THE GOLD STANDARD MICRO-SCALE SCHEME PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM - Version 2.2
CONTENTS
A. General description of the micro scale project activity
B. Application of an existing or new baseline and monitoring methodology
C. Duration of the project activity and crediting period
D. Stakeholders’ comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed micro scale project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding Public Funding
1
SECTION A. General description of micro-scale project activity
A.1 Title of the micro-scale project activity: >> Title
GS 1146 - Expanding access to LPG in Burkina Faso through microfranchised distribution
>> Date & version of the PDD
Version 1, submitted 03/15/2014: part A&D only
Version 2, submitted 9/28/2016
A.2. Project participants:
>>
Entrepreneurs du Monde, a French NGO based in Lyon, France, acts as the project owner and carbon developer.
A.3 Description of the micro-scale project activity:
A.3.1. Location of the micro-scale project activity: >>
A.3.1.1. Host Country:
>> Burkina Faso
A.3.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:
>> Central Region, Kadiogo Province
A.3.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:
>>The project is taking place in the 7 departments of the Kadiogo Province:
- Komki-Ipala - Komsilga - Koubri - Ouagadougou - Pabré - Saaba - Tanghin-Dassouri
Other than Ouagadougou, there is no city as such in the Province and the relevant administrative entities are the departments listed above.
2
A.3.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this micro-scale project activity:
The project is situated within the physical boundaries detailed above. To ensure unique identification of this microscale project activity each stove sold under this project will have a unique identification number. The updated list of all the stove sold under the project will be provided in time for each yearly verification.
A.3.2. Description including technology and/or measure of the micro-scale project activity:
In Burkina Faso, non-renewable solid biomass represents ninety-one (91) percent of the total energy consumed yearly. Indeed, eighty-four (84) percent of households use wood and charcoal on a daily basis. For that reason, there is a growing pressure on forests and the country currently looses 105,000 hectares of forested land every year according to the Ministry in charge of environmental issues (“Ministère de l’environnement et du développement durable”). High efficiency improved cookstoves and gas stoves help fight deforestation by significantly reducing the demand for wood and charcoal, and thus contribute to a global reduction in GHG emissions from biomass combustion.
To deal with this issue, the French NGO Entrepreneurs du Monde launched a new program called Nafa Naana with the objective to facilitate access to cleaner, more modern and cheaper sources of energy for all. Nafa Naana received some financial support from the Burkina Faso Ministry of Energy in the PASE framework (“Programme d’accès aux Services Energétiques”) between 2014 and 2015. Nafa Naana works as a social micro-franchise that distributes more efficient, reliable and sustainable charcoal and wood stoves, LGP stoves and solar lanterns.
Nafa Naana is developing its own distribution network with the objective of making those products easily available to all. Financial services are offered to Nafa Naana clients either as group loans or individual loans to help people with limited financial means access those products.
Finally, Nafa Naana is trying to increase the level of awareness in local populations about the described issues and the advantages of those products through information sessions on fuel poverty and by creating communication tools tailored to the local context. Due to the products delivered, its main target is the women in rural areas, who are the immediate victims of the negative effects of traditional cooking practices. The next step will very likely be the creation of a social enterprise in order to assure the sustainability of its social mission: to distribute as many energy products as possible in Burkina Faso.
The project activity “Expanding access to LPG in Burkina Faso through microfranchised distribution” is in phase with this approach since it aims to promote the use of LPG as a source of energy for cooking, thus limiting the usage of wood and thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gas.
In addition to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and helping fight deforestation, this project also offers the possibility to reduce the emissions of toxic fumes such as carbon monoxide and PM 2.5 inside the homes of the beneficiary population. Indeed, the combustion of wood with traditional stoves releases toxic fumes in the air. These toxic fumes are one of the main causes of respiratory diseases among women and children. Finally, the use of LGP cookstoves, instead of traditional ones, means that the end user is saving significant amounts of money because fuel expenses per gram of food cooked are lower for LPG than for wood when the wood is purchased by the user. 3
The characteristics of stoves promoted by this project is listed below:
Telia LPG Kit
Single-burner LPG stove for 6kg cylinders Contains: - Burner and regulator - Metal stand to support pots - Hooks to hold pot, stand and cylinder together. - 6 kg cylinder.
Measured average thermal efficiency: 55%1 Cylinder supplied by Sodigaz (imported). Burner, stand and hooks supplied by local SMEs.
Price: USD 55
A.3.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
The result from the first year is based on extensive field survey already conducted at the time of the submission of the PDD for validation.
Given the growth of stove sale, the total number of VER issued by the project is expected to reach the microscale cap by the second crediting year.
Crediting Year Stove being VER used
June 1st 2015 – May 31st 2016 3,557 1,520 June 1st 2016 – May 31st 2017 5,213 2,227 June 1st 2017 – May 31st 2018 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2018 – May 31st 2019 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2019 – May 31st 2020 10,000 4,271
1 See WBT conducted by IRSAT in project documentation. 4
June 1st 2020 – May 31st 2021 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2021 – May 31st 2022 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2022 – May 31st 2023 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2023 – May 31st 2024 10,000 4,271 June 1st 2024 – May 31st 2025 10,000 4,271 YEARLY AVERAGE 8,877 3,792
A.3.4. Public funding of the micro-scale project activity:
The project receives some public funding from the Monaco Cooperation Office, USAID and the Government of Burkina Faso. VER issued by this project are not fungible with the EU compliance market or any other carbon market. The funding is not given in exchange of any counterpart to the governments of Burkina Faso, Monaco, or the United States of America. See ODA declaration form in annex 2.
SECTION B. Application of an existing baseline and monitoring methodology or of a new methodology submitted as part of this project activity
B.1. Title and reference of the existing or new baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the micro-scale project activity:
>> This Project Design Document follows the Gold Standard VER Methodology entitled “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” version 2.0
B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and applicability:
Eligibility criteria related to the applied methodology:
5
1. The project boundary needs to be clearly The project geographic boundaries are identified, and the technologies counted in clearly defined (the province of Kadiogo). the project are not included in any other As of the date of submission no other carbon voluntary market or CDM project activity project seeks carbon credits for a LPG stove (i.e. no double counting takes place). In in this area. some cases there maybe another similar To prevent double counting, a complete list activity within the same target area. of stove sold and included into the project is Project proponents must therefore have a maintained. survey mechanism in place together with Each stove has a unique serial number. appropriate mitigation measures so as to prevent any possibility of double counting. 2. The technologies each have continuous WBT done on the stove shows that they have useful energy outputs of less than 150kW a total power of less than 6kW per unit2. per unit (defined as the total useful energy delivered from start to end of operation of a unit divided by time of operation). For technologies or practices that do not deliver thermal energy in the project scenario but only displace thermal energy supplied in the baseline scenario, the 150kW threshold applies to the displaced baseline technology. 3. Using the baseline technology as a backup Two mechanisms are put into place to or auxiliary technology in parallel with the encourage the removal of the old improved technology introduced by the technology: project activity is permitted as long as a mechanism is put into place to encourage - Awareness rising campaign: information the removal of the old technology (e.g. sessions, flyers, radio (in February, discounted price for the improved September and October 2015) and TV technology) and the definitive discontinuity (July and August and September 2015) of its use. The project documentation spots encourage the targeted must provide a clear description of the population to discontinue the use of approach chosen and the monitoring plan their traditional stove and to replace it must allow for a good understanding of completely with a clean LPG stove. the extent to which the baseline - An incentive of 250 FCFA (about US$ technology is still in use after the 0.5) is given to households that will introduction of the improved technology. “recycle” their old stove when they For example, whether the existing baseline purchase their LPG stove. technology is not surrendered at the time of the introduction of the improved technology, or whether a new baseline technology is acquired and put to use by targeted end users during the project crediting period – see section III. The success of the mechanism put into place must therefore be monitored, and the 6
approach must be adjusted if proven unsuccessful3. If an old technology remains in use in parallel with the improved technology, the corresponding emissions must be accounted for as part of the project emissions – see section II.5. 4. The project proponent must clearly The end users sign carbon waiver when they communicate to all project participants the sign the sale receipt. entity that is claiming ownership rights of All distributers have a paragraph in their and selling the emission reductions contract mentioning the waiving of the resulting from the project activity. For carbon rights. technology producers and the retailers of the improved technology or the renewable fuel in use, this must be communicated by contract or clear written assertions in the transaction paperwork. If the claimants are not the project technology end users, the end users will need to be informed and notified that they cannot claim for emission reductions from the project4. 5. Project activities making use of a new Not Applicable since the project activity biomass feedstock in the project situation promote the use of LPG which is not a (e.g. shift from non-renewable to green biomass feedstock. charcoal, plant oil or renewable biomass briquettes) must comply with relevant Gold Standard specific requirements for biomass related project activities, as defined in the latest version of the Gold Standard rules5. If the biomass feedstock is sourced from a dedicated plantation, the criteria must apply to both plantations established for the project activity AND existing plantations that were established in the context of other activities but will supply biomass feedstock. Eligibility criteria related to the technology (Annex C v2.2)
2 See WBT report conducted by IRSAT in the project documentation (page 13). 3 The removal and continued non-use of three stone fires and other easily constructed traditional devices is in many cases unlikely and impractical to monitor. 4 For example, leaflets distributed with the products alerting end-users to the waiving of their carbon rights in exchange for pricing of the improved technology, which discounts its true cost (waiver forms signed by end users are another example). 5 Gold Standard Toolkit, Annex C, and rule updates released prior to the time of first submission of the project activity to the Gold Standard. 7
End use fossil fuel switching This project promotes the use of LPG (a fossil fuel) stove to displace firewood and charcoal stove. Activities involving fossil fuel switching shall only be eligible for emission reductions related to end LPG is less carbon intensive than firewood or use energy efficiency improvements. The charcoal (its Emission Factors expressed in emission reductions related to the difference in tCO2e/TJ are lower than those of charcoal or carbon content between a non firewood). renewable fuel and a less carbon intensive non- LPG stoves also have a thermal efficiency also a renewable fuel used for substitution shall NOT lot higher than the traditional firewood or be eligible. charcoal stove.
To meet this eligibility criterion, only the emission reduction associated to gain in energy efficiency will be accounted for in this project.
As a result, when LPG displace firewood, we will use firewood emission factor to calculate emission from LPG. When LPG displace charcoal we will use the charcoal emission factor to calculate the emissions from LPG.
Activities involving a large amount of small, This criterion is already included in the criteria distributed heating, cooking or electricity required by the TPDDTEC methodology (see generation devices using renewable energy criteria 4). sources shall provide The Gold Standard Foundation with a clear description of the transfer of credits ownership all along the investment chain, and with proof that end-users are aware of and willing to give up their rights on emission reductions. The transfer of credit ownership must be discussed during local stakeholder consultations for regular cycle projects.
B.3. Description of the project boundary:
>> As defined in the applied methodology, project proponents must provide clear definitions of the project boundary, target area and fuel production and collection area
The project is taking place in the 7 departments of the Kadiogo Province:
- Komki-Ipala - Komsilga - Koubri - Ouagadougou - Pabré - Saaba 8
- Tanghin-Dassouri
The fuel production and collection area is defined as all forest cover and land covered with trees available in Burkina Faso. The 90% default value proposed by CDM Executive Board 67 is used for the fraction of non- renewable biomass. The following emission sources are included or excluded from the project boundary:
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
CO2 Yes Important source of emissions
Cooking / curing, production of CH4 Yes Important source of emissions fuel, and transport of fuel
Baseline Significant for firewood and NO2 Yes charcoal
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
CO2 Yes Important source of emissions
Cooking / curing, production of CH4 Yes Important source of emissions fuel, and transport of fuel
Project Significant for firewood and NO2 Yes charcoal
B.4. Description of the baseline and its development as per the chosen methodology:
In the project area, the baseline has been divided in two scenarios: the households who use exclusively firewood for the cooking needs (referred here after as “Baseline firewood users”) and the households who use charcoal and might also be using firewood (referred here after as “Baseline charcoal users”). The distinction between the households who uses firewood and the ones who does not was dictated by the fact that the use of charcoal leads to much higher greenhouse gas emissions than the use of firewood. Fuel usage Per definition the “baseline firewood users” burn only firewood, the charcoal users rely heavily on both charcoal and firewood.
9
Fuel use frequency Baseline Fuel use frequency Baseline Firewood users Charcoal Users 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40%
20% 20%
% of % household of % household 0% 0%
Fuel type Fuel type
Every day At least once a week Every day At least once a week Less than once a week Never Less than once a week Never
Seasonal variation This graph shows the percentage of households who declared using more or less fuel than the average for each month of the year.
Seasonal variation in fuel consumption 100% 50% 0% -50%
% of % household -100%
month
Firewood Charcoal LPG median
The fuel consumption is higher during the cold season (November to February) and the rainy season (July August). Fuel consumption is at its lowest during the month of March, April and October.
Socio economic indicators
We used the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) to assess how likely the household in each scenario were to be below the national poverty line. For both scenarios the average likelihood was 29%.
Health indicators
The chart below shows the self-declared frequency of issues related to using dirty fuel for cooking.
10
Health Impact Baseline Firewood Health Impact Baseline Charcoal users Users 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0%
always often sometimes never always often sometimes never
The comparison between those two graphs shows that users of charcoal are slight less likely to report eye irritations, headaches and cough related to the smoke produced by the stove. Indoor cooking
Indoor cooking frequency Indoor cooking frequency Baseline Firewood users Baseline Charcoal Users
8% 1% 3% 2%
never never 21% sometime sometime 43% often 53% often always always 69%
The charcoal user tends to cook more often inside than the firewood users.
B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered micro-scale project activity:
As per the Annex T, the project is deemed additional since it is located in a Least Developed Country.
B.6 Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological options or description of new proposed approach:
11
Baseline and project scenarios The baseline survey shows that the targeted households in the project area use either charcoal and/or firewood. After the introduction of the LPG stove, the household use either LPG only or continue using charcoal and/or firewood in addition to LPG. The separate households into scenario based on their emissions, it is key consider the respective emissions of each fuel.
Fuel firewood charcoal LPG NCV (MJ/kg) 15.60 29.50 47.30 Default thermal efficiency6 15.28% 20.6% 55% EF (kg CO2e/GJ) 112.00 498.40 63.10 EF non CO2 (kg CO2e/GJ) 37.25 162.05 NRB 0.90 0.90 1.00 EF tot (kg CO2/MJ) 138.05 610.61 63.10 Emission to produce 1 MJ of useful energy 903 2,960 116 (kgCO2/MJ of useful energy) ratio to LPG 7.80 25.57 1.00
This table shows that to produce one unit of useful energy, using charcoal or firewood produce 25.6 and 7.8 times more emissions than LPG respectively. So the emissions from charcoal dwarf the emission from firewood which dwarf the emissions from LPG. As a result we divide households in the following manner:
- « Charcoal users » : use charcoal and any other fuel - “Firewood users”: use no charcoal but use firewood and potentially LPG - “LPG users”: use only LPG (no charcoal or firewood)
Since LPG is introduced by the project, in the baseline scenarios there is no LPG use. In the project scenarios there has to be LPG use, but based on their use of other fuel the household are classified in different scenarios. The aim of the project is that the household completely switches to LPG but it is not always the case unfortunately, so it is important to consider the residual use of the baseline fuels. The table here under summarizes the fuels used in each scenario:
Scenario Firewood use Charcoal use LPG use Baseline Firewood Yes No No Baseline Charcoal Maybe Yes No Project Firewood Yes No Yes Project Charcoal Maybe Yes Yes Project LPG No No Yes
The scenarios are associated as follow between the baseline and project
Baseline Scenario Project Scenario Baseline Firewood Project Firewood Baseline Charcoal Project Charcoal
6 See detailed calculation in the suppressed demand section below 12
Baseline Firewood Project LPG
Commercial use vs Domestic use The first monitoring survey done shows that 18% of the households that purchased a LPG stove cook food for commercial purpose (they are street food vendors), while 82% of the households cook for domestic purpose only. For the purpose of ex-ante VER calculation we will use the following simplification. Because of the very small scale of the project it was decided to focus our limited resources on the domestic segment so that multiple scenarios be established and then explored in depth with dedicated KPTs. No KPT were done for the commercial stoves. Instead we propose to use a conservative assumption. To make sure the results will be very conservative we used the domestic scenario yielding the less VER and used this result for commercial users. This is likely to be very conservative since commercial users prepare a lot more food than domestic users. Their improved stove is used for longer period of time and is very likely to yield greater fuel reduction than in a domestic context.
If this trend continues to be observed in the following crediting years, a similar conservative approach will be used in the monitoring report. However, if the proportion of commercial user increases, the project proponent might deem worthwhile to carry out a KPT for the project scenario as per the TPDDTEC methodology.
Suppressed Demand To estimate whether we are in a situation of suppressed demand, we look at the useful cooking energy used per person meal in each scenario. The following equations are used to calculate this parameter:
∑푓푢푒푙 휂푓푢푒푙∗푁퐶푉푓푢푒푙∗푌푓푢푒푙,푠 푈퐶퐸푠 = 푃푀푠 Where:
• 푈퐶퐸푏: is the useful cooking energy per person meal (MJ/person-meal) of scenario s • 휂푓푢푒푙: is the average thermal efficiency of the stove used with the considered fuel (derived from WBT) • 푁퐶푉푓푢푒푙: is the Net Calorific Value of the considered fuel (MJ/kg) derived from the latest IPCC guidelines. • 푌푓푢푒푙,푏: is the daily fuel consumption of the household (kg of fuel/day/hh) as derived from the KPT of scenario s. • 푃푀푏: is the average number of person meal per day per household (person-meal/day/hh) derived from the KPT of scenario s.
The results of the baseline and project KPT show that there is a strong suppressed demand:
13
Cooking Energy Utilised for each scenario 1.20
1.00
0.80
meal -
0.60 MJ/person 0.40
0.20
- Baseline Firewood Baseline Charcoal Monitoring Firewood Monitoring Charcoal Monitoring LPG only
The cooking energy used in the baseline scenarios is a lot less than in the project scenarios. This shows that there is a suppressed demand. This is also confirmed by the fact that the “Baseline Firewood Users” burn only 136 kg of firewood per year per capita. This is a lot less than the 500 kg/year/capita recognized as a standard firewood consumption in methodologies like Gold Standard “Simplified Cookstove methodology” that rely on suppressed demand as well. The measure of PPI shows the likelihood of each scenario of being under the national poverty line (higher results mean the group is poorer).
PPI: average chance of being below the national poverty line 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Baseline firewood Baseline Charcoal Monitoring Firewood Monitoring Charcoal Monitoring LPG
This chart shows that the baseline users are twice more likely to be under the national poverty line than the project scenarios. Poorer households are more likely to be in a suppressed demand situation. For each baseline scenario, the cooking energy utilized will be adjusted to match the corresponding project scenario. The adjustment will be done while keeping the proportion of each fuel and stove used unchanged only by adjusting the fuel consumption level. The cooking energy utilized is obtained by multiplying the specific fuel consumption (in kg/person-meal) by the fuel NCV (from the latest IPCC guideline) and the stove thermal efficiency. 14
The stove thermal efficiency of the LPG stove, Three Stone Fire and Roumdé stove has been determined during a WBT conducted by an independent laboratory, the average thermal efficiency of all phase was used. For the baseline charcoal stove, when no WBT tests results were available, we used the method developed in the CDM AMS IIG methodology to assess the stove default thermal efficiency: if the stove has no grid of chimney, its thermal efficiency is 10%, if the stove has a grid or a chimney its thermal efficiency is 20%. The baseline survey provides us with the details of all the firewood and charcoal stove owned by the households.
Firewood stove Number of stove owned by household Thermal efficiency Source Three Stone fire 1.36 13% WBT Malgache stove 0.35 20% CDM AMS IIG Roumdé stove 0.17 22% WBT Average 1.89 15.28%
Charcoal stove Number of stove owned by household Thermal efficiency Source Malgache charocal 0.88 20% CDM AMS IIG Roumdé 0.35 22% WBT Average 1.23 20.6%
Fuel consumption before the application of the suppressed demand:
Firewood Charcoal LPG Person- Useful energy MJ (kg/hh/day) (kg/hh/day) (kg/hh/day) meal/hh/day per person meal Baseline Firewood 3.12 - - 10.50 0.71 Baseline Charcoal 0.84 0.96 - 10.06 0.78 Monitoring Firewood 2.73 - 0.27 12.39 1.08 Monitoring Charcoal 2.02 0.33 0.26 12.57 1.07 Monitoring LPG only - 0.00 0.36 8.84 1.04
Fuel consumption after the application of the suppressed demand:
Firewood Charcoal LPG Person- Useful energy MJ (kg/hh/day) (kg/hh/day) (kg/hh/day) meal/hh/day per person meal Baseline Firewood (SD) 4.76 - - 10.50 1.08 Baseline Charcoal (SD) 1.15 1.32 - 10.06 1.07 Monitoring Firewood 2.73 - 0.27 12.39 1.08 Monitoring Charcoal 2.02 0.33 0.26 12.57 1.07 Monitoring LPG only - 0.00 0.36 8.84 1.04
Emission Reduction
15
Emission reductions are verified and credited by comparing the emissions for a given project scenario to the emissions for the applicable baseline scenario. Multiple project scenarios can be credited in comparison to different baseline scenarios, and multiple project scenarios can be credited in comparison to the same baseline scenario, as is applicable. The initial emissions profile of each baseline scenario and project scenario is determined by the results of the respective baseline studies and project studies. Over the project period the results are updated and adjusted depending on results of the ongoing monitoring studies. Sections II.4 and II.5 of the methodology describe requirements for the baseline studies and project studies required respectively for baseline and project scenarios, and section III.1 of the methodology describes the requirements for ongoing monitoring studies. The baseline fuel and the project fuel are different; hence emission reductions are calculated according to the following formulae as prescribed by the selected methodology:
ERy=∑b,pNp,y*Up,y*(fNRB,b,y*ERb,p,CO2+ERb,p,y,non-CO2) - ∑LEp,y- αy (1)
Where:
∑b,p Sum over all relevant (baseline b/project p) couples
Np,y Cumulative number of project technology-days included in the project database for project scenario p against baseline scenario b in year y
Up,y Cumulative usage rate for technologies in project scenario p in year y, based on cumulative adoption rate and drop off rate (fraction)
ERb,p,CO2 Specific CO2 emission savings for an individual technology of project p against an individual technology of baseline b in year y, in tCO2/day, and as derived from the statistical analysis of the data collected from the field tests. See equation (2) for calculation details.
ERb,p,y,non-CO2 Specific non-CO2 emission savings for an individual technology of project j against an individual technology of baseline b in year y, converted in tCO2/year, and as derived from the statistical analysis of the data collected from the field tests. See equation (3) for calculation details.
fNRB,b,y Fraction of biomass used in year y for baseline scenario b that can be established as non- renewable biomass (drop this term from the equation when using a fossil fuel baseline scenario)
LEp,y Leakage for project scenario p in year y (tCO2e/yr)
퐸푅푏,푝,푦,퐶푂2 = 푃푀푝,푦 ∗ ∑푓푢푒푙(푃푏,푓푢푒푙 − 푃푝,푦,푓푢푒푙) ∗ 푁퐶푉푓푢푒푙 ∗ 퐸퐹푓푢푒푙,퐶푂2 (2)
Where:
푃푀푝,푦: Average number of people meal for scenario p in year y
푃푏,푓푢푒푙: Average fuel consumption of fuel in baseline scenario b in kg/people-meal
푃푝,푦,푓푢푒푙: Average fuel consumption of fuel in project scenario p in kg/people-meal 16
푁퐶푉푓푢푒푙: Net Calorific Value of fuel in TJ/kg
퐸퐹푓푢푒푙,퐶푂2: Emission Factor of fuel in tCO2/TJ
퐸푅푏,푝,푦,푛표푛퐶푂2 = 푃푀푝,푦 ∗ ∑푓푢푒푙,푏(푃푏,푓푢푒푙 − 푃푝,푦,푓푢푒푙) ∗ 푁퐶푉푓푢푒푙 ∗ [∑푔푎푠 퐸퐹푓푢푒푙,푔푎푠 ∗ 퐺푊푃푔푎푠] (3)
Where:
퐸퐹푓푢푒푙,푔푎푠: Emission factor in tons of gas per TJ. The considered gas in this project are CH4 and N2o.
퐺푊푃푔푎푠: Global Warming Potential of gas expressed in 100 years CO2 equivalent.
Leakage The table below details the estimated risk level for each potential source of leakage identified in the methodology.
Potential source of leakage Risk Level Justification
1- The displaced baseline Very Low The displaced baseline technologies have a technologies are reused outside rather short lifespan and are already widely the project boundary in place of available in the greater Ouagadougou area. lower emitting technology or in a manner suggesting more usage The number of baseline stoves displaced by than would have occurred in the the project is negligible compared to the absence of the project. overall number of stoves available in the greater Ouagadougou area (0.3% when the project will be at its widest extent). See excel file (“leakage” tab) for more details on the calculations.
2- The non-renewable biomass or Very Low The amount of charcoal displaced by the fossil fuels saved under the project is negligible compared to the overall project activity are used by non- charcoal consumption in Ouagadougou project users who previously (0.53%). See the excel file (“leakage” tab) for used lower emitting energy more details on the calculations. sources. The project will not affect the availability or overall price of charcoal in the greater Ouagadougou area.
3- The project significantly impacts Low The amount of biomass displaced by the the NRB fraction within an area project is very limited compared to the overall where other CDM or VER project charcoal consumption of Ouagadougou activities account for NRB (0.53%). fraction in their baseline scenario.
17
As such, its impact on the NRB fraction is negligible. See excel file (“leakage” tab) for more details on the calculations.
However, we will monitor the overall charcoal/firewood consumption savings allowed by the project. If those saving become larger than 2% of the overall charcoal/firewood consumption in the project target area, then we will assess whether the corresponding change in NRB is accounted for by other carbon offset project in the same area.
4- The project population Low Ouagadougou climate is tropical and space compensates for loss of the heating is not required even during the coldest space heating effect of inefficient months of the year. See chart of temperature technology by adopting some in Ouagadougou in the excel file (“leakage” other form of heating or by tab). retaining some use of inefficient technology7. However, we will monitor whether people do space heating in the monitoring survey and if this appears to be a reality we will conduct a KPT during the colder month to capture potential effect due to the increased cooking efficiency (and lower space heating efficiency) of the project stove.
5- By virtue of promotion and Low The LPG is the cleanest technology available in marketing of a new technology Ouagadougou (it is 25 times cleaner than with high efficiency, the project charcoal and 7 times cleaner than firewood). stimulates substitution within The baseline survey shows that almost no one households who commonly used use electricity as a cooking fuel. a technology with relatively lower emissions, in cases where However, we will monitor the technology that such a trend is not eligible as an people were using before they switch to the evolving baseline. project technology. If it appears they switch from a cleaner technology we will make sure this is accounted for either as leakage or by creating a specific baseline scenario to reflect their baseline emission (which would yield negative emission reduction).
18
Leakage source 3,4 and 5 have been identified has being low and have been integrated into the monitoring plan. Leakage source 1 and 2 are deemed very low and will not be monitor as allowed by the methodology in section 6: “Leakage risks deemed very low can be ignored as long as the case for their insignificance is substantiated. “
Fixed/Evolving Baseline
A fixed baseline has been established and will be used throughout the crediting period.
NCV and EF factor in baseline and project scenario
NCV and EF are not measured in the field, the values used here are taken from the latest IPCC guideline. For a given fuel, the same values will be used in the baseline and project scenarios.
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:
Data / Parameter: EFfuel,CO2 Data unit: tCO2/TJ Description: CO2emission factor arising from use of fuels in baseline scenario Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Vol2 Chap1 Table 1.4 Value applied: EFfirewood,CO2= 112 tCO2/TJ ; EFcharcoal,CO2 = 487.2 tCO2/TJ EFLPG,CO2= 112 or 487.2 tCO2/TJ* Justification of the For firewood, the IPCC 2006 (Vol 2, Chap 1, Table 1.4) data have been applied. choice of data or For charcoal, in accordance with the methodology, the value has been description of estimated by multiplying the firewood Emission Factor a default charcoal to measurement firewood ratio of 4.35 kg of firewood/kg of charcoal (derived from FAO data8). methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: *As per the eligibility criteria detailed in section B.2, switching from non- renewable biomass to LPG is allowed only when considering the energy efficiency improvement, not the change of carbon content. As a result, the actual EF value of LPG is not used. Instead the EF values of firewood or charcoal are used for LPG depending on which fuel is displaced.
8 See the Apendix 1 of : “The role of Wood energy in Africa”, Samir Amous, FAO. Consulted online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2740e/x2740e05.htm#P3854_103806
19
Data / Parameter: EFfuel, nonCO2 Data unit: tCO2/TJ or tCO2/t_fuel Description: Non-CO2 emission factor arising from use of fuels in baseline scenario Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Vol2 Chap 2 Table 2.9 and latest GWP of CH4 and N2O (WGI AR5 2013 Table 8A.1 p731)9 Value applied: EFfw,nonCO2= 34.0 tCO2/TJ ; EFcharcoal,nonCO2 = 147.7 tCO2/TJ EFLPG,nonCO2 = 34.0 or 147.7 tCO2/TJ Justification of the For firewood the IPCC 2006 (Vol 2, Chap 2, Table 2.9) data have been applied choice of data or and multiplied by latest GWP data (GWPCH4= 28 and GWP N2O= 265) description of measurement For charcoal, in accordance with the methodology, the value has been methods and estimated by multiplying the firewood Emission Factor a default charcoal to procedures actually firewood ratio of 4.35 kg of firewood/kg of charcoal (derived from FAO data). applied: Any comment: *As per the eligibility criteria detailed in section B.2, switching from non- renewable biomass to LPG is allowed only when considering the energy efficiency improvement, not the change of carbon content. As a result, the actual EF value of LPG is not used. Instead the EF value of firewood or charcoal are used for LPG depending on which fuel is displaced.
Data / Parameter: NCVfuel Data unit: TJ/ton Description: Net calorific value of the fuels used in the baseline Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Vol 2, Chap 1, Table 1.2 Value applied: NCVfw = 0.0156 TJ/ton ; NCVLPG = 0.0473 TJ/ton ; NCVcharcoal = 0.029.5 TJ/ton Justification of the These values are taken from IPCC Guidelines 2006 Vol 2, Chap 1, Table 1.2 choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment:
9 See table 8.A.1 of: Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 20
Data / Parameter: Pb,fuel Data unit: kg/person-meal Description: Quantity of fuel that is consumed in baseline scenario b for each fuel Source of data to be Baseline FT used: Scenario 1= “firewood users”; Scenario 2 = “charcoal users” Value applied: P1,firewood= 0.45 P1,charcoal= 0.00 P1,LPG= 0.00 P2,firewood= 0.11 P2,charcoal= 0.13 P2,LPG= 0.00
Description of Fuel consumption were measured with a Kitchen Performance Test and were measurement expressed in kg/person-meal methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures Systematic outlier identification procedures to be applied: 90/30 precision check procedure Any comment:
Data unit: fNRB Description: Non-renewability status of woody biomass fuel in scenario i during year y Source of data to be CDM EB 90. Approved by Burkina Faso DNA on March 29 2013 used: Value applied: 90% Description of Default CDM EB approved value measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment: The NRB is used for all biomass (firewood, charcoal) used in both the baseline and the project scenario
B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:
Methodology
At the time of the PDD first submission for validation, all the survey related to the first crediting year have been already completed. The approach used for the Ex-Ante emission calculation follows the equation established for the Ex-Post calculation.
Summary of the results 21
The results of the survey are presented below along with the associated emission reduction calculation and related statistical analysis.
useful firewood charcoal LPG ER ER non energy per per per CO2 CO2 standard CI 90% mean per Uy Np,y ER total person person person (tCO2e/ (tCO2e/ error spread 30% person meal meal meal hh/day) hh/day) meal
Baseline Firewood 0.45 - - 1.08 (SD) Baseline Charcoal 0.11 0.13 - 1.07 (SD) Monitoring 0.22 - 0.022 1.08 0.0036 0.00095 97% 255,050 1,039.89 378.94 Firewood Monitoring 0.16 0.03 0.020 1.07 0.0120 0.00312 97% 109,307 1,470.60 421 Charcoal Monitoring - 0.00 0.040 1.04 0.0051 0.00264 97% 93,114 650.51 109.09 LPG only Commercial 0.0036 0.0009 97% 97,162 396.15 379 Total 3,557.15 690.13 907 1,067
The statistical analysis shows that the 90% confidence interval is within +-30% of the mean emission reduction. As a result, the difference in means between baseline emissions and project emissions maybe used directly.
Summary of the survey conducted
The table below detailed the number type and time of different survey conducted.
Type of survey Date Sample Size Baseline Survey March 2016 239 Usage Survey March 2016 323 Monitoring Survey Oct 2014 & April 2016 254 Baseline KPT April 2016 85 Project KPT Oct 2014 & April 2016 119
Usage rate and project scenario
The usage survey established a working rate of 97%. The monitoring survey showed the users of the LPG stove are classified in the following scenarios:
Scenario % of users Commercial 18% LPG 17% Charcoal 20% Firewood 46%
Fuel usage
22
The charts below show the type of fuel used and their frequency for each of the three project scenarios.
Fuel use frequency Monitoring Firewood Users 100% 80% 60% Never 40% Less than once a week 20% At least once a week
% of % household 0% Firewood Charcoal Kerosene LPG Electricity Every day Fuel type
When households using firewood purchased the LPG stove it displaced their use of firewood but most of the households continue to rely heavily on firewood. This situation represents 23% of the LPG stove users.
Fuel use frequency Monitoring Charcoal Users 100% 80% 60% Never 40% Less than once a week 20% At least once a week
% of % household 0% Firewood Charcoal Kerosene LPG Electricity Every day Fuel type
Households using charcoal and firewood in the baseline situation continued to somewhat rely on these fuel after they purchased the LPG stove. This situation represents 20% of the users
Fuel use frequency Monitoring LPG only users 100% 80% 60% Never 40% Less than once a week 20% At least once a week
% of % household 0% Firewood Charcoal Kerosene LPG Electricity Every day Fuel type
40% of the users switch completely to LPG and completely stopped using firewood or charcoal.
Health effect
The chart below shows the self-declared health effect of using dirty fuel for cooking.
23
Health Impact Health Impact Health Impact LPG Monitoring Firewood Monitoring Charcoal only users Users Users 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0%
always often sometimes never always often sometimes never always often sometimes never
Not surprisingly the household using more firewood suffer the most from adverse health effects while households that switched fully to LPG hardly mention any inconvenience. The corresponding chart for the baseline scenarios may be found in section B.4.
Indoor vs Outdoor cooking
Indoor cooking Indoor cooking Indoor cooking frequency Monitoring frequency Monitoring frequency Monitoring Firewood Users Charcoal Users LPG users
7% 2% 1% 16% 23% 20%
34% 33% 48%
31% 37% 48%
never sometime often always never sometime often always never sometime often always
This set of charts shows that households who switch fully to LPG tend to cook a lot more often inside. The difference with the baseline situation is quite striking. The corresponding chart for the baseline scenarios may be found in section B.4.
B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:
24
The equations provided in the methodology do not allow us to calculate separately baseline and project emissions. Leakage are also considered negligible. The table below was simplified to reflect this.
Stove being Crediting Year VER used
June 1st 2015 – May 31st 2016 3,557 1,520
June 1st 2016 – May 31st 2017 5,213 2,227
June 1st 2017 – May 31st 2018 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2018 – May 31st 2019 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2019 – May 31st 2020 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2020 – May 31st 2021 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2021 – May 31st 2022 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2022 – May 31st 2023 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2023 – May 31st 2024 10,000 4,271
June 1st 2024 – May 31st 2025 10,000 4,271
YEARLY AVERAGE 8,877 3,792
Based on projected sale and the result of the first year, it is expected that the 10,000 VER/year should be reached during the third monitoring year.
B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan as per the existing or new methodology applied to the micro-scale project activity:
B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:
Data / Parameter: Pp,y Data unit: kg/person-meal Description: Quantity of fuel that is consumed in project scenario p during year y Source of data to be Project FT, project FT updates used:
25
Value of data applied Scenario 1: “Firewood users”; Scenario 2: “Charcoal users”; Scenario 3: for the purpose of “Monitoring LPG users only” calculating expected P1,1,firewood= 0.22 emission reductions P1,1,charcoal= 0.00 P1,1,LPG= 0.022
P1,2,firewood= 0.16 P1,2,charcoal= 0.03 P1,2,LPG= 0.020
P1,3,firewood= 0.00 P1,3,charcoal= 0.00 P1,3,LPG= 0.040
Monitoring Updated every two years frequency: Description of Fuel consumption will be measured with a Kitchen Performance Test and will measurement be expressed in kg/person-meal methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures Systematic outlier identification procedures to be applied: 90/30 precision check procedure Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Up,y Data unit: Percentage Description: Usage rate in project scenario p during year y Source of data to be Annual usage survey used: Value of data applied 97% for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions Monitoring Annual frequency: Description of Usage rate will be weighted to make sure each age group of the stove are measurement adequately represented. methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures Transparent data analysis and reporting to be applied: Any comment: A single usage parameter is weighted to be representative of the quantity of project technologies of each age being credited in a given project scenario.
26
Data / Parameter: Np,b,y Data unit: Project technologies credited (units*day) Description: Cumulative number of project technology-days included in the project database for project scenario p against baseline scenario b in year y Source of data to be Total sales record used: Value of data applied Nbaseline charcoal, project charcoal,1= 109,307 for the purpose of Nbaseline firewood, project firewood,1= 125,501 calculating expected Nbaseline charcoal, project LPG only,1= 222,663 emission reductions Ncommercial,1= 97,162
Monitoring Continuous frequency: Description of This value is based on the sale date of each individual stove. Stoves that were measurement sold after the beginning of the crediting period are discounted proportionally to methods and the time they were used during the crediting year. procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures Transparent data analysis and reporting to be applied: Any comment: The total sales record is divided based on project scenario to create the project database
Data / Parameter: αy Data unit: fraction Description: Discount factor for VER if sample size is too small Source of data to be Baseline and monitoring Kitchen Performance Test used:
Value of data applied 0 for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions Monitoring Every two years frequency: Description of This parameter is derived from the statistical analysis of the result. If the measurement sample size is enough to meet the precision requirement of the methodology, methods and then α=0, otherwise this parameter will allow the calculation of the ER based procedures to be on the lower bound of 90% one-sided interval. applied: QA/QC procedures Transparent data analysis and reporting to be applied: Any comment:
27
B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan:
A total sales record and project database are maintained continuously. For each project scenario a monitoring survey and usage survey is conducted annually. For each project scenario the PFT is updated every two years.
A. TOTAL SALES RECORD
The project proponent must maintain an accurate and complete sales record. The record should be backed up electronically. The required data are:
1. Date of sale 2. Geographic area of sale 3. Model/type of project technology sold 4. Quantity of project technologies sold 5. Name and telephone number (if available), and address: a. Required for all bulk purchasers, i.e., retailers and industrial users b. All end users except in cases where this is justified as not feasible. In such cases the number of names/telephone numbers/addresses collected must be as many as commensurate with representative sampling, i.e. the number of end user names and addresses (and phone numbers where possible) within sales record shall be large enough so that surveys and tests can be based on representative purely randomly selected samples. In all cases this should not be less than 10 times the survey and field test sample sizes (including usage surveys for each age of product), in order to ensure an adequate end user pool to which random sampling can be applied.
6. Mode of use: domestic, commercial, other: a. As many as commensurate with representative sampling
B. PROJECT DATABASE
The project database is derived from the total sales record (or dissemination record in case of non- commercial distribution) with project technologies differentiated by different project scenarios. The differentiation of the project database into sections is based on the results of the applicable monitoring studies for each project scenario, in order that ER calculations can be conducted
28
appropriately section by section Technologies aged beyond their useful lifetime, as established in the usage survey, are removed from the project database and no longer credited.
C. ONGOING MONITORING STUDIES
The following ongoing monitoring studies are conducted for each project scenario following verification of the associated initial project studies. These monitoring studies investigate and define parameters that could not be determined at the time of the initial project studies or that change with time.
a) Monitoring Survey –Completed annually, beginning 1 year after project registration
The monitoring survey investigates changes over time in a project scenario, and in a baseline scenario in case of industrial applications (or renewal of crediting period), by surveying end users with project technologies (and baseline technologies in case on industrial applications) on an annual basis. It provides critical information on year-to-year trends in end user characteristics such as technology use, fuel consumption and seasonal variations.
Monitoring Survey Representativeness:
End users from a given project scenario are selected using representative sampling techniques to ensure adequate representation of users with technologies of different ages. Common sampling approaches such as clustered random sampling are allowed and geographic distribution should be factored into selection criteria. End users can be surveyed at any time(s) throughout the year with care taken to collect information pertaining to seasonal variations in technology and fuel use patterns.
Monitoring Survey sample sizing and data collection:
The monitoring survey has the same sample sizing and data collection guidelines as the baseline survey described in Section II.4 of the methodology, but for non-industrial applications, the monitoring survey is only conducted with end users representative of the project scenario and currently using the project technology (except for the case of a renewal of the crediting period which requires a re-assessment of the baseline). Monitoring surveys can be conducted with usage survey participants that are currently using the project technology.
b) Usage Survey –Completed annually, or more frequently, and in all cases on time for any request of issuance. 29
The usage survey provides a single usage parameter that is weighted based on drop off rates that are representative of the age distribution for project technologies in the total sales record.
A usage parameter must be established to account for drop off rates as project technologies Age and are replaced. Prior to a verification, a usage parameter is required that is weighted to be representative of the quantity of project technologies of each age being credited in a given project scenario. For example, if only technologies in the first year of use (age 0-1) are being credited, a usage parameter must be established through a usage survey for technologies age 0-1. If an equal number of technologies in the first year of use (age 0-1) and second year of use (age 1-2) are credited, a usage parameter is required that is weighted to be equally representative of drop off rates for technologies age 0-1 and age 1-2.
Survey sample sizing and data collection:
The minimum total sample size is 100, with at least 30 samples for project technologies of each age being credited. The majority of interviews in a usage survey must be conducted in person and include expert observation by the interviewer within the kitchen in question, while the remainder may be conducted via telephone by the same interviewers on condition that in-kitchen observational interviews are first concluded and analyzed such that typical circumstances are well understood by the telephone interviewers.
The usage parameter must be applied when calculating the quantity of fuel consumed in Project scenario p during year y (Bp,y). Unless proven otherwise, it should be assumed that any drop off in the use of the project technology is replaced by fuel consumption in the applicable baseline scenario. The usage survey will establish a useful lifetime for technologies after which they are removed from the project database and no longer credited.
c) Project FT Update –Completed every other year, or more frequently.
The PFT update is an extension of the project PFT and provides a fuel consumption assessment representative of project technologies currently in use every two years. Hence the PPT update accounts for changes in the project scenario over time as project technologies age and new customers are added, also as new models and designs are introduced. It is legitimate to apply an Age Test instead of a PFT, to project technologies which remain materially the same year after year.
30
d) Baseline FT Update – This will not be updated; a fixed baseline is chosen.
e) Leakage Assessment –
Three sources of leakage have been identified as being potentially significant:
- Change in NRB fraction : we will monitor and report on the change in overall fuel consumption in the project area due to the project. If this change is above 2% we will consider potential change in the NRB for other carbon offset project. - Compensation for loss in space heating : our knowledge of the area indicates that there is no space heating. However this will be monitored in the monitoring survey and if a significant portion of the targeted household do heat their house in the « cold » season we will account for it in the leakage calculation. - We will monitor whether cleaner baseline technologies were used by the project household before they switch to the project technology. If this is the case we will account for it in the leakage assessment.
These aspects will be included into the yearly Monitoring Survey and the result will be detailed into the monitoring reports.
f) Non-Renewable Biomass Assessment Update
The non-renewable biomass fraction is fixed based on the results of the NRB assessment. Over the course of a project activity the project proponent may at any time choose to re-examine renewability by conducting a new NRB assessment. In case of a renewal of the crediting period and as per Gold Standard rules, the NRB fraction must be reassessed as any other baseline parameters and updated in line with most recent data available.
31
h) continued usage of baseline stove
The monitoring report should highlight the percentage of household that are still using their baseline stove and make sure emission arising from their use are taken into account.
B.8 Date of completion of the application of the existing or new baseline and monitoring methodology and name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies)
The methodology application was completed on September 2016. Olivier Lefebvre, founder of Climate Solutions Consulting is the responsible person.
SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period
C.1 Duration of the project activity:
C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:
>> 07/27/2012
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: >> 10 years 0 month
32
C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information:
C.2.1. Renewable crediting period
C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:
>> N/A
C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:
>> N/A
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1. Starting date:
>> 01/06/2015
C.2.2.2. Length:
>> 10 years
SECTION D. Stakeholders’ comments
D.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>> Please describe the agenda of physical meeting, Non-technical summary, Invitation tracking table, Text of invitations sent, any other consultation method used
The meeting took place on December 6th, 2011 at the meeting room “Maison Blanche” in Ouagadougou. The agenda was:
08:00 Welcoming of participants
08:30 Introduction
08:40 Presentation of the project
09:00 Questions about the project
09:20 Explanations on sustainable development and blind sustainable development exercise
10:10 Presentation of sustainable development matrix
10:25 Coffee break
10:55 Discussion on monitoring sustainable development indicators
33
11:45 Presentation of monitoring plan
12:00 Conclusion and closure of the meeting
The non-technical summary was handed out in French and in the local dialect Moré, the French version is provided in this report.
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Projet « Une femme, un foyer, une forêt » - Résumé
Entrepreneurs du Monde est une association française qui a pour objectif d’améliorer les conditions de vie et de réduire la pauvreté par l’appui aux initiatives économiques. Depuis 2010, Entrepreneurs du Monde mène le projet « Une femme, un foyer, une forêt » qui consiste à sensibiliser des femmes aux bénéfices des foyers améliorés et des foyers à gaz, et à faciliter leur accès à ces produits grâce à du crédit ou de l’épargne.
La technologie
Les foyers améliorés consomment en moyenne 40% moins de bois qu’un foyer traditionnel et les foyers à gaz n’en consomment pas du tout, ce qui permet de diminuer la coupe de bois et de lutter contre la déforestation qui touche le Burkina Faso. Les foyers améliorés sont produits localement par des artisans formés par la GIZ / FAFASO1.
Les activités menées par Entrepreneurs du Monde
En 2010 et 2011, Entrepreneurs du Monde a favorisé la diffusion des foyers améliorés et à gaz en partenariat avec les institutions de microfinance Micro Start, AsIEnA et LSK, les zones artisanales et pépinières d’entreprises de Banfora et Tenkodogo et les Unions et Groupements de Productrices de Karité du Houet.
En 2012, Entrepreneurs du Monde ajoutera un second canal de distribution avec des boutiquiers burkinabè. Entrepreneurs du Monde formera les boutiquiers et les équipera avec du matériel de communication. Certains d’entre eux bénéficieront d’un crédit spécifique pour installer une consigne de gaz.
Résultats et impacts du projet
En deux ans, Entrepreneurs du Monde aura permis la diffusion de près de 6 000 foyers. Les bénéfices pour les utilisateurs, essentiellement des femmes, sont divers et considérables :
- Gains de temps (sur la cuisson des repas mais aussi sur le ramassage de bois)
- Meilleure santé (Réduction ou élimination des émissions dangereuses de fumée)
- Economies importantes pouvant représenter jusqu’à 3 000 FCFA par mois.
Par ailleurs, le projet contribue à l’amélioration des conditions de vie des artisans par l’augmentation de leurs revenus. Enfin, l’utilisation des foyers améliorés et à gaz réduisent la consommation de bois et permettent d’éviter des émissions de CO2, un gaz nuisible à l’environnement.
34
La finance carbone
Les émissions de CO2 évitées grâce à l’utilisation de foyers améliorés donnent droit à des crédits carbone, qui sont ensuite revendus sur le marché dit « volontaire ». Les revenus issus de cette revente devraient permettre de financer partiellement les activités mises en œuvre au Burkina Faso dans le cadre du projet « Une Femme, Un Foyer, Une Forêt ». Entrepreneurs du Monde, en collaboration avec Carbonium2, a commencé les démarches d’enregistrement selon la méthodologie recommandée par le Gold Standard3. La consultation des parties prenantes fait partie du processus d’enregistrement.
1 La GIZ, bras technique de la Coopération allemande, mène depuis 2005 le projet FAFASO (Foyers améliorés du Faso) qui consiste à soutenir la production et diffusion de foyers améliorés Roumdé au Burkina Faso.
2 Carbonium est une entreprise française qui s’occupe de l’enregistrement du projet pour le compte d’Entrepreneurs du Monde
3 Le Gold Standard est l’organisme qui certifie que le projet peut générer des crédits carbone."
The invitations were advertised by multiple means: public posters, email and letters. This table gives an overview of the invitation process:
Organisation Name Means of Date of Confirmation invitation invitation received
Organizers
Sud-Conseil Mohammed Mail 10/11/2011 Not Applicable Ouedraogo
Entrepreneurs du Monde Armel Guenguere Mail 04/11/2011 21/11/2011
Entrepreneurs du Monde Modeste Soubeaga Mail 04/11/2011 04/11/2011
Entrepreneurs du Monde Laetitia Raginel Mail 04/11/2011 04/11/2011
Entrepreneurs du Monde Claire Le Ster Mail 04/11/2011 04/11/2011
Entrepreneurs du Monde Thibaut Mary Mail 04/11/2011 04/11/2011
A People directly affected by the project
Improved cookstoves or gas stoves Public Poster 16/11/2011 02/12/2011 users
Micro Start Phebe Ouedraogo Registered 15/11/2011 15/11/2011 letter
LSK Gilberte Zongo Registered 15/11/2011 17/11/2011 letter
AsiEnA Alfred Ilboudo Registered 15/11/2011 29/11/2011 letter
GIZ Andrea Reikat Registered 15/11/2011 28/11/2011 letter
35
Improved cookstoves producers Compaore Ousmane Registered 15/11/2011 28/11/2011 letter
EdM employee Benoit Somé Mail 22/11/2011 22/11/2011
B Local or national officials
Ministry of Environment and Sya Coulibaly Registered 15/11/2011 28/11/2011 Sustainable Development - Water and letter Forest Department
Ministery of Mines, Quarries and Mamadou Ouedraogo Registered 15/11/2011 05/12/2011 Energy – Energy Department letter
Ministery of Mines, Quarries and Mme Diallo, Director Registered 15/11/2011 29/11/2011 Energy – Renewable and traditional letter 28/11/2011 energies Department
City Council Ouagadougou - Ilboudo Karim, Registered 15/11/2011 05/12/2011 Environment and Local Development President letter 28/11/2011 Committee
C DNA official representative
CONEDD (National Commission for Tene Seni Registered 15/11/2011 02/11/2011 Environment and Sustainable letter Development)
D NGO representatives
newTree Alain Traoré Registered 15/11/2011 21/11/2011 letter
newTree Kazeinga Gilbert 05/12/2011
SPONG Sylvestre Tiemtore Registered 15/11/2011 28/11/2011 letter
Fondation Nature et Vie Gildas Fousseni Registered 15/11/2011 22/11/2011 letter
Centre écologique Albert Schweitzer Soulama Yamako Registered 15/11/2011 29/11/2011 letter
E Gold Standard expert in the region
GS expert: Heba Rabie Mail 28/11/2011 29/11/2011
F NGO Gold Standard supporters
Mercy Corps McIntosh Dorothy Mail 22/11/2011 No
REEEP Harvey Katrine Mail 22/11/2011 No
HELIO International O'Connor-Lajambe Mail 22/11/2011 No Hélène
Greenpeace International Mail 22/11/2011 No
WWF International Roscher Bella Mail 22/11/2011 No
36
G Others (funders)
Poweo Foundation Marie-Noëlle Mail 14/17/2011 17/11/2011 Reboulet
The text of invitation is reproduced below. In each case French and Moré versions have been used, only the French version is reproduced here, please see the supporting documentation for other versions.
Monsieur Modeste Soubeaga
Responsable Programme Burkina Faso
Entrepreneurs du Monde
Ouagadougou, le 11 novembre 2011
Objet : Invitation
Monsieur xxx,
Entrepreneurs du Monde mène depuis 2010 un projet de promotion et distribution de foyers améliorés et à gaz au Burkina Faso, intitulé « Une femme, un foyer, une forêt ». Dans le cadre de l’enregistrement du projet au Gold Standard, Entrepreneurs du Monde organise une réunion de consultation des parties prenantes dont l’objectif est de présenter le projet mené et de donner l’opportunité aux différentes parties prenantes de discuter des impacts du projet.
En votre qualité de xxx, j’ai l’honneur de vous inviter, par la présente, à prendre part à la réunion de consultation qui aura lieu à Ouagadougou le mardi 6 décembre. La réunion se tiendra à la Maison Blanche (stade municipal, rue des photos Nikiema) de 8h à 12h30.
Je vous prie de bien vouloir confirmer votre présence au +226 71 73 50 28 ou à l’adresse mail suivante : [email protected].
37
Tout en vous remerciant d’avance pour votre disponibilité, je vous prie d’agréer l’expression de mes salutations distinguées.
Modeste SOUBEAGA
D.2. Summary of the comments received:
>> Please describe the outcome of the meeting, assessment of stakeholders comment, list of participants.
The table below presents the list of all the stakeholders who attended the meeting
Code Organization Role in the project Name Sexe
Organizers
Entrepreneurs du Monde Sustainable Development Manager Armel Guenguere F
Entrepreneurs du Monde Head of Program Burkina Faso Modeste Soubeaga M
Entrepreneurs du Monde Head of Programs Africa Laetitia Raginel F
Entrepreneurs du Monde Social Entrepreneurship Manager Claire Le Ster F
Entrepreneurs du Monde Training and Communication Manager Thibaut Mary M
A People directly affected by the project
Gas stove user Nabi Sangaré Bintou F
Gas stove user Garané Maïmouna F
Ouedraogo Savadogo Gas stove user F Kadiétou
Gas stove user Pamitaba/Nana Zourata F
Micro Start Operational Manager Gnouma Lydie F
LSK Credit officer Gilberte Zongo F
AsiEnA Credit officer Alfred Ilboudo M
GIZ/FAFASO Technical Coordinator Andrea Reikat F
GIZ/FAFASO Expert Albert Kere M
Improved cookstive producer Compaore Ousmane M
Improved cookstove producer Ouedraogo Boureima M
38
Entrepreneurs du Monde Social Entrepreneurship Officer Benoit Somé M
B Local or national officials
Ministery of Environment and Sustainable Development - Water IFN2 (Second Inventaire Forestier National) Sya Coulibaly M and Forest Department
Ministery of Mines, Quarries and Chef de service Energies Traditionnelles Mamadou Ouedraogo M Energy MCE
City Council Ouagadougou - Commission of Environment and Président Commission Ilboudo Karim M Local Development
C DNA official representative
SP/CONEDD Tene SENI F
D NGO representatives
newTree Chargé de programme Alain Traoré M
newTree Chargé de projet MDP - F3PA Kazienga Gilbert M
SPONG Chargé des projets Athanase F. Kaboré M
Fondation Nature et Vie Kinda Fousseni M
Centre écologique Albert Assistant technique Soulama Yamako M Schweitzer
G Others
Fondation Poweo Marie-Noëlle Reboulet F
Below are some pictures of the meeting:
39
40
41
Summary of stakeholders’ comments:
Was the comment Comments received/Question taken into Justification/Answer raised account (Y/N)
For some years, I have been According to the most recent figures, 70 improved looking at carbon credit to fund cookstoves projects are in the process of registration to improved cookstoves projects. Gold Standard. As far as traceability of cookstoves is Very few projects are registered concerned, a data base will be implemented to register today. This always fails because some information about buyers (name, place…) and all of : cookstoves distributed will be marked out. This is a huge work and we hope that all distribution intermediaries - traceability of cookstoves Y - it is asked that the will collaborate to this monitoring work. Of course, previous stove is Entrepreneurs du Monde will give them all the tools destructed needed to monitor sales. Are there new developments According to us, it is not necessary that the old suggesting that the registration cookstove is destructed because monitoring surveys for improved cookstoves take into account the usage rate of each cookstove. projects works better now? Therefore, if the family still uses traditional three-stone
42
cookstoves, this will be taken into account when estimating the usage rate of the improved cookstove and in the related computation of carbon emission reductions.
Intervention areas are illustrated in slide 3 of the presentation. There are10:
- Ouagadougou and the Kadiogo Province - Tenkodogo (cookstove distribution in partnership with ZAPE de Tenkodogo) - The South-West region, particularly in Dano, Dissin and Koper Could you define the area of - Banfora (cookstove distribution in partnership intervention of your project? Y with ZAPE de Banfora)
- Bobo-Dioulasso (cookstove distribution in partnership with UGPPK/H) - Dédougou (cookstove distribution in partnership with AsIEnA) - Léo (cookstove distribution in partnership with UGPPK/SZ)
The document « Vision 2020 de l’accès aux services énergétiques modernes, projet MEPRED, Elaboration du Livre Blanc national, Janvier 2008 » gives the following figures concerning the percentage of population owning an improved cooktove or a gas stove (data 2006). It is mentioned in the presentation that less than 20% Gas stove 21% of Burkinabe households cook Urban area with an improved cookstove. Improved Where does this figure come Y cookstove 17% from? Do you hold precise Gas stove 0,4% information about the city of Ouagadougou? Rural area Improved cookstove 20%
Entrepreneurs du Monde does not hold recent data on the equipment rate in the city of Ouagadougou.
How can you monitor the Wood consumption will be monitored through usage households’ wood Y surveys conducted with improved and gas stoves consumption ? beneficiaries. Presently, we are interviewing 200
10 Comprehensive list of the areas of intervention of the project at the time of the Local Stakeholder Consultation, including areas to be included in the microscale project activity and other areas. 43
beneficiaries that will help us determine baseline situations in rural and urban areas: Which stoves are usually used by the population? What is the daily wood consumption? Etc. Annual surveys will be conducted in order to assess the wood savings achieved by participating families thanks to the use of improved cookstoves or gas stoves. Quantitative tests will also be conducted in order to measure wood consumption per household and per type of cookstoves. A random representative sample will be selected. A team of technicians will go in each household during three consecutive days and measure the amount of wood used before and after the stove purchase.
It is not planned to give carbon credits directly to unions, microfinance institutions or partner organisations. Nonetheless, revenues from carbon credit will be used You presented various uses for to develop services that will directly benefit these carbon credits. Is it possible to institutions such as: consider a financial retribution - Conception of training tools and documents in for players that contribute to order to raise awareness of their beneficiaries on decreasing greenhouse gas environment conservation and improved and gas emissions? Not talking about Y stoves. giving money to customers, one - Technical support in order to implement saving part of carbon credits should be and credit mechanisms. given to associations or unions Furthermore, unions, MFI and partner organisations will that contribute to distributing ultimately benefit from other services like financial stoves in order to motivate them advances or access to loan funds made available thanks more. to carbon revenues. However, during the first months of the project these services will not be funded by carbon revenues because these revenues will not be secured at this time.
Awareness sessions are conducted either directly by Entrepreneurs du Monde or by educators from our partner MFIs, associations or unions. A flipchart on environmental conservation is used during awareness How do awareness sessions sessions in order to show pictures on causes and Y happen in the field? consequences of desertification and some solutions proposed to solve this issue. Improved cookstoves and gas stoves are also presented during these sessions. It is about presenting various types and models of improved cookstoves and showing their usage and advantages.
Does Entrepreneurs du Monde Safety recommendations are presented during implement trainings on safety Y awareness sessions on environment conservation and recommendations for gas users? LPG cookstoves usage. For example, we show them that, 44
when they can hear a noise next to their stove (similar to wind), this means that there is a gas leak and that the bottle is open. We also use a matchbox to show them how to switch on the gas stove. Other recommendations are made such as never to leave the stove within the reach of children.
Entrepreneurs du Monde doesn’t have any technical skills to create an improved cookstove. We therefore decided to promote existing improved cookstoves There are a lot of different already sold in the national market. Our prospection in improved cookstoves types in 2009 oriented our choice toward Roumde improved Y Burkina Faso. What were your cookstoves, promoted by GIZ/FAFASO: locally choice criteria? produced, already adopted by Burkinabe women, Roumde cookstoves benefit from a certification from IRSAT, a State organisation which certifies improved cookstoves.
All the stoves promoted by Entrepreneurs du Monde are presented during awareness sessions so that a person What is the target population can choose the cookstove that best fills its need and Y for each type of cookstove? budget. Nonetheless, we can notice that 77% of improved cookstoves are sold in rural area and 81% of gas stove are sold in urban area.
Carbon finance requires a broad set of technical skills. These are necessary to manage the surveys, quantitative tests, non-renewability of biomass assessment, and other data gathering tasks that must be conducted to What are the requirements of provide evidence of the GHG emission reductions Y carbon finance? generated by the project. Additionally, investing in carbon finance will require a minimum amount of working capital to fund the initial stages of the project registration process while no carbon revenues has yet been delivered.
You mentioned 5 340 In 2010, 983 gas stoves and 778 improved cookstoves cookstoves sold in the Save for a Y were sold. In 2011, 882 gas stoves and 2 697 improved stove project. Can you give the cookstoves were distributed. detailed figures ?
Entrepreneurs du Monde has a Entrepreneurs du Monde doesn’t work in the framework social role in the value chain of a project with a fixed deadline but has the objective (mobilisation, transport…) which Y to make its activities sustainable. To do that, we worked is funded by foundations. Are in 2011 on a social business model in which carbon there some mechanisms finance contributes to financial sustainability. implemented in order to
45
supplement Entrepreneurs du Monde in the long term?
30% is an indicative figure. Some tests realised in lab by IRSAT (Research Institute in Applied Sciences and Technologies) demonstrated a 40% reduction in wood consumption on average. We talk about 30% because we consider that the fuel consumption reduction potential of a stove isn’t always maximized by users. Emissions reductions will be calculated thanks to You were talking about 30% CO2 quantitative tests. A random representative sample (at savings. How do you calculate least 70 households in each group) will be selected. A this figure? What is the team of technicians will go in each household during methodology used in order to three consecutive days and measure the amount of Y calculate CO2 emissions wood used before and after the stove purchase. The decreases? More precisely, how emissions reductions generated will be deduced for each do you calculate the non type of stove. Final result will be conservative. renewable biomass rate? The calculation of the non-renewable biomass rate is presented in the PDD. It was calculated with the MDP methodology approved by the United Nations AMS-II and with a quantitative approach based on a survey of the existing literature. Some documents from the European Commission, CIRAD and FAO were also used. The two approaches give similar results; the more conservative one was selected.
The methodology UNFCCC “Tool for demonstration and How can you prove that the assessment of additionality” (Version 5.2) was used to project satisfies both economic demonstrate additionality. Technological and and environmental additionality investment barriers were highlighted. Someone can criteria, taking into account that Y indeed use a gas stove without the project but we a Burkinabe family can use LPG estimate that the project is promoting improved without support from the cookstoves and gas stoves and enables a larger number project? of people to get one.
Mechanisms developed to lower price barriers include You talked about the reasons loans, saving and various payment schemes. Microcredit why improved cookstoves are is particularly pertinent for the acquisition of a gas stove not available and you when families used to buy wood (mainly in urban area). mentioned some actions that Indeed, savings achieved on wood expenditures tend to Entrepreneurs du Monde do in Y make the investment painless. The mechanisms are also order to reduce these barriers. implemented in rural areas where they help remove Are these actions appropriate as some financial barriers. We notice that more than 50% regard price barrier, more of cookstoves distributed in the project are sold in rural precisely in rural area? areas.
Do you think about counting Y We will decide if we take into account stoves already cookstoves already distributed distributed later on in the registration process. It is 46
before Gold Standard possible to consider that the first phase is a pilot stage registration? that enables to better develop the project afterwards.
Could you precise geographical At the time of this discussion, we consider registering boundaries of the registered the project for the whole Burkina Faso11. The fact that project? Indeed, for the some areas might have already benefited from registration, you have to Y improved cookstoves will be taken into account in the consider a neutral area where qualitative survey. In this case, emissions reduction improved cookstoves are not estimates will be lowered. available yet.
What is the lifetime of the project and how do you plan This question was already answered (see above): long-term sustainability? Too “Entrepreneurs du Monde doesn’t work in the often, project sustainability is framework of a project with a fixed deadline but has the Y considered at the end of the objective to make its activities sustainable. To do that, project while you should we worked in 2011 on a social business model in which consider this aspect from the carbon finance contributes to financial sustainability”. very beginning.
The discussion about the monitoring of sustainable development indicators did not yield any concrete idea for the monitoring. But some questions about the indicators themselves were included in the table above.
D.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received and on measures taken to address concerns raised:
>> Please discuss how the stakeholder’s comments have been addressed and include the changes to the design of the programme based on their feedback.
Most of the comments from the stakeholder were justified and taken into account. The points raised during the meeting were already considered by the project. So the meeting did not yield any formal change in the design of the project.
D.4. Report on the Continuous input / grievance mechanism:
>>
Discuss the Continuous input / grievance mechanism expression method and details, as discussed with local stakeholders.
11 The location of the microscale project activity has since then been narrowed down to Ouagadougou and the Kadiogo Region. 47
Method Chosen (include all known details e.g. location of book, Justification phone, number, identity of mediator)
EdM office is Continuous Hard copies of the stakeholder consultation report are available located in a Input / at Entrepreneurs du Monde’s headquarters in Ouagadougou and central Grievance an input/grievance book can be used to submit comments to location in Expression Entrepreneurs du Monde’s project coordinator. Ouagadougou.
Telephone use Telephone (+226) 25 48 88 07 is widespread access Or Gold Standard: +41 (0) 22 788 7088 in Burkina Faso.
The initial consultation report is available online on Entrepreneurs du Monde’s website and West Africa blog:
http://www.entrepreneursdumonde.org/downloads/EdM- StakeholderConsultationReport0612112.pdf Email is going to be the Or easiest way to Internet/email http://westafrica.entrepreneursdumonde.org/2012/01/feedback- communicate access on-local-stakeholder.html problems for people who Further comments can be sent to: have access to internet. Sayouba GUIRA, Nafa Naana Director [email protected]
The Gold Standard may also be directly contacted at: [email protected]
Nominated Independent Not needed Mediator (optional)
During the meeting the various ways of communication were presented to the participants, no specific issue was raised about them.
If any issues are identified during the crediting period through any of the Methods above, a mitigation measure will be put in place and will be added to the monitoring plan.
48
D.5. Report on stakeholder consultation feedback round:
A stakeholder feedback round was conducted between July 25th and September 25th 2017During this period, the report was made publicly available on Entrepreneurs du Monde webiste and the web link was sent to all the stakeholders who were invited by email. A French translation of the comment received and answer to comments (section D.2) was translated into French (official language in Burkina Faso).
Hard copies of the report were printed and made available at the EdM office during the length of the feedback round for stakeholders who didn’t have an easy access to internet.
At the end of the feedback round, no comments were recieved.
49
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization: Entrepreneurs du monde
Street/P.O.Box: 4 allée du Textile
Building:
City: Vaulx-en-Velin
State/Region: Rhône-Alpes
Postfix/ZIP: 69 120
Country: France
Telephone: +33 (0)4 37 24 76 50
FAX:
E-Mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.entrepreneursdumonde.org/
Represented by: Thomas Thivillon
Title: Head of energy programs
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Thivillon
Middle Name:
First Name: Thomas
Department: Energy
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel: Tel. +33 (0)6 10 48 24 98
Personal E-Mail: [email protected]
50
Annex 2 - Information regarding Public Funding
51