You are on page 1of 58

CPA VALIDATION REPORT

Title of CPA:

SOCFINDO EFB PLUS POME COCOMPOSTING PROJECT (CPA NO. 001)


Title of PoA to which CPA is to be included:

CO-COMPOSTING AND COMPOSTING PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES FOR PALM OIL


MILLS IN INDONESIA

REPORT NO. 2011-9535/01


REVISION NO. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT


Date of first issue: Project No.:

31 January 2012
Approved by:

PRJC-314605-2011-CCS-MYS
Organisational unit:

DNV CLIMATE CHENGE SERVICES AS


Climate Change & Environmental Services Veritasveien 1, 1322 HVIK, Norway Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Fax: +47 67 57 99 11 http://www.dnv.com Org. No: NO 994 774 352 MVA

Michael Lehmann
Client:

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Accredited Climate Change Services


Client ref.:

PT. Socfin Indonesia

Harold Williams

Identification of CPA: Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) Issue date of CDM-SSC-CPA-DD: 31 May 2012 (Version: 03) Host Party: Indonesia PoA: Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia Methodology: AMS-III.F Version: 10 CPA ER estimate: 70 910 tCO2e over 7 years or 10 130 tCO2e on average yearly GHG reducing Measure/Technology: Avoidance of methane emissions through composting Size: Large Scale Validation Phases: Desk Review Resolution of outstanding issues Validation Status Corrective Actions Requested Full Approval and request for inclusion Small Scale Follow up interviews

Clarifications Requested Rejected

In summary, it is DNVs opinion that the CPA Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) as described in the CDM-SSC-CPA-DD of 31 May 2012 requesting to be included in the PoA Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia, meets the eligibility criteria established in the PoA and all relevant UNFCCC requirements for including CPAs in a PoA and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-III.F, version 10. DNV thus requests the inclusion of the CPA in the PoA.
Report No.:
Date of this revision:

Rev. No.

Key words:

2011-9535/01
Report title:

2012-06-20

01

Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001)


Work carried out by:

CDM Kyoto Protocol Programme of Activities


No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit Limited distribution Unrestricted distribution

Simon Wong Yon Sing, Fathullah Akmal Khalid, Foo Wei Yee, Denise Lai Siew Sit
Work verified by:

Hendrik W. Brinks, Michael Lehmann

4_Socfindo_CPA_FVR_01_WONGS_Brinks_FA_WONGYS_mleh_FA_mleh_FA_20120613_mleh20120615_FA_20120620_clean.docx

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT


Abbreviations
ABC AMWS CAR CDM CDM-SSC-CPA-DD CDM-SSC-POA-DD CH4 CL CME CO2 CO2e COD CPA CPO DNA DNV EFB EIA EMMP FAR FFB GHG GPS GWP IPCC MCF MP NCV NGO NPV ODA PERTAMINA PKS PoA PoA-DD POME RSPO SWDS UNFCCC WWTS Aerated Bunker Co-composting Plant Animal Waste Management System Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism CDM small-scale programme activity design document CDM small-scale programme of activities design document Methane Clarification request Coordinating/Managing Entity Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Chemical Oxygen Demand CDM programme activity Crude Palm Oil Designated National Authority Det Norske Veritas Empty Fruit Bunch Environment Impact Assessment Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan Forward Action Request Fresh Fruit Bunch Greenhouse gas(es) Global Positioning System Global Warming Potential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Methane Correction Factor Monitoring Plan Net Calorific Value Non-governmental Organisation Net Present Value Official Development Assistance Indonesian National Oil Company Palm Kernel Shells Programme of activities Programme of activities Design Document Palm Oil Mill Effluent Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Solid Waste Disposal Site United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Wastewater Treatment System

Page i

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 1.1 1.2 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 Objective 1 Scope 1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 2 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation 2 Site visit and follow-up Interviews 5 Resolution of Outstanding Issues 5 Internal Quality Control 6 Validation Team 6 VALIDATION FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 7

Appendix A: Protocol for Assessing Compliance of Specific CDM Programme Activities with the Programme of Activities Appendix B: Curriculum Vitae of validation team

Page ii

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION
PT. Socfin Indonesia has commissioned DNV Climate Change Services AS (DNV) to assess the information in the CDM-CPA-DD for the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Cocomposting Project (CPA No. 001) (hereafter called the CPA) against the requirements for including CPAs to the PoA Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia and further documentation requirements for including CPAs to a PoA. This report summarises the findings of the validation of the specific small-scale CDM Programme of Activities Design Document (CDM-SSC-CPA-DD).

1.1 Objective
The assessment of a CPA requesting to be included in a PoA shall ensure that all the requirements determined in the PoA are met. The assessment was performed on the basis of the eligibility criteria established in the PoA and the UNFCCC criteria for including CPAs to programme of activities under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting according to AMS-III.F Avoidance of methane emissions through composting, version 10.

1.2 Scope
The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the specific CDM-SSC-CPA-DD to be included in the PoA. The DOE shall scrutinize the information in the CDM-SSC-CPA-DD to assess compliance with the eligibility criteria established by the PoA, to check correctly application of AMS-III.F (Version 10) and to check compliance with documentation requirements for CPAs. The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the programme participants. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided input for improvement of the project design.

Page 1

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT 2 METHODOLOGY


The validation consisted of the following three phases: I a desk review of the specific CDM-SSC-CPA-DD with relevant information to be included in the PoA; II follow-up interviews with programme stakeholders III the resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validation report and opinion. The following sections outline each step in more detail.

2.1 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation


The following table lists the documentation that was reviewed during the validation:

2.1.1 Documentation provided by the project participants


/1/ PT. Carbon Agro Indo: CDM-SSC-PoA-DD for PoA titled Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia, Version 01 dated 28 June 2011 published for comments and Version 03 dated 17 January 2012 for final report PT. Carbon Agro Indo: Generic CDM-SSC-CPA-DD for PoA titled Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia, Version 01 dated 28 June 2011 published for comments and Version 03 dated 31 May 2012 for final report PT. Carbon Agro Indo: CDM-SSC-CPA-DD for CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001), Version 01 dated 28 June 2011 published for comments and Version 03 dated 31 May 2012 for final report PT. Carbon Agro Indo: Financial Analysis Spread Sheet for CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001), Version 01 dated 28 June 2011 published for comments and CPA BB FInancial Analysis ver_3.xls for final report Fertilizer savings calculation: Fertilizer Savings_template CPA inclusion_Option A.xls Fertilizer savings calculation: Fertilizer Savings_template CPA inclusion_Option B.xls PT. Carbon Agro Indo: Emission Reduction Spread Sheet for CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001), Version 01 dated 28 June 2011 published for comments and CPA BB Emission Reduction spreadsheet ver_4.xls for final report PT. Socfin Indonesia: Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (ref. number 660/084/Tarukim-SB/2005), approved on 20 June 2005 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil : RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production Including Indicators and Guidance, dated October 2007 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Fertilizer Supply Agreements for Dolomite, Muriate of Potash, Rock Phosphate Egypt and Urea, for the year 2009 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Socfindo Standard Fertilisation Programme, version 09-30 for the year 2009 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Palm Oil Tree Census for Fertiliser Usage, for the year 2009 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Sales and Purchase Agreement for Dolomite, Urea, Potassium nd Rock Phosphate between PT. Socfin Indonesia and various fertilizer suppliers, for Page 2

/2/

/3/

/4/

/5/

/6/ /7/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT


the year 2009 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Diesel Purchase Invoices, for the months of January 2010 to March 2010 Carbon Conservation: Proposal for Carbon Services for PT Socfin Indonesia, dated 9 April 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Feasibility Study Co-Composting at Bangun Bandar Mill, dated 27 April 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Minutes of Meeting of the Board of The Commissioners of the P.T. Socfin Indonesia (Socfindo) held in Jakarta, dated 28 April 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Declaration of No ODA for project activity CPA001- Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project Burden et al: A Business Case for the Aerated Bunker Composting (ABC) System, published in 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Report on Stakeholder Consultation Meeting, dated 27 September 2010 UNFCCC Secretariat: Submission of Prior Consideration of CDM Form for PT Socfin Indonesia, dated 1 October 2010 Indonesian CDM Designated National Authority: Receipt of Document from P.T. Socfin Indonesia, dated 12 October 2010 North Sumatra Provincial Authority: Wastewater Test Reports for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010, dated December 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Wastewater and Production Records for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010, dated December 2010 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Contract for Piling Works between PT. Socfin Indonesia and PT. Perintis Pondasi Teknotama, dated 4 July 2011 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Contract for Concrete, Steel & Roof Works between PT. Socfin Indonesia and CV Cikini Raya, dated 4 July 2011 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Contract for Precast Concrete Panel between PT. Socfin Indonesia and Wijaya Karya Beton, dated 4 July 2011 Technical Department of PT. Socfin Indonesia: Clarification on the choice of MCC Panel and Bunker Filler, dated 15 August 2011 Sucofindo: Wastewater Analysis Certificate for the Wastewater Measurement Campaign from 11 August 2011 to 23 August 2011, dated 27 August 2011 PT. Carbon Agro Indo and PT Socfin Indonesia: Cooperation Agreement to join CDM Program of Activities, Co-composting Programme of Activities in Indonesia, dated 3 October 2011 PT. Carbon Agro Indo: Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia Management Plan for the Inclusion of CDM Program of Activities (CPAs), dated 16 December 2011 Dr John Burden and Rodney Barrett: Commissioning of the Aerated Bunker Composting Facility on 8 March 2012, letter dated 14 March 2012 PT. Socfin Indonesia: Sample Employee Payslips for the months of January 2010 to March 2010, printed on 12 June 2012 Page 3

/12/ /13/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /17/ /18/ /19/ /20/ /21/ /22/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /28/

/29/

/30/ /31/

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT


2.1.2 Methodologies, tools and other guidance by the CDM Executive Board
/32/ /33/ /34/ /35/ /36/ /37/ /38/ /39/ CDM Executive Board: Validation and Verification Manual, EB44 Annex 1 version 1.2 CDM Executive Board: Baseline and monitoring methodology Avoidance of methane emissions through composting AMS-III.F, EB59 version 10 CDM Executive Board: Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis, EB62 Annex 5 version 05 CDM Executive Board: Information on Additionality (Attachment A of Appendix B of 4/CMP.1 Annex II), EB63 Annex 24 version 08 CDM Executive Board: CDM-SSC-PoA-DD Small Scale CDM Programme of Activities Design Document form, EB33 Annex 43 version 01.0 CDM Executive Board: General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies, EB61 Annex 21 Version 17 CDM Executive Board: Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment, EB 50 Annex 15 version 01 CDM Executive Board: Standard for Demonstration of Additionality, Development of Eligibility Criteria and Application of Multiple Methodologies for Programme of Activities, EB65 Annex 3 version 01.0 CDM Executive Board: Co-composting Programme of Activities in Indonesia, http://cdm.unfccc.int/ProgrammeOfActivities/Validation/DB/2MJW8CICWDNRL1F7 2DM11M3M8A6Q8M/view.html last accessed 20 December 2011 CDM Executive Board: Emissions from solid waste disposal sites, EB65 Annex 19 version 06.0.0 CDM Executive Board: Baseline and monitoring methodology Methane recovery in wastewater treatment AMS-III.H, EB58 version 16 CDM Executive Board: Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption, EB39 Annex 7 version 01 CDM Executive Board: Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, EB41 Annex 11 version 02

/40/

/41/ /42/ /43/ /44/

2.1.3 Documentation used by DNV to validate / cross-check the information provided by project participants
/45/ /46/ /47/ /48/ Ministry of Environment of Indonesia: EIA Requirements for Projects and/or Activities, dated 2 October 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for Natinoal Greenhouse Gas Inventories, published in year 2006 Stichnothe and Schuchardt: Greenhouse gas reduction potential due to smart palm oil mill residue treatment, published in 2010. Wong Wei-Shen, The Star: Natural Booster Sumatra Bioscience advocates the use of organic fertiliser in oil palm plantations for higher yield and environmental preservation, dated 4 June 2012

Page 4

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT 2.2 Site visit and follow-up Interviews


On 8 August 2011, DNV visited the project site of PT. Socfin Indonesia and performed interviews with project stakeholders. /49/ Date 2011-08-08 Name Mr. Lufaldy Ernanda Mr. Mark Harding Organization Carbon Conservation / PT. Carbon Agro Indo Topic Project technology. Project participants. Applicability criteria. Additionality. CDM consideration. Baseline, Project and Emission reduction calculations. Stakeholder consultation process. Project technology. POME generation COD of wastewater Mill licenses. Legal and environmental issues. Stakeholder consultation process. Monitoring plan and project management

/50/

2011-08-08

Mr. P. Sinurat Mr. Julians Sinuraya

PT. Socfin Indonesia

2.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues


The objective of this phase of the validation was to resolve any outstanding issues which needed to be clarified prior to DNV's positive conclusion on the CPA. In order to ensure transparency a validation protocol was customised for assessing CPAs. The protocol shows in a transparent manner the criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes: It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CPA requesting inclusion 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 completed validation protocol for the CDM-SSC-CPA-DD titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. A corrective action request (CAR) is raised if one of the following occurs: (a) The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission reductions; (b) The CDM requirements have not been met; (c) There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated. Page 5

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT


A clarification request (CL) is raised if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. It must be noted that the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) was submitted for validation together with the PoA-DD for the PoA Cocomposting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia . The validation of the PoA-DD also raised issues relevant to the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001). Hence, findings relevant to the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) are included in the validation protocol of the validation report (DNV report no. 2011-9535) for the PoA Cocomposting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia.

2.4 Internal Quality Control


The CPA validation report underwent a technical review before requesting inclusion of the CPA. The technical reviews were performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with DNVs qualification scheme for CDM validation and verification.

2.5 Validation Team


Type of involvement
Site visit / Interviews Supervision of work TA 13.1 competence Financial expertise Technical review

Desk review

Role Team leader (Validator) Assessor under training / Financial expert after from 28 October 2011 onwards) Assessor under training Financial expert (before 28 October 2011) Technical reviewer Technical reviewer

Last Name Wong Khalid

First Name Yon Sing (Simon) Fathullah Akmal

Country Malaysia Malaysia

Reporting

Foo Lai

Wei Yee Siew Sit (Denise) Hendrik Michael

Malaysia Malaysia

Brinks Lehmann

Norway Norway

Page 6

DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

CPA VALIDATION REPORT

3 VALIDATION FINDINGS
The CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001), as described in the CDM-SSC-CPA-DD of 31 May 2012, meets the requirements to be included in the PoA Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-III.F, version 10. DNV thus requests the inclusion of the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) in the PoA Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia. The total emission reductions from the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Co-composting Project (CPA No. 001) are estimated to be on the average 10 130 tCO2e per year over the selected 7 year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change.

Page 7

DET NORSKE VERITAS

APPENDIX A
PROTOCOL FOR ASSESSING COMPLIANCE OF SPECIFIC CDM PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES WITH THE PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES

Page 8

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

A. General description of CPA A.1. Project boundaries A.1.1 Are the CPAs spatial boundaries (geographical) clearly defined, allowing the unique identification of the CPA? A.1.2 Are the CPAs system boundaries (components and facilities used to mitigate GHGs) clearly defined? A.1.3 Has it been demonstrated that the CPA is within the geographical borders of the PoA?

/3/

DR

/3/

DR

/1/ /3/

DR

A.1.4

Has it been confirmed that no part of the CPA is registered as a CDM project or included in a registered POA?

/3/ /28/

DR I

The CPAs spatial boundaries are clearly defined in the SSC-CPA-DD. It allows for unique identification of the CPA. Components and facilities used to mitigate GHGs are clearly defined in the project document. According to the project document, the CPA is located in Medan, Sumatera Island, which within the geographical and political boundaries of the PoA. It has been confirmed that the CPA is not registered as a CDM project or included in another registered PoA. This was crosschecked with the information available on UNFCCC website and also the confirmation from the CPA owner, PT Socfin Indonesia in the agreement signed with the CME. The Host Party is the Republic of Indonesia and this is mentioned in the SSC-PoA-DD. The implementer is PT Socfin Indonesia. There is no Annex I Party for the CPA and PoA.

OK

OK

OK

OK

A.2. Participation requirements A.2.1Which Parties and CPA implementer are participating in the CPA? Are they included in the PoA?

/3/

DR

OK

A.3.

Duration of the CDM programme activity, Crediting Period A.3.1Are the CPAs starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and evidenced?

/3/ /23/

DR I

The CPAs starting date is specified as 4 July 2011, as evidenced from the contracts signed.

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-1

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

A.3.2Has the crediting period been clearly defined and is the start of the crediting period deemed to be reasonable? A.3.3Has it been confirmed that the length of the CPA crediting period does not exceed the end of PoA? B. Eligibility of CPA and Estimation of Emission Reductions B.1. Eligibility criteria for CDM Programme Activities It is assessed whether the CPA complies with the criteria for inclusion in the registered programme of activities. B.1.1 Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with: Boundary: (i) Physical boundary: The entire boundary of the CPA project activity must be physically located within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as set out in section A.4.1.2 of the PoA-DD. (ii) Time Induced Boundary: No CPA shall commence before the Start Date of the PoA, as set out in section B.1. of this PoA-DD. In addition, no CPA shall commence later than 28 years after the start date of the PoA-DD as set out in section B.1. of the PoA-DD.

Draft COMMENTS Ref. MoV* Concl. /24/ The operational lifetime is 20 years. They are /25/ clearly defined and evidenced. /3/ DR The project selects a 7-year, twice renewable crediting period with a total length of 21 years. /3/ DR Yes, it has been confirmed that the length of the CPA crediting period does not exceed the end of PoA.

Final Concl.

OK

OK

/1/ /3/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /49/ /50/

DR I

(i) The CPA project activity is physically located within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. The address of the project activity is Bangun Bandar crude palm oil mill, Martebing village, Dolok Masihul district, Serdang Bedagai regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia. The GPS coordinates provided by the project participant are 985758.70E 99436.33 E and 31624.46 N 32032.54 N. The location and GPS coordinates of the CPA have been verified during the site visit. Therefore, it is confirmed that the CPA meets the criteria for physical boundary defined in the PoA.

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-2

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS (ii) The starting date of the PoA is 8 June 2011 which is the date of commencement of validation. The starting date of the CPA is 4 July 2011 and this is evidenced from the contracts signed in relation to the project activity. The commencement of the CPA is approximately one month after the starting date of the PoA. Therefore, it is confirmed that the CPA meets the criteria for time induced boundary defined in the PoA. Therefore, it is concluded that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 1 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B.1.2

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Double Counting: To avoid double counting of emission reductions each CPA must provide specific geographic GPS coordinates for the Project Activity to enable unique identification of the Project Activity.

/1/ /3/ /49/ /50/

DR I

The GPS coordinates for the CPA are 985758.70E - 99436.33 E and 31624.46 N - 32032.54 N. In addition, the address of the CPA has been provided. From address details and GPA coordinates, it allows for unique identification of the CPA. In addition, the address and GPS coordinates have been verified during the site visit. Therefore, it is concluded that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 2 stated in the PoA-DD. The CPA owner represented by PT Socfin Indonesia has entered into a cooperation agreement with the coordinating entity represented by PT Carbon Argo Indo on 3

OK

B.1.3

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Cooperation Agreement: Each CPA owner must enter into a

/1/ /3/ /28/

DR

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-3

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS October 2011. Significant matters presented in cooperation agreement are: (i) PT Socfin Indonesia voluntarily subscribes to the PoA (ii) The CPA cannot be registered in any other Carbon Credit Scheme (iii) Certification by PT Socfin Indonesia that the CPA is not a debundled component of another project (iv) PT Socfin Indonesia cedes all rights to independently claim and own emission reductions. Therefore, the signed cooperation agreement verified demonstrates and confirms that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 3 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

cooperation agreement with the Coordinating entity which includes at a minimum the matters set out in section A.4.4.1(iv) of the PoA-DD: (i) The CPA Owner is aware and voluntarily agrees that the CPA will be subscribed to the present PoA under the conditions as required by the approved PoA and the contractual arrangement between the CPA Owner and the Coordinating Entity. (ii) Certifies the CPA has not been and will not be registered as a single CDM project activity nor as a CPA under another PoA, nor any voluntary scheme and warrants on an ongoing basis that they will not seek to have the project activity which forms the basis of the proposed CPA registered as a CDM project or registered under any other scheme that earns carbon credits for the emission reductions achieved while the project is included in a CPA or proposed CPA under the present PoA. (iii) The CPA Owner will certify in writing that the proposed CPA is not a debundled part of a bigger project. (iv) CPA Owner cedes all rights to independently claim and own emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism of the UNFCCC or any voluntary scheme other than through the managing entity of the present PoA as agreed. B.1.4 Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with: /3/ /49/ /50/ DR I

There is no existing co-composting or composting activities at the site of the proposed CPA. Without the proposed project,

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-4

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS POME is treated anaerobically in open lagoons and EFB is sent to the plantations for disposal. The site visit performed by DNV also reveals no evidence of existing cocomposting or composting activities at the site. Therefore, the site visit by the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 3 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

No Pre-existing Co-composting or Composting at Site: Each CPA shall be implemented at a Palm Oil Mill site where no composting or co-composting activity was taking place before the Project Activity.

B.1.5

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Technology and compliance with Methodology: Each CPA must be a newly developed, upgraded or expanded cocomposting or composting facility using composting technology that: (i) Uses Palm Oil Mill Organic waste as inputs and via an aerobic composting process within the parameters set out in section A.4.2.1 of the PoA-DD produces organic compost for reapplication to land as organic fertilizer (ii) Meets the requirements of approved methodology AMSIII.F version 10, including its relevant assessment tools and guidelines: 1. This methodology comprises measures to avoid the emissions of methane to the atmosphere from biomass or other organic matter that would have otherwise been left to decay anaerobically in a solid waste disposal site (SWDS), or in an animal waste management system (AWMS), or in a wastewater treatment system

/3/ /14/ /49/ /50/

DR I

The CPAs compliance with technology and methodology is demonstrated as follows: (i) The CPA uses Palm Oil Mill Organic waste as inputs and produces organic compost via an aerobic composting process. The compost produces will be applied as organic fertilizer. Palm Oil Mill Organic wastes used in the CPA are Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) and Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). These two wastes are co-composted in a process which will be controlled aerobically. (ii) The CPA meets the requirements of approved methodology AMS-III.F version 10, including its relevant assessment tools and guidelines. This is demonstrated as follows: 1. The CPA aims to avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere from the decay of EFB and POME. Without

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-5

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS this, EFB would be left to decay anaerobically in a SWDS and POME would be left to decay anaerobically in a wastewater treatment system. The CPA introduces controlled aerobic treatment of EFB and POME. This is evidenced from the feasibility study and has been confirmed during the site visit. 2. The project activity does not involve landfill gas recovery and combustion, controlled combustion of waste, gasification or mechanical/thermal treatment. AMS-III.H is not applicable as the project does not involve biogas recovery. AMS-III.AO is not applicable as the project does not involve anaerobic digestion. This has been confirmed from documents related to the project design and verified from interviews during the site visit. 3. Emission reductions achieved by the CPA is estimated to be on average 10 130 tCO2e annually. This is less than the limit of 60 ktCO2e annually. 4. The applicability of this methodology is confirmed as the CPA involves the composting of waste from agroindustrial activities. In this case, EFB

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(WWTS). In the project activity, controlled aerobic treatment by composting of biomass is introduced. The project activity does not recover or combust landfill gas from the disposal site (unlike AMS-III.G Landfill methane recovery), and does not undertake controlled combustion of the waste that is not treated biologically in a first step (unlike AMS-III.E Avoidance of methane production from decay of biomass through controlled combustion, gasification or mechanical/thermal treatment). Project activities that recover biogas from wastewater treatment shall use methodology AMS-III.H Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. Project activities involving co-digestion of organic matters shall apply methodology AMS-III.AO Methane recovery through controlled anaerobic digestion. Measures are limited to those that result in emission reductions of less than or equal to 60 ktCO2 equivalent annually. This methodology is applicable to the composting of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and biomass waste from agricultural or agro-industrial activities including manure. This methodology includes construction and expansion of treatment facilities as well as activities that increase capacity utilization at an existing facility. For project activities that increase capacity utilization at existing facilities, project participant(s) shall demonstrate that special efforts are made to increase the capacity utilization, that the existing facility meets all applicable laws and regulations and that the existing facility is not

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-6

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS and POME from the palm oil mill are composted. This is evidenced from the feasibility study and confirmed during the site visit. 5. The applicability of this methodology is confirmed as the CPA involves the construction of new treatment facilities. There is no expansion or capacity increase involved. This has been confirmed during the site visit and supported by documents related to the projects design. 6. The applicability of this methodology is confirmed as the project involves co-composting of wastewater (POME) and solid biomass waste (EFB). POME would otherwise been treated anaerobically in open lagoons without biogas recovery as per current practices. This has been confirmed during the site visit. In the project scenario, POME is used as a source of moisture and nutrients to the composting of EFB. This is evidenced from design documents related to the CPA. 7. Baseline emission from the decay of EFB is not claimed for this CPA and accounted for as zero. DNV has conducted a site visit and it was found

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

included in a separate CDM project activity. The special efforts should be identified and described. 6. This methodology is also applicable for co-composting wastewater and solid biomass waste, where wastewater would otherwise have been treated in an anaerobic wastewater treatment system without biogas recovery. The wastewater in the project scenario is used as a source of moisture and/or nutrients to the biological treatment process e.g. composting of empty fruit bunches (EFB), a residue from palm oil production, with the addition of palm oil mill effluent (POME) which is the wastewater co-produced from palm oil production. 7. In case of co-composting, if it cannot be demonstrated that the organic matter would otherwise been left to decay anaerobically, baseline emissions related to such organic matter shall be accounted for as zero, whereas project emissions shall be calculated according to the procedures presented in this methodology for all cocomposted substrates. 8. The location and characteristics of the disposal site of the biomass, animal manure and co-composting wastewater in the baseline condition shall be known, in such a way as to allow the estimation of its methane emissions, using the provisions of AMS-III.G, AMSIII.E (concerning stockpile), AMS-III.D Methane recovery in animal manure management systems or AMS-III.H respectively. Project activities for composting of animal manure shall also meet the requirements under paragraphs 1, and 2 (c) of AMS-III.D. Further no bedding material is used in the

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-7

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS that currently, EFB is dumped in the palm oil plantations. 8. The location and characteristics of the disposal site of EFB and POME have been defined. EFB is dumped in the plantations and POME is treated anaerobically in open lagoons. In addition, the following requirements have been established through observations and interviews during the site visit: a. It is reasonable to assume that the practices of EFB dumping and anaerobic open lagoon POME treatment would continue throughout the duration of the crediting period. There is ample space in the plantations to accommodate the EFB and the anaerobic wastewater treatment system has been designed to accommodate the requirements of the palm oil mill. b.EFB dumping in plantations and anaerobic treatment of POME is the common practice in the region of the proposed CPA. 9. The geographical boundary of the region of the proposed CPA has been clearly defined in the CPA-DD. It is

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

animal barns or intentionally added to the manure stream in the baseline. Blending materials may be added in the project scenario to increase the efficiency of the composting process (e.g. to achieve a desirable C/N ratio or free air space value), however, only monitored quantity of solid waste or manure or wastewater diverted from the baseline treatment system is used for emission reduction calculation. The following requirement shall be checked ex ante at the beginning of each crediting period: a. Establish that identified landfill(s)/stockpile(s) can be expected to accommodate the waste to be used for the project activity for the duration of the crediting period; or b. Establish that it is common practice in the region to dispose of the waste in solid waste disposal site (landfill)/stockpile(s). 9. The project participants shall clearly define the geographical boundary of the region referred in paragraph 8 (b), and document it in the CDM-PDD. In defining the geographical boundary of the region, project participants should take into account the source of the waste i.e. if waste is transported up to 50 km, the region may cover a radius of 50 km around the project activity. In addition, it should also consider the distance to which the final product after composting will be transported. In either case, the region should cover a reasonable radius around the project activity that can be justified with reference to the project circumstances but

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-8

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS the 50 km radius around the proposed CPA location. This is justified as the maximum distance for transporting the waste utilised by the CPA is 50 km. 10. The produced compost will be used for direct application in the plantation. Therefore, aerobic handling of produced compost has been ensured. 11. The provisions in AMS-III.E related to thermal/mechanical treatment are not applied. This is because the produced compost is not treated thermally or mechanically. 12. The produced compost will not be stored anaerobic conditions or delivered to a landfill. According to project documents, the produced compost will be directly applied to landfill. This has been supported by interviews with the project participant. Therefore emissions from the residual organic content are not taken into account and calculated and this is considered acceptable. (iii) The environmental integrity of the CPA has been ensured as follows: 1. The main composting facility will install a concrete floor to prevent soil contamination of leachate. This has

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

in no case it shall be more than 200 km. Once defined, the region should not be changed during the crediting period(s). 10. In case produced compost is handled aerobically and submitted to soil application, the proper conditions and procedures (not resulting in methane emissions) must be ensured. 11. In case produced compost is treated thermally/mechanically, the provisions in AMS-III.E related to thermal/mechanical treatment shall be applied. 12. In case produced compost is stored under anaerobic conditions and/or delivered to a landfill, emissions from the residual organic content shall to be taken into account and calculated as per the latest version of the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site. (iii) In addition in order ensure the environmental integrity of each co-composting facility that is brought under this PoA and to ensure that the co-composting facility does not become a source of environmental pollution itself, each facility must: 1. Locate the main composting facility upon an impermeable composting pad / floor of concrete or some other impermeable material (This ensures leaching from the compost does not take place directly into the soil below and improves the composting process); 2. Incorporates a system / process to adequately deal with any run-off or leachate from the compost itself and / or ensure any liquid discharge would be diluted or treated

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-9

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS been confirmed during the site visit. 2. The composting process involves no run-off leachate leaking to the surrounding environment. Excess POME or liquid from the composting process is stored in a buffer tank and recycled back to the composting process. The composting process is isolated from rainwater as a roof is constructed for this purpose. This is evident from the projects design and confirmed during the site visit. Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 5 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

to environmentally acceptable levels before entering the surrounding environment.

B.1.6

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Start date: Each CPA Owner must be able to provide documentary evidence to verify the start date of the CPA.

/3/ /23/ /24/ /25/

DR

It has been verified that documentary evidences have been provided. This allows the CME to verify the start date of the CPA. The start date of the CPA is evidenced by the contracts signed with respect to the project activity, specifically piling works, concrete, steel and roof works and precast concrete panel, where these contracts are all signed on the same date and its the earliest of all financial commitment. Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 6 stated in the PoA-DD. It has been demonstrated that the CPA (c.f.

OK

B.1.7

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA

/1/

DR

OK A-10

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

complies with: Additionality: Each CPA must be able to demonstrate that the Project Activity which forms the CPA would not have occurred anyway due to an investment barrier by following and applying all steps of the additionally assessment as set out in sections E.5.1 and E.5.2 of the PoA-DD.

Draft COMMENTS Ref. MoV* Concl. /3/ Section B.2 of the CPA protocol) would not /4/ have occurred due to financial barrier. All /10/ steps of the additionality assessment set out /11/ in sections E.5.1 and E.5.2 of the PoA-DD /14/ have been followed. /15/ Therefore, the validation team was able to /23/ confirm that the CPA complies with /24/ eligibility criterion 7 stated in the PoA-DD. /25/ /34/ /3/ /6/ /18/ /45/ DR (i) It has been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) requirements of the PoA-DD and the host party of Indonesia. Since the output capacity of the project is 23 tons per day, the CPA has provided its approved Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). Therefore, it is confirmed that the CPA meets the criteria for environmental impact analysis (EIA) defined in the PoA. (ii) The CPAs compliance with national or regional environmental standard is evidenced from the EMMP. Environmental requirements from the Indonesian Ministry of Environment have also been reviewed. Therefore, it is confirmed that the CPA

Final Concl.

B.1.8

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

PoA Specific Requirements: (i) Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA): Each CPA which involves the implementation of a Compost Facility with a compost output capacity: a. Greater than or equal to 100 tons per day shall provide a copy of their EIA which has been submitted to, and approved by the Indonesian Ministry of the Environment. b. Less than 100 tons per day, shall provide a copy of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) that was submitted and approved by the responsible Indonesian authorities. (ii) Compliance with Relevant National Standards: Each CPA Project Activity must comply with the relevant Indonesian National or Regional Environmental Standard. (iii) Stakeholder Consultation: Each CPA must be able to demonstrate with appropriate documentary evidence that

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-11

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS meets the criteria for compliance with relevant national standards defined in the PoA. The CPA has provided documentary evidence to support that the stakeholder consultation has been undertaken. It allows the CME to determine that it is done in accordance with the requirements of CDM rules and procedures. Therefore, it is confirmed that the CPA meets the criteria for stakeholder consultation defined in the PoA. Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 8 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Stakeholder Consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of CDM rules and procedures.

B.1.9

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Debundling: To ensure a CPA is not a debundled component of a large scale activity, the Project Activity under each CPA must not have the same activity implementer as the proposed small scale CPA or a coordinating or managing entity, which also manages a large scale PoA of the same technology/measure which is within 1 km of the boundary of the proposed smallscale CPA, at the closest point. B.1.10 Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with: SSC Threshold Criteria: Each CPA shall not reduce more than

/3/ /37/ /49/ /50/

DR I

The CPA is not a debundled component of another project activity. It has been confirmed through site visit that there is no other project activity within 1 km of the boundary of the proposed CPA at the closest point. Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 9 stated in the PoA-DD. The CPA is estimated to reduce 10 130 tCO2e on average yearly. This is less than the limit of 60 ktCO2e annually.

OK

/3/ /4/ /5/

DR

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-12

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 10 stated in the PoA-DD.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

60 ktCO2e annually.

B.1.11

Has it been sufficiently justified that the CPA complies with:

Use of Development or Assistance Funds: Each CPA must certify in writing whether any Development Aid or Assistance funds have been used for funding the construction and operation of the Project Activity which forms the PoA. If any Development Aid or Assistance funds have been used, then before inclusion in the PoA, the CPA owner must provide evidence to confirm that such funds do not result in a diversion of any official development assistance funds. B.2. Additionality Additionality of a CPA is assessed through eligibility criteria 7 above. B.2.1 Is it demonstrated that the IRR of the CPA is lower than 12.5% (before tax)?

/3/ /15/ /49/ /50/

DR I

Interviews conducted during the site visit also revealed that the CPA does not use any Development Aid or Assistance funds for its construction or operation. Confirmation of such was received from the project owner, PT Socfindo in a form of a declaration. Therefore, the validation team was able to confirm that the CPA complies with eligibility criterion 11 stated in the PoA-DD.

OK

/1/ /3/ /4/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /17/ /23/ /24/ /25/

DR

To demonstrate the additionality, the uses an investment analysis. It has shown below that the project is financially attractive. Hence, it has justified that the CPA complies additionality criteria 1.

CPA been not been with

OK

Choice of approach: As the proposed CPA generates benefits through savings from reduced fertilizer imports, and the alternative to the project (baseline scenario) does not involve investments, benchmark analysis was chosen A-13

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Draft COMMENTS Ref. MoV* Concl. /30/ as an appropriate analysis method. Financial /31/ attractiveness of the project without CER /34/ revenues has been demonstrated. It is /48/ confirmed that this choice of approach is consistent with the requirements of section E.5.2 of the PoA-DD. Input parameters: Key parameters applied in the projects financial analysis are listed as per the PoADD section E.5.2. They are assessed as follows: Technical lifetime of 20 years: This was crosschecked against the technical providers estimation included in the Feasibility Study Report. Therefore, this is considered to be in line with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Investment decision date of 28 April 2010: This is evidenced through minutes of meeting of the board of the commissioners of the P.T. Socfin Indonesia (Socfindo) held in Jakarta on the same date. Therefore the investment decision date of 28 April 2010 is accepted and this is consistent with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Date project starts operating of 8 March 2012: This was crosschecked against the technical providers estimation.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-14

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS Therefore, this is considered to be in line with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Annual compost production of 30 000 tons: This is sourced from the technology provider as evidenced in the feasibility study. Therefore, this is considered to be in line with the requirements of the PoADD. The price of compost is not specified in the CPA-DD: Compost produced by the CPA will be used internally and is not aimed to be sold to a third party. Therefore, this exclusion is considered acceptable and in line with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Estimated fertilizer savings of 2 256.36 million IDR per year: The compost produced will be applied to plantation and this will result in cost savings due to reduced usage of fertilizer. Specific information was available from externally published sources in relation to the percentage of fertilizer savings that would be able to be achieved using that compost technology in that region, thus it is justified that Option A template was used to calculate the estimated fertilizer savings. The price of inorganic fertilizer is obtained from the average purchase price of Dolomite, Rock Phosphate, Urea

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-15

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS and Potassium for the year of 2009. Purchase contracts have been reviewed and it was found that the value used in the template is consistent with the purchase price in year 2009. The fertilizer dosage amount is obtained from the historical records for fertilizer usage in the year 2009. Similarly, these records have been reviewed and it was found that the amount selected is consistent with the original source. By participating in the programme, it is estimated that this will result in a 35% reduction of inorganic fertilizer use due to the assumption that 1.5 tons of compost is produced from each ton of EFB used. It is noted that this is of the higher range as compared to figures published in academic papers and also used in other registered co-composting CDM projects, which assumes a compost production of 0.35 to 0.6 tons per ton of EFB. In addition, this is evidenced by the feasibility study. Therefore, this is considered conservative and acceptable. The assumption used in the financial analysis to be in line with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Currency of 1 USD = 9 013 IDR and 1 Euro = 12 049 IDR: Currency rates are

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-16

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS taken from the middle rate dated 27 April 2010 from the Bank Indonesia currency rate calculator. This is inconsistent with the requirements of the PoA-DD which requires an average exchange rate during the twelve months preceding the date of the investment decision date. Capital and equipment cost of 14 281 million IDR: This is sourced from the feasibility study. It is considered that the feasibility study represents costs estimated from technology providers. This cost has been cross-checked with publicly available information from a paper presented during the 2010 International Conference & Exhibition on Oil Palm Biomass and an article published in a local newspaper. From these two sources, the price of an aerobic bunker composting system is reported to be 2.00 million USD to 2.31 million USD (18.7 billion IDR to 21.6 billion IDR). Capital and equipment cost of 14 281 million IDR used in the investment analysis is lower than the costs published. Therefore, this is considered to be conservative. The bulk of the initial capital cost is for the bunker system which is where co-composting takes place. For this item, 9.104 million IDR is

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-17

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS allocated and this is equivalent to 63.75% of the total investment cost. In addition, signed contracts have been reviewed and it was found that a total of 4 127 million IDR (tax inclusive) of investment expenditure has been committed against an estimated 7 251 million IDR for the bunker building. These signed contracts cover piling works, concrete steel roof works and precast concrete panel for the bunker building. At the time of site visit, the bunker building is still under construction and more expenditure is expected towards the bunker building. In conclusion, DNV considers the investment cost of 14 281 million IDR as per the feasibility study to be acceptable and this cost has been cross-checked with independent sources. CER revenue of 3 510.25 million IDR per year: This is sourced from the feasibility study which is considered to be consistent with the board or management estimation of the CER price. The amount of revenue from CER sales is accepted as it is in accordance with the requirements of the PoA-DD. Operation and maintenance cost of 1 864.68 million IDR: O&M cost for the proposed CPA comprises of fuel and

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-18

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS electricity costs (410.26 million IDR), labour costs (420.80 million IDR) and maintenance costs (1 033.62 million IDR). These costs are assessed separately. The bulk of the O&M cost is incurred for the operation and maintenance of the bunker system. This is where emission reduction through aerated co-composting takes place. As part of the normal operation of the bunker system, waste materials fed are required to be preprocessed and the bunker is continuously aerated using fans. Materials composting in the bunker are continuously monitored for their temperature and oxygen level. From time to time, maintenance is incurred in order to clean the composting area, to maintain the control system and to service the aeration fans. DNV has also verified that the O&M cost applied in the financial analysis are sourced from the feasibility study. Therefore, this is considered to be reasonable. Fuel and electricity cost of 410.26 million IDR: Fuel cost is sourced from historical company purchase records, while the estimation of fuel usage is sourced from the feasibility study and information from the technology provider. Under the project activity, additional fuel is required

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-19

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS for the operation of the spreader machine, tractor, wheel loader and truck. The additional amount of diesel consumed by the project activity is 29 522.39 litres. Additional diesel is used for the operation of the spreader machine, tractor, wheel loader and trucks. DNV has crosschecked this amount with the feasibility study and confirmed that this is sourced from the equipment manufacturer/technology provider. DNV has reviewed the historical diesel purchase records and found that average diesel prices paid for the months of January 2010 to March 2010 is IDR 5 764 per litre. The months of January 2010 to March 2010 were selected as these were the months of the feasibility study period. Diesel price used in the financial analysis is IDR 4 500 per litre. The diesel price used in the financial analysis is lower than the actual price paid as per the historical company purchase records (between IDR 5 533 to IDR 6 006 at the time when the FSR was finalised in April 2010). This is considered to be conservative. The project assumes no additional electricity cost will be incurred for the CPA. Equipment and facilities related to

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-20

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS the CPA use electricity generated from the mill adjacent to the composting plant. Due to this, DNV considers the exclusion of electricity cost from the investment analysis to be acceptable and conservative. Labour cost of 420.80 million IDR: The amount of labour is sourced from the technology provider. The labour rate is based on the internal labour rate of PT Socfin. DNV considers that the CPA requires additional amount of labour since the project activity requires additional material handling. In addition, the co-composting system is operating continuously and therefore requires continuous supervision and manpower. DNV considers the technology provider recommendation that 12 additional manpower required for continuous day to day operation of the composting plant to be reasonable. DNV has also reviewed the actual historical labour rates of PT Socfin which were available at the time of decision making. It was checked that the internal labour rates of PT Socfin were between 28 million to 147 million IDR while labour rates applied in the financial analysis are between the range of 24 million IDR and 80 million IDR.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-21

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS This is lower than the actual labour rates of the CPA which is reasonable considering the additional manpower for the composting plant could be met by lower skilled workers. Hence, DNV has accepted the labour cost applied in the financial analysis. Maintenance cost of 1 033.62 million IDR: This is obtained from information provided by the technology provider. In addition, the maintenance cost is supported by the feasibility study prepared for the project activity. Therefore, the maintenance cost is deemed acceptable. Land rental cost. This is not applicable as the project activity takes place in the premises of the CPA project proponent. Rental of land from third parties is not applicable. Licensing and royalty cost: As PT Socfin is the owner of the composting plant a nd the palm oil mill. there is no royalty or licensing costs imposed on the CPA owner (PT Socfin) as confirmed during the site visit. This cost is taken as zero in the financial analysis and this is considered conservative. Insurance: Expenses related to insurance are taken as zero in the financial analysis.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-22

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS This is considered to be reasonable and conservative. Feedstock costs: Expenses related to the costs for raw material feedstock inputs into the compost facility are taken as zero in the financial analysis. This is considered to be reasonable and conservative.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Calculation and conclusion: Pre-tax project IRR calculations over 20 years of operation period were provided in a spread sheet. The IRR without CDM revenues were calculated as -5.14%. With CDM benefits, the IRR of the project increases to 21.96%. Sensitivity Analysis: This analysis has been carried out for parameters contributing more than 20% to revenues or cost to check on the robustness of the financial analysis. -10% to 10% variations were made to the project revenue, project investment and O&M cost. It was shown and calculated in the financial analysis spread sheet that none of the variations on the 3 parameters result in the IRR exceeding the benchmark. In addition, the following variations are
Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-23

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS needed for reaching the benchmark: i) Project revenue: The IRR of the project activity will reach the benchmark if project revenue is increased by 70%. Revenue delivered by the project is in the form of cost savings and this is dependent on the amount of fertilizer savings and fertilizer cost. Based on this, the maximum amount of revenue delivered by the project is limited by the fertilizer costs that would be incurred in the absence of the project activity. It is assessed that apart from CDM, the project does not introduce new revenue streams or causes an increase in existing revenue streams (e.g. increased palm oil production). Therefore, it is assessed that an increase of the project revenue of 70% is deemed to be unlikely. ii) Project investment: The IRR of the project activity will reach the benchmark if the project investment cost is reduced by 80%. At the time of validation, the project proponent has already committed to expenditures related to the project activity. Signed contracts have been reviewed and it was found that a total of 4 127 million IDR (tax inclusive) of investment expenditure has been

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-24

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS committed. This represents 29% of the estimated project investment cost of 14 281 million IDR. From this, it is concluded that a reduction of project investment cost of 80% is not achievable. iii) O&M cost: The IRR of the project activity will reach the benchmark if O&M costs are reduced by 85%. It has been assessed that these costs are estimated conservatively and supported by external evidences. Annual O&M cost is calculated to be about 13% of total investment cost. This has been compared with other registered CDM projects involving co-composting of EFB and POME in the host country of Indonesia (Project 4445 16%, Project 4064 26% and Project 3717 21%). Due to this, it is concluded that a reduction of O&M cost by 85% is unlikely. In conclusion, given the above investment barrier, it is sufficiently demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario and that emission reductions thus are additional to what would otherwise have occurred.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Project emissions It is assessed whether the project emissions are stated according to the methodology and the PoA-DD and whether the B.3.
Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-25

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.3.1 Is the calculation of project emissions of the CPA in accordance with the procedure described in the PoA-DD?

/1/ /3/ /5/ /14/ /46/ /49/ /50/

DR I

The calculation of project emissions in the CPA has been checked and it is in accordance with the procedure described in the PoA-DD. The PoA-DD lists project emissions of the CPA as follows: a. CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances; b. CO2 emissions from electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities; c. Methane emissions during composting process; d. Methane emissions from runoff water; e. In case the compost is stored under anaerobic conditions and/or delivered to a landfill: the methane emissions from the disposal/storage of compost. CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances: The calculation of this source of emission is done as per the procedures specified in the PoA-DD. It has been confirmed through site visit the co-composting facility is located in the boundary of the project activity. As a result of this, incremental transportation for

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-26

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS POME and EFB is not anticipated. Therefore, this source of emission is disregarded. CO2 emissions from electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities: Project emission due to final compost transportation is estimated to be 248.04 tCO2e per year. This is based on the anticipated diesel oil consumption of 76 582.36 kg per year which is based on internal estimations and supported by the feasibility analysis. The NCV of diesel oil of 43.3 TJ/kg and the CO2 emission factor of diesel oil of 74 800 kg/TJ. These values are applied from the upper default values of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The density of diesel oil of 0.84 kg/litre was soruced from PERTAMINA (national oil supplier, http://www.pertamina.com/index.php/detail/r ead/minyak-diesel) This is calculated as per option B specified in the procedures specified in the PoA-DD. It has been checked that the same equation, assumptions and input parameters were used in the CPA-DD. The selection of option B to calculate this emission is considered acceptable as the chemical composition of diesel oil is not available at the time of

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-27

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV* validation.

COMMENTS

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Methane emissions during composting process: This emission is considered to be zero. This is considered acceptable as the temperature and oxygen content of the composting process are monitored. This assumption is in line with the specifications of the PoA-DD and the methodology AMS-III.F version 10. Methane emissions from runoff water: There is no run-off water from the project activity and this is evidenced from the projects design. Unutilized POME will be re-applied to the co-composting process and the co-composting area is roofed to isolate rainwater. Therefore, this emission is considered to be zero and this is acceptable. Methane emissions from the disposal/storage of compost: It has been confirmed during the site visit that the final compost from the project activity will be directly applied in the plantation. It does not involve anaerobic storage of compost or landfill disposal. Therefore, this source of emission is taken to be zero and this is consistent with the specifications of the PoA-DD.
Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-28

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

B.3.2 B.3.3 B.4.

Are CPA-specific conservative assumptions used when calculating the project emissions? Are CPA-specific uncertainties in the project emission estimates properly addressed?

Draft COMMENTS Ref. MoV* Concl. /3/ DR CPA-specific conservative assumptions are used when calculating the project emissions. /3/ DR There are no CPA-specific uncertainties in the project emissions calculation.

Final Concl. OK OK

Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Baseline emissions It is assessed whether the baseline emissions are stated according to the methodology and the PoA-DD and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.4.1 Is the calculation of baseline emissions of the CPA in accordance with the procedure described in the PoA-DD?

/1/ /3/ /5/ /21/ /22/ /27/ /42/ /49/ /50/

DR I CC

The calculation of baseline emissions in the CPA has been checked and it is in accordance with the procedure described in the PoA-DD. The PoA-DD lists project emissions of the CPA as follows: a. Baseline emission due to methane generation potential of the solid waste composted b. Baseline emission due to methane emission from baseline wastewater treatment system c. Baseline emission due to methane emissions on account of inefficiencies in the baseline wastewater treatment systems and presence of degradable organic carbon in the treated wastewater discharged into river/lake/sea d. The amount of methane that would have

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-29

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS to be captured and combusted in the year to comply with the prevailing regulations Baseline emission due to methane generation potential of the solid waste composted: This source of emission is regarded as zero. According to the baseline practice as observed during the site visit, EFB from the palm oil mill is disposed in the plantations. It was confirmed during the site visit that the EFB dump site is located in plantation lands and in patches of not more than 2 meters high and 5 meters wide. Therefore, anaerobic decomposition of EFB cannot be ascertained to the MCF values prescribed by Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site referred by the methodology in the calculation of BECH4,SWDS,y. Therefore, the baseline emission from the current dumping situation of the EFB is taken as zero, and is consistent with paragraph 7 of AMS-III.F. This is considered to be acceptable and conservative. Baseline emission due to methane emission from baseline wastewater treatment system: The baseline emissions are estimated form

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-30

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS the influent flow rate and the COD value of POME applied to the co-composting process. The wastewater flow is estimated from the average POME generated by the mill for the past three years (2008 to 2010), which is 47 612.39 m3 per year. This has been verified from the historical data of the mill. The COD value of the POME is estimated through a 10-day measurement campaign done during 11 to 23 August 2011. DNV has cross-checked the results of the measurement campaign with original wastewater test certificates issued by an independent laboratory. In addition, historical data has also been checked to ensure that the measurement campaign is conducted during typical operation conditions. It is noted that a complete set of 1 year data as required by paragraph 26 of AMS-III.H version 16 is not available as the COD records of the untreated POME were not available. The monitoring of untreated POME is not part of the normal operation of the mill as confirmed during the site visit. In accordance with the methodology, average value from the measurement campaign has been used and the result has been multiplied by 0.89 to account for the uncertainty range. Hence, baseline emission

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-31

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS from anaerobic lagoons has been calculated in accordance to paragraph 27 of AMS-III.H version 16. The COD value of the POME is taken to be 58.5 kgCOD/m3. The COD removal efficiency of the baseline treatment is calculated using a final COD discharge value of 0.197 kgCOD/m3. This is determined from past 3 years monthly records of the COD of the final discharge to water body. The COD removal efficiency calculation has been checked and it is correctly calculated at 99.7%. The methane correction factor (MCF) for the baseline wastewater treatment system is 0.8 and this is correctly applied. It was confirmed during the site visit that the baseline wastewater treatment system involves anaerobic deep lagoons. Lagoon depth confirmed during the site visit and via engineering drawings of the lagoons was 5 meters and this is more than the limit of 2 meters. Therefore, the MCF value applied is consistent with the default value listed in AMS-III.H. The methane producing capacity of the wastewater (Bo,ww) and the global warming potential of methane (GWPCH4) are correctly

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-32

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS taken as 0.25 kgCH4/kgCOD and 21 respectively. These values are appropriately sourced from the default values listed in AMS-III.H. The baseline emissions will be calculated based on the actual amount of methane recovered. For ex-ante estimation purposes, the estimated baseline emission calculated is 10 378.58 tCO2e annually. Baseline emission due to methane emissions on account of inefficiencies in the baseline wastewater treatment systems and presence of degradable organic carbon in the treated wastewater discharged into river/lake/sea: This emission is estimated from the amount of wastewater discharged to water body in the baseline and the COD of the wastewater discharged. The wastewater flow is estimated from the average POME generated by the mill for the past three years (2008 to 2010), which is 47 612.39 m3 per year. This has been verified against the historical data of the mill. The final COD discharge value is taken as 0.197 kgCOD/m3 and this is determined from past 3 years monthly records of the COD of the final discharge to water body.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-33

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS The methane correction factor (MCF) for the discharge pathway of the wastewater treatment system is 0.1 and this is correctly applied. It was confirmed during the site visit that the treated wastewater of the baseline wastewater treatment system is discharged to the water body. Therefore, the MCF value applied is consistent with the default value listed in AMS-III.H. Similarly, the methane producing capacity of the wastewater (Bo,ww) and the global warming potential of methane (GWPCH4) are correctly taken as 0.25 kgCH4/kgCOD and 21 respectively. These values are appropriately sourced from the default values listed in AMS-III.H. The baseline emissions will be calculated based on the actual amount of wastewater discharged. For ex-ante estimation purposes, the estimated baseline emission calculated is 4.38 tCO2e annually. The amount of methane that would have to be captured and combusted in the year to comply with the prevailing regulations: This emission is taken to be zero as there are no prevailing regulations mandating the

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-34

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS capture and combustion of methane applicable to the proposed CPA. This has been confirmed through interviews during the site visit.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B.4.2

Are CPA-specific conservative assumptions used when calculating the baseline emissions? Are CPA-specific uncertainties in the baseline emission estimates properly addressed?

B.4.3 B.5.

/1/ /3/ /5/ /3/

DR

CPA-specific conservative assumptions are used in calculating the baseline emissions. There are no CPA-specific uncertainties in the baseline emissions calculation.

OK

DR

OK

Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions Leakage It is assessed whether leakage emissions are stated according to the methodology and the PoA-DD and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values where applicable is justified. B.5.1 Is the calculation of leakage emissions of the CPA in accordance with the procedure described in the PoA-DD?

/1/ /3/ /5/ /19/ /20/ /21/ /3/ /3/

DR

Yes, the calculation of leakage emissions of the CPA is in accordance with the procedures. There is no leakage from this CPA as the project equipment was newly purchased as evidenced from the contracts signed. This is not applicable as leakage emission is considered to be zero. This is not applicable as leakage emission is considered to be zero.

OK

B.5.2 B.5.3

Are CPA-specific conservative assumptions used when calculating the leakage emissions? Are CPA-specific uncertainties in the leakage emission estimates properly addressed?

DR DR

OK OK

B.6. Emission Reductions The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-35

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

B.6.1

Has it been demonstrated that the total emission reductions of the CPA of activities will be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change? Monitoring Methodology

Draft COMMENTS Ref. MoV* Concl. /3/ DR It has been demonstrated that the total emission reductions of the CPA of activities will be real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change.

Final Concl. OK

B.7.

It is assessed whether the CPA applies an appropriate monitoring methodology.

B.7.1

Is the monitoring plan for the CPA documented according to the approved methodology, in accordance with the programme of activities and in a complete and transparent manner? Will all monitored data required for verification and issuance be kept for two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, for this programme, whichever occurs later? Data and Parameters Available at Validation

/3/

DR

The monitoring plan for the CPA is documented according to the approved methodology, in accordance with the programme of activities and in a complete and transparent manner. Yes, the project document has specified that all monitored data will be archived and kept as per PoA requirements.

OK

B.7.2

/3/

DR

OK

B.8.

It is established whether appropriate values were selected for parameters determined ex-ante.

B.8.1 B.8.2

Does the applied methodology allow determining the selected values ex-ante? Have adequate assumptions been used for determining the values and are underlying calculations correct?

/3/ /3/ /49/ /50/

DR DR I

There are values determined on an ex-ante basis. This is allowed by the methodology. Yes, assumptions used for determining the values are adequate and the underlying calculations are correct. The ex-ante baseline emissions for the project have been determined using the IPCC first order decay model, and using the following data: 1. Oxidation Factor, OX 0 (IPCC

OK OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-36

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS default value for managed landfill as per the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site); Fraction of Degradable Organic Carbon Dissimilated, DOCf 0.5 (2006 IPCC default value as per the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site); Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (F) 0.5 (2006 IPCC default value as per the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site); Methane Correction Factor for solid waste disposal site, MCF 0 (IPCC default value for managed solid waste disposal sites) as per the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site was assumed; Methane Correction Factor for baseline wastewater treatment systems r, MCF 0.8 (IPCC default value for anaerobic deep lagoon depth more than 2 meters) as observation during site visit at the lagoon and engineering drawing confirms that lagoons have a depth of

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-37

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS approximately 5 meters; 6. Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties for solid waste disposal site () 0.89 (IPCC default value); 7. Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties for baseline wastewater treatment systems r (UFBL) 0.89 (IPCC default value); 8. Fraction of methane (CH4) in solid waste disposal gas, F 0.5 (IPCC default value as per the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site); 9. Methane density - (DCH4, 0.0007168 tonne/m3). The value for GWPCH4 (21) was obtained from AMS-III.F, while 2006 IPCC default values were also selected for DOCj, and k in the garden, yard and park waste category which EFB is categorized under the Tool, which were deemed appropriate.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B.8.3

Has sufficient documentary evidence been presented to verify the selected values or to verify the input data used in the calculation of the values of the parameters determined ex-ante.

/3/

DR

Sufficient documentary evidence has been presented to verify the selected values and to verify the input values used in the calculation of the values of the parameters determined ex-ante.

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-38

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B.9.

Ex-Post Monitoring

It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete emission data over time.

B.9.1

Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for estimation or measuring the greenhouse gas emissions within the CPA boundary during the crediting period? Are the choices of CPA GHG indicators reasonable and conservative? Is the measurement method clearly stated for each GHG value to be monitored and deemed appropriate? Is the measurement equipment described and deemed appropriate? Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements? Is the measurement interval identified and deemed appropriate? Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedure defined? Are procedures identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed? Are procedures identified for day-to-day records

/3/

DR

The monitoring plan provides for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for estimation or measuring the greenhouse gas emissions within the CPA boundary during the crediting period. Yes, the choices of CPA GHG indicators are reasonable and conservative. Yes, the measurement method is clearly stated for each GHG value to be monitored and deemed appropriate. Yes, the measuring equipment is described and deemed appropriate. Yes, the measurement accuracy is addressed and deemed appropriate. There are procedures in place to deal with erroneous measurements. Yes, the measurement interval is identified and deemed appropriate. The registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedures are defined. Yes, procedures have been identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations. In addition, the calibration intervals are being observed. There are procedures identified for day-to-

OK

B.9.2 B.9.3

/3/ /3/

DR DR

OK OK

B.9.4 B.9.5

/3/ /3/

DR DR

OK OK

B.9.6 B.9.7 B.9.8

/3/ /3/ /3/

DR DR DR

OK OK OK

B.9.9

/3/

DR

OK A-39

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV*

COMMENTS day records handling.

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B.10.

handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation) CPA Management Planning

It is checked that programme implementation is properly prepared for and that critical arrangements are addressed.

B.10.1 Is the authority and responsibility of overall CPA management clearly described? B.10.2 Are procedures identified for training of monitoring personnel? B.10.3 Are procedures identified for emergency preparedness for cases where emergencies can cause unintended emissions? B.10.4 Are procedures identified for review of reported results/data? B.10.5 Are procedures identified for corrective actions in order to provide for more accurate future monitoring and reporting? C. Environmental impacts It is assessed whether environmental impacts of the CPA have been properly addressed.

/3/

DR

Yes, the authority and responsibility of the overall CPA management is clearly described in the SSC-CPA-DD. These procedures are included in the CDM Operations and Monitoring Plan which shall be finalized after the registration of the PoA. These procedures are included in the CDM Operations and Monitoring Plan which shall be finalized after the registration of the PoA. These procedures are included in the CDM Operations and Monitoring Plan which shall be finalized after the registration of the PoA. These procedures are included in the CDM Operations and Monitoring Plan which shall be finalized after the registration of the PoA. Analysis at PoA level Analysis at CPA level This section must only be completed if the analysis of environmental impacts must be at CPA level. The environmental impacts of the CPA have

OK

/3/

DR

OK

/3/

DR

OK

/3/

DR

OK

/3/

DR

OK

C.1.1.

Has an analysis of the environmental impacts of

/3/

DR

OK A-40

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV* /3/ /6/ DR

COMMENTS been sufficiently described. The CPA meets the EIA requirements of the host party of Indonesia. the CPA complies with the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) requirements of the PoA-DD and the host party of Indonesia. Since the output capacity of the project is 23 tons per day, the CPA has provided its approved Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). No, the programme will not create any adverse environmental effects. Transboundary environmental impacts are considered in the analysis. The environmental impacts have addressed in the programme design. been

Draft Concl.

Final Concl. OK

C.1.2.

the CPA been sufficiently described? Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

C.1.3. C.1.4. C.1.5. C.1.6.

Will the programme create any adverse environmental effects? Are transboundary environmental impacts considered in the analysis? Have identified environmental impacts been addressed in the programme design? Does the programme comply with environmental legislation in the host country?

/3/ /3/ /3/ /3/

DR DR DR DR

OK OK OK OK

D. Stakeholders comments It is assessed whether stakeholders have been properly consulted in the development of the CPA.

Yes, the programme complies with environmental legislation in the host country. Consultation at PoA level Consultation at CPA level This section must only be completed if the analysis of environmental impacts is at PoA level. It is confirmed that during the site visit, a meeting with relevant stakeholders have been conducted to inform them of the project activity. Similarly, feedback and responses

D.1.1.

Have relevant stakeholders been consulted?

/3/ /18/

DR I

OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-41

DET NORSKE VERITAS

CHECKLIST QUESTION

Ref. MoV* /3/ /18/ /3/ /18/ DR

COMMENTS from the stakeholders have been obtained. Invitation letters and public notices have been used to invite comments by local stakeholders. They are appropriate. The local stakeholder consultation process has been carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations of the host country of Indonesia. Yes, a summary of the stakeholder comments has been provided. Due account has been taken stakeholder comments received. of the

Draft Concl.

Final Concl. OK

D.1.2.

Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders? If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such regulations/laws? Is a summary of the stakeholder comments received provided? Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received?

D.1.3.

DR

OK

D.1.4. D.1.5.

/3/ /18/ /3/ /18/

DR DR

OK OK

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-42

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Corrective action and/ or clarification Reference Response by project participants requests to App. A No CARs or CLs were raised specific to the CPA titled Socfindo EFB plus POME Cocomposting Project (CPA No. 001). Reference is made to the CARs and CLs raised as part of the validation of the PoA titled Co-composting and Composting Program of Activities for Palm Oil Mills in Indonesia.

Validation conclusion

- o0o -

Protocol for assessing compliance of specific CPA with the PoA DNV Report No. 2011-9535/01, rev. 01

A-43

DET NORSKE VERITAS

APPENDIX B
CURRICULUM VITAE OF VALIDATION TEAM

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Mr Simon Wong Yon Sing holds a Bachelor's Degree in Chemical Engineering with Environmental Engineering, with a year experience in the field of design and operation/maintenance of wastewater treatment as part of working in wastewater design & equipment supply services. His experience in designing and maintaining the wastewater treatment systems covers the fields of various manufacturing and chemical industries in Malaysia. He has experience of more than 4 years in validation and verification of numerous CDM projects in DNV, both in Malaysia and abroad. His qualification, industrial experience and experience in CDM demonstrate his sufficient sectoral competence in Energy Generation from Renewable Energy Sources, Waste Handling and Disposal and Animal Waste Management System. Mr Fathullah Akmal Khalid holds 2 Bachelor degrees majoring in both Chemical Engineering and Commerce from The University of Melbourne, Australia. Prior to joining DNV in June 2011, Fathullah had experience in cement manufacturing as a manufacturing engineer in a cement plant. During the course of his previous employment, he was involved in a number of plant upgrading and improvement projects. Fathullah is also a member of The Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) and Engineers Australia. Ms Foo Wei Yee holds a Master of Science degree majoring in Polymer Technology and a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Chemistry from University of Technology, Johor and is a qualified Licentiate Registered Chemist under the Malaysian Institute of Chemistry. Prior to joining DNV in July 2011, she has experience in synthetic surgical and exam glove R&D, design and development control documentations. In addition, she had performed validation for new product in Sri Lankas plant, innovate and research on new product and performed internal audit in the areas of management, HR and purchasing section for the department. Ms Denise Lai Siew Sit holds a Business Degree in Business Management and specialised in Company Secretarial matters. Having an overall experience of around 11 years. Prior to joining DNV having 1 year experience in printing industry covering costing and operation matters. In the past 11 years with DNV, she has gained numerous experience including those of quality management system auditing and training for a period of 2 years. She has been exposed to CDM validation since 2007 and has ample experience in validation and verification of numerous CDM projects. Her qualification, industrial experience and experience in CDM demonstrate him/her sufficient sectoral competence in renewable projects. Mr Hendrik Brinks holds a Master Degree in Inorganic Chemistry & Material Science and a Dr. Scient Degree in Inorganic Chemistry & Material Science. He has an overall experience of around 16 years. Prior to joining DNV, he has 7 years of working experience at a research institute by scientific research on future energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier and project management for monitoring system design. He has published >50 papers in international journals with peer reviews. His experience also covers teaching and research at University of Oslo, Norway.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

He has 4 years extensive experience in validation and verification of >400 CDM projects worldwide and also experience from other 3rd party validation/verification schemes. Quality Manager Hendrik W. Brinks is the service line responsible for CDM in DNV and is qualified for approval of CDM projects. He has previously worked as Technical Director for CDM. His qualification and experience in CDM demonstrate his sufficient sectoral competence in Waste Handling and Disposal and quality control (technical review) competence for projects within renewable energy, biomass power, waste heat recovery, energy efficiency, waste handling, wastewater, coal mine methane, transport, charcoal and flare reduction. Mr Michael Lehmann holds a Master Degree in Environmental Sciences with a specialisation in environmental chemistry. He has an overall working experience of around 13 years. Since 1999 he has worked in the climate change field and has closely followed the international response to the climate change challenge (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol) and the responses by national governments (EU ETS, UK ETS) and business. He has managed the validation and verification of many CDM and JI projects and thas carried out the technical review of numerous climate change project validations and verifications. Through his extensive work with validation and verification of CDM and JI projects, he has aquired sectoral competence within energy generation from renewable energy sources.