Fedepalma Approved CDM Validation Report

VALIDATION REPORT
FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM

Umbrella Project for Methane
Capture, Fossil Fuel
Displacement and
Cogeneration of Renewable
Energy
in Colombia
REPORT NO. 2007-0011

REVISION NO. 01
DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS
CERTIFICATION AS
Date of first issue: Project No.:
2007-01-04 45010113 Veritasveien 1
N-1322 Høvik
Approved by: Organisational unit: Norway
Climate Change Services http://www.dnv.com
Mari Grooss Viddal
Client: Client ref.:
FEDEPALMA Miguel Mazorra
Project Name: FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM Umbrella Project for Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel
Displacement and Cogeneration of Renewable Energy
Country: Colombia
Methodology: AM0013
Version: 04
GHG reducing Measure/Technology: Combination of the following options: Option I: A covered
anaerobic digester alone or plus Option II: biogas electricity generation plant running on cleaned
biogas-methane and/or Option III: New High Efficiency Boilers.
ER estimate: 757 067 annual average
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 Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV)’s opinion that the FEDEPALMA
Sectoral CDM Umbrella Project for Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel Displacement and Cogeneration of
Renewable Energy in Colombia, as described in the PDD Version 8 of 16 June 2008, meets all
relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM and all relevant host Party criteria and correctly applies
the baseline and monitoring methodology AM0013 Version 4. DNV thus requests the registration
of the project as a CDM project activity.
Report No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No. Key words:
2007-0011 2008-07-04 01 Climate Change
Report title:
Kyoto Protocol
FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM Umbrella Project for
Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel Displacement and Validation
Cogeneration of Renewable Energy in Colombia Clean Development Mechanism
Work carried out by:
Alfonso Capuchino, Barbara Lara, Ramesh No distribution without permission from the
Ramachandran Client or responsible organisational unit
Work verified by:
Michael Lehmann Limited distribution
Unrestricted distribution
Head Office: Veritasvn. 1, N-1322 HØVIK, Norway

DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Abbreviations
CAEMA Andean Center for Economics in the Environment

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
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
DNV Det Norske Veritas
DNA Designated National Authority
FEDEPALMA Federación Nacional de Cultivadores de Palma de Aceite
GHG Greenhouse gas(es)
GWP Global Warming Potential
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MP Monitoring Plan
MVP Monitoring and Verification Plan
N2O Nitrous oxide
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
ODA Official Development Assistance
PDD Project Design Document
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Process
Page 3
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 9
3.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues 10
3.4 Internal Quality Control 12
3.5 Validation Team 12
4 VALIDATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................13

4.1 Participation Requirements 13
4.2 .Project Design 13
4.3 Baseline Determination 15
4.4 Additionality 18
4.5 Monitoring 21
4.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions 23
4.7 Environmental Impacts 26
4.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders 27
4.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs 27
Appendix A: Validation Protocol

Appendix B: Certificates of Competence
Page 4
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION

Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) has performed a validation of the “FEDEPALMA
Sectoral CDM Umbrella Project for Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel Displacement and
Cogeneration of Renewable Energy” in Colombia. 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 Colombia and no Annex I Party has been identified yet. Colombia fulfils the
participation criteria and has approved the project and authorized the project participants. The
DNA from Colombia confirmed that the project assists in achieving sustainable development.
The project correctly applies AM0013 “Avoided methane emissions from Organic Waste-
water treatment”, version 04.
The project results in reductions of CH4/CO2 emissions by: a) burning CH4 emissions from
the waste treatment process instead of passively venting and b) by generating electricity
and/or co generating heat and steam for the extractions plants with methane power generators
and implementing high pressure boilers instead of using diesel power plants located on site or
purchasing electricity from the grid. The project results in reductions of CH4/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 757 067
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.
Adequate training and monitoring procedures have been implemented.
In summary, it is DNV’s opinion that the “FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM Umbrella Project for
Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel Displacement and Cogeneration of Renewable Energy” in
Colombia, as described in the PDD version 8 of 16 June 2008, meets all relevant UNFCCC
requirements for the CDM and all relevant host Party criteria and correctly applies the
baseline and monitoring methodology AM0013. DNV thus requests the registration of the
project as a CDM project activity.
Page 5
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
2 INTRODUCTION
Federación Nacional de Cultivadores de Palma de Aceite (FEDEPALMA) has commissioned
Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) to perform a validation of the “FEDEPALMA
Cogeneration of Renewable Energy” project in Colombia (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 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 methodology. 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.
Page 6
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/ ACEE: Project design document for the FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM Umbrella
Project for Methane Capture, Fossil Fuel Displacement and Cogeneration of Renewable
Energy, Version 1 dated 15 November 2006, version 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7 and final version 8
dated 19 June 2008.
/2/ Colombian DNA, Colombian Approval Letter and Modified Approval Letter that
includes as project participants FEDEPALMA and the Andean Center for the
Economics in Environment, dated 25 June 2007 and 22 August 2007.
/3/ International Emission Trading Association (IETA) & the World Bank’s Prototype
Carbon Fund (PCF): Validation and Verification Manual. http://www.vvmanual.info
/4/ CDM Executive Board: AM0013, Approved methodology “Avoided methane
emissions from Organic Wastewater Treatment” Version 04, EB28
/5/ CDM Executive Board: ACM0002, Approved methodology “Consolidated baseline
methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”
Version 06, 19 May, 2006
/6/ ACEE: Baseline calculation spreadsheet December 21, 2006; 03 October, 2007 and 02
November, 2007.
/7/ ACEE – BTG Carbon Consultancy: Pre Feasibility study for the identification and
potential evaluation of carbon credits by methane capture applying a CDM project in
the Colombian palm sector. August, 2004
/8/ FEDEPALMA: Environmental Performance of the Colombian Oil Palm Industry, 20
January 2006.
/9/ FEDEPALMA: Environmental Guidelines for the Oil Palm Agroindustry Sub sector,
September 2003.
/10/ FEDEPALMA 2006 Statistical Yearbook, The Oil Palm Agroindustry in Colombia and
the World, June 2006
/11/ FEDEPALMA: CDM Project Social Consultations, July 2006
/12/ CENIPALMA: Technical Bulletin 10 Effluent management in oil palm extract plants 1.
Page 7
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Start up, operation and maintenance of stabilizing lagoons. March 1996

/13/ CENIPALMA: Technical Bulletin 11 Effluent management in extract plants 2.
Stabilizing lagoons design. March 1997
/14/ ACEE: Heat Generation emissions simulation 16 October, 2007
/15/ FEDEPALMA: Waste waters external laboratories analysis for all plants included in
the CDM project Delivered 21 August, 2007
/16/ FEDEPALMA: Representation agreement for the development of a CDM an umbrella
Project in the Colombian Palm sector between FEDEPALMA and the included
organizations FEDEPALMA 044/06 dated 30 January, 2006
/17/ FEDEPALMA: photographic compendium of the 32 plants waste water treatment
lagoons.
/18/ FEDEPALMA/ACEE: CDM project 32 companies baseline forms August 2006
/19/ ACEE: Baseline emission factor 02 December, 2007
/20/ Methodological “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing
methane” EB28 annex 13
/21/ CDM Executive Board: Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality
(version 03), EB29
/22/ Agricultural Minister; Superficial, underground, marine and estuary waters use and
liquid residuals Decree 1594 of 1984
/23/ Ministry of Environmental, Housing and Territorial Development: Environmental
license regulation: DECREE 1220 of 25 April, 2005
/24/ Victor Clavero Montenergro Predictive maintenance of electric generator in a tri-
generation plant in the Malaga delegation September 2006
/25/ ACEE FEDEPALMA: Monitoring scheme 19 December, 2006
/26/ Environment Agency: Guidance for Monitoring Landfill Gas Engine Emissions Draft
for Consultation: November 2002 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
/27/ IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006
/28/ Centro Nacional de Despacho: Real Generation Neon database 2005
The main changes between the PDD version 1 published for the 30 days stakeholder
commenting period and version 2 published for the second stakeholder commenting period
and final version 8 submitted for registration are as follows:
- Addressing of methodological changes from version 3 to version 4.
- Addressing corrections over clarifications and corrective action request.
- Update of starting date of the first crediting period
- Colombian grid emission factor calculation inclusion in the PDD.
- Revised section B.6.2 and B.7.1 according AM0013.
Page 8
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
- Revised Monitoring Plan in accordance to AM0013.
3.2 Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders
Date Name Organization Topic

- Environmental permits
José Francisco - National Environmental
/29/ 2006-12-24 Colombian DNA legislation
Charry Ruiz
- LoA status
- Local environmental
regulations.
Corporación
- Current local oil palm
Autónoma Regional
/30/ 2006-12-22 Alvaro Portilla producers’ environmental
de Santander -
fulfilment.
CAS.
- Stakeholders meeting
assistance.
- National oil palm statistics
- Stakeholders consultation
process
- Pre feasibility study
- Required technology
Miguel Angel - Management of the
/31/ 2006-12-22 FEDEPALMA umbrella project
Mazorra
- Project implementation
- Project initiation date
- Environmental
requirements in the Palm
sector
- Waste water treatment
conditions in the Colombian
Jesus Alberto
/32/ 2006-12-22 CENIPALMA palm oil industry.
Garcia
- Current Lagoons design,
operation and maintenance
Omar Cadena Palmeras de Puerto - Physical conditions
Wilches - Assessment of production
Argemiro Reyes Extractora figures as well as data
Monterrey provided to perform the
/33/ 2006-12-23 Tito Eduardo Palmas Oleaginosas baseline analysis.
Salcedo Bucarelia - Local permits and local
León Darío Uribe Oleaginosas Las environmental requirements.
Brisas - Lagoons External
Page 9
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
laboratory analysis.
- Proposed project
technology
- Baseline and monitoring
- Thomas Black
methodologies
- Juan Carlos
/34/ 2006-12-22 ACEE - Additionality evaluation
Caycedo
- Calculation of emission
- Yohany Acosta
reductions
- Monitoring plan
- Emission factor calculation
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 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 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 three tables. The different columns in these tables are
described in the figure below. The completed validation protocol for the “FEDEPALMA
Cogeneration of Renewable Energy” 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.
Page 10
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements for CDM Project Activities

Requirement Reference Conclusion
The requirements the Gives reference to the This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), a
project must meet. legislation or Corrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or non-compliance
agreement where the with stated requirements or a request for Clarification (CL)
requirement is found. where further clarifications are needed.
Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

Checklist Question Reference Means of Comment Draft and/or Final
verification (MoV) Conclusion
The various Gives Explains how The section is This is either acceptable
requirements in Table 2 reference to conformance with used to elaborate based on evidence
are linked to checklist documents the checklist and discuss the provided (OK), or a
questions the project where the question is checklist question corrective action request
should meet. The answer to investigated. and/or the (CAR) due to non-
checklist is organised in the checklist Examples of means conformance to compliance with the
different sections, question or of verification are the question. It is checklist question (See
following the logic of the item is document review further used to below). A request for
large-scale PDD found. (DR) or interview explain the clarification (CL) is used
template, version 03 - in (I). N/A means not conclusions when the validation team
effect as of: 28 July applicable. reached. has identified a need for
2006. Each section is further clarification.
then further sub-divided.
Validation Protocol Table 3: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarifications Ref. to checklist Summary of project Validation conclusion
and corrective action question in table 2 owner response
requests
If the conclusions from the Reference to the The responses given by This section should summarise
draft Validation are either checklist question the project participants the validation team’s
a CAR or a CL, these number in Table 2 during the responses and final
should be listed in this where the CAR or CL is communications with the conclusions. The conclusions
section. explained. validation team should should also be included in
be summarised in this Table 2, under “Final
section. Conclusion”.
Figure 1 Validation protocol tables
Page 11
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 Capuchino Alfonso Mexico
Validator
GHG Auditor Lara Barbara Mexico
Sector Expert Ramachandran Ramesh India
Technical Review Lehmann Michael Norway
The qualification of each individual validation team member is detailed in Appendix B to this
report.
Page 12
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 and resubmitted project design documentation.
4.1 Participation Requirements

The project participants are FEDEPALMA and Andean Center for Economics in the
Environment. The host Party is Colombia. There is no Annex I Party yet identified.
The host Party Colombia meets the relevant requirements to participate in the CDM. The
National DNA has provided approval of the project and confirmation of their voluntary
participation in it /2/.
As confirmed by the DNA of Colombia, the project activity assists Colombia in achieving
sustainable development by:
- Improving waste water quality.
- Reducing local and global emissions from fossil-generated electricity.
- Conversion to renewable energy:.
The validation did not reveal any information that indicates that public funding from an
Annex I Party is involved and that the project can be seen as a diversion of official
development assistance funding towards Colombia.
4.2 .Project Design

The umbrella project includes 32 palm oil plants in Colombia from the north, central eastern
and western regions of the country.
The 32 plants included in the project are:
REGION PALM OIL EXTRACTION PLANT TOWN, DEPT.
1 Central Bucarelia S.A. Puerto Wilches, Santander
2 Central Extractora Monterrey S.A. Puerto Wilches, Santander
3 Central Oleaginosas Las Brisas S.A. Puerto Wilches, Santander
4 Central Palmeras de Puerto Wilches S.A. Puerto Wilches, Santander
5 Central Extractora Central S.A. Puerto Wilches, Santander
6 Central Palmas del Cesar S.A. San Alberto, Cesar
7 Central Indupalma S.A. San Alberto, Cesar
8 Central Agroince Ltda. y Cia. S.C.A San Martin, Cesar
9 Eastern Agropecuaria La Loma Ltda. Acacias, Meta
10 Eastern Palmeras del Llano S.A. Acacias, Meta
11 Eastern Inversiones La Mejorana Ltda. Acacias, Meta
12 Eastern Guaicaramo S.A. Barranca de Upia, Meta
13 Eastern Hacienda La Cabaña S.A. Cumaral, Meta
14 Eastern Plantaciones Unipalma de los Llanos Cumaral, Meta
Page 13
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
15 Eastern Sapuga S.A. Puerto Gaitan, Meta

16 Eastern Aceites Manuelita S. A. San Carlos de Guaroa, Meta
17 Eastern Oleaginosas San Marcos Ltda. San Carlos de Guaroa, Meta
18 Eastern Palmeras El Morichal Ltda San Carlos de Guaroa, Meta
19 Eastern Entrepalmas S.A. San Martin, Meta
20 Eastern Palmeras San Pedro Ltda. San Martin, Meta
21 Eastern Palmeras Santana Ltda. Villanueva, Casanare
22 Eastern Extractora Sur del Casanare S.A. Villanueva, Casanare
23 North C.I. Tequendama S.A. Aracataca, Magadalena
24 North Oleoflores Ltda. Codazzi, Cesar
25 North Aceites S.A. El Reten, Magdalena
26 North C.I. El Roble S.A. Tucurinca, Magdalena
27 North Frupalma S.A. Tucurinca, Magdalena
28 Western Astorga S.A. Tumaco, Nariño
29 Western Palmas de Tumaco S.A. Tumaco, Nariño
30 Western Palmeiras S.A. Tumaco, Nariño
31 Western Palmar Santa Elena Ltda. Tumaco, Nariño
32 Western Palmas Santafé Ltda. Tumaco, Nariño
As part of the validation DNV visited 4 plants (selected in a random sample from the same
region) in order to assess current waste water treatment conditions, management system and
transparency of the supplied data applied for the baseline calculation. In the case were
facilities were not visited photographs of current process were requested and data applied for
baseline and emission reduction estimations were assessed in all cases. The baseline Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) was checked using data presented for the baseline year 2005 (with
the exception of the Extractora Central S. A. plant where the baseline calculation was done
taking into account the information of 2007, as this was a new palm oil processing plant
which started operations in the middle of 2006).
Each of the 32 participating plants will implement one or more of the three technology
options described below. Given that the palm oil extraction process is very similar from plant
to plant, varying primarily in scale, the technology to be used to implement options I, II and
III will be similar across plants, but will vary in terms of scale and some technology
parameters may change among plants because each is free to purchase the technology from
the supplier which offers the best conditions.
Technology Option I: Methane Mitigation Only. A covered anaerobic digester must be built
to optimize wastewater treatment efficiency and to capture the entire biogas/methane flow
produced. This will be done in one of two ways: A) retrofit and cover the existing
methanogenic lagoon, to convert it into a covered anaerobic digester with adequate sludge
management capability, and capture and burn the methane in a high efficiency flare or in an
industrial oven, or b) a new covered anaerobic digester is built and the old anaerobic lagoon is
decommissioned. The new digester is built to conform to national waste water treatment laws
and regulations, and is designed on the basis of the acceptability criteria of the approved
Page 14
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
methodology AM0013. To burn the methane, the plants will use an enclosed high flare
system.
Technology Option II: Methane Mitigation plus Electricity Generation for Internal Use. In
addition to the methane capture technology implemented in Technology Option I, biogas
cleaning systems and methane driven electricity generation plants are purchased and installed.
CO2 emissions that previously resulted from diesel-driven electricity generation plants or, if
applicable, power plants connected to the grid are displaced by generating electricity with
methane in specially designed biogas power plants.
Technology Option III: Cogeneration of heat and power. In addition to the methane capture
technology investments for Technology Option I, this option includes either the retrofitting of
existing low efficiency boilers or the investment in new high efficiency boilers for high
pressure steam generation, and the purchase of new high efficiency steam turbines to generate
electricity. Heat is currently generated using biomass. The use of biogas for heat generation
will thus not displace fossil fuels and result in reduction of CO2 emissions. However,
electricity generation will displace diesel-driven electricity generation or, if applicable, grid
electricity.
In all cases an agreement between FEDEPALMA and palm oil producers included in the
project ensures that people involved in the operation of above mentioned equipment will be
trained by manufacturers in order to ensure correct equipment operation and maintenance.
Project duration is considered as 30 years and a renewable credit period of 7 years is selected
starting on 1 September 2008 or the date of registration, whichever occurs later.
4.3 Baseline Determination

The project applies the approved baseline and monitoring methodology AM0013 “Avoided
methane emissions from organic waste-water treatment”, version 04 /4/, and the “Tool to
determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane” /20/.
The baseline determination considers the emissions from a) the waste treatment processes; b)
emissions from electricity consumption /generation and c) emissions from thermal energy
generation.
As per AM0013 the baseline is dynamic and determined based on the flow rate and COD of
the organic wastewater entering the digesters in the project scenario, adjusted for the ratio of
pre-project COD levels of the wastewater entering and leaving the lagoons. Pre-project COD
levels of the wastewater at the inflow and outflow of the existing anaerobic lagoons were
determined based on one year historical data as required by AM0013.
All plants were considered in order to develop baseline emissions related to the waste
treatment process, but no all oil plants producers are expecting to apply Technology Option II
and III, and only those ones that expressed interest in utilizing biogas to produce electricity or
thermal energy were collecting data on the historic electricity consumptions during 3 years
(no date on thermal energy consumption was collected as displacement of thermal energy will
not result in reduction of CO2 emissions as currently biomass residues are used to generate
thermal energy). If other plants chose to utilize biogas for electricity generation, data on the
Page 15
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
historic electricity needs to be reported in the projects and monitoring reports and verified by
the verifying DOE.
PARTICIPATING EXTRACTION PLANTS Utilisation of biogas

Electricity Heat
AGROINCE LTDA & CIA S.C.A X
INDUPALMA S.A. X
PALMAS DEL CESAR S.A. X
OLEAGINOSAS LAS BRISAS X
S.A.
CENTRAL ZONE PALMERAS DE PUERTO X
WILCHES S.A.
PALMAS OLEAGINOSAS X
BUCARELIA S.A.
EXTRACTORA CENTRAL X
EXTRACTORA MONTERREY X
S.A.
ACEITES MANUELITA S.A. X
PALMERAS SANTANA LTDA X
PALMERAS SAN PEDRO LTDA. X
SAPUGA S.A. X
EL PALMAR DEL LLANO S.A. X
PALMERAS EL MORICHAL X
LTDA
OLEAGINOSAS SAN MARCOS X
LTDA
EASTERN ZONE INVERSIONES LA MEJORANA X
LTDA
HACIENDA LA CABAÑA S.A. X
ENTREPALMAS S.A. X
GUAICARAMO S.A. X
EXTRACTORA DEL SUR DE X
CASANARE S.A.
AGROPECUARIA LA LOMA X
LTDA
PLANTACIONES UNIPALMA DE X
LOS LLANOS S.A.
C.I. TEQUENDAMA S.A. X
C.I. EL ROBLE S.A. X
NORTHERN ZONE EXTRACTORA FRUPALMA S.A. X
ACEITES S.A. X
OLEOFLORES LTDA X
WESTERN ZONE PALMAS DE TUMACO S.A. X
PALMEIRAS S.A. X
Page 16
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
PALMAR SANTA ELENA S.A. X

ASTORGA S.A. X
PALMAS SANTA FE S.A. X
The methodology is applicable to the project activity since it aggregates a bundle of similar
methane recovery projects, each of which has at least one organic wastewater treatment plant
and meets the following conditions:
• The existing wastewater treatment systems consist of open lagoons with an “active”
anaerobic condition complemented with cooling and facultative lagoons. The existing
wastewater treatment systems are characterized as follows:
The depth of the open anaerobic lagoons participating in this bundled project are,
in all cases, more than 1m;
The residence time of the sludge in the open lagoons participating in this bundled
project is, in all cases, more than thirty days. This was assessed by reviewing all
the design data of the Oil Palm Plants, where one of the purposes of the lagoon
construction design was to ensure an optimal COD and BOD removal from waste
waters passing throughout the lagoon systems in order to comply with decree
1594/1984. All lagoon were designed to have a residence time of organic matter
superior than 30 days, During the site visit it was confirmed that organic matter
sediments remain in the bottom of the lagoon longer than one year;
The temperature of the sludge in the open lagoons participating in this bundled
project is, in all cases, higher than 10ºC. The monthly average ambient temperature
in the northern region is above 27°C; in the cooler days the ambient temperature is
above 22°C. Moreover, the waste water leaves the palm oil extraction plants at
50°C in average. Also in the other regions, all the plants are near sea level, the
temperatures are tropical humid.
• The project activity involves no sludge storage before land application. The handling
of sludge is to be carried out under aerobic conditions.
As required by the methodology, the various credible alternatives for the treatment of
wastewater and sludge management were evaluated. Existing baseline conditions were
verified by different means including a) site visit to 4 plants; b) interview with National
sectoral experts /31/-/33/; c) document review of national sectoral technical information /8/-
/10/; /12/ and /13/ and d) meetings with local and national environmental authorities /29/,/30/,
sectoral authorities (FEDEPALMA and CEDEPALMA) /31/ and /32/. These verifications as
well as a legal requirement assessment demonstrate that:
- There is no requirement to capture and/or destroy methane from the waste water treatment
process.
- All existing waste water treatment plants (lagoon systems) in all the units complies with
environmental regulations as stated in Decree 1594 of 1984 /22/,
- There are no regulations that enforce the need to construct covered anaerobic digesters.
Hence DNV was able to confirm that the use of anaerobic lagoon for the treatment of
wastewater is the most plausible baseline scenario.
Page 17
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
The physical delineation of the project is defined as the extraction plant site including the
waste water treatment and sludge management system.
The system boundaries are presented as follow:

GHGs involved Description
CH4 Direct emissions from the waste treatment
processes.
CO2 Emissions from electricity consumption /
Baseline emissions generation
CO2 Emissions from thermal energy generation
(as biomass is used in the baseline, these
emissions are considered CO2 neutral)
CO2 On-site fossil fuel consumption due to the
project activity
Project emissions CO2 Emissions from on-site electricity use
CH4 Direct emissions from the waste treatment
processes.
Leakage No leakage is associated with the project activity
4.4 Additionality
The additionality of the project activity has been established for all three technology options
individually using the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” version 3
/21/:
Validation formally commenced only few days after the start date of the project, i.e. 15
November 2006 when FEDEPALMA began contractual consolidation of the participating
plants in the CDM umbrella project. In addition, evidences were presented that demonstrate
that CDM was considered long before the decision to proceed with the project activity. These
include among others the decision by the Board of Directors of the Fondo de Fomento
Palmero (Palm Sector Promotion Fund) to finance a CDM UMBRELLA PROJECT pre-
feasibility study in December 2002, implementation of pilot CDM technology project in
second semester of 2003 and pre-feasibility study finished august 2004 /7/ for the
FEDEPALM CDM UMBRELLA PROJECT.
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws
and regulations
Each technology option includes 3 project activities alternatives and all of them are consistent
with the current laws and regulations such as Decree 1594 of 1984 /22/.
The three alternatives are as follow:
- First Alternative: Continue with business as usual technology and processes.
Page 18
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
- Second Alternative: Implement the technological options proposed by this project activity
without CDM or CER revenues.
- Third Alternative: Implement the technological options proposed by this project activity
with CDM and CER revenues.
- Technology Option I complies with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements as
confirmed during interviews with local and national environmental agencies //29/ and /30/ and
by assessing each plant external laboratories tests to waste water discharges /15/.
- Technology Option II complies with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements as stated
by local and national environmental authorities during site visit. There are no laws,
regulations or decrees that require palm oil mills to generate renewable energy with biogas, or
that would have required the extractor plants to adopt this technology. The purchase and
implementation of biogas-methane electricity generation plants along with the required
equipment, infrastructure and technology, are in complete compliance with all national and
local laws and regulations.
- Technology Option III complies with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements as
stated by local and national environmental authorities during site visit. The purchase and
implementation of high pressure boilers, steam turbines, and the required equipment,
infrastructure and technology for cogeneration, are in complete compliance with all national
and local laws and regulations.
All palm oil extraction plants will implement Technology Option I. Additionally, 19 out of
the 32 palm oil extraction plants have expressed their interest to implement to utilise biogas to
generate elecricity. CO2 emission reductions from those 10 extraction plants were calculated
and presented within the PDD and its supportive calculation spreasheets. These plants will
effectively implement electricity generation based upon cost-benefit analyses performed once
the project is registered and the value of the CER incomes is determined. Those plants which
did not expressed their interest to implement electricity generation will proceed in the same
way as those that explicitly expressed their will: They will take a decision of investing in
electricity generation based upon cost-benefit analyses once the projects is registered and the
value of the CER incomes is determined. The total emission reductions from the 19 plants that
expressed their interest to implement electricity generation is 8.087 tCO2e/year which
represents 1,6% of the total emission reductions for the whole project. Implementation of heat
generation will follow the same pattern of decision making: The plant managers will
effectively implement heat generation based upon cost-benefit analyses performed once the
project is registered and the value of the CER incomes is determined. As heat is currently
generated from biomass residues, heat generation from biogas will not result emission
reductions and would thus not have any impacts on the project’s emission reductions.
Step2: Investment analysis

- Technology Option I applies option 1 (simple cost analysis).
- Technology Option II and III applies option 2 (the Investment Comparison Analysis).
Page 19
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Technology Option I: The CDM pre-feasibility study conducted in 2004 /7/ carried out an
extensive financial analysis of the costs and benefits associated with converting to the
methane capture technology in 16 representative extraction plants located in the 4 regions of
Colombia. As described in the simple financial analysis, without CER revenues, investment in
Technology Option I produces negative returns, because there are no other revenues
associated with the investment other than CERs. With CER revenues estimated at a price of
US$6, the projects become economically attractive and makes the conversion of the existing
open lagoon waste water treatment system to the CDM project activity of covered anaerobic
digesters economically feasible.
It was assessed that in the baseline case, all 32 plants have complete waste water treatment
(WWT) lagoons operating at levels that comply with national and local regulations. At least
80% of the BOD is being eliminated by the WWT systems in the baseline case. The project
activity which will cover the anaerobic lagoons may increase the efficiency of WWT above
80%, but the participating plants are unsure as to how much it will increase. Therefore, the
savings from reduced pollution charges will be marginal and too uncertain to be included in
the financial analysis.
It was also assessed that Decree 1594/84 states that firms delivering wastewater to rivers must
implement WWT systems with efficiencies no lower than 80% BOD removal. On the top of
this mandatory removal, decree 3100/2003 obliges firms to report BOD loads to rivers and to
pay a charge of Col$118,59/kg BOD in the effluent thrown away to rivers. The Colombian
Pollution Charges program brings incentives to polluters in order to improve their existing
WWT systems, but do not bring incentives to capture and mitigate methane as the project
activity describes. It is not possible to assume that the pollution charges program will lead to
improvements in the WWT systems that, in the future, incorporate neither an enclosed
anaerobic digester, nor capture of methane emission, nor flaring methane in an enclosed
flaring system.
Technology Option II and III:

The CDM pre-feasibility study /7/ utilized both IRR and NPV to compare the investment
required for Technology Option II and III with CERs revenue and without CER revenue, in
contrast to continuing with the business as usual which requires no incremental investment.
These analyses take into account the savings from not having to purchase diesel fuel or
electricity from the grid. The CDM pre-feasibility study /7/ calculated the suitable financial
indicator for Technology Option II and III of the proposed CDM project activity. It included
all relevant costs (for example, the investment cost, the operations and maintenance costs),
and revenues (excluding CER revenues, but including subsidies/fiscal incentives where
applicable), and, as appropriate, non-market cost and benefits in the case of public investors.
For option II and III also a sensitivity analysis is presented which takes into account critical
assumptions and variables as follows:
• The cost of diesel fuel including transport, which has risen greatly since the pre-feasibility
study was incresed;
• The price of grid-supplied electricity, which could increase over time significantly;
Page 20
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
The results of the investment analysis were presented in a transparent manner with all the
relevant assumptions presented in the PDD /1/ as well was assessed to ensure transparency.
During site visit the origin and validity of the information applied were assessed, concluding
that the documented results are real and accurate against data delivered.
Step 3: Barrier analysis

This step was not selected by project participants.
Step 4: Common practise analysis

Technology Option I:
All of the 52 palm oil extraction plants in Colombia today maintain and operate their open
lagoon wastewater treatment system in order to comply with national laws and regulations,
and do so under guidance from FEDEPALMA. Only the CDM pilot plant has implemented
and operates the desired new technology, which was implemented with FEDEPALMA to
prepare for the SECTORAL CDM UMBRELLA PROJECT.
As observed during the site visit to the selected oil plant producers facilities and as confirmed
after meeting local and national environmental authorities, besided the FEDEPALMA CDM
project bundle there are no similar practises as Technology Option I, converting open
anaerobic lagoons to capture the methane and mitigate it. There are no similar technologies
implemented in other agro-industrial sectors or in other industrial sectors of Colombia.
Technology Option II:

All of the plants in the sector have at least one diesel power plant, even if they are
interconnected, to ensure electricity supply if grid supply is interupted. Besided the
FEDEPALMA CDM pilot project, there are no plants in Colombia operating with power
plants designed for operation only with methane from biogas.
Technology Option III:

There are no plants in Colombia operating with cogeneration systems designed to capture the
methane and employ it in an efficient manner to co-generate heat, vapour and electricity for
own use.
From the analyses provided by project participants it can be determined that the alternative
“Continue with business as usual” for all 3 Technology Options is the most likely baseline
scenario. Therefore, emission reductions attributable to the project are additional to any that
would occur in the absence of the project activity.
4.5 Monitoring
The project applies the approved monitoring methodology AM0013 “Avoided methane
emissions from Organic Wastewater Treatment” Version 04 /4/.
For grid electricity displaced, ACM0002 “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-
connected electricity generation from renewable sources” version 6 /5/ has been applied.
The monitoring parameters are adequate and consistent with both methodologies AM0013
and ACM0002.
Page 21
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Details of the data to be collected, the recording frequency, proportion, and control forms are
described and deemed appropriate.
The responsibilities and authorities for local project management are described in the PDD,
and overall project responsibilities and authorities are stated in the FEDEPALMA
Representation agreement for the development of a CDM an umbrella Project in the
Colombian Palm sector between FEDEPALMA and the included organizations /14/.
Project management includes the following responsibilities:
- Baseline and project data monitoring will be conducted by the extraction plant’s metric
analyst with the support of the enterprise engineer representing the umbrella project.
- Calibration of monitoring equipment will be carried out by independent, outside
laboratories.
4.5.1 Parameters determined ex-ante

- COD that leaves the anaerobic lagoon with the effluent, D3 / COD a, out, the value applied is
a field measurement.
- COD that enters the lagoon which is assumed to be equal to the COD input to the digester or
directed to land application, D4 / COD a, in, the value applied is a direct measurement.
- Amount of electricity in the year y that would be consumed at the project site in the absence
of the project activity, D7 / EGy, the value applied is a direct measurement (Historic
electricity consumption for some more mills may be added during verification).
- Quantity of thermal energy that would be consumed in year y at the project site in the
absence of the project activity using fossil fuel, D9/HGbl,y, the value applied is 0, None of the
project participants use fossil fuels for thermal energy production purposes.
- Maximum methane producing capacity Bo IPCC /27/ default value of 0.21 will be used.
- CEF BL, therm, CO2 emissions intensity for thermal generation, value 0.
For sites where the electricity used in absence of the project activity would be generated by
means of diesel fired generator sets, CEFBl,elec,y equals 0.8 tCO2/MWh following Table AMS-
1.D.1 due aggregated electricity generation of all project participants being far less than
15GWh/y. For sites where the electricity used in absence of the project activity would be
imported from the grid, the CO2 emission factor for electricity consumed at the project site in
the absence of the project activity, the calculation was performed according to ACM0002 v.6.
The calculation performed in the attached file is only for demonstrative purposes related to
the present PDD. CEF Bl, elec, y will be calculated ex-post in a yearly basis during the whole
crediting period.
4.5.2 Parameters monitored ex-post

The baseline and project emission parameters that are monitored ex-post are indicated in
Section B.7.1 and Annex 4 of the PDD. DNV has verified that the list of parameters and
monitoring methodology are in line with the requirements of Version4 AM0013, ACM002
and the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane”.
Page 22
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
The CO2 emission factor for displacing grid electricity CEFBl,, elec,y will be determined based
on the a dispatch data analysis for the operating margin (OM) as described in ACM0002 /5/
and the calculation described in emission factor calculation spreadsheet /19/. For ex-ante
emission reduction forecast contained in the PDD, the operating margin and build margin
emission coefficients have been determined using data from 2005 and was calculated to be of
0.2766 tCO2e/MWh. During the project’s crediting period the emission factor will be determined
ex-post based on national data is published by the dispatch centre of Colombia /28/.
4.5.3 Management system and quality assurance
PDD /1/ provides in the monitoring plan a clear description of basic quality assurance
activities, which were found correctly documented and addressed.
FEDEPALMA has in place a management system requirements which will ensure adequate
project monitoring and performance, but individually oil palm producers do not in all cases
have management system requirements (training, calibration, corrective and preventive
actions, document and record control) Specially, emergency procedures are not in place and
the implementation of such procedures will need to be verified during the first verification by
the verifying DOE.
During site visit and document review it was verified that the FEDEPALMA agreement with
involved oil palm producers indicates the inclusion of training requirements for employees
involved in the project as well as operation and maintenance requirements.
The monitoring system /25/, which will be installed by all 32 participating plants, relies on
continuous emissions monitoring for all relevant applications, with fully automated data
gathering and storage, with parallel reporting to all interested parties. The automated
monitoring system at each extraction plant will interconnect to a sector-wide computer
network that will permit the capture of the information flow from each instrument, in order to
save it in relational databases, which will permit the digital archiving of the emissions data for
any consultation or calculations of baseline emissions, project activity emissions, and
estimation of CERs being generated. To ensure the continuity of the capture and registration
of the data flows, thereby reducing the risks of data loss when maintenance or calibration is
carried out on the instruments, monitoring redundancy will be applied. Key data flows will
have double flow monitors. The Bundled CDM project information will be managed by
FEDEPALMA who will analyze the consolidated data for the 32 plants and use it to prepare
the quarterly and yearly monitoring reports required for annual verification.
The responsibilities and authorities for project management have been defined and procedures
for monitoring and reporting, including QA/QC procedures, have been identified.
All monitoring data will be kept for at least two years after the end of the crediting period or
the last issuance of CERs for this project activity, whichever occurs later.
4.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions

The emission reductions are calculated as the difference of the baseline emissions and the
project emissions. No leakage is associated with the project activity.
The formulas and factors used in the project’s emissions calculations are in accordance to the
approved baseline methodology AM0013, version 4.
Page 23
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
All aspects related to the direct and indirect GHG emissions relevant to the project activity
have been addressed and calculations are presented in a transparent manner and in line with
the approved methodology AM0013 version 04.
The calculations for the ex-ante estimation of expected emission reductions are transparently
documented, and correct and appropriate assumptions and emission factors in accordance
with the emission factors given by AM0013 version 04 have been applied.
Baseline emissions
Baseline emissions were calculated considering the 32 plants indication to apply one of the 3
technology option described. In each case palm oil producers were requested to deliver in a
survey /18/ information which was included in the baseline emission calculation file /6/. This
information involves chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the effluent that historically entered
the lagoon in the absence of the project activity, the amount of electricity that was historically
consumed at the project site, the ambient temperature for the region, the current lagoon
dimensions, on-site electricity generation with diesel generators, monthly production and
organic charge at the inlet and outlet of the treatment system.
Baseline emissions are calculated in two sections:

(i) Lagoon baseline emissions
(ii) Electricity baseline emissions.
(i) Lagoon baseline emissions

The baseline emissions from the lagoon are estimated based on the, the maximum methane
producing capacity (Bo) and a methane conversion factor (MCF) that expresses what
proportion of the effluent would be anaerobically digested in the open lagoons. Project
participants applies a value of (Bo) 0.21 kg CH4/kg COD. And MCFbaseline,m is estimated as
the product of the fraction of anaerobic degradation due to depth (fd) and the fraction of
anaerobic degradation due to temperature (ft).
(ii) Electricity baseline emissions

The amount of electricity that was historically consumed at the project site was requested
from all oil plants intending to generate electricity and verified on site during the site visit to
the selected plants. Information were calculated using the average of the 3 years 2003-2005.
The CO2 emission factor for electricity consumed at the project site in the absence of the
project activity (tCO2/MWh) will be calculated according to ACM0002 /5/ applying the
dispatch data analysis for the OM. A combined margin of 0.2766 tCO2e/MWh was applied for
the ex-ante emission reduction forecast included in the PDD /19/.
The rest of the values were established with a value of zero as:
- So far, none of the project participants have expressed interest in generating power to feed
into the grid
- None of the project participants use fossil fuels for thermal energy production purposes.
Page 24
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Project Emissions
The project activity emissions consist of:
the residual methane emitted from the facultative lagoons,
physical leakage from the digester,
stack emissions from the flare, industrial boiler or the biogas generation plant alter
burning the methane,
emissions from heat use and electricity use due to the project activity using fossil fuel, for
example if there is insufficient biogas or biomass available at any point in time;
emissions related to energy consumption in auxiliary equipment needed to operate the
digester, the filtering systems, and to manage the sludge,
Emissions from land application of sludge,
Emissions from wastewater removed in the dewatering process.
Methane emissions from lagoons

The calculation of these CH4 emissions is conservatively carried out in the same way as for
the baseline, using the same values for Bo and the methane conversion factor (MCF):
Physical leakage from biodigesters

The project applies the IPCC guidelines specify physical leakage from anaerobic digesters as
being 15% of total biogas production.
Stack emissions from the flare or energy generation

Methane contained in the residual biogas collected from the anaerobic digester outlets will be
mitigated in two possible ways:
1. In generation of electricity in gensets, or of heat in boilers, during the mill’s operating
hours; or,
2. In the flaring system when the mill is not operating and gas is not stored in storage
tanks.
Ex-ante project emissions of methane from the stacks and ex ante residual emissions of
methane from the flares are calculated using the "Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gases containing methane” /20/.
When biogas is used to generate electricity or heat in the gensets or the boilers, the project
will only use new equipment with manufacturers specifications that ensure that methane
mitigation efficiencies are higher than 99%.
For the flare efficiency of the enclosed flare efficiency, the project will use the option of
applying a 90% default flare efficiency and will monitor compliance of the flares’ operation
with manufacturer’s specifications and parameters.
Emissions related to energy consumption in auxiliary equipment needed to operate the

digester, the filtering systems, and to manage the sludge as well as Emissions from heat use
and electricity use due to the project activity (PEelec/heat):
Page 25
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
Increase of electricity use is expected to be negligible since additional use of electricity by the
project activity will not be higher than 1% from the current electricity use which was
corroborated by an analysis of electricity consumption of auxiliary equipment proposed for
the project. According to AM0013, electricity generation and thermal generation are required
to be calculated if methane is used to generate electricity and/or heat and project participants
wish to claim emission reductions from this activity. As per electricity generation, project
participants willing to install power plants will implement power capacity enough to become
self sufficient in electricity consumption. Therefore, CEFd is expected to be zero.
Accordingly, as per heat generation, project participants willing to produce heat from the
methane content in the biogas, at present use biomass from Fresh Fruit Bunches to produce
heat. Therefore, CERPr,therm,y is expected to be zero, as well. As a conservative measure, 1% of
the baseline emissions were assumed for the calculation of emissions from heat use and
electricity use due to the project activity.
Emissions from land application of sludge

Nitrous oxide emissions from land application of sludge are to be estimated in accordance
with AM0013.:The project activity will improve sludge management and ensure aerobic
degradation of the sludge both in the dewatering facility and in land application. Thus,
anaerobic COD degradation from sludge and formation of nitrous oxide is assumed to be
negligible in the project activity. As demonstrated in baseline file /6/ and as a conservative
measure, 1% of the calculated baseline emissions are deducted due to emissions from sludge
management.
The “Improved Dewatering Facility” will include gravity based drainage for removal of
excess water from the sludge, with daily transport of the dewatered sludge to the palm
growing fields. The excess water from the sludge will be re-injected into the anaerobic
digester while the sludge will be dispersed in the growing fields in the most aerobic
conditions possible. According to the AM0013, it is not possible to assure full aerobic
degradation of the sludge. Data parameters D32 and D33 takes into account this potential
condition and discount from the baseline emissions the potential methane and nitrous oxide
emissions to be generated in the land application of the sludge.
Emissions from wastewater removed in the dewatering process

These emissions apply maximum methane producing capacity and methane conversion factor
which were already estimated.
4.7 Environmental Impacts

The construction and implementation of the three CDM options are non-intrusive to the
surrounding communities and do not negatively affect local environmental conditions. As
such, the construction and implementation do not require environmental licenses or permits
from the regional or national environmental authorities as stated by National and local
environmental authorities and stated in Decree 1220 of 25 April, 2005 /23/.
As plants will work to maximize the efficiency of their wastewater treatment in the new
anaerobic digesters, this should result in substantial improvements in the quality of final water
effluents. In addition, odours are eliminated by capturing, cleaning and burning the biogas.
As such, the implementation and operation of biogas capture and mitigation will produce net
Page 26
DET NORSKE VERITAS
VALIDATION REPORT
positive benefits locally and globally with regard to water effluents and to local and global
emissions from waste water treatment.
As biogas and biomass displace diesel and grid electricity, a number of collateral emissions
will be displaced in addition to GHG, locally and globally. These include heavy and fine
particulates, SO2, NOx and CO among others. This elimination of fossil fuel emissions
through the generation of renewable energy from biomass and biogas should improve the
local environment in general, as well as workplace conditions. However, increased burning of
residual fiber and residual nutshells in the cogeneration process which will occur in some of
the plants may result in increased emissions of dark smoke, consisting of particulates, which
may be controlled with new investments in technology such as Cyclones.
During site visit were evaluated the pre-feasibility study /7/ which includes the Environmental
Impact assessment. As well, were interviewed project participants and local environmental
authorities in order to ensure that environmental concerns were adequate identified and
actions correctly taken.
4.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders

After all the participating extractor plants were consolidated in the CDM Project Bundle, the
Palm Growers Association invited a wide range of stakeholders in the areas where the
projects are located to presentations and in-depth discussions of the new CDM emissions
reduction and renewable energy project. Stakeholders meetings included community
representatives, municipal health and environment offices, regional environmental authorities,
fishing associations, environmental NGOs, water service utility companies, community action
committees, and universities, among others. Stakeholder consultations were held in each of
the four major palm growing regions near the project activities. The new project activity was
presented in detail, and stakeholders gave their comments in writing Project participants have
delivered evidence of all stakeholders meeting and comments received./11/
No actions were necessary in order to take due account of comments received and this was
verified by interviews with different persons that assisted in the process /33/.
4.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs

The PDD (version 1 dated 15 November 2006 applying version 03 of AM0013 and version 2
dated 15 November 2006 applying version 04 of AM0013) was made publicly available on
DNV’s climate change website1 in two different periods and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs
were through the CDM website invited to provide comments during a 30 days period for
version 1 from 22 November 2006 to 21 December 2006 and from 15 March 2007 to 13
April, 2007, resepectively. In both periods no comments were received.
CDM Validation 2007-0011, rev. 01 27
1
http://www.dnv.com/focus/climate_change/projects/projectlist.asp?
Page 27
DET NORSKE VERITAS
APPENDIX A
CDM VALIDATION PROTOCOL
CDM Validation, DNV Report No. 2007-0011, rev. 01 A-1

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Table 1 Mandatory Requirements for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Activities
About Parties
1. The project shall assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2 N/A
part of their emission reduction commitment under Art. 3.
2. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in contributing to the ultimate Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2. OK
objective of the UNFCCC.
3. The project shall have the written approval of voluntary participation from the Kyoto Protocol CAR 1
designated national authority of each Party involved. Art. 12.5a, OK
CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a
4. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in achieving sustainable development Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.2, CAR 1
and shall have obtained confirmation by the host country thereof. CDM Modalities and Procedures §40a OK
5. In case public funding from Parties included in Annex I is used for the project Decision 17/CP.7, OK
activity, these Parties shall provide an affirmation that such funding does not result CDM Modalities and Procedures
in a diversion of official development assistance and is separate from and is not Appendix B, § 2
counted towards the financial obligations of these Parties.
6. Parties participating in the CDM shall designate a national authority for the CDM. CDM Modalities and Procedures §29 OK
7. The host Party and the participating Annex I Party shall be a Party to the Kyoto CDM Modalities §30/31a OK
Protocol.
8. The participating Annex I Party’s assigned amount shall have been calculated and CDM Modalities and Procedures §31b No Annex1
recorded. party
identified
9. The participating Annex I Party shall have in place a national system for CDM Modalities and Procedures §31b No Annex1
estimating GHG emissions and a national registry in accordance with Kyoto party

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Protocol Article 5 and 7. identified
About additionality
10. Reduction in GHG emissions shall be additional to any that would occur in the Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5c, OK
absence of the project activity, i.e. a CDM project activity is additional if CDM Modalities and Procedures §43
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those
that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity.
About forecast emission reductions and environmental impacts
11. The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5b OK
related to the mitigation of climate change.
For large-scale projects only
12. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project CDM Modalities and Procedures §37c OK
activity, including transboundary impacts, shall be submitted, and, if those impacts
are considered significant by the project participants or the Host Party, an
environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as required by the
Host Party shall be carried out.
About stakeholder involvement
13. Comments by local stakeholders shall be invited, a summary of these provided and CDM Modalities and Procedures §37b OK
how due account was taken of any comments received.
14. Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited NGOs shall have been invited to CDM Modalities and Procedures §40 OK
comment on the validation requirements for minimum 30 days, and the project
design document and comments have been made publicly available.
Other
15. The baseline and monitoring methodology shall be previously approved by the CDM Modalities and Procedures §37e CL 1
CDM Executive Board. OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS

16. A baseline shall be established on a project-specific basis, in a transparent manner CDM Modalities and Procedures §45c,d CL 2
and taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies and OK
circumstances.
17. The baseline methodology shall exclude to earn CERs for decreases in activity CDM Modalities and Procedures §47 OK
levels outside the project activity or due to force majeure.
18. The project design document shall be in conformance with the UNFCCC CDM- CDM Modalities and Procedures OK
PDD format. Appendix B, EB Decision
19. Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting shall be in accordance with CDM Modalities and Procedures §37f OK
the modalities described in the Marrakech Accords and relevant decisions of the
COP/MOP.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Table 2 Requirements Checklist

CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Ref. MoV* COMMENTS
Concl. Concl.
Interview
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 /1/ DR The 31 participating extraction plants are CL 2 OK
(geographical) clearly defined? located in the four major palm oil production
regions, which are North; Central; Eastern;
and Western Regions.
PDD describes an umbrella project that
includes 31 palm oil plants but baseline
calculation sheet includes 32 plants.
A.1.2. Are the project’s system boundaries (components /1/ DR Yes- Clearly defined for each one of the 3 OK
and facilities used to mitigate GHGs) clearly technology options.
defined? Technology Option I: methane mitigation
only. A covered anaerobic digester; high
efficiency flare or industrial oven; real time
data metering; sludge extraction; and biogas
cleaning and filtering systems. For the
Technology Option I, there are two plausible
methods, one by modifying the existing
lagoon, and the second by installing a new
one.
Technology Option II: Methane Mitigation
plus Electricity Generation for Internal a

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
biogas electricity generation plant running on
cleaned biogas-methane, obtained from the
covered anaerobic digester and data loggers
and analyzers;
Technology Option III: Cogeneration of heat
and power.: New High Efficiency Boilers;
New high efficiency small scale steam
turbines to generate electricity; Electricity
control and distribution technology;
Technology and equipment for
interconnection to the grid. And Data
monitoring, recovery and transmission
systems to central databases.
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 /1/ DR The Host Party is the Republic of Colombia; OK
participating in the project? Project participants area FEDEPALMA and
Andean Center for Economics in the
Environment
A.2.2. Have all involved Parties provided a valid and /1/ DR No written proof from the Colombian DNA. CAR 1 OK
complete letter of approval and have all /2/ Project participants deliver the LoA from the
private/public project participants been authorized Colombian DNA. There is no Annex-I party
by an involved Party? identified.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
LoA was provided.

A.2.3. Do all participating Parties fulfil the participation /1/ DR Colombia has designated the Ministry of OK
requirements as follows: Environment and Housing and territorial
- Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol development as the DNA and ratified the
- Voluntary participation Kyoto Protocol on November 30th, 2001.
- Designated a National Authority No Annex I Party is yet identified.
A.2.4. Potential public funding for the project from /1/ DR There is no evidence of public funding from OK
Parties in Annex I shall not be a diversion of I parties included in Annex 1.
official development assistance.
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 /1/ DR In Colombia there is no reference to similar OK
current good practices? I projects. FEDEPALMA with other oil palm
producers develop a digester used
specifically as a study model for this Project.
A.3.2. Does the project use state of the art technology or /1/ DR Yes. Even that a technology supplier has not OK
would the technology result in a significantly I been selected yet, the project has been
better performance than any commonly used conceptualized with the most modern

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
technologies in the host country? technology available or even with developed
technology, which will meet with the
AM00013 methodology requirements.
A.3.3. Does the project make provisions for meeting /1/ DR FEDEPALMA acting as a Project participant OK
training and maintenance needs? I and as association of all palm oil producers
provide bid specifications including training
and maintenance support by equipment
supplier.
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 /1/ DR Even that LOA had not been issued yet, an CAR 1 OK
assists it in achieving sustainable development? I interview with Colombian DNA declares that
CDM projects must look to be implemented
in full industrial sectors rather than sole
organizations. Palm oil plants are identified
as one of the most critical producers in the
country.
LoA had been delivered
A.4.2. Will the project create other environmental or /1/ DR Yes. Improvement of waste water quality and OK
social benefits than GHG emission reductions? conversion to renewable energy.
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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
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 /1/ DR The applied methodology AM00013 version CL 1 OK
and the correct version thereof? 3 has a deadline to requests for registration
15 Feb 07 and the starting date of the
crediting period is March 2007 which needs
to be defined correctly.
15 November 2006 is the new starting date.

12 September 2008 is the new starting of the
crediting period.
B.1.2. Are the applicability criteria in the baseline /1/ DR Monitoring plan was assessed finding that CAR 2 OK
methodology all fulfilled? some data defined in the methodology were
not included in the PDD, ex-ante
data/calculations are not included in the PDD
and monitoring proposed process diagram
shows that some monitoring devices are
located in an inadequate position; this could
lead to monitoring mistakes.
Final PDD and monitoring diagrams
delivered for validation includes all
equipment required by the methodology and
placed as required. As ex-ante applied values
are so different because of source come from
32 different plants project participants

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
include it in the baseline emission calculation
spreadsheet.
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 Operation of open lagoon treatment system OK
with an active anaerobic condition and
electricity generation by diesel generators.
Baseline scenario has been defined as the

continuation of methane emissions that
would have been released without the
implementation of the project activity and the
CO2 emissions that would be released due to
fossil fuel combustion in electricity
generation in case the project activity is not
implemented.
B.2.2. What other alternative scenarios have been /1/ DR First Alternative: Continue with business as OK
considered and why is the selected scenario the usual technology and processes.
most likely one? These are cost-effective, proven technologies
and processes that conform within all
national environmental regulations, and are
very well established practices throughout the
sector. All of the plants in the sector today

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
maintain and operate their open lagoon
treatment system in order to comply with
national laws and regulations.
Second Alternative: Implement the
technological options proposed by this
project activity without CDM or CER
revenues.
There is no precedent for the conversion to
these technologies without CDM. Nowhere
in the country, or in the region, is this
package of methane capture technology being
introduced without CDM, with the exception
of the CDM Pilot Project. As the financial
analysis delivered to the validator, the NPV
and IRR of carrying out this conversion is
negative without CDM and therefore is not
feasible or sustainable without CER sales
incomes.
Third Alternative: Implement the

technological options proposed by this
project activity with CDM and CER
revenues.
The CDM pre-feasibility study conducted in
2004 by the Biomass Technology Group
(Netherlands) carried out an extensive
financial analysis of the costs and benefits

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
associated with converting to the methane
capture technology in 16 representative
extraction plants located in the 4 regions of
Colombia. As shown in the simple financial
analysis below, With CER revenues
estimated at a price of US$6, the projects
become economically attractive and justify
the conversion of the existing open lagoon
waste water treatment system to the CDM
project activity of covered anaerobic
digesters.
B.2.3. Has the baseline scenario been determined /1/ DR Not all parameters required by the CAR 2 OK
according to the methodology? methodology are addressed in the PDD and
this does not ensure an accurate baseline
determination.
PDD version 2 and further versions address
all data/parameters required by the
methodology.
B.2.4. Has the baseline scenario been determined using /1/ DR Baseline scenario has been defined as the OK
conservative assumptions where possible? continuation of methane emissions that
would have been released without the
implementation of the project activity and the
CO2 emissions that would be released due to
fossil fuel combustion in electricity
generation in case the project activity is not
implemented.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
When FEDEPALMA or the Oil producers
were not able to measure or report a value,
then IPCCC factors were used.
B.2.5. Does the baseline scenario sufficiently take into /1/ DR In Colombia there are no regulations OK
account relevant national and/or sectoral policies, I pertaining to mandatory installation of closed
macro-economic trends and political aspirations? anaerobic digesters technology or related to
combustion of biogas.
The applicability of the national policies was

assessed with the Ministry of Environment
and the sectorial policies with
FEDEPALMA. This conforms that the
project meets all requirements.
B.2.6. Is the baseline scenario determination compatible /1/ DR No. During data calculation for determining CAR 3 OK
with the available data and are all literature and baseline emissions were found that Data 3 CL 3
sources clearly referenced? (COD that leaves the lagoon with the
effluent) was calculated by each one of the
oil plants but at a site visit was found that
reported values does not always matches with
production and site records. As well, was
identified that not all 32 plants external
laboratory plants external laboratory analysis
were provided.
Baseline emission calculation spreadsheet

matches values between applied values and
the one reported by external laboratories and

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
this information had been provided for all 32
oil plants.
B.2.7. Have the major risks to the baseline been /1/ DR A risk to the baseline could include the OK
identified? possibility of changes in the regulations.
Regulatory requirements relating to
wastewater treatment will be monitored and
the baseline, if necessary, updated at renewal
of the crediting period.
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 /1/ DR Additionality is addressed: by Option B) CL 4 OK
the methodology? Option B) Using the latest version of the
“Tool for the demonstration and assessment
of additionality” Project Participants does not
applies the latest version /Version 3)
B.3.2. Are all assumptions stated in a transparent and /1/ DR All assumptions have been assessed on site OK
conservative manner? and verified as required.
B.3.3. Is sufficient evidence provided to support the /1/ DR Yes all arguments were verified by supported OK
relevance of the arguments made? documents like in the case of financial
analysis, and/or by physical verification
and/or interviews with involved entities.
B.3.4. If the starting date of the project activity is before /1/ DR During validation process seriously OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
the date of validation, has sufficient evidence consideration of the CDM was assessed
been provided that the incentive from the CDM through several documents such as the pre-
was seriously considered in the decision to feasibility study and multiple executive
proceed with the project activity? summaries.
B.4. 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.
B.4.1. Are the calculations documented according to the /1/ DR Calculations were done according to the CL 5 OK
approved methodology and in a complete and methodology but the provided spreadsheet CL 6
transparent manner? does not include the visualization of the CL 7
applied formulas (locked).
Colombian Grid factor was determined with

non updated information and using a small
scale methodology, please clarifiy.
As a conservative measure, 1% of the

calculated project emissions are estimated
due to emissions from sludge management.
Project Participant provides spreadsheet with

the required information. This was assessed

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
and found complete and in a transparent
manner. As well, grid factor was assessed
and determined to correctly calculated as
required by ACM0002 and according to large
scale project
B.4.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when /1/ DR Project activity emissions are estimated at CL 8 OK
calculating the project emissions? 20% of the baseline emissions as a
conservative measure. Each source of project
activity emissions are described in the PDD
and in case of required IPCCC factors were
applied.
Emissions from heat use and electricity use

due to the project activity is expected to be
negligible since additional use of electricity
by the project activity will not be higher than
1% from the current electricity use, please
provide the basis of this assumption for
estimating exante project emissions.
B.4.3. Are uncertainties in the project emission estimates /1/ DR Major uncertainty are related to flared OK
properly addressed? emissions which in this case will be
monitored continually as defined in option b)
for enclosed flares described in the
Methodological “Tool to determine project
emissions from flaring gases containing

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
methane”
B.5. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Baseline
emissions
It is assessed whether the baseline emissions are stated
B.5.1. Are the calculations documented according to the /1/ DR PDD does not include data to be monitored CAR 2 OK
approved methodology and in a complete and for the determination of baseline emissions. CAR 3
transparent manner?
CL 9
During data calculation for determining
CL 10
baseline emissions were found that Data 3
(COD that leaves the lagoon with the
effluent) was calculated by each one of the
oil plants but at a site visit was found that
reported values does not always matches with
production and site records.
Final version of PDD clearly states all data

required to be monitored and calculations
provided are presented in a complete and
transparent manner. As well, project
participants deliver copy of external
laboratory effluent test analysis for the 32 oil
plants and such values matches the reported
values applied for baseline calculation in
spreadsheet.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
Electricity consumption considers data from

3 years 2003-2005.
B.5.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when /1/ DR According to Baseline information provided CL 11 OK
calculating the baseline emissions? from all plats was identified that some plants
(Palmas de Santa Fe or Palmar Santa Elena
for example) does not consume electricity
from the grid and consume from on-site fossil
fuel fired power plant.
PDD includes a description of the variables

includes the energy sources used to perform
the calculations. It is explained how diesel
fired electricity generation is included in the
CO2 emissions from electricity use and
thermal energy production equation.
B.5.3. Are uncertainties in the baseline emission /1/ DR Project participants apply a maximum methane CL 12 OK
estimates properly addressed? producing capacity (Bo) value of 0.25 kg
CH4/kg COD as a conservative assumption,
while the methodology requires to apply a
value of 0.21 please clarify.
B.6. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions –

Leakage
It is assessed whether leakage emissions are stated

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
B.6.1. Are the leakage calculations documented /1/ DR IPCC guidelines specify physical leakage OK
according to the approved methodology and in a from anaerobic digesters as being 15% of
complete and transparent manner? total biogas production. which is accounted
under project emissions.
As the rest of the methodology, no leakage is
associated with the project activity
B.6.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when /1/ DR See B.6.1 OK
calculating the leakage emissions?
B.6.3. Are uncertainties in the leakage emission /1/ DR See B.6.1 OK

estimates properly addressed?
B.7. Emission Reductions

The emission reductions shall be real, measurable
and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation
of climate change.
B.7.1. Are the emission reductions real, measurable and /1/ DR Delivered emission calculation data sheet CL 5 OK
give long-term benefits related to the mitigation does not includes formulas used and shows
of climate change. only final values.
B.8. Monitoring Methodology

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

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
B.8.1. Is the monitoring plan documented according to /1/ DR Since methodology AM0013 Version 3 is not CL 1 OK
the approved methodology and in a complete and available for registration any more, project
transparent manner? participant needs to apply for Methodology
version 4 which requires that flare efficiency
and project emissions be calculated using the
“Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gases containing Methane.
These have been included in the last version

of the PDD.
B.8.2. Will all monitored data required for verification /1/ DR Monitoring plan was assessed finding that CAR 2 OK
and issuance be kept for two years after the end of some data defined in the methodology were
the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, not included in the PDD, ex-ante
for this project activity, whichever occurs later? data/calculations are not included in the PDD
and monitoring proposed process diagram
Yes as stated in the Last version of the PDD.

B.9. Monitoring of Project Emissions
It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for
reliable and complete project emission data over time.
B.9.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the /1/ DR Monitoring plan was assessed finding that CAR 2 OK
collection and archiving of all relevant data some data defined in the methodology were
necessary for estimation or measuring the not included in the PDD, ex-ante

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
greenhouse gas emissions within the project data/calculations are not included in the PDD
boundary during the crediting period? and monitoring proposed process diagram
Yes. PDD includes in Annex 4 all parameters

required by the applied methodology.
B.9.2. Are the choices of project GHG indicators /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
reasonable and conservative? Yes and the one selected meets with
methodology requirements.
B.9.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2
GHG value to be monitored and deemed
appropriate?
B.9.4. Is the measurement equipment described and /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
deemed appropriate? .
B.9.5. Is the measurement accuracy addressed and /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on
how to deal with erroneous measurements?
B.9.6. Is the measurement interval identified and /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
deemed appropriate?
B.9.7. Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
reporting procedure defined?
B.9.8. Are procedures identified for maintenance of /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
monitoring equipment and installations? Are the
calibration intervals being observed?
B.9.9. Are procedures identified for day-to-day records /1/ DR See B.9.1 CAR 2 OK
handling (including what records to keep, storage The monitoring plan does not describe for CL 13
area of records and how to process performance how long the obtained data will be kept.
documentation)
Yes. Determined in the PDD
B.10. Monitoring of Baseline Emissions
It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for
reliable and complete baseline emission data over time.
B.10.1. PDD does not include data to be monitored for /1/ DR PDD does not include data to be monitored CAR 2 OK
the determination of baseline emissions. for the determination of baseline emissions.
Last version of the PDD describes a

monitoring plan that meets methodology
requirements.
B.10.2. Are the choices of baseline GHG indicators /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
reasonable and conservative? .
B.10.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
baseline indicator to be monitored and also
deemed appropriate?

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
B.10.4. Is the measurement equipment described and /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
deemed appropriate? .
B.10.5. Is the measurement accuracy addressed and /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on
how to deal with erroneous measurements?
B.10.6. Is the measurement interval for baseline data /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
identified and deemed appropriate?
B.10.7. Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
reporting procedure defined? CL 13
B.10.8. Are procedures identified for maintenance of /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
monitoring equipment and installations? Are the
calibration intervals being observed?
B.10.9. Are procedures identified for day-to-day records /1/ DR See B.10.1 CAR 2 OK
handling (including what records to keep, storage CL 13
area of records and how to process performance
documentation)
B.11. Monitoring of Leakage

It is assessed whether the monitoring plan provides for
reliable and complete leakage data over time.
B.11.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the /1/ DR Not applicable as per the monitoring OK
collection and archiving of all relevant data

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
necessary for determining leakage? methodology AM0013
B.12. Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators/

Environmental Impacts
It is assessed whether choices of indicators are reasonable
and complete to monitor sustainable performance over
time.
B.12.1. Is the monitoring of sustainable development /1/ DR Neither Colombian environmental authorities OK
indicators/ environmental impacts warranted by I nor National DNA require the monitoring of
legislation in the host country? specific sustainable development indicators.
B.13. Project Management Planning

It is checked that project implementation is properly
prepared for and that critical arrangements are
addressed.
B.13.1. Is the authority and responsibility of overall /1/ DR The formal authority and responsibility of CL 14 OK
project management clearly described? I project management have not been clearly
described.
Project participants have described the means

that overall project management authority
and responsibility will be applied.
B.13.2. Are procedures identified for training of /1/ DR Procedures have not been envisaged, defined CL 14 OK
monitoring personnel? I and linked to the ISO 9001/ISO 14001
certified management system procedures of
the organizations that have such systems

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
(FEDEPALMA and some oil producers).
Contract between FEDEPALMA and oil

producers describes the responsibility of
training.
B.13.3. Are procedures identified for emergency /1/ DR There is no description of emergency CL 14
preparedness for cases where emergencies can I preparedness procedures.
cause unintended emissions?
Emergency preparedness procedures had not
been identified yet and will not be
implemented until project equipment and
facilities be constructed and put in place.
B.13.4. Are procedures identified for review of reported /1/ DR PDD describes the means applied for review OK
results/data? I of reported results/data.
B.13.5. Are procedures identified for corrective actions in /1/ DR See B.13.2 CL 14
order to provide for more accurate future I
monitoring and reporting?
Such procedures will not be implemented
until project start operations and project
participants get better understand of process
and equipment function.
C. Duration of the Project/ Crediting Period
It is assessed whether the temporary boundaries of the project are
clearly defined.
C.1.1. Are the project’s starting date and operational /1/ DR Project starting date is determined at 01 OK

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
lifetime clearly defined and evidenced? January, 2006 and this date is related to the
beginning of contractual consolidation.
The operational lifetime of the project is

estimated to be 30 years.
C.1.2. Is the start of the crediting period clearly defined /1/ DR It is not clear as to which is the exact starting CL 1 OK
and reasonable? date of the crediting period.
Last version of PDD determines project
starting date of 15 November, 2006, and
starting date of the crediting period 12
September 2008 or the date of registration
whichever occurs later.
D. 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.
D.1.1. Has an analysis of the environmental impacts of /1/ DR Yes included in the pre feasibility study OK
the project activity been sufficiently described? I
D.1.2. Are there any Host Party requirements for an /1/ DR No specific host country requirements for an OK
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if I EIA for such projects exist.
yes, is an EIA approved?

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
D.1.3. Will the project create any adverse environmental /1/ DR No adverse environmental impacts are OK
effects? I expected from this project.
D.1.4. Are transboundary environmental impacts /1/ DR No specific transboundary environmental OK

considered in the analysis? I effects are envisaged as the whole project
boundary including the biogas pipelines are
expected to be within the plant.
D.1.5. Have identified environmental impacts been /1/ DR Yes related to construction, waste water OK
addressed in the project design? I quality, local and global emissions and
conversion to renewable energy
D.1.6. Does the project comply with environmental /1/ DR Yes a list of all relevant environmental OK
legislation in the host country? I permits were submitted and corroborated
with the Ministry of Environmental.
E. 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.
E.1.1. Have relevant stakeholders been consulted? /1/ DR Yes. FEDEPALMA have identified local OK
/11/ I authorities, managers from different local
plants and persons from universities and
NGO as stakeholders.
E.1.2. Have appropriate media been used to invite /1/ DR Direct letters to the identified stakeholders OK
comments by local stakeholders? /11/ I
E.1.3. If a stakeholder consultation process is required /1/ DR A formal stake holder process is not required OK
by regulations/laws in the host country, has the /11/ I for this project under the Colombian

DET NORSKE VERITAS
CHECKLIST QUESTION
Draft Final
Concl. Concl.
Interview
stakeholder consultation process been carried out environmental law.
in accordance with such regulations/laws?
E.1.4. Is a summary of the stakeholder comments /1/ DR Yes OK

received provided? /11/ I
E.1.5. Has due account been taken of any stakeholder /1/ DR Yes OK
comments received? /11/ I

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Table 3 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarifications and corrective Ref. to Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion
action requests by validation team checklist
question in
table 2
CAR 1. There is no evidence of project A.2.2 LoAs attached in English and Spanish. Project Participant delivers LoA from
approval by the Colombian DNA A.4.1 the DNA of Colombia.
This CAR is considered closed.
CAR 2 B.1.2 In response to: Project Participants delivers new
Methodology AM0013 requires the B.2.3 a) In the attached Excel File version of the PDD and update version
monitoring of certain data for determining B.5.1 (BLEtCO2e.xls) the data of baseline emissions calculation, which
is
baseline emissions and project emissions. B.8.2 includes clearly description of all
presented for calculation of baseline
During document review the following B.9.1-B.9.9 emissions. required baseline emission data as
deviations were found: a) Provided B.10.1- b) In Annex 4 of the PDD, all required stated in the methodology including ex-
documentation does not show clearly the B10.9 variables were included according toante data New monitoring diagram
data/values used for baseline emissions; b) AM0013 v.4 methodology. includes a description of all devices that
The PDD does not include all the data c) In the file mentioned in (a) all will be installed and the position which
required to be monitored as for example baseline ex-ante values and are correctly placed.
(D13); c) There is no reference to the ex-ante calculations are presented.
values/calculations in the PDD. d) Reviewing d) The monitoring plan and diagram This CAR is thus considered partly
the monitoring proposed process diagram was were reviewed with industry experts closed.
found that some devices are placed in and corrected. For example, ART3
inadequate positions. These will lead to and D11 are now placed at the point
measurement mistakes. Examples: ART3 where effluent leaves the
(COD analyzer) and data D27 (KT31). lagoon/digester. D27 was
appropriately placed with regard to
the power generation equipment. A
new device (D31) was incorporated
to the measurement system for
analyzing the combustion time of
the heat generation equipment. In
section B.6.1 an in table 8, greater

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
precision for calculation of residual
stack emissions and enclosed flare
emissions was included per
manufacturer’s specifications. In the
monitoring information section in
annex 4, D22.1, D22.2, and D22.3
were removed based on industry
experts’ recommendations. See the
above modifications in the CDM-
PDD in the file named “Fedepalma
cdm pdd v3 I.doc”
CAR 2 (continued) B.1.2 The project participant delivered a The project participant delivered a
The PDD does not clearly differentiate B.2.3 revised version of the PDD in which is revise PDD version 8 dated 16 June
between parameters determined ex-ante and B.5.1 clearly stated the parameters that are 2008 in which are clearly defined the
the parameters to be monitored ex-post. B.8.2 determined ex-ante and the parameters parameters determined ex-ante and the
Section B.6.2 shall only list the parameters B.9.1-B.9.9 determined ex-post, included in the parameters determined ex-post.
that are determined ex-ante and which will B.10.1- correct tables. The information of the parameters
not be monitored ex-post, such as B10.9 monitored ex-post is clearly identified
i) the emission factor for a diesel in the section B.7.1 in the PDD and not
generator CEFBl,elec . only in annex 4.
ii) EGy, i..e the the amount of electricity in This CAR 2 (continued) is thus
the year y that would be consumed at the considered closed. However, the PDD
project site determined based on historic does not clearly differentiate between
electricity consumption parameters determined ex-ante and the
iii) HGBl,y ,i.e. the quantity of thermal energy parameters to be monitored ex-post.
that would be consumed in year y at the
project site in the absence of the project
activity, which has to be determined based on

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
3 years historic data, but which is 0 as no
fossil fuels, but only biomass have been used
for heat generation and the project biogas will
thus only replace CO2 neutral biomass
iv) CEFBl, therm, i.e. the CO2 emissions
intensity for thermal energy generation
v) CODa,out. i.e. the COD that leaves the
lagoon with the effluent determined based on
one year historical data
vi) CODa,in, i.e. the COD that enters the
lagoon based on on one year historical data
vii) Bo
The monitoring tables for each monitoring
parameter are currently in Annex 4 and
section B.7.1 refers to Annex 4, but these
should be directly included in section B.7.1.
CAR 3 During data calculation for B.2.6 1.- Newly submitted documentation Project Participant delivers 32
determining baseline emissions were found B.5.1 which supports the individual plant participating plants external laboratory
that Data 3 (COD that leaves the lagoon with calculations for COD removal in each analysis as well as a new version of
the effluent) was calculated by each one of plant’s WWT system includes all baseline emissions calculation that
the oil plants but at a site visit was found that formulas used, as well as supporting matches correctly.
reported values does not always matches with laboratory analyses. This information
production and site records. includes complete data on COD This CAR is considered closed.
entering and exiting the WWT systems.
This file is named “Calculo de la
DQO.zip” and has been submitted to
DOE.
2.- Confirmation of laboratory records

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
from each plant supporting baseline
information are included in file
(laboratory records.pdf), attached.
CL 1: The applied methodology AM00013 B.1.1 Participant responses have been The PDD was updated to apply
version 3 has a deadline to requests for B.8.1 submitted with the goal of requesting methodology AM00013 version 4
registration 15 Feb 07 and the starting date of C.1.2 registration by or on 15 Feb 07.
the crediting period is March 2007 which However, this was modified because the This Clarification request is considered
have not been defined a specific day. required version of the methodology closed.
changed and the PDD was re-written
with the new methodology and posted
for comments on DNV’s website.
PDD will apply methodology version 4
The Start of the crediting period has
been changed to 12 September 2008
CL 2PDD describes an umbrella project that A.1.1 This has been corrected. 32 plants are PDD version 2 defines clearly the
includes 31 palm oil plants but baseline included in the PDD and in all baseline existence and location of the 32 plants.
calculation sheet includes 32 plants. and emissions calculations. See in the Also all supported document from all 32
CDM PDD attached in the file named plants were provided.
“Fedepalma cdm pdd v3 I.doc”
This clarification is considered closed.
CL 3: There is no evidence of all plants E.3.3 External laboratory records on COD Project participants deliver copy of 32
external laboratory test results in order to effluents are presented in the attached plants external laboratory analysis
corroborate that effluents meet national file named: laboratory records.pdf. required to demonstrate the values
regulations and values applied for calculations Additionally, letters from the regional applied in the baseline and emission
are correct. environmental authorities certifying reduction calculations. Such analysis
compliance with national regulations matches with the applied values.
were presented to the DNA in order to The laboratory analyses demonstrate
obtain the LoA. Copy of these letters that each plant that accomplish with the

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
are attached in the file “cartas environmental regulations. The
corporaciones.pdf” following parameters are considered:
- Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
Newly submitted documentation which - Chemical Oxygen Demand.
supports the individual plant - pH
calculations for COD removal in each - Temperature.
plant’s WWT system includes all - Suspended Solids.
formulas used, as well as supporting - Flow
laboratory analyses. This file is named
“Calculo de la DQO.zip” and has been This clarification is considered closed.
submitted to DOE.
CL 4: As required by the selected B.3.1 Modify PDD and update it with the Section B.5. Of the PDD version 2
methodology project participants need to application of the “Tool for the includes the use of the “Tool for the
apply the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of demonstration and assessment of
demonstration and assessment of additionality” additionality” version 4.
additionality” but was identified that PDD use
version 2. This Clarification is considered close.
CL 5: Delivered emission calculation data B.4.1 Formulas on how baseline emission Project participants deliver spreadsheet
sheet does not include formulas used to B.7.1 were calculated are now included in the with the baseline and emission
determine emission values and this does not attached file BLE tCO2e.xls. reduction calculations formulas in a
allow to asses applied formulas. mean that allow formulas applied.
Please note that the annual amount of These were assessed and found that
emission reductions for the project has meet methodology requirements.
been slightly modified, because
FEDEPALMA has consolidated more This Clarification is considered closed.
precisely the specific technology
options that each participating plant
chooses to implement under the CDM

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
project. The average annual estimate of
emission reductions is still very close to
the average annual estimate included in
the PDD version previously posted on
the DNV website. The precise data for
each participating plant is included in
the BLE tCO2e.xls spreadsheet,
attached.
Newly submitted documentation which

supports the individual plant
calculations for COD removal in each
plant’s WWT system includes all
formulas used, as well as supporting
laboratory analyses. This file is named
“Calculo de la DQO.zip” and has been
submitted to DOE. These formulas are
the bases for calculation of the emission
values.
CL 6 Colombian grid factor was defined as B.4.1 2006 generation data for the entire grid Project participants deliver supported
the same one utilized in other Colombian was obtained from the National documents that describe the
project. Thus this is a large scale project must Dispatch Center. Large scale emissions methodology applied and Colombian
ensure that applied methodology is used and factor methodology for Colombia was grid emission factor which were
support data is up dated. obtained from UPME and applied. Data assessed against National official
support for the calculation of the large sources and determine to be correctly
scale emissions factor for the project is calculated applying the latest data
provided in the files: available.
a. Presentación.ppt that contains the

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
procedure for calculating the This Clarification is considered closed.
emissions factor and the final result
of the calculation.
b. A-linea-base-full-escala-final-
publicacion.doc containing the
procedure approved by the
institution in charge of delivering
the emissions factor of the
Colombian electricity grid (UPME –
Unidad de Planeación minero
Energética)
c. Factor de emisiones.xls containing
complete data for all grid connected
plants, including electricity
generation for 2006, the prices of
electricity generation for each plant
that sold electricity to the grid, the
fuel emission factor for each plant
generating electricity to the grid, the
result of the calculation to obtain the
operation margin, the result of the
calculation to obtain the build
margin, the electricity that each
project participant plant would
generate and displace from grid use,
and the summary information of the
calculation to obtain the project’s
emission factor.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
CL 7 Respect to Emissions from land B.4.1 In the spreadsheet named “baseline Baseline emission spreadsheet includes
application of sludge (Nitrous oxide) was modified”, in the first tab named “COD a reference of the land application
stated that as a conservative measure, 1% of Calculations”, the last table starting on emissions which demonstrated the
the calculated baseline emissions are deducted cell A479 aggregates the N2O assumption.
due to emissions from sludge management emissions in terms of tons of CO2
emissions from land application of sludge, equivalent. This table demonstrates that This Clarification is considered closed
please provide basis of this assumption N2O emissions are one percent of the
total project emissions.
CL 8 Emissions from heat use and electricity B.4.2 Each of the project’s electric and electronic Project participants delivers a clear
use due to the project activity is expected to components has a low electricity explanation which indicates that the
be negligible since additional use of consumption rate, with the exception of the expected electricity consumption will be
electricity by the project activity will not be sludge pumps and blowers. In order to less than 1%.
higher than 1% from the current electricity calculate the project’s electricity
consumption, the operating assumption is
use, please provide the basis of this This clarification is considered closed.
that the following project activity
assumption for estimating ex-ante project components operate constantly, which is
emissions. conservative:
1. Monitoring and Information System

Monitoring System
- 33 instruments were included for each
plant
- Control systems are composed of a control
panel that present the electronics and power
elements’ performance.
Local Information System
- 1 computer for supervision and reporting
activities
- 1 printer
2. Methane capture and mitigation

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
system
- 2 Blowers
- 1 sludge pump.
- Lighting system: Four 100W Light bulbs
- 1 flaring system
Total
Electricity electricity
consump- consumption
tion per in the 32
plant Palm oil
(Watts) extraction
plants
2 (Watts)
Instrumentation and
sensors (33 340 10,880
instruments)
Control Systems (1 3,000 96,000
control panel)
Local Information
systems (computers
and printers)
1 Computer 375 12,000
1 printer 170 5,440
1,118 35,776
Blowers (2)
132,000 4,224,000
Sludge pumps(6)
Lighting system (8 800 25,600
light bulbs)
Flaring system 1,200 38,400
Total electricity
139,003 4,448,096
consumption

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
Bibliography:
Siemens instruments manual FI 01 2007.
Dell computers manual
Hewlett Packard printer 1150 manual
Screen CRT: Samsung 740 operation
manual
John Zink Blower and flare equipment
manuals.
PUMPEX 5P 20 manual.
Light bulb specifications.
Auxiliary Equipment to determine

electricity consumption once the Project
is operative:
One electricity meter will be located in
between the electricity cable from the grid to
the Palm oil extraction plant, ref D12/ELp,y
Firms implementing technology option III,
need to install an electricity network analyzer
in order to measure electricity consumption
from the grid and power delivery to the grid.
CL 9 Baseline electricity and thermal energy B.5.1 Table An 3.7 of the PDD presents Provided information was crosschecked
consumptions should be estimated as the information on electricity consumption with plants electricity consumption and
average of the historical 3 years consumption from those mills willing to build and matches correctly. The estimation was
as stated in AM0013 Version 04 page 10 operate power generation equipment and done with 3 years data from 2003-2005
wanting to credit emission reductions as baseline were created in 2006.
from this activity. Their willingness to
include electricity generation within the Clarification is considered closed
CDM project activity was determined
according to their answers to the survey
performed in 2006. Recent positive

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
developments regarding CDM markets
have resulted in greater interest. Some of
the mills that responded negatively to
incorporate electricity generation in 2006,
are now moving towards introducing
power generation capacity in their mills.
The monitoring reports to be presented
in the project’s verifications will include
the updated information on all plants that
effectively built and operated power
capacity in their mills as a result of the
CDM incentive.
CL 10 As part of the baseline information was B.5.1 Relevant information was revised. A New provided documents were assessed
identified that not all plants deliver baseline consultation process with the and compared with baseline calculation
information in the described template. In participating plants was carried out in file. Calculations take into account these
other cases template information does not order to resolve inconsistencies in the values.
matches the one included in the excel file supporting information and to solicit
and/or is not consistent or transparent. additional information on their This clarification is considered closed.
electricity use in 2003 and 2004 per
DOE recommendation. Answers were
compiled in the file ”respuesta a
observaciones.xls”. Data was included
in the file ”baseline modified.xls”. PDD
was modified in Annex 3 to incorporate
the changes in calculations due to
adjustments in the information.
Documentation of the firms responses
and certification of additional data
points are presented in the file ”Binder

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
4 – todas las certificaciones.pdf”
CL 11 According to Baseline information B.5.2 See page 55 of the PDD, definitions of Provided PDD includes the description
provided from all plats was identified that EGy and CEFBl,elec,y. The description of of this conditions and also, project
some plants (Palmas de Santa Fe or Palmar the variables includes the energy spreadsheet included in the calculations.
Santa Elena for example) does not consume sources used to perform the
electricity from the grid and consume from calculations. It is explained how diesel This Clarification is considered closed.
on-site fossil fuel fired power plant. Project fired electricity generation is included
participants must describe how this case was in the CO2 emissions from electricity
considered. use and thermal energy production
equation.
CL 12 Project participants apply a maximum B.5.3 Section B.6.2. Of the PDD was Last version of the PDD includes a Bo
methane producing capacity (Bo) value of 0.25 modified on the description and value of value of 0.21 as stated in the applied
kg CH4/kg COD as a conservative Bo. methodology. Also the rest of the
assumption, while the methodology requires calculations and estimations include it.
to apply a value of 0.21 please clarify.
This clarification is considered closed.
CL 13: The monitoring plan does not describe B.9.9 In Annex 4 of the CDM-PDD each key PDD version 2 includes the time that
for how long the obtained data will be kept. B.10.7 parameter variable includes, in the these data/parameters will be kept.
B.10.9 comments row, information about the
minimum period data related to each This Clarification is considered close.
parameter will be stored: minimum 2
years after each issuance of CERs. See
in the CDM PDD attached in the file
named “Fedepalma cdm pdd v3 I.doc”
Monitoring data will be kept a

minimum of two years at each plant and
five years at the FEDEPALMA central

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
information center. The comments
section of each data/parameter table in
the PDD now includes reference to the
minimum period that data will be stored
on site.
CL 14: There are no detailed procedures B.13.1 Authority and responsibility of Contract 044 was reviewed and found
envisaged for project management covering B.13.2 project management: Each of the 32 that meet most of the management
authority & responsibility, measurement, B.13.3 participating plants has signed a binding system requirements, but once that
monitoring, reporting, calibration, B.13.5 long term contract (No. 044 of March 1, equipment is installed and working
maintenance & emergency preparedness. 2006) with FEDEPALMA that clearly properly need to issue the required
Management System procedures related to sets out the responsibilities of the operations and monitoring specific
documentation/record keeping, corrective producer association in the management procedures for the 32 participating
actions, internal audits & performance of the project and the responsibilities of plants.
reviews has also not been considered. each participating plant.
FEDEPALMA’s responsibilities include This finding must be closed before the
coordination, capacity building, legal first verification.
representation of the project for
UNFCCC Registration and commercial
purposes, quality control programs for
monitoring and reporting, emergency
repair and maintenance, monitoring,
reporting and Verification, among
others. FEDEPALMA’s project
management responsibilities are
stipulated in clauses 6 and 7 of the
contract, and participating plants’
responsibilities are included in clauses 4
and 5.

DET NORSKE VERITAS
question in
table 2
Contract 044 was provided to the DOE
for review on the basis of strict
confidentiality. A copy of the final text
of the agreement is attached in the file
named “DIFINITIVO Fedepalma-
Empresas.18 enero 2006.pdf”

DET NORSKE VERITAS
APPENDIX B
CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE
Alfonso Capuchino
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, 6 November 2006
Einar Telnes
Michael Lehmann
Director, International Climate Change Services Technical Director
Ramesh Ramachandran
GHG Auditor: Yes
CDM Validator: Yes JI Validator: --
CDM Verifier: Yes JI Verifier: --
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, Yes
AM0029, AM0045
Høvik, 22 December 2006
Einar Telnes Michael Lehmann

Director, International Climate Change Servicer Technical Director
Michael Lehmann
GHG Auditor: Yes
CDM Validator: Yes JI Validator: Yes
CDM Verifier: Yes JI Verifier: Yes
Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): Sectoral scope 1, 2, 3
Technical Reviewer for (group of) methodologies:
ACM0001, AM0002, AM0003, AM0010, Yes AM0027 Yes
AM0011, AM0012, AMS-III.G
ACM002, AMS-I.A-D, AM0019, AM0026, Yes AM0030 Yes
AM0029, AM0045
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- Yes AM0047
III.H, AMS-III.I
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
Barbara Lara
GHG Auditor: Yes
CDM Validator: JI Validator: --
CDM Verifier: -- JI Verifier: --
Industry Sector Expert for Sectoral Scope(s): --
Høvik, 2 May 2008
Michael Lehmann
Technical Director, Climate Change Services

Fedepalma Approved CDM Validation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Fedepalma Approved CDM Validation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fedepalma Approved CDM Validation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VALIDATION REPORT

FEDEPALMA Sectoral CDM

REPORT NO. 2007-0011

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Head Office: Veritasvn. 1, N-1322 HØVIK, Norway

CAEMA Andean Center for Economics in the Environment

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

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................13

Appendix A: Validation Protocol

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION

3.1 Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation

Start up, operation and maintenance of stabilizing lagoons. March 1996

- Revised Monitoring Plan in accordance to AM0013.

3.2 Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders

Date Name Organization Topic

3.3 Resolution of Outstanding Issues

Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements for CDM Project Activities

Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

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

Figure 1 Validation protocol tables

3.4 Internal Quality Control

3.5 Validation Team

4.1 Participation Requirements

4.2 .Project Design

15 Eastern Sapuga S.A. Puerto Gaitan, Meta

4.3 Baseline Determination

PARTICIPATING EXTRACTION PLANTS Utilisation of biogas

PALMAR SANTA ELENA S.A. X

The system boundaries are presented as follow:

Step2: Investment analysis

Technology Option II and III:

Step 3: Barrier analysis

Step 4: Common practise analysis

Technology Option II:

Technology Option III:

4.5.1 Parameters determined ex-ante

4.5.2 Parameters monitored ex-post

4.6 Estimate of GHG Emissions

Baseline emissions are calculated in two sections:

(i) Lagoon baseline emissions

(ii) Electricity baseline emissions

Methane emissions from lagoons

Physical leakage from biodigesters

Stack emissions from the flare or energy generation

Emissions related to energy consumption in auxiliary equipment needed to operate the

Emissions from land application of sludge

Emissions from wastewater removed in the dewatering process

4.7 Environmental Impacts

4.8 Comments by Local Stakeholders

4.9 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs

CDM Validation 2007-0011, rev. 01 27

CDM Validation, DNV Report No. 2007-0011, rev. 01 A-1

CDM Validation, DNV Report No. 2007-0011, rev. 01 A-2

Requirement Reference Conclusion

CDM Validation, DNV Report No. 2007-0011, rev. 01 A-3

Requirement Reference Conclusion

CDM Validation, DNV Report No. 2007-0011, rev. 01 A-4

Table 2 Requirements Checklist