Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm in … · Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm in Thailand REPORT NO. 2007-2047 REVISION NO. 01 . ... EGAT Electricity Generating

VALIDATION REPORT

Ratchaburi Farms Biogas

Project at SPM Farm in

Thailand

REPORT NO. 2007-2047 REVISION NO. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT

CDM Validation 2007-2047, rev. 01 2

DET NORSKE VERITAS CERTIFICATION AS Veritasveien 1 N-1322 Høvik Norway http://www.dnv.com

Date of first issue: Project No.:13 December 2007 44410160 Approved by: Organisational unit:Miguel Rescalvo DNV Certification, International Climate

Change ServicesClient: Client ref.:Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Kit Clausen

Project Name: Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm Country: Thailand Methodology: AMS-I.D and AMS-III.D Version: Version 10 (AMS-I.D) and Version 11 (AMS-III.D) GHG reducing Measure/Technology: Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment and the

Generation of Grid Connected Renewable Electricity.ER estimate: 235557 tCO2e over its 10 year fixed crediting period. Size

Large Scale Small Scale

Validation Phases: Desk Review Follow up interviews Resolution of outstanding issues

Validation Status Corrective Actions Requested Clarifications Requested Full Approval and submission for registration Rejected

In summary, it is DNV’s opinion that the “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” in Thailand, as described in the PDD version 4 of 15 January 2008, meets all relevant UNFCCCrequirements for the CDM and all relevant host Party criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodologies AMS-I.D version 10 and AMS-III.D version 11. DNV thus requests the registration of the “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” in Thailand as a CDM project activity.

Report No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No. Key words: 2007-2047 15-01-2008 01 Report title: Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm Project in Thailand

Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Validation Clean Development Mechanism

Work carried out by: Soumik Biswas, Narayanan Thivakaran, Peter Molin (trainee), Ramesh Ramachandran

No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit

Work verified by: Limited distribution Mari Grooss Viddal, Michael Lehmann

Unrestricted distribution

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT Abbreviations CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEF Carbon Emission Factor CER Certified Emission Reduction CH4 Methane CL Clarification request CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DEM Danish Energy Management DNV Det Norske Veritas DNA Designated National Authority EF Emission Factor EGAT Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand EPPO Energy Policy and Planning Office ERM Environmental Resources Management GHG Greenhouse gas(es) GWP Global Warming Potential IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MP Monitoring Plan NCV Net Calorific Value NGO Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance PDD Project Design Document PPA Power Purchase Agreement RBMFA Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs H-UASB High Suspended Solids Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Objective 6 2.2 Scope 6

3 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation 7 3.2 Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders 8 3.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues 9 3.4 Internal Quality Control 11 3.5 Validation Team 11

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 12 4.1 Participation Requirements 12 4.2 Project Design 12 4.3 Baseline Determination 13 4.4 Additionality 13 4.5 Monitoring 14 4.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions 15 4.7 Environmental Impacts 16 4.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders 17 4.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs 17 Appendix A: Validation Protocol Appendix B: Certificates of Competence

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) has performed a validation of the “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” in Thailand. The validation was performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Development Mechanism and host Party criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided DNV with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria. The host Party is Thailand and the Annex I Party is Denmark. Both Parties fulfil the participation criteria and have approved the project and authorized the project participants. The DNA from Thailand confirmed that the project assists in achieving sustainable development. Having a total installed capacity of 0,48MW and emission reductions below 60 kt CO2e per year, the project is eligible as type I and type III small-scale CDM project activity. The project correctly applies the approved simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies AMS-I.D. “Grid connected renewable electricity generation”, version 10 of 23 December 2006, and AMS-III.D, “Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities”, version 11 of 23 December 2006. By capturing and utilizing methane that would otherwise have been emitted to the atmosphere and by generating renewable energy from biogas which will displace electricity previously bought in from the grid, the project results in reductions of CO2 emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 23 556 tCO2 per year over the selected 10 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. The monitoring plan is in line with the approved monitoring methodologies AMS-I.D and AMS-III.D. Adequate training and monitoring procedures will at the latest be implemented prior to the start of the crediting period. In summary, it is DNV’s opinion that the project, as described in the project design document of 15 January 2008, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM, is eligible as category I and III small-scale CDM project activity and correctly applies the approved simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies AMS-I.D (version 10) and AMS-III.D (version 11). Hence, DNV requests the registration of the “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” as a CDM project activity.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


2 INTRODUCTION The Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has commissioned Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) to perform a validation of the “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” in Thailand (hereafter called “the project”). This report summarises the findings of the validation of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures, the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board.

2.1 Objective The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In particular, the project's baseline, monitoring plan, and the project’s compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design, as documented, is sound and reasonable and meets the identified criteria. Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission reductions (CERs).

2.2 Scope The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document (PDD). The PDD is reviewed against the criteria stated in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in the Marrakech Accords and the relevant decisions by the CDM Executive Board, including the approved baseline and monitoring methodologies, AMS-ID (version 10) and AMS-IIID (version 11). The validation team has, based on the recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual employed a risk-based approach, focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of CERs. The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the project participants. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided input for improvement of the project design.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


3 METHODOLOGY The validation consisted of the following three phases: I a desk review of the project design documents II follow-up interviews with project 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.

3.1 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the validation:

/1/ Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm” version 03 dated 5 February 2007 and version 04 dated 15 January 2008

/2/ Office of Natural resources & Environmental Planning (DNA of Thailand): Letter of Approval dated 5 November 2007

/3/ Danish Ministry of Environment (DNA of Denmark): Letter of Approval dated 12 December 2007.

/4/ International Emission Trading Association (IETA) & the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF): Validation and Verification Manual. http://www.vvmanual.info

/5/ CDM Executive Board: “Grid connected renewable electricity generation” AMS-I.D, version 10 of 23 December 2006.

/6/ CDM Executive Board: “Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities”, AMS-III.D, version 11 dated 23 December 2006.

/7/ Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities: Indicative simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies for selected small-scale CDM project activity categories. Version 11 adopted at EB 35.

/8/ Danish Energy Management A/S: Project on Livestock Industrialization, Trade and Social-Health-Environment Impacts in Developing Countries- “Policy, Technical, and Environmental Determinants and Implications of the Scaling-Up of Livestock Production in Four Fast-Growing Developing Countries: A Synthesis”, Final Research Report of Phase II of July 24, 2003 by Christopher L. Delgado, Clare A. Narrod, Marites M. Tiongco.

/9/ Danish Energy Management A/S: Emission reduction calculations worksheet.

/10/ IPCC: “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories”

/11/ Cash Flow analysis worksheet and CEF calculation worksheet, January 2008

/12/ Minutes of Meeting dated 17 October 2003, about CDM project with Danish Embassy

/13/ LOI (letter of Intend), between project owner and Royal Danish Embassy, dated 19 December 2003

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


/14/ Population worksheet from the farm including the life stage of the pig, size and balance, received January 2008

/15/ Construction contracted, signed on April 10, 2004, by Mr. Somchai Nitikanchana of SPM Mill and Mr. Kamol Supawat of Kamol Supawat Limited Partnership.

/16/ Printout photo of distance between the three farms (NongBua, Veerachai and SPM Farm) from www.PointAsia.com, 25 December 2007.

/17/ Copy of email from EGAT (Mr Vich Piputvat) with attachment: ”Energy by type of fuel 2003-2005.xls”, 8 May 2006 and EGAT Power Development Plan from 2004 and 2007

Main changes between the version published for the 30 days stakeholder commenting period and the final version submitted for registration:

- grid emission factor calculated as the weighted average grid emission factor based on projected data from EGAT and monitored ex-post

- IPCC tier 2 calculation of emission reductions for the methane capturing component - values for Volatile Solid (VS) and Maximum Methane Production (B0) are changed

from IPCC (1996) values to IPCC (2006) values - monitoring removal and application of sludge has been added in the PDD - auxiliary electricity use is included in project emissions - the start of the crediting period is changed to 1 April 2008 or the date of registration,

whichever is later.

3.2 Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders The following persons were interviewed and/or provided additional information to the presented documentation:

Date Name Organization Topic

1. 2006-04-06 Ms. Pongtip Puvacharoen

DNA of Thailand Host country approval status. Legal and environmental

requirements. Stakeholder consultation

requirement. Common practice in

Thailand. Sustainable development

issues. 2. 2006-04-03 Dr Virawan

Sombutsiri, Mrs Nanaporn Phumaraphand

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)

Grid emission factor in Thailand.

Fuel prices in Thailand.

3. 2006-04-05 Mr. Thaweewat Nuntiruj,

SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd., ERM & DEM

Project technology. Project participants. Applicability criteria and

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


Mr. Witchet Phothiwisutwathee, and Mr. Karsten M. Holm.

bundling. Additionality. Legal and environmental

issues. Stakeholder consultation

process. Monitoring plan and project

management. Emission reduction

calculations.

3.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues The objective of this phase of the validation was to resolve any outstanding issues which needed be clarified prior to DNV’s positive conclusion on the project design. In order to ensure transparency, a validation protocol was customised for the project. The protocol shows in transparent manner 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 CDM project is expected to meet; • It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a

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

The validation protocol consists of two tables. The different columns in these tables are described in the figure below. The completed validation protocol for the Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm is enclosed in Appendix A to this report.

Findings established during the validation can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of CDM criteria or where a risk to the fulfilment of project objectives is identified. Corrective action requests (CAR) are issued, where: i) mistakes have been made with a direct influence on project results; ii) CDM and/or methodology specific requirements have not been met; or iii) there is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a CDM project or that

emission reductions will not be certified. A request for clarification (CL) may be used where additional information is needed to fully clarify an issue.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements for CDM Project Activities

Requirement Reference Conclusion The requirements the project must meet.

Gives reference to the legislation or agreement where the requirement is found.

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

Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

Checklist Question Reference Means of verification (MoV)

Comment Draft and/or Final Conclusion

The various requirements in Table 2 are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. The checklist is organised in different sections, following the logic of the large-scale PDD template, version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006. Each section is then further sub-divided.

Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found.

Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of verification are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable.

The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a corrective action request (CAR) due to non-compliance with the checklist question (See below). A request for clarification (CL) is used when the validation team has identified a need for further clarification.

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

Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests

Ref. to checklist question in table 2

Summary of project owner response

Validation conclusion

If the conclusions from the draft Validation are either a CAR or a CL, these should be listed in this section.

Reference to the checklist question number in Table 2 where the CAR or CL is explained.

The responses given by the project participants during the communications with the validation team should be summarised in this section.

This section should summarise the validation team’s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 2, under “Final Conclusion”.

Figure 1 Validation protocol tables

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


3.4 Internal Quality Control The draft validation report, including the initial validation findings, underwent a technical review before being submitted to the project participants. The final validation report underwent another technical review before requesting registration of the project activity. The technical review was performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with DNV’s qualification scheme for CDM validation and verification.

3.5 Validation Team Role/Qualification Last Name First Name Country Team leader, CDM validator Narayanan Thivakaran Malaysia GHG auditor (trainee) Molin Peter Norway CDM validator Biswas Soumik India Sector expert Ramachandran Ramesh India Technical reviewer (applicant for AMS-III.D)

Viddal Mari Gross Norway

Technical reviewer Lehmann Michael Norway The qualification of each individual validation team member is detailed in Appendix B to this report.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


4 VALIDATION FINDINGS The findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The validation criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria are documented in more detail in the validation protocol in Appendix A. The final validation findings relate to the project design as documented and described in the revised project design documentation, version 04 dated 15 January 2008.

4.1 Participation Requirements SPM Farm & Country Home Village Co., Ltd of Thailand and the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark are the project participants. Denmark is also a project participant. Thailand as the host Party and Denmark as the Annex-1 Party meet the requirements to participate in the CDM. The letter of approval (LOA) from DNA of Thailand, authorizing SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd. as the project participant and confirming that the project assists in achieving sustainable development, was issued on 5 November 2007/2/. The letter of approval by the DNA of Denmark authorizing the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as project participant was issued on 12 December 2007 /3/. The project involves public funding by Denmark, but in its letter of approval, the DNA of Denmark provides an affirmation that the public funding from the Danish Government involved in the purchase of CERs from the Project does not result in a diversion of ODA and is separate from and not counted towards the financial obligation of Denmark in that respect.

4.2 Project Design The project involves the capture of methane rich biogas produced during the treatment of swine barn flushing wastewater/maure and the combustion of biogas for power generation at the SPM swine farm in Thailand. The project comprises the investment in high-rate continuous flow closed anaerobic treatment reactors to replace low-rate open anaerobic lagoon to treat 100% of all barn flushing effluents produced from their swine rearing operations. Sludge is removed from the final effluent of the reactor by sand filter beds before it is used as fertilizer. The biogas produced consisting of 60-70% CH4 was previously released directly to the atmosphere. In the project scenario, the biogas is collected and combusted in a 0,48 MW biogas-fuelled generator. The electricity replaces electricity previously brought in from the Thai electricity grid. Excess electricity will be sold to the grid. The technology utilized is deemed good current practice. It is verified that the project activity is not a debundled component of a larger project activity as there is not other small scale project activity with the same project participant, and in the same project category, and registered within the previous two years, and whose project boundary is within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small-scale activity at the closest point. It was demonstrated that this project is located more than 1 km away from the two similar CDM projects at the Veerachai Farm and Nong Bua Farm in Ratchaburi /16/. The project starting date is defined as 17 October 2003, when a meeting was held by SPM Farm & Country Home Village Co., Ltd where it was agreed to go ahead with the CDM

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


project with the Danish Embassy /12/. The operational lifetime of the project is estimated to be 20 years. The project selects a fixed crediting period of 10 years starting from 1 March 2008. The project activity is projected to reduce 23 556 t CO2e emissions annually over the 10 years crediting period.

4.3 Baseline Determination The project applies the simplified baseline methodologies AMS-III.D (methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities, version 11) in combination with AMS-I.D (grid connected renewable electricity generation, version 10. /5/ & /6/. The project fulfils the following conditions under which AMS-III.D is applicable: 1) It recovers methane generated from the treatment of swine manure by installing methane recovery and combustion systems, 2) It results in annual emission reductions lower than 60 000 tCO2e. The project also fulfils the following conditions under which AMS-I.D is applicable: 1) It is a new renewable energy generating unit that displaces electricity from an electricity distribution system that is supplied by at least one fossil fuel fired generating unit, and 2) It has less than 15MW of electricity generating capacity. It has been confirmed during validation that the swine barn flushing wastewater treatment facility prior to project implementation, the open lagoon system, was able to treat the wastewater and meet the current environmental standards. Open lagoon systems are the prevalent mode of wastewater treatment in Thailand. In the absence of the proposed activity, high organic wastewater would therefore likely continue to be anaerobically treated in open lagoon systems and the methane generated, as result of anaerobic degradation of biogenic material, would continue to escape into the atmosphere. Thus the baseline scenario is the continuation of the pre-project scenario of lagoon based organic wastewater treatment and import of electricity from the Thai grid.

4.4 Additionality The project proponent has used the barrier analysis for demonstrating the additionality of the project. Investment barriers, technological barriers, barriers due to prevailing practice and other barriers have been discussed to demonstrate that the project activity is not a likely baseline scenario. In addition, a cash flow analysis has been provided to confirm how CDM benefits alleviates the barriers. It was confirmed during validation that the CDM was critical to the decision to go ahead with the project. On 17 October 2003, a meeting was held where it was agreed to go ahead with the CDM project with the Danish Embassy /12/. This was when the decision was made to start the project. The Letter of Intent (LOI) between the project owner and the Royal Danish Embassy, was then formally signed on 19 December 2003 /13/. The construction contract from 10 April 2004 was verified. /15/ The process of selecting a DOE started in 2005 and DNV was invited to submit a proposal for validation of the project on 7 October 2005. Investment barrier: The initial investment for a biogas system is high with a payback of 8 to 9 years, when compared to the investment in livestock which has a payback of 2 years. As such, investment

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


in more livestock is the most preferred investment for the farmers. Also the farmers do not have access to sufficient capital for setting up a biogas plant. In addition, the complete cash flow analysis with and without revenue from CERs was provided to show how CDM alleviates the barriers presented. The assumptions made and values used, such as a swine population of 70 000 pigs and 2.736 MWh electricity generated are assessed by DNV and deemed appropriate. In this case, the project without CDM resulted in an IRR of 1.57% over a 20 years period. However, the IRR increases to 8.66% with the revenues from CERs /11/. Technological barrier: Since the biogas plants are not yet a proven technology on a commercial scale in Thailand, there is shortage of skilled operators and design engineers for biogas plants. This has been identified as a barrier in setting up a biogas plant in Thailand. Prevailing practice: It was verified during validation that open lagoon treatment is the prevalent wastewater treatment method in Thailand. Most of the large swine farms use the open lagoon system. Other barriers: Procedural complexity of PPA with EGAT and potential penalty charges for not meeting the obligations of the PPA are deterrent for small farmers to invest in any bio-digesters with energy recovery. Given the above, it is sufficiently demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario and that emission reductions are hence additional.

4.5 Monitoring The monitoring plan is in line with the approved monitoring methodologies AMS-I.D “grid connected renewable electricity generation” version 10 of 23 December 2006 and AMS-III.D “Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities” version 11 dated 23 December 2006. /5/ & /6/.

4.5.1 Parameters determined ex-ante The following values were determined at the start of the project activity:

• Density of methane, DCH4 (0.67 kg/m3); • Global Warming Potential of methane GWP CH4 (21 t CO2e/CH4); • Methane conversion factor for anaerobic digester and for anaerobic lagoons, • Net Calorific Value (NCV) and Carbon Emission Factor (CEF) of grid fuel types

The values for methane density, global warming potential of methane, NCV and CEF of grid fuel types and MCFs were obtained from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. In addition, swine population, fraction of manure being treated by the system, average feed intake per head per day and annual electricity consumption were determined based on specific operational information obtained from the farm.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


4.5.2 Parameters monitored ex-post Emission reductions will be measured directly from monitoring the following parameters: - Biogas flow will be measured using orifice plate metering devices (QG); - Methane content in biogas, measured at least quarterly by near infrared spectrometry,

(fG,CH4); - Electricity generated and consumed. Electricity exported to the grid will also be

demonstrated via payment receipts from third parties. Electricity that is consumed by the project activity is calculated based on the equipments rated power and will be subtracted;

- Biogas flared will be monitored through the use of biogas flow meter if there is surplus biogas and if a flare is installed only. In this case, the flare efficiency will not be measured and a conservative 50% flare efficiency is applied.

- Thai grid emission factor as the weighted average grid emission factor (CEFgrid) will be updated annually based on actual data from EGAT;

- Quantity and application of sludge leaving the digester The monitoring plan provides for an annual ex-post assessment to ensure the maximal emission reductions in any year is limited to the yearly methane generation potential calculated ex-ante (applying the most recent Tier II IPCC approach). Please refer to section 4.6 for the assessment of the ex-ante calculated methane generation potential. The above monitoring indicators will give opportunity for real measurements of achieved emission reductions. Details of the data to be collected, the frequency of data recording, format and storage type are described. The DNA of Thailand does not require monitoring of sustainable development indicators.

4.5.3 Management system and quality assurance Detailed project management and monitoring procedures, including procedures for QA/QC of monitoring reports and emergency preparedness procedures, are described and found to be adequate. Detailed project management procedures should be established and implemented before the commencement of the crediting period. This will need to be checked during first periodic verification. All critical data are either measured or calculated and will be archived for the crediting period plus two years beyond.

4.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions The calculations and assumptions used to forecast emission reductions are transparently documented. Project emissions may result from the physical leaks of methane from the anaerobic reactor or from the utilization of electricity from the grid. 10% project emissions have been included in the ex-ante estimate of emission reductions for possible biogas not captured by the project and methane leaks from the system. During the crediting period, the gas meter will reflect only the methane captured and actually combusted or flared by the project. The biogas not captured by the project and possible leaks are thus not included as a part of the ex-post emission reduction calculations.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


The project design states that the electricity required for the running of project equipments will be produced by the plant itself, and that the project will not utilize electricity from the grid. The initial start-up electricity is deemed negligible. The project activity does not result in any leakage. This is appropriate and in line with the methodologies. The baseline emissions include the emissions from the open lagoons and the emissions from the electricity consumption. Emissions from the Open Lagoon: In accordance with AMS-III.D, the maximal emission reduction in any year is limited to the yearly methane generation potential calculated ex-ante. The yearly methane generation potential was thus calculated ex-ante based on the calculated amount of the wastewater / manure that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity. The calculations are in accordance with the most recent IPCC tier 2 approach (2006 IPCC guidelines). Adequate justifications for each value used in the calculation have been listed in the PDD. The livestock of 70 000 pigs used in the ex-ante estimation of the baseline methane emissions is based on the average of most recent livestock inventories of the farm /14/. The ex-ante calculated yearly methane generation potential in the baseline is 25 020 tCO2e/year. Emissions from Grid Electricity: The project design claims that the project activity will generate 2 736 MWh/year of electricity. The grid electricity emission factor (CEFgrid) used in the baseline emissions calculations (0.495 tCO2/MWh) was calculated as the weighted average grid emission factor in line with AMS I.D. Projected and aggregated GWh and fuel consumption data are available for each fuel type for 2008 from the EGAT Power Development Plan 2007/17/. This data together with IPCC 2006 default values for NCV and CEF were used to determine the grid electricity emission factor of 0.495 tCO2/MWh, which is used to forecast baseline emissions from grid electricity. The calculations have been provided to DNV and found appropriate /11/. However, the grid emission factor will be updated annually ex-post and will be calculated based on actual data provided by EGAT, a publicly available and official source, and IPCC default values. Emission reductions were calculated by subtracting the project emissions from the baseline emissions. The expected emissions reductions were calculated to be 235 557 tCO2e over the project’s 10 year crediting period.

4.7 Environmental Impacts It has been verified that the project did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment. The environmental impacts of the project have been addressed sufficiently. Impacts of the project on odour, wastewater pollution, wastewater overflow, groundwater contamination, solids waste disposal and safety have been considered. The project has no significant impact on the environment and there are no significant transboundary effects due to the project. The project has received all necessary environmental licenses from the relevant authorities in Thailand.

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VALIDATION REPORT


4.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders The local stakeholders of the project have been consulted through a public meeting and an attitude survey. The public meeting was held on 15 August 2005 at the SPM Farm. Local village representatives and local residents have been consulted. A summary of the comments received have been provided. Gas safety/ explosion hazard was a concern during local stakeholder consultation. An emergency preparedness procedure was prepared as a response to this concern. No other adverse comments were received.

4.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs The PDD of 5 February 2007 was made publicly available on DNV’s climate change website (www.dnv.com/certification/climatechange) and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were through the CDM website invited to provide comments during a 30 days period from 21 February 2007 to 22 March 2007. No comments were received.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


APPENDIX A

CDM VALIDATION PROTOCOL

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Table 1 Mandatory Requirements for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Activities Requirement Reference Conclusion

About Parties

The project shall assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with part of their emission reduction commitment under Art. 3.

Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2

OK

The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in contributing to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC.

Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2.

OK

The project shall have the written approval of voluntary participation from the designated national authority of each Party involved.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5a, CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a

OK

The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in achieving sustainable development and shall have obtained confirmation by the host country thereof.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.2, CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a

OK

In case public funding from Parties included in Annex I is used for the project activity, these Parties shall provide an affirmation that such funding does not result in a diversion of official development assistance and is separate from and is not counted towards the financial obligations of these Parties.

Decision 17/CP.7, CDM Modalities and Procedures Appendix B, § 2

CAR 1 OK

Parties participating in the CDM shall designate a national authority for the CDM.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §29

OK

The host Party and the participating Annex I Party shall be a Party to the Kyoto Protocol.

CDM Modalities §30/31a OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Requirement Reference Conclusion The participating Annex I Party’s assigned amount shall have been calculated and recorded.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §31b

OK The assigned amount for Denmark is 92% of 1990’s emission levels.

The participating Annex I Party shall have in place a national system for estimating GHG emissions and a national registry in accordance with Kyoto Protocol Article 5 and 7.


OK

About additionality

Reduction in GHG emissions shall be additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity, i.e. a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity.

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5c, CDM Modalities and Procedures §43

OK

About forecast emission reductions and environmental impacts

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

Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5b OK

About small-scale project activities

The proposed project activity shall meet the eligibility criteria for small scale CDM project activities set out in § 6 (c) of the Marrakech Accords and shall not be a debundled component of a larger project activity.

Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM Project Activities §12a,c

OK

The proposed project activity shall conform to one of the project categories defined for small scale CDM project activities and use the simplified baseline and monitoring methodology for that project category.

Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM Project Activities §22e

OK

If required by the host country, an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity is carried out and documented.

Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Requirement Reference Conclusion CDM Project Activities §22c

About stakeholder involvement

Comments by local stakeholders shall be invited, a summary of these provided and how due account was taken of any comments received.


OK

Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited NGOs shall have been invited to comment on the validation requirements for minimum 30 days, and the project design document and comments have been made publicly available.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §40

OK The PDD of the Ratchaburi Farms

Biogas Project at SPM Farm project was made publicly

available on www.dnv.com/certification/climatechange and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were through the CDM

website invited to provide comments during the period from

21 February 2007 to 22 March 2007. No comments were

received.

Other

The baseline and monitoring methodology shall be previously approved by the CDM Executive Board.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §37e

OK

A baseline shall be established on a project-specific basis, in a transparent manner and taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §45c,d

OK

The baseline methodology shall exclude to earn CERs for decreases in CDM Modalities and OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Requirement Reference Conclusion activity levels outside the project activity or due to force majeure. Procedures §47

The project design document shall be in conformance with the UNFCCC CDM-PDD format.

CDM Modalities and Procedures Appendix B, EB Decision

OK The PDD is in conformance with the UNFCCC CDM PDD format.

Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting shall be in accordance with the modalities described in the Marrakech Accords and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP.

CDM Modalities and Procedures §37f

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS

* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview


Table 2 Requirements Checklist CHECKLIST QUESTION


Ref. MoV* COMMENTS Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

A. General Description of Project Activity The project design is assessed.

A.1. Project Boundaries Project Boundaries are the limits and borders defining the

GHG emission reduction project.

A.1.1. Are the project’s spatial boundaries (geographical) clearly defined?

/1/ DR The project is situated in Don Sai Sub-district, Pak Thor District, Ratchaburi province in Thailand.

OK

A.1.2. Are the project’s system boundaries (components and facilities used to mitigate GHGs) clearly defined?

/1/ DR Yes, the project’s system boundaries are clearly defined. The project includes the H-UASB digester, biogas transferring equipment, the 0.48 MW biogas generation plant and the Thai grid.

OK

A.2. Participation Requirements Referring to Part A, Annex 1 and 2 of the PDD as well as the CDM glossary with respect to the terms Party, Letter of Approval, Authorization and Project Participant.

A.2.1. Which Parties and project participants are participating in the project?

/1/ DR Thailand is the participating Non-Annex 1 Party, while Denmark is the Annex-1 Party. SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd. of Thailand and the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark are the project participants.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS



CHECKLIST QUESTION * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=

Interview Ref. MoV* COMMENTS Draft

Concl. Final

Concl.

A.2.2. Have all involved Parties provided a valid and complete letter of approval and have all private/public project participants been authorized by an involved Party?

/1/ DR The Letter of Approval from the DNA of Denmark is pending.

OK

A.2.3. Do all participating Parties fulfil the participation requirements as follows: - Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol - Voluntary participation - Designated a National Authority

/1/ DR Thailand (Non-Annex 1 Party): - Ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 28 August

2002. - The Letter of Approval from the DNA of

Thailand is received. - The Office of Natural resources &

Environmental Planning (ONEP) is the DNA of Thailand.

Denmark (Annex 1 Party): - Ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May

2002. - The Letter of Approval from the DNA of

Denmark is pending. - The Danish Ministry of Environment is

the DNA of Denmark.

OK

A.2.4. Potential public funding for the project from Parties in Annex I shall not be a diversion of official development assistance.

/1/ DR The project involves public funding by Denmark, but in its letter of approval the DNA of Denmark provides an affirmation

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

that the public funding from the Danish Government involved in the purchase of CERs from the Project does not result in a diversion of ODA and is separate from and not counted towards the financial obligation of Denmark in that respect.

A.3. Technology to be employed Validation of project technology focuses on the project engineering, choice of technology and competence/ maintenance needs. The validator should ensure that environmentally safe and sound technology and know-how is used.

A.3.1. Does the project design engineering reflect current good practices?

/1/ DR I

The project design consists of channel digesters; high suspended solids up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket digesters (H-UASB) which is a modification of the UASB technology and can treat high solids containing water streams. The components of the 0.48MW biogas generation plant are supplied by reputed suppliers. The project design reflects current good practices. The system was developed from experience with UASB (of which this H-UASB is an advanced version). Studies have been conducted by local institutions leading

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

to gradual improvements and this technology represents the best technology available at present.

A.3.2. Does the project use state of the art technology or would the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country?

/1/ DR The technology being used by the project is a well proven technology and is expected to significantly increase the wastewater quality over the previous treatment system in open lagoons.

OK

A.3.3. Does the project make provisions for meeting training and maintenance needs?

/1/ DR I

Procedures have been developed and implemented for basic training of operating staff. These procedures were verified during the site visits. The maintenance manuals have been developed by consulting the equipment suppliers. An ‘Energy Monitoring System’ has been developed. The UASB and scrubbers will be maintained by the suppliers on a half yearly basis.

OK

A.4. Contribution to Sustainable Development The project’s contribution to sustainable development is assessed.

A.4.1. Has the host country confirmed that the project assists it in achieving sustainable development?

/1/ DR I

The DNA of Thailand has confirmed that the project is in line with the sustainable development policies of Thailand. Written confirmation thereof is received.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

A.4.2. Will the project create other environmental or social benefits than GHG emission reductions?

/1/ DR The project will result in better environmental conditions by better sludge handling system and reducing odour from the open lagoons.

OK

A.5. Small scale project activity Tit is assessed whether the project qualifies as small-scale CDM project activity

A.5.1. Does the project qualify as a small scale CDM project activity as defined in paragraph 6 (c) of decision 17/CP.7 on the modalities and procedures for the CDM?

/1/ DR The project qualifies as a type-III small scale CDM project activity as the project results in emission reductions of less than 60kt CO2e per year. The project also qualifies as a type-I small scale CDM project activity as the project’s biogas generation plant has a generating capacity of 0.48MW, which is less than the threshold value of 15 MW.

OK

A.5.2. Is the small scale project activity not a debundled component of a larger project activity?

/1/ DR The project activity is not a debundled component of a larger project activity as there is not other small scale project activity: - With the same project participant, and - In the same project category, and - Registered within the previous 2 years,

and - Whose project boundary is within 1 km

of the project boundary of the proposed

CL 1

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

small-scale activity at the closest point. However, the project participant is requested to demonstrate that this project is located more than 1 km away from similar CDM projects at the Veerachai Farm and Nong Bua Farm. Both of these projects are located within the Pak Thor district in Ratchaburi.

B. Project Baseline The validation of the project baseline establishes whether the selected baseline methodology is appropriate and whether the selected baseline represents a likely baseline scenario.

B.1. Baseline Methodology It is assessed whether the project applies an appropriate baseline methodology.

B.1.1. Does the project apply an approved methodology and the correct version thereof?

/1/ DR The project applies the approved small scale baseline methodologies: - AMS-I.D, “Grid connected renewable

electricity generation”, version 10 dated 23 December 2006, and

- AMS-III.D, “Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities”, version 11 dated 23 December 2006.

OK

B.1.2. Are the applicability criteria in the baseline methodology all fulfilled?

/1/ DR The project fulfils the applicability criteria for AMS-I.D:

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

- It involves the installation of a biogas generation plant which will displace electricity from an electricity distribution system that is supplied by fossil fuel fired generating units.

- The electricity generation set has a generating capacity below the 15MW threshold limit.

The project fulfils the applicability criteria for AMS-III.D: - It comprises of methane recovery from

manure by installing methane recovery and combustion system to an existing source of methane emissions,

- Methane emission reductions resulting from the project activity will be less than 60000 tCO2e per year.

B.2. Baseline Scenario Determination The choice of the baseline scenario will be validated with focus on whether the baseline is a likely scenario, and whether the methodology to define the baseline scenario has been followed in a complete and transparent manner.

B.2.1. What is the baseline scenario?

/1/ DR I

The baseline scenario is the continued treatment of wastewater through the use of open anaerobic lagoons and release of

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

methane into the atmosphere. In the absence of the project, additional grid electricity will be consumed by the farm.

B.2.2. What other alternative scenarios have been considered and why is the selected scenario the most likely one?

/1/ DR The following alternative scenarios for wastewater treatment were considered: (i) Collection of solid material (dung)

from slatted floor barns for sale, donation or use, followed by barn flushing, with the treatment of barn flushing wastewaters in open anaerobic lagoons;

(ii) Direct flushing of all swine barn wastes (dung and washwaters) with treatment in open anaerobic lagoons;

(iii) High-rate or batch treatment of manure and/or washwaters with or without collection of biogas;

(iv) Discharge directly to local canals with little or no treatment, or;

(v) A combination of these. Treatment method (ii) was considered the most likely baseline scenario as it was business-as-usual (BAU) prior to the project implementation. Similarly, the utilisation of grid electricity by the farm was BAU scenario.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

B.2.3. Has the baseline scenario been determined according to the methodology?

/1/ DR Yes. The baseline is in accordance with AMS-I.D and AMS-III.D.

OK

B.2.4. Has the baseline scenario been determined using conservative assumptions where possible?

/1/ DR The discussion of the baseline selection has been done in a transparent manner. The lower of the two values is selected as the baseline emission for the project activity: (a) Actual monitored amount of methane

captured and destroyed by the project activity.

(b) The methane emissions calculated ex ante using the amount of the wastewater/manure or raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity.

OK

B.2.5. Does the baseline scenario sufficiently take into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies, macro-economic trends and political aspirations?

/1/ DR I

Yes, relevant national and sectoral policies have been taken into account.

OK

B.2.6. Is the baseline scenario determination compatible with the available data and are all literature and sources clearly referenced?

/1/ DR I

Yes, the baseline selection is compatible with the available data. The quantity of biogas combusted, CH4 content in the biogas, CO2 emission factor of the grid electricity, and IPCC default emission factor of fuel oil are available.

OK

B.2.7. Have the major risks to the baseline been /1/ DR There are no major risks to the baseline. OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

identified?

B.3. Additionality Determination The assessment of additionality will be validated with focus on whether the project itself is not a likely baseline scenario.

B.3.1. Is the project additionality assessed according to the methodology?

/1/ DR I

The project proponent has used the barrier analysis for demonstrating the additionality of the project. Investment barrier, technological barrier, prevailing practice barrier and other barriers have been discussed to demonstrate that the project activity is not a likely baseline scenario. Investment barrier: The initial investment for a biogas system is high with a payback of 8-9 years, when compared to the investment in livestock which has a payback of 2 years. As such, investment in more livestock is the most preferred investment for the farmers. Also the farmers do not have access to sufficient capital for setting up a biogas plant. Technological barrier: Since the biogas plants are not yet proven technology in commercial scale in Thailand, there is shortage of skilled operators and

CL 2 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

design engineers for biogas plants. This has been identified as a barrier in setting up a biogas plant in Thailand. Prevailing practice: The open lagoon treatment is the prevalent waste water treatment method in Thailand. Most of the large swine farms use the open lagoon system. Other barriers: Procedural complexity of PPA with EGAT and potential penalty charges for not meeting the obligations of the PPA are deterrent for small farmers to invest any bio-digesters with energy recovery. Further information on how CDM alleviates the above barriers is needed.

B.3.2. Are all assumptions stated in a transparent and conservative manner?

/1/ DR The assumptions related to the investment barriers, prevailing practices and the technological risks were clearly stated and are acceptable.

OK

B.3.3. Is sufficient evidence provided to support the relevance of the arguments made?

/1/ DR I

Yes. Evidence of the prevailing manure management methods in Thailand was clearly referenced.

OK

B.3.4. If the starting date of the project activity is before the date of validation, has sufficient evidence

/1/ DR As per the PDD, the construction of the project activity began in 2005 This was

CL 3 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

been provided that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity?

before the date of validation. The project proponent is requested to provide evidence that this was the earliest date of implementation, construction and real action and incentives from CDM were seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity.

C. Calculation of GHG Emissions by Source It is assessed whether all material GHG emission sources are addressed and how sensitivities and data uncertainties have been addressed to arrive at conservative estimates of projected emission reductions.

C.1. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Project emissions It is assessed whether the project emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

C.1.1. Are the calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/1/ DR Project emissions may result from leaks of methane from the anaerobic reactor, or from the consumption of grid electricity by the project activity. 10% of the captured methane is assumed to be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of physical leaks in the anaerobic reactor.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

The pumps and blowers used in the project will run with the electricity produced by the project activity itself. The initial start-up electricity is deemed negligible.

C.1.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the project emissions?

/1/ DR

The assumption that 10% of captured methane is lost through physical leaks is in accordance with the IPCC guidelines.

OK

C.1.3. Are uncertainties in the project emission estimates properly addressed?

/1/ DR

There are no major uncertainties related to project emissions.

OK

C.2. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Baseline emissions It is assessed whether the baseline emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

C.2.1. Are the calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/1/ DR The baseline emission boundaries cover the emissions from the open lagoons, the emissions from the electricity consumption and the emissions from the heat generation by using fossil fuels. Emissions from the Open Lagoon: Formulas for the ex post calculation of the baseline emissions from the open lagoon where shown in Section B.6.3 of the PDD. However, the project proponent is requested

CAR 2

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

to show the ex ante calculation of emission reductions in this section. The calculations should be based on the most recent tier 2 IPCC approach, as required by AMS-III.D. Emissions from Grid Electricity: The project design estimates that the project activity will generate 16.91 MWh/day of electricity. The grid electricity emission factor (CEFgrid) used in the baseline emissions calculations was not calculated in accordance with AMS-I.D. CEFgrid should be calculated based on historical data instead of projected future power generation data.

CAR 3

C.2.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the baseline emissions?

/1/ DR

References for the values used in the calculations were shown in Annex 3 of the PDD. However, values for Volatile Solid (VS) and Maximum Methane Production (Bo) used in the calculations were obtained from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The project proponent is requested to obtain these values from the latest edition of the IPCC guidelines (2006).

CL 4 CAR 4

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

Further information on average historical swine population is needed to conclude on the conservativeness of the swine population used when applying the most recent tier 2 IPCC approach.

C.2.3. Are uncertainties in the baseline emission estimates properly addressed?

/1/ DR The uncertainty in the baseline estimates is a possible drastic decrease in the swine population which will decrease the amount of methane generated. However actual methane captured and utilized for electricity will be monitored ex-post.

OK

C.3. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Leakage It is assessed whether leakage emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

C.3.1. Are the leakage calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/1/ DR

No leakage needs to be accounted for as the project equipment is not transferred from another activity.

OK

C.4. Emission Reductions The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.

C.4.1. Are the emission reductions real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation

/1/ DR Yes, the project is estimated to result in OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

of climate change.

235557 tCO2e emission reductions over the 10 years crediting period.

D. Monitoring Plan The monitoring plan review aims to establish whether all relevant project aspects deemed necessary to monitor and report reliable emission reductions are properly addressed ((Blue text contains requirements to be assessed for optional review of monitoring methodology prior to submission and approval by CDM EB).

D.1. Monitoring Methodology It is assessed whether the project applies an appropriate baseline methodology.

D.1.1. Is the monitoring plan documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/1/ DR The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved monitoring methodologies: - AMS-I.D, “Grid connected renewable

electricity generation”, version 10 dated 23 December 2006, and

- AMS-III.D, “Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities”, version 11 dated 23 December 2006.

OK

D.1.2. 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 project activity, whichever occurs

/1/ DR The archiving period for the monitoring data was not stated in the PDD. All monitoring data should be kept for at

CL 5 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

later?

least two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs for this project activity, whichever occurs later

D.2. Monitoring of Project Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete project emission data over time.

D.2.1. 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 project boundary during the crediting period?

/1/ DR I

The project emission due to physical leaks from the UASB is assumed to be 10% of the total methane generated in the digester. The total methane generated is measured as part of the baseline emissions monitoring. No other emissions are expected from the project activity. The project proponent is requested to monitor the aerobic treatment and proper soil application of the sludge leaving the digesters in the project activity, as required by AMS-III.D.

CAR 5 OK

D.3. Monitoring of Baseline Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete baseline emission data over time.

D.3.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for determining baseline emissions during the crediting period?

/1/ DR The following monitoring data will be collected for the estimation of baseline emissions: - Density of methane;

CL 6 CL 7

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

- Methane conversion factor for anaerobic digester (EFDIGESTER)

- Biogas flow (QG); - Methane content in biogas, (fG,CH4); - Electricity generated (KWE,GENERATED); - Grid emission factor (CEFgrid); Methane density is determined ex-ante. The grid emission factor will be determined before the start of the project activity. It is unclear if the electricity consumed by the project activity is included in KWE,GENERATED. Emissions reductions should not be claimed for electricity that is consumed by the project activity. The assessment ex-post to ensure the maximal emission reductions in any year is limited to the yearly methane generation potential calculated ex-ante (applying the most recent Tier II IPCC approach) should be included in the monitoring plan.

D.3.2. Are the choices of baseline GHG indicators reasonable and conservative?

/1/ DR CH4 and CO2 are the only GHG indicators that need to be considered and both of them have been taken into account.

OK

D.3.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each baseline indicator to be monitored and also deemed appropriate?

/1/ DR

All ex post baseline emissions data will be measured with appropriate monitoring equipment.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

D.3.4. Is the measurement equipment described and

deemed appropriate?

/1/ DR

The monitoring equipments used for on-site measurements are indicated in the monitoring plan and are deemed appropriate.

OK

D.3.5. Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements?

/1/ DR I

Yes. The measurement accuracy has been addressed and deemed appropriate

OK

D.3.6. Is the measurement interval for baseline data identified and deemed appropriate?

/1/ DR Yes. The measurement intervals are in accordance with the requirements of AMS-I.D and AMS-III.D.

OK

D.3.7. Are the registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedures defined?

/1/ DR I

Yes. The registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedures are defined in Section B.7 of the PDD.

OK

D.3.8. Are procedures identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed?

/1/ DR I

Procedures for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations were found to be adequate during site visit.

OK

D.3.9. Are procedures identified for day-to-day records handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation)

/1/ DR I

Yes. OK

D.4. Monitoring of Leakage It is assessed whether the monitoring plan provides for

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

reliable and complete leakage data over time. D.4.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the

collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for determining leakage?

/1/ DR Leakage need not be considered as the project equipment is not transferred from another activity.

OK

D.5. Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators/ Environmental Impacts It is assessed whether choices of indicators are reasonable and complete to monitor sustainable performance over time.

D.5.1. Is the monitoring of sustainable development indicators/ environmental impacts warranted by legislation in the host country?

/1/ DR I

There is no requirement to monitor the sustainable development indicators in Thailand at present.

OK

D.6. Project Management Planning It is checked that project implementation is properly prepared for and that critical arrangements are addressed.

D.6.1. Is the authority and responsibility of overall project management clearly described?

/1/ DR I

The authority and responsibility for the project management has been drawn. Key functions already identified are the Managing Director, the plant Biogas System Manager, the plant Biogas Technicians and the Project Coordinator.

OK

D.6.2. Are procedures identified for training of monitoring personnel?

/1/ DR I

Yes. Training has been given based on manuals developed after consultation with suppliers of key equipment.

OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

D.6.3. Are procedures identified for emergency preparedness for cases where emergencies can cause unintended emissions?

/1/ DR I

Emergency preparedness procedures have not been developed. Gas safety/ explosion hazard was a major concern during local stakeholder consultation. Further information on how due account is taken on gas safety is requested.

CL 8

OK

D.6.4. Are procedures identified for review of reported results/data?

/1/ DR

Yes. OK

D.6.5. Are procedures identified for corrective actions in order to provide for more accurate future monitoring and reporting?

/1/ DR

Yes. OK

E. Duration of the Project/ Crediting Period It is assessed whether the temporary boundaries of the project are clearly defined.

E.1.1. Are the project’s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and evidenced?

/1/ DR As per the PDD, the construction of the project activity began in 2005. This was verified by copies of the construction agreement of 10 April 2004. Its operational lifetime is expected to be 20 years, which is reasonable.

CL 2 OK

E.1.2. Is the start of the crediting period clearly defined and reasonable?

/1/ DR The project selects a fixed crediting period of 10 years starting from 1 June 2007. The crediting period needs to be updated to be after date of registration.

CL 9 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

F. Environmental Impacts Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts will be assessed, and if deemed significant, an EIA should be provided to the validator.

F.1.1. Does host country legislation require an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity?

/1/ DR I

It was confirmed during site visit that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not required for this project.

OK

F.1.2. Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country?

/1/ DR I

The project conforms to all applicable legal requirements in Thailand.

OK

F.1.3. Will the project create any adverse environmental effects?

/1/ DR The project is not likely to create any significant adverse environmental effect.

OK

F.1.4. Have environmental impacts been identified and addressed in the PDD?

/1/ DR Four environmental aspects of a wastewater treatment plant have been identified. These relate to odour, wastewater pollution, solid waste disposal and safety. None of these are of significance in context of the project. However, Further information on how due account is taken on gas safety is requested.

CL 8 OK

G. Stakeholder Comments The validator should ensure that stakeholder comments have been invited with appropriate media and that due account has been taken of any comments received.

G.1.1. Have relevant stakeholders been consulted? /1/ DR The relevant stakeholders identified for the OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS





Concl. Final

Concl.

I project are the people living in the surrounding villages and they have been consulted.

G.1.2. Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders?

/1/ DR I

The stakeholder consultations have been carried out through public meetings and attitude surveys at the project site. The appropriateness of the stakeholder consultation process has been verified by the DNA during the validation.

OK

G.1.3. 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?

/1/ DR A stakeholder consultation is not required by the DNA of Thailand. Nevertheless, a stakeholder consultation has been carried out since it is the common method of establishing the social benefits and sustainability criteria for the project. The comments received have been summarised.

OK

G.1.4. Is a summary of the stakeholder comments received provided?

/1/ DR Yes. OK

G.1.5. Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received?

/1/ DR A concern was raised relating to the explosion hazard of the project. The project proponent has taken mitigating actions for this. However further information regarding emergency preparedness procedures are requested.

CL 8 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS



DET NORSKE VERITAS


Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team


Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion

CAR 1 The Letter of Approval from the DNA of Denmark is pending.

Table 1 A.2.3. A.4.1.

Letter of approval from the Danish DNA is obtained and have been submitted to DNV

OK. LoA received. CAR is closed.

CAR 2 The project proponent is requested to show the ex ante calculation of emission reductions in Section B.6.3 of the PDD. The calculations should be based on the most recent tier 2 IPCC approach, as required by AMS-III.D.

C.2.1 The ex ante calculations of the emission reductions according to tier 2 have been added in the revised PDD.

Ok. This is included in the revised PDD. CAR is closed

CAR 3 The grid electricity emission factor (CEFgrid) used in the baseline emissions calculations was not calculated in accordance with AMS-I.D. CEFgrid should be calculated based on historical data instead of projected future power generation data.

C.2.1 AMS 1.D offer the choice of two options to determine the baseline emissions. The project proponent has chosen to apply option (b) “the weighted average emissions of the current generation mix”. The calculations are based on publicly available data from the EGAT Power Development Plan of 2007. The details of the calculations are provided in the annex of the revised PDD. Scanned copy of relevant reference of assumption is provided in the attachments to the revised PDD.

Ok, CEFgrid value checked to be appropriate and the value will be updated annually ex-post based on actual data from EGAT. CAR is closed.

CAR 4 C.2.2 The Values of VS and B0 have been OK. The values are in accordance with

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team



Values for Volatile Solid (VS) and Maximum Methane Production (Bo) used in the calculations were obtained from the 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The project proponent is requested to obtain these values from the latest edition of the IPCC guidelines (2006). (AMS-III.D ver. 11, clause 6b)

revised in accordance with the most recent edition of IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006.

IPCC 2006. This CL is closed.

CAR 5 The project proponent is requested to monitor the aerobic treatment and proper soil application of the sludge leaving the digesters in the project activity, as required by AMS-III.D.

D.2.1 The procedure for monitoring the sludge removal/application, has been added in the revised PDD - section B.7.1.

OK. The PDD has been revised accordingly. This CL is closed.

DET NORSKE VERITAS





CL 1 The project participant is requested to demonstrate that this project is located more than 1 km away from similar CDM projects at the Veerachai Farm and SPM Feedmill. Both of these projects are located within the Pak Thor district in Ratchaburi.

A.5.2 A satellite picture with belonging description has been added in attachment to the PDD. This illustrates that the project is located more than 1 km away from other similar project activities.

OK. The satellite picture is received and verified. The distance between the three farms is approximately 8-14 km. The CL is closed.

CL 2 Further information and documentation on how CDM will alleviate the above barriers is needed to conclude on the additionality.

B.3.1 An investment analysis is provided in attachment 5. (submitted already)

OK. The investment analysis shows that the project is not deemed attractive without CDM. The cost/ revenue figures are checked and deemed appropriate. The CL is closed.

CL 3 Construction of the project activity began on 10 April 2004. This was before the date of validation. The project proponent is requested to provide evidence that 10 April 2004 was the earliest date of implementation, construction and real action, and that incentives from CDM were seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity.

B.3.4 There are 4 evidences to prove that the project owner have considered about CDM revenue before made decision to invest in the project as follows: 1.Scanned Minute of Meeting dated 17 Oct 03 is shown. 2.Scanned of PIN Consultancy Contract dated 27 Oct 03 is shown. 3.Scanned of LOI, between project owner and Royal Danish Embassy, dated 19 Dec 03 is shown. 4. Scanned of construction Contract

It was verified that incentives from CDM were seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project. 17 October 2003 is defined as the project starting date to be the earliest of implementation, construction and real action. This is when the decision was made in a management meeting to go ahead with the CDM project in cooperation with the Danish Embassy The CL is closed.

DET NORSKE VERITAS





dated 10 Apr 04 is shown.

CL 4 Further information on average historical swine population is needed to conclude on the conservativeness of the swine population used when applying the most recent tier 2 IPCC approach.

C.2.2 The historical swine population has been provided in attachment 10.

OK. The historical swine population is provided and applied in the calculation. The swine population of 70 000 is deemed realistic, but on the low side. The CL is closed.

CL 5 The archiving period for the monitoring data was not stated in the PDD.

D.1.2 The PDD is revised in section 7.1 the following clause is added, “All the data monitored above will be kept for at least two years after the end of crediting period or the last issuance of CERs for this project activity, whichever occurs later”

OK. This is included in the revised PDD: The CL is closed.

CL 6 It is unclear if the electricity consumed by the project activity is included in KWE,GENERATED. Emission reductions should not be claimed for electricity that is consumed by the project activity.

D.3.1 The ER calculations are corrected in the revised PDD. The auxiliary load has been included in the project emissions.

OK. This is included in the revised PDD. The CL is closed.

CL 7 The assessment ex-post to ensure the maximal emission reductions in any year is limited to the yearly methane generation potential

D.3.1 The monitoring plan of the revised PDD includes data that enable both ER calculations in accordance to Tier II

OK. This assessment is included in the monitoring plan of the revised PDD. The CL is closed.

DET NORSKE VERITAS





calculated ex-ante (applying the most recent Tier II IPCC approach) should be included in the monitoring plan.

approach. .

CL 8 Emergency preparedness procedures have not been developed. Gas safety/ explosion hazard was a concern during local stakeholder consultation. Further information on how due account is taken of gas safety is requested.

D.6.3 G.1.5

A section on emergency preparedness procedures has been added to the PDD in section B 7.2 Copy of operational manual provided separately.

OK. The emergency procedure is described in the PDD and the detailed procedure will be implemented at the latest prior to the start of the crediting period. This needs to be verified during the first initial verification. The CL is closed.

CL 9 The project selects a fixed crediting period of 10 years starting from 1 June 2007. The crediting period needs to be updated to be after date of registration.

E.1.2 The revised PDD clarifies this matter. “Tentatively: 1 March 2008 or when registered with the EB.

OK. The crediting start date is updated to 1 March 2008. The CL is closed.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


APPENDIX B

CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCE

CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE


Soumik Biswas Qualification in accordance with DNV’s Qualification scheme for CDM/JI (ICP-9-8-i1-CDMJI-i1

GHG Auditor: Yes

CDM Validator: Yes JI Validator: --

CDM Verifier: Yes JI Verifier: --

Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): -- Høvik, 30 October 2007

Michael Lehmann Techncal Director, International Climate Change Services



Thivakaran Narayanan Qualification in accordance with DNV’s Qualification scheme for CDM/JI (ICP-9-8-i1-CDMJI-i1

GHG Auditor: Yes


CDM Verifier: -- JI Verifier: --

Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): -- Høvik, 6 November 2006

Einar Telnes Michael Lehmann Director, International Climate Change Services Technical Director



Ramesh Ramachandran Qualification in accordance with DNV’s Qualification scheme for CDM/JI (ICP-9-8-i1-CDMJI-i1

GHG Auditor: Yes



Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): Sectoral scope 4, 5, 13

Technical Reviewer for (group of) methodologies:

ACM002, AMS-I.A-D, AM0019, AM0026, AM0029, AM0045

Yes

Høvik, 22 December 2006

Einar Telnes Michael Lehmann Director, International Climate Change Servicer Technical Director



Mari Grooss Viddal Qualification in accordance with DNV’s Qualification scheme for CDM/JI (ICP-9-8-i1-CDMJI-i1

GHG Auditor: Yes


CDM Verifier: -- JI Verifier: --

Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): --

Technical Reviewer for (group of) methodologies:

ACM0001, AM0002, AM0003, AM0010, AM0011, AM0012, AMS-III.G

Yes


Yes

Høvik, 26 September 2007

Michael Lehmann Technical Director, International Climate Change Services



Michael Lehmann Qualification in accordance with DNV’s Qualification scheme for CDM/JI (ICP-9-8-i1-CDMJI-i1

GHG Auditor: Yes



Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): Sectoral scope 1, 2, 3

Technical Reviewer for (group of) methodologies: ACM0001, AM0002, AM0003, AM0010, AM0011, AM0012, AMS-III.G

Yes AM0027 Yes


Yes AM0030 Yes

ACM003, ACM0005, AM0033, AM0040 Yes AM0031 Yes ACM0004, ACM0012 Yes AM0032 Yes ACM0006, AM0007, AM0015, AM0036, AM0042 Yes AM0035 Yes ACM0007 Yes AM0038 Yes ACM0008 Yes AM0041 Yes ACM0009, AM0008, AMS-III.B Yes AM0034 Yes AM0006, AM0016, AMS-III.D, ACM0010 Yes AM0043 AM0009, AM0037 Yes AM0046 AM0013, AM0022, AM0025, AM0039, AMS-III.H, AMS-III.I

Yes AM0047

AM0014 Yes AMS-II.A-F, AM0044 Yes AM0017 Yes AMS-III.A Yes AM0018 Yes AMS-III.E, AMS-III.F Yes AM0020 Yes AM0021, AM0028, AM0034, AM0051 Yes AM0023 Yes AM0024 Yes Høvik, 5 February 2007

Einar Telnes Michael Lehmann Director, International Climate Change Services Technical Director

Documents

Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm in … · Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project at SPM Farm in Thailand REPORT NO. 2007-2047 REVISION NO. 01 . ... EGAT Electricity Generating