suraj Wahab and Ernest Kyei, trained before also by the project proponentEnrterprise Works/Vita, who became self-employed.

Hence the validation team is of the opinion, that the barriers described above are real andcorrectly explained and substantiated and could therefore prove additionality of the projectactivity.

In summary, it is sufficiently demonstrated that the project, which applies the first applicablemethodology, the Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01“Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves

and Kitchen Regimes”, version V.01, developed byDr. Adam Harvey of J.P. Morgan ClimateCare, which became only available after approval of Gold Standard TACin May 2008*), is




not a likely a baseline scenario and enables the long-term sustainable roll-out based oncarbon-finance of the project activity with all its specific features, independent of any short-term non-sustainable funds. The conclusion is, that it has been shown that the project wouldnot take place without the presence of an up-front payment of carbon credit financing and thatemission reductions occurring from this will hence be additional.


*) A smiliar large-scale methodology underUNFCCC/CDM is until now not available /68/.

4.5

MonitoringReferring to Part D and Annex 3 of the PDD.

The project applies the approved monitoring methodology for Improved Cook-stoves andKitchen Regimes V.01 “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology forImproved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”.

This methodology was developed for the Gold

Standard Foundation by JP Morgan Climate Care for large-scale projects disseminatingimproved cook-stoves. The relevant CDM-methodology AMS-II.G. “Energy EfficiencyMeasures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass” is not applicable, because thescale of the project activity is exceeding the threshold for small-scale project activities of typeII “Energy efficiency improvement projects”. The used GS-Methodology, even not anapproved CDM methodology, and its application is justified to be the best available

methodology at the time of PDD preparation, as it was developed special also for this projectactivity because of lack of an appropriate methodology at the time of the decision to developthe project as a GS-VER project.

Since the proposed project does not result in transfer of cooking stoves to the project site norfrom the project site to any other location, leakage is not in place. The other potential sourcesof leakage described in the baseline study of the methodology will be followed throughout theproject period. Fuel-switching will be continuously monitored in the monitoring KitchenSurveys for both rural and urban sales, and the leakage factor will be re-evaluatedaccordingly. Thus, no leakage factor is applied for the time being.

The data presented in the monitoring report and monitoring and operational records for theentire verification period were assessed in detail by review of the detailed projectdocumentation and production records, interviews with personnel of Enterprise Works/VITA.and J.P. Morgan Climate Care, relevant Original Gyapa Stoves producers, retailers and endusers, collection of sales and production records, observation of established monitoring andreporting practices and assessment of the reliability of monitoring tools. This has enabled thevalidation team to assess the credibility, conservativeness and completeness of the predictedsales and emission reduction results and verify the correct application of the monitoringmethodology.

Following the site visit and submission of additional information, the validation team hasraised some forward action requests in order to highlight issues related to project




implementation that require review during the first verification of the project activity, see alsotable A of the validation protocol.

4.5.1

Parameters determined ex-ante

All reported factors required by the monitoring methodology for Improved Cook-stoves andKitchen Regimes V.01 “Indicative Programme, Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology forImproved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”, the parameters required for monitoring givenin the PDD as well as the necessary management system issues were assessed during the on-site assessment.

This included the raw data like equipment ratio per household, cluster definitions, wood to

charcoal conversion, stove lifespan, NCV, EFCO2, fractional Non-Renewability (NRB andother parameters from previous Kitchen Surveys and Kitchen Tests and the resulting GHGemission reductions by stove type based on previous kitchen surveys and kitchen tests areassumed ex-ante:

Emission reductions per stove-year for sample and adjusted for all sales

Cluster Stove Type Fuel savingskg / kitchen day

Fuel savingskg / kitchen year

Emissionreductionst CO2e/stove-year

a MediumCharcoal“Original Gyapa”

0.44 161 0.986

b Small Charcoal“Original Gyapa”

0.19 69 0.426

c Large Charcoal“Original Gyapa”

1.87 683 4.191

4.5.2 Parameters monitored ex-postThis section shall include an evaluation of the data and parameters that need to be monitored.

The main raw data are coming from the accounting books of Enterprise Works/VITA,namely:

• Production records of Enterprise Works/VITA,other manufacturers, ceramicists undersupervision of Enterprise Works/VITA

• Sales records of Enterprise Works/VITA, other manufacturers to distributors, retailersand direct sales.

• Receipt and warranty card records of end-users




There is an E&M Specialist employed at EWV Ghana, who is responsible for the projectmonitoring activities. The EWV Ghana’s Component Project Manager is responsible forproject implementation – including records maintenance. He reports to EWV Ghàna’sDirector, who himself is reporting to EWV’s US-Director.

These data have to be cross-checked continuously and annually during verification with otherdata on plausibility. The Enterprise Works/VITA sales record is collected based on salesreceipts submitted by the sales teams.

The E&M Specialist enters this information into a accounting system. On a monthly basis, thethe Component Project Manager aggregates the information and checks it for accuracy

Under supervision of J.P. Morgan Climate Care periodic spot checks at EnterpriseWorks/VITA to ensure that production, sales, and inventory records match purchases of rawmaterials. These records will also be cross-checked with artisan labour records (ensuring thenumber of stoves produced matches the amount of labour for which artisans were paid).

The Monitoring Plan includes bi-annual Kitchen Surveys (KS) and Kitchen Tests (KTs),which will include investigation of the performance of ageing Gyapa Stoves, so that suchadjustments can be made to the emission reduction values used in monitoring reports. Also,usage will be investigated, and appropriate adjustments made to emissions reductions claimsbased on measured usage drop-off rates.

The following data to be reported in the monitoring report from the project has been assessedin detail:

Main project parameters:

Datavariable

Source of data Data unit Measured (m),calculated (c),estimated (e),

RecordingFrequency/ Means of storage/ archivingelectronic (E)/ paper (P)

Proportion of data tobe monitored/ AccuracyComment

StoveSales

Sales Records Number of stoves bytype and size

C DailyE, P

All sales100 % accuracy

Project FuelConsumption

KTs Mass fuel per year M Biennial/ E, P

Sample/ 90 % confidence limit accuracyFuel consumption of improved stove

Clusteringdefinitions

Monitoring KS As specified above E Quarterly/ Biennialmonitoring reports

Sample/ To ensurerepresentative KTs

Usagefactor

Usage KT or KS % operational M, E Biennial/ E, P

Sample/ +/-1%

AgeFactor

Stove-age KT Mass fuel per year M Biennial/ E, P

Sample/ +/-0.5 kg

New Stoveperformance

New Stove KT Mass fuel per year M Biennial/ E, P

Sample/ +/-0.5 kgFuel consumption of new improved stove




Market development

Company recordsand Quarterly Report

Sales trends and expenditure onsensitisation and promotion

E Quarterly/ E, P

Major promotionalactivities/ 100 % accuracyOn sales activities

Sales trend and their correlation topromotions

It is proposed that the fuel consumption test may be undertaken more frequently for specificclusters to update the values used to calculate emission reductions.

Sustainable development indicators:

SustainableDevelopment Indicator

Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Air quality Survey Air pollutants(CO,particulates)

PPM of COand PM, and Survey observations

Estimated through home interviews and observations and measurements of CO andPM during surveys. The surveys are tobe carried out biannually

Lively-hood of thepoor

Survey Financial impact

USD Estimated through home interviews during quarterly KitchenSurvey visits to randomly selected Gyapa stove buyers

Employment Survey Numbers Number of Employees

Direct employees and retailers of Gyapa stoves are measured and spin-off employment (competitors) is estimated

Access to Energy Services

Survey Fuel cost,consumption,ease of collection

Tonnes/year,prices,walkingdistances

Estimated through kitchen tests and surveys

Human and institutional capacity

Survey Skill levels Number of peopletrained,

Number of trainingsconducted

Estimated through records of Gyapa stove and spin-off achievements in business, marketing, and technology areas

Records of trainings and number of people trained by EWV onthe Gyapa technology

Technological self-reliance

Survey Achievement Estimated though observation and record of Gyapa stove and spin-off technical innovations and developments

These parameters and indicators, which are further described in the PDD, section D.2. andAnnex 3., are in line with the baseline and monitoring methodology, the monitoring plan andare considered as sufficient for the periodic verification.


4.5.3

Management system and quality assurance

The project’s monitoring plan includes:

- A description of the responsibilities and authorities for project management as outlined inorganograms for the manufacturing team-consisting of ceramists, liner distributors,

tinsmiths/stove fabricators and stove retailers, the sales and marketing team and the teammembers of Enterprise Works/VITA-US and Enterprise Works/VITA-Ghana, consisting of




the component program manager with his team of project officers and drivers and the M&Especialist assigned to the monitoring team,- Procedures for monitoring and reporting including sustainable development indicators, and

QA/QC procedures- Procedures for day-to-day recording and storage.

During on-site assessment it was confirmed by the project owner, that these procedures willbe maintained and implemented according to the project’s monitoring plan and the monitoringmethodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 “Indicative Programme,Baseline, and Monitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”, inorder to enable subsequent verification of emission reductions.

The project is implemented and has been in operation since November 2007 under the projectconcept as Gold Standard Voluntary Carbon Offset project, since the applied methodologywas not available and had to be developed for the project activity and was approved by GS-TAC in 2008 only. On 26th June 2007, Term Sheet was signed between J.P. Morgan VenturesEnergy Corporation and EnterpriseWorks Vita and on 12th October 2007, the VERPA wassigned for the same project which set out to develop the carbon asset of the project and enjoycarbon financing as a way of sustaining the project for the next seven years.

The project developer has applied in parallel for retroactive crediting under the GoldStandard, since the project activity was already implemented through a major marketing andpromotion effort, combined with technical development and quality assurance to disseminatereliable improved-efficiency models at affordable price, based on upfront payment fromexpected VER revenue

The project local project participant Enterprise Works/VITA could establish with support of JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation a project management system to the charcoal savingproject. Relevant monitoring and measurement procedures have been documented andrelevant employees have been trained to ensure stipulated procedures are adhered to.

The quality assurance of data management of Enterprise Works/VITA will be furtherimproved through an relevant QA/QC measures with quarterly monitoring meetings forceramists, liner distributors, tinsmiths/stove fabricators and stove retailers

Enterprise Works/VITA with support of JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation will ensurequality control in several of the monitoring activities, including the correct implementation of the monitoring plan consisting among others of periodic Kitchen Surveys, Usage Surveys,leakage investigation, and spot-checks (including field observations of retailer activity) toconfirm the validity of Sales Records and to confirm the absence of double-counting in anyform. During the on-site assessment Mr. Seth Mathu ( Component Program Manager ) andMrs. Mina H. Lassey ( M&E Specialist ) of Enterprise Works/VITA showed to the validationteam besides of the main technical manufacturing premises also the different documentationused.




EWV Ghana administers a warranty system, with warranty cards, which also help with salesrecording process. EWV Ghana controls the liner and stove prices through regular consultivemeetings involving liner and stove producers, it also monitors quality of the stoves in themarket and is able to trace a stove to both the liner and stove manufacturer through anidentification system maintained by EWV Ghana. The identification traceability system is

also used to track the Gyapa stoves in the market and to avoid double counting.The label clearly identifies the stoves as "Original Gyapa" which is an EWV registered patentin Ghana:

During sales, it is therefore considered as feasible to identify the "Original Gyapa" anddistinguish it from similar stoves and record the Gyapa sales separately for monitoringpurposes. The sales records are used to update the Sales Database and avoid double counting.As part of the projects QA/QC, the stoves manufacturers' and liner manufacturers' productionand sales records are reconciled with the retailer sales records, as a further step to ensure thatthose stoves not manufactured under the project are not counted. All retailers who sell Gyapastoves have a contract with EWV to maintain the required sales records.Hence it could be concluded that EWV as facilitator and supervisor fulfils the main technicaland commercial requirements for manufacturing of the improved efficient charcoal stoves fordomestic and commercial applications. An additional forward action request has been issued:




FAR 1: It has to be analysed until the first verification and during the crediting period, if there is a clear distinction between the “Original Gyapa” stoves and the stoves with similarfeatures, marketed under the name “Toyola”.Conclusion Validation Team: The 3rd party expert’s reports on the methods used for cross-checks (which will include a check that the Gyapa stoves counted under this project aredistinctive in relation to any other cook-stoves counted under other carbon-financed projectswithin Ghana) and their findings will be included in quarterly monitoring reports available tothe verifier.

These above mentioned introduced QC and QA procedures sufficiently address the raisedissue.

FAR 1 has been resolved and can be closed.Relevant Corrective Action Requests ( CARs ) and Clarification Requests ( CLs ) could besuccessfully resolved and are summarized in Annex A ( Validation Protocol ) and if

appropriate under section 4.10. for transparency reasons.

4.6

Estimate of GHG Emissions

Referring to part B and Annex 2 of the PDD.

The monitoring of the project is comprehensive and in accordance with the approvedmonitoring methodology. The monitoring methodologies and sustaining records weresufficient to enable verification of emission reductions. Majority of the factors used are either

adopted from IPCC or project specific data.According to the applied Methodology for Improved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes theproject proponent is obliged to provide an equivalent level of justification for quantities of green-house gas emitted from production as from use. There are significant CO2, CH4, N2O,CO, and TNMHC emissions arising from typical charcoal production processes.

The publication “Emissions of greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from charcoalmaking in Kenya and Brazil, David M. Pennise,Kirk R. Smith, Environmental HealthSciences, University of California, Berkeley, California. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol106 October 27 2001” /52/ has been used as reference. Table 6a of above publicationsummarises the calculations of the averages of measured emissions of greenhouse gases fromearth mound kilns. Although these measurements were taken in Kenya studies it is assumedthat the same techniques for charcoal production are used currently in Ghana.

Therefore the validation team accepts the current approach as it is based on the above results,which are for the time being considered as credible data.

Relevant Corrective Action Requests ( CARs ) and Clarification Requests ( CLs ) could besuccessfully resolved and are summarized in Annex A ( Validation Protocol ) and if appropriate under section 4.10. for transparency reasons. An additional forward action

request ( FAR 3 ) has been introduced to cover the above issue as part of the annualverification.




FAR 3: The applied ex-ante parameters for non-CO2 emission factors have to be updatedwith country-specific local or more conservative default values from recognized scientificpublic sources ( e.g. IPCC ), should these be available until the first verification and duringthe crediting period. These data, parameters have to be applied in the monitoring report forverification purpose.

An extensive background research did not result in more updated information at the moment.Therefore an actual check of FAR 3 will be part of the periodic verification.OK

4.7

Environmental ImpactsReferring to Part F of the PDD.

No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been performed, because there is no legalobligation according to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Ghana. The potentialenvironmental impacts have been sufficiently identified. No significant environmentalimpacts are expected from the project activity. The local authorities could confirm this issueduring stakeholder consultations, the outcomes of the First Round Consultation did also notresult in any negative comments on significant impacts of the proposed project on theenvironment.

As the Sustainable Indicator Matrix of the project does also not contain any negative scores,from the view of Gold Standard requirements no voluntary EIA was necessary to conductlikewise.

It was confirmed during on-site assessment, that the project proponent is committed tocollaborate closely with the stakeholders, in the implementation of the full scale of the projectactivity with all its components, in order to minimise impacts to the environment, ensuresafety and minimise disturbance to activities present at the project site.


4.8

Comments by Local StakeholdersReferring to Part E and Annex 4.1 of the PDD.

There is no mandatory requirement to conduct a local stakeholder consultation for such kindof demand-side energy efficiency projects in place in Ghana.

A voluntary initial stakeholder consultation process or first round consultation has beenperformed during the design phase through inviting local residents to comment on the projectactivity. The initial stakeholder ( ISC ) meeting was facilitated by Pioneer Carbon – thepredecessor of ClimateCare (J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation) and EnterpriseWorks / VITA on 23 May 2008 in Accra, visited by thirty participants.




A report and a summary of the stakeholder meetings was submitted to the validation team.There were no adverse comments on the project activity and all comments are supportive of the project which has created new job opportunities in the region at Enterprise Works / VITAGhana and in the supply chain of the improved efficient stoves.

A summary of comments is provided and has been verified by TÜV Rheinland. Follow-upinterviews of the local stakeholders were performed during the on-site assessment. During thevisit the discussion was focussed on the status of the project implementation and theappreciated addional commitments of the project proponent to the commercial and householdend-users and the different parties of the supply chain of the “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves”.

The planned measures could be verified. The overall positive impact of these measures couldbe confirmed also during the meeting with the different local stakeholders like stovedistributors and retailers, ceramists and thinsmiths.

A further follow-up of the stakeholder consultation has been conducted with individualmeetings after the results of the pre-feasibility assessment /18/ has been received. Noadditional second round or main stakeholder meeting has been organised.

The report of the initial stakeholder meeting and of the pre-feasibility assessment and relatedresponses of the project participants have been reviewed by TÜV Rheinland and deemedadequate and transparent without concluding further corrective action or clarificationrequests.

4.9

Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs

An international stakeholder consultation as in the CDM is not required for projects under theGS VER stream ( Source: Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications,Basel, December 17th 2007 ).

Comment by :Accredited NGO Party Stakeholder

Inserted on :Subject :Comment : No comments were received during the above global stakeholder consultationprocess.

How has considered the comment received in its validation :

N/A




4.10

Gold Standard Requirements

The Gold Standard requests besides of the successful assessment against the criteria stated inArticle 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in theMarrakech Accords, the fulfilment of the requirements for Voluntary Offset Projects underthe Gold Standard.

Projects which pass the screens listed in Box 1 are eligible for the Gold Standard.

Moreover the project activity is focussing on the UN Millennium Project recommendationrelated to energy for cooking with regard to the requested support for:(a) efforts to develop and adopt the use of improved cookstoves,(b) measures to reduce the adverse health impacts from cooking with biomass,and (c) measures to increase sustainable biomass production

(UN Millennium Projectet al., 2005).

In the following sections these additional requirements are assessed and evaluated.

a) Eligibility of the project for Gold Standard

Project Type Check:

According to the Gold Standard all projects technologies included in the figure below are

eligible.




The assessed project uses a domestic and a commercial energy efficiency technology, namelyimproved efficient charcoal and wood cooking stoves as well as improved efficientinstitutional wood stoves.

The project contributes significantly to the mitigation of climate change and the region’ssustainable development, applying a new methodology for large-scale project activities,which was designed for the Gold Standard Foundation, which isthe GS-Methodology forImproved Cook-stoves and Kitchen Regimes V.01 “Indicative Programme, Baseline, andMonitoring Methodology for Improved Cook-Stoves and Kitchen Regimes”.

Hence the project is eligible under Gold Standard.

Host Country Check

The host country does not have a quantitative reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.Ghana has ratified the Climate Change Convention on 6 September 1995 and is thereforelisted in Annex-I to the UNFCCC, and also has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 30 May 2003and is hence listed in Annex-B to the Kyoto Protocol (no quantified emissions limitation ormitigation commitment yet) too. Conclusion: Ghana is eligible as host country for GoldStandard Voluntary Offset Projects.




Project Size Check

Table 4 (revised): Definitions of Micro-, Small- and Large Scale Projects with the GS for

Voluntary Offsets

Micro-scale Small-scale Large-scale

<5k tCO2e per year >5k and <60k tCO2e per year >60k tCO2e per year

‘Large-scale’ and ‘small-scale’ project activities are now defined in accordance with UNFCCC rules,as explained below:The project activity is assumed to achieve annual emission reductions of 167,279 t CO2 e,which is belonging to the category of large-scale projects under GS for Voluntary Offsets.according to the Gold Standard, version 01(revised) with more than 60,000 tCO2e per year,based on the adaptation of GS VER SSC thresholds to CDM thresholds according to “GoldStandard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications”, dated December 17th 2007 /18/..

Eligibility for Retroactive Registration

The Gold Standard feedback was made available to TÜV Rheinland. The relevant CARs andCLs were also further elaborated under table B of the Validation Protocol.

Relevant Corrective Action Requests ( CARs ) and Clarification Requests ( CLs ) could besuccessfully resolved and are summarized in Annex A ( Validation Protocol ) for transparency reasons.

Finally it can be concluded that the project “Gyapa Improved Cook-Stoves in Ghana” hasfollowed all necessary steps and requirements for a retroactive registration resulting in thefollowing recommendation of the validation team:After all corrective action and clarification requests could have been resolved the verifier TÜV Rheinland recommends to submit the request for registration for the project “GyapaImproved Cook-Stoves in Ghana” as a Gold Standard VER project activity directly to Gold Standard Foundation (GS-TAC).

The starting date of the first crediting period “1st of November 2007 or two years before dateof registration, whichever is earlier”. The starting date of the project activity could bejustified with evidences as 1st of November 2007, shortly after the signing of the VERPSA on12th of October 2007.

The final PDD states as Starting Date of the First Crediting Period “Two years before Dateof Registration(or 1st of November 2007 if so chosen by project participants and later thanDate of Registration)”.




b) Technological transfer

Environmentally safe and sound technologies are central to achieving sustainabledevelopment objectives. In terms of mitigation, cleaner technologies and energy efficiencycan provide win-win solutions, allowing growth and the fight against climate change toproceed hand in hand ( Source: Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary UNFCCC, Beijing, PRChina, 24 April 2008 ). Energy efficiency presents a huge under-exploited GHG reductionopportunity. Technology transfer is the process of developing practical applications for theresults of scientific research, consisting of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies,methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing and facilities among industries,universities, governments and other institutions to ensure that scientific and technologicaldevelopments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then further develop andexploit the technology into new products, processes, applications, materials or services.

The project activity results in technology and knowledge transfer related to:

• Manufacturing of three types of stoves of the brand “Original Gyapa”, facilitated andsupervised by Enterprise Works/VITA with the following features:

Dimension ( centimeters)Stove Size DescriptionHeight Top Diameter

Small 21.0 ± 0.5 26.5 ± 0.5Medium 25.0 ± 0.5 32.0 ± 0.5

Large 38.5 ± 0.5 47.5 ± 0.5

• Adequately control quality, market, brand, protection of the brand, with appropriateproduct identification

• Distribute the stoves through a new system of distribution channels• Introduction of a warranty system for the stoves in order to differentiate from

traditional stove types combined with a third party QA/QC system containing periodickitchen tests and kitchen surveys

• Introduction of promotional activities for further market penetration•

Building up skilled labour and informed end-users and distributors through country-wide training activities starting in and around Greater Accra, Kumasi and later to othercities, towns, peri-urban and rural areas of Ghana in all ten Provinces of Ghana

c) Sustainable development screen

The project has used the sustainable development indicators matrix as required by the GoldStandard. The total score obtained is a +7 where:

• Local/regional/global environment has a subtotal of +2• Social sustainability and development has a subtotal of +4• Economic and technological development has a subtotal of +1




For none of the indicators a negative score has been given. All the assumptions used to definethe score values have been revised by the validator, based on submitted documentation andthe on-site visit made during the validation of the project.

Hence this criteria have been correctly demonstrated by the project proponents in a very

conservative way without any overestimation of any of the indicators.


a)

Use of the additionality tool

There has not been any public announcement of the described project activity going aheadwithout VERs. VER revenue is the only external source of funding, the project activity could

not go ahead as proposed without upfront payment from the future VERs.The project follows in a correct form every step of the approved additionality tool.

The guidance of Gold Standard Foundation for retro-active crediting is applicable asthe project is a retroactive project

Step 1 defines correctly all the alternative scenarios and the consistence with the lawsand regulations.

Step 2 ( investment analysis method ) was not applied, because the project activitywith these features and scale is considered as one of the “First-Of-Its-Kind” in Ghana.

The barriers and related documentation presented in Step 3 have been checked and

found plausible and appropriate for this specific project activity. They have beenaccepted by the validator. Step 4 shows that there is only one similar project of this scale in Ghana. which is also

applying carbon-finance, namely the project activity “Improved Household CharcoalStoves in Ghana”, which promotes charcoal stoves of the brand name “Toyola”

Hence the project has demonstrated the additionality correctly using the tool approved by theCDM Executive Board of UNFCCC with special focus on the early consideration of VER andthe demonstration and justification of barriers and following the guidance from Gold StandardFoundation regarding retro-active crediting.

Further information on the detailed assessment and evaluation on the identified barriers andprevailing practice is provided under chapter 4.4.





e) ODA Additionality screen

The chapter A.4.4 clearly shows that ODA funding has not been included to realise any stepof the process and even the bank’s funds do not include any ODA funding. Hence the projectcomplies with the requirements. The validation did not reveal any information that indicates

that the project can be seen as a diversion of official development assistance (ODA) fundingtowards Ghana.


f) Use of conservativeness

There are many factors and uncertainties that can affect the predicted project’s greenhouse gasemission reductions compared to the baseline.

Potential factors that may result in a lower VER estimate include:

• Over-estimation of the total number of conventional stoves in continuing use or under-estimation of the total number of improved stoves in continuing use respectively

• Under-estimation of the total number of sold improved efficient stoves of the brand“Original Gyapa”

• Under-estimation of the fraction of fuel that is non-renewable wood• Under-estimation of the efficiency of sold improved efficient stoves of the brand

“Original Gyapa”• Unexpected leakage effects as described under section B.2. a) – f) of the PDD

Possible factors that may result in a higher VER estimate include:

1. Additional emission reduction from non-CO2 greenhouse gases, which have not beenaccounted for

2. Higher efficiency of the improved cook-stoves than assumed3. Additional positive leakage: i.e. households adopting improved stoves outside the

project implementation, which have not been accounted for4. The average fraction of fuel coming from non-renewable wood may have been

underestimatedAdditional factors that may have a significant, but unknown impact on VER estimates:

1. Systematic reporting bias by households for stated fuel use and food production2. Errors in the estimated net calorific value of charcoal and other fuels found during

kitchen tests and kitchen surveys3. Statistical cross correlations and skew in the variations in collected interview data4. Selection of equal-household weighting for computation of village consumption

averages5. Dependence of stove efficiency on the number of meals cooked6. Quality variations in improved stove design




On balance, given the various factors and their potential impact on the VER estimate, it ismore likely that the VER estimate in this report is conservative, because the PDD has beenprepared in a professional way. The VER estimates are made in a conservative and

transparent manner, in order to avoid any artificial inflating of the number of VERs resultedfor the project activity.

Additional forward action requests ( FAR 1, FAR 2 ) have been introduced to ensureconservativeness within the first crediting period.

Moreover conservative approaches and criteria have been applied as follows:

Application of a evolving baseline over the crediting period which will cover anypossible variation of parameters as described

For the charcoal stoves of the brand “Original Gyapa” there are downwardsadjustments of the fuel-saving figures introduced as follows:

Cluster Stove Type Fuel savingskg / stove day

ConservativeAdjustmentFactor

Fuel savingskg / stove day

a MediumCharcoal“Original Gyapa”

0.51 x 0.86 0.44

b Small Charcoal“Original Gyapa”

0.25 x 0.76 0.19

c Large Charcoal“Original Gyapa”

3.81 x 0.49 1.87

g) Monitoring of sustainable development parameters

The PDD shows all the parameters to be monitored. The monitoring process of everyparameter is clearly explained in the PDD. Hence the monitoring plan is plausible andverifiable if implemented as stated in the PDD. As there is no critical parameter according to

the Sustainable Development Assessment Matrix no further monitoring regardingsustainability is necessary.





h) Environmental Impacts

An environmental impact analysis is not required by the regional environmental authority inGhana. According to the GS an EIA should be performed if any sustainable development

indicator is scored with -1. Hence this project does not need an EIA to comply with the GSrequirements. All the possible impacts caused by the project activities have been clearlyexplained in the PDD and during the on-site assessment and follow-up. Hence the project isconsidered to comply with the environmental impact criterion.


i) Stakeholder consultation requirements

The project proponent has carried out one initial stakeholder consultation. All relevantstakeholders have been invited to the first round stakeholder consultation on 23 May 2008. Asrequired by the GS a list of the consulted stakeholders has been submitted to the validator.

The initial stakeholder process included a questionnaire to determine the environmentalimpacts caused by the project. Approximately 30 representatives from government,environmental and civil society organizations, academia and the private sector met to reviewthe proposed project.

The presentation held by Mr. Joash Obare of J.P. Morgan Climate Care has contained a non-

technical summary of the project, the explanation of the sustainable development impacts anda checklist on environmental and social impacts. Questions raised during the meeting wereanswered by Mr. Joash Obare of J.P. Morgan Climate Care as well Mr. Atsu Titiati and Mr.Seth Mahu of Enterprise Works / VITA Ghana. Unfortunately no representative of a GS-supporting NGO has attended the stakeholder meeting.

A summary of comments is provided and has been verified by TÜV Rheinland. Follow-upinterviews of the local stakeholders were performed during the on-site assessment. During thevisit the discussion was focussed on the status of the project implementation and theappreciated addional commitments of the project proponent to the commercial and householdend-users and the different parties of the supply chain of the “Gyapa Stoves”.

The planned measures could be verified. The overall positive impact of these measures couldbe confirmed also during the meeting with the different local stakeholders like stovedistributors and retailers, ceramists and thinsmiths.

A further follow-up of the stakeholder consultation has been conducted with individualmeetings after the results of the pre-feasibility assessment /18/ has been received. For theproject, which involves retroactive registration, the first round of stakeholder consultationswas done though a group physical meeting as described above while the second round of consultations were conducted through individual physical meetings. Several undocumentedtelephone conversations with various stakeholders were also conducted at various stages of the carbon asset development cycle of the project.



The consultations are summarised in /5/,/57/, section G, /58/,/59/ and /60/.The only Gold Standard supporting NGO that is active in Ghana is WWF. However, nofeedback was received from WWF throughout the consultations.

The key stakeholders have been consulted individually as part of the second round feedbackand they have been updated on the actions taken in response to their feedback. The pre-feasibility assessment matters were all addressed separately. Where matters raised were of concern to any Agency in Ghana, a visit was arranged and the matter was discussed andresolved (See separate document; Agencies Consulted in the Gyapa Project Design Cycle.pdf)/60/. How the guidance from the pre-feasibility have been addressed is shown in a separatedocument; Response (1) to GS Pre-assessmsnt_090119.pdf /19/.

The report of the initial stakeholder meeting, the pre-feasibility assessment, the stakeholderfeedback round and related responses of the project participants have been reviewed by TÜVRheinland and deemed adequate and transparent without concluding further corrective actionor clarification requests. The comments are overall of positive nature and are not resulting ina need for a re-design of the project activity. A global stakeholder consultation is notrequested for voluntary offset projects under GS-VER standard. Anyhow it was confirmed bythe project proponent that the PDD, the report of the initial stakeholder meeting, the pre-feasibility assessment and report of the stakeholder feedback round and the validation reportwill be made public on GS website for the registration review. This will be anotheropportunity to provide potential inputs also for GS NGO supporters.

No further written comments were received so far.

Hence the requirements for local stakeholder process for Gold Standard projects have beenfulfilled.


j) Others

N/A.

1 validation report gyapa ics ghana_final 27-04-2010

Documents