CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in Effect As Of: 22 December 2006

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of the small scale project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

D. Environmental impacts

E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring Information

Annex 5: References

1 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Revision history of this document

Version Date Description and reason of revision Number 01 21 January Initial adoption 2003 02 8 July 2005  The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document.  As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at . 03 22 December  The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design 2006 document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM.

2 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity

A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity: Title: Maluti Air Quality Project - South

Version: Issue 5

Completion date: 9 November 2011

A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: Purpose of the project activity. The purpose of the project is to reduce ambient air pollution and GHG emissions by introducing an alternative ignition technique, that is more efficient than the conventional bottom-up ignition technique, to households who use coal for domestic cooking, water- and space heating and ironing.

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the proposed project activity Domestic coal use is a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa (Friedl et al., 2008, 24ff, 39ff and 54ff). Main coal consumption areas include the Mpumalanga Highveld, the north-eastern Free State and southeast Gauteng. Other smaller coal use clusters also exist.

The The Maluti Airquality Project - South is located in the soutern part of the Maluti a Phofung municipality of the Free State province of South Africa. It contains the main places Matsieng, Thaba Tshweu,Witsieshoek, Thibela, Phomolong and Thaba Bosiu as well as Phuthaditjhaba, Tlholong, Kestell, Tshiame, Harrismith, 42nd Hill, Intabazwe and the Golden Gate Highlands National Park.

The project activity is the introduction of an alternative ignition technique for domestic coal fires that causes households to switch from a less efficient ignition technique with significant greenhouse gas emissions to a technique that results in considerably less emissions. This introduction is done by demonstrating the technique to members of coal using households through well-orchestrated demonstrations in streets, houses and public places. The effect of the project activity is that coal users start to use an alternative top-down ignition technique that leads to more efficient use of coal through more complete combustion, and to a thus reduction in coal consumption and GHG emissions. It also leads to a drastic reduction in indoor and ambient air pollution, better visibility and reduced health risk. There are no negative secondary effects. The following photos show the difference in smoke emissions caused by the conventional ignition method compared with smoke emissions caused by the alternative ignition method.

3 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 1: Smoke from two braziers ignited at the same time, conventional ignition technique on the left and alternative technique right

Figure 2: Conventional ignition technique smoking at right while alternative technique produces almost no smoke (left)

4 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

The alternative ignition technique introduced by the project is colloquially known by a variety of names, depending on where and by who the method is demonstrated, it might be named 'Basa Magogo' (Zulu for 'Light it up, Grandmother!'), 'Basa Mama' (Sesotho) This variety is due to language variations in different locations. The Department of Minerals owns the trademark “Basa njengo Magogo” (Make fire like grandmother). This top-down ignition technique was developed in a participatory action research project conducted by the Nova Institute in the community of eMbalenhle. Top-down or alternative ignition produces more useful heat from the same mass of coal and thus consumes up to 50% less coal. The method works in stoves and braziers and reduces the particles emitted from the source by an average of 87% compared to the conventional method (Le Roux et al., 2005:20).

The conventional ignition technique that is generally used in South Africa is to place start the fire with ignition material at the bottom and then add coal on top. The fire then smoulders (sometimes for more than an hour) before the coal is burned through and heat is available at the top. The baseline situation is that coal using households would continue to use the less efficient conventional ignition technique with resultant high costs, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In the project scenario coal using households use the more efficient alternative ignition technique after having been exposed to the project activity.

The alternative top-down ignition technique begins by placing the coal at the bottom of the stove or brazier. This is followed by paper and wood. The paper is ignited and the wood starts burning after a few minutes. A handful of coal is then placed on top of the burning wood. When these pieces of coal start burning, the fire burns from the top down. With the heat on top, particles and volatiles pass through the fire and are burned off. This gives a cleaner and more efficient fire. The added advantage is that heat is available sooner at the top for cooking and heating. Laboratory tests by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa done in a brazier determined that the time to cooking temperature for the alternative technique is 10 minutes and for bottom-up ignition 60 minutes (Le Roux et al., 2005, 16).

Contribution of the project activity to Sustainable Development

Apart from reduction of greenhouse gas emissions the project has other direct environmental, social and economic benefits.

The environmental benefits include a drastic reduction in indoor and ambient air pollution since the start of the project. Laboratory studies have shown that the improved top-down ignition method leads to a reduction in total suspended particles by an average of 87% when compared to bottom-up ignition (Le Roux et al., 2005:20). Coal burning emits gaseous and particulate pollutants that include sulphur dioxide, heavy metals, respirable particles, carbon monoxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The latter are recognised as carcinogens (Airshed Planning Professionals et al 2004, 28). Reduction in particle emissions caused by the project leads to major health benefits for users as well as for the general population in the area. The type of coal commonly used for domestic energy in South Africa is commonly referred to as D-grade coal. D-grade residential coal is described by Engelbrecht et al (2002:160) as "... a low-cost bituminous coal generally with a high ash, sulfur and volatiles contents.". Since D-grade coal contains about 17% ash (Le Roux et al., 2005:29), the avoidance of solid waste in the form of ash is also an important advantage to users as well as to local authorities. In many cases not all ash is removed by municipal waste removal services and is dumped locally on residential stands or in informal ash-dumps. This form of dumping poses risk of water pollution (through run-off) and soil pollution.

5 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

The social benefit to communities is primarily gained from the improved health of the community members. A recent study (Airshed Planning Professionals et al 2004:64) found that air pollution in the metropolitan areas of South Africa caused 67.2 restricted activity days per potentially economically active person. The major cause of this health impact is domestic solid fuel use. As the alternative ignition technique reduces particulate pollution from a single fire by an average of 87% (Le Roux et al 2005:20) , the effect on levels of indoor pollution and ambient air pollution is dramatic. Smoke from coal fires that are ignited using the bottom-up ignition technique also has a marked effect on visibility, especially in the late afternoon and early morning when many people make fire at the same time. Because more people use coal in winter, this is worse in winter. This leads to increased risk of road accidents and crime during these times.

The economic benefit to the end-users takes the form of savings on health care and coal consumption. The monitoring report attached as Annex 4 shows that a household which converts to the alternative technique saves on average 349.97kg of coal per year. The coal merchant survey conducted by the Nova Institute in 2010 found that the average price of coal in the Target Area was no less than R1.50/kg (data available on request). This means that the average savings by a household using the alternative ignition technique is R 524.96 per year (see B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions for details). The project provides employment to area leaders, team leaders, demonstrators and survey field workers in every location where the project activity takes place.

In 2010 more than 15 local people where employed by the project. The total training, wages and commissions paid to these employees in this year were in excess of R100 000

A.3. Project participants:

Kindly indicate if the Name of Party involved wishes Party Host Country Private and/or public entity(ies) to be considered as a involved (*) project participant Instituut: Navorsing en Ontwikkeling vir die Voorkoming van Armoede translated as Institute: Research and Development for the Upliftment of Poverty (Association Nova South Africa Yes incorporated in terms of Section 21 of the South African Companies Act). Trading as “The Nova Institute” or “Nova"

Table 1: Project Participant

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity:

6 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: The HAQ – Maluti South project is located in the soutern part of the Maluti a Phofung municipality of the Free State province of South Africa.

7 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): The project is a voluntary project. The project activity takes place within the borders of South Africa.

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Free State

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: The implementation took place in Thaba Bosiu, Makgalaneng and Tsheseng, all located within the local municipality of Maluti a Phofung. The survey area corresponds to these areas. The value of the variable Pop also corresponds to the population of these areas. As a conservative measure, the number of users of the alternative technique outside these areas are assumed to be 0. The main town in this area is Phuthaditjhaba.

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : The HAQ – Maluti South project is being implemented in a number of main places (as defined in the 2001 Census) in the Maluti a Phofung municipality. These main place: 1. Matsieng 2. Thaba Bosiu 3. Thaba Tshweu

8 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

4. Thibela 5. Witsieshoek 6. Phomolong

Matsieng Coordinates Latitude 26°35'35.93" S Longitude 28°48'31.37" E

Thaba Tshweu Coordinates Latitude 28°36'33.11" S Longitude 28°49'32.67" E

Witsieshoek Coordinates Latitude 28°37'54.28" S Longitude 28°54'57.64" E

Thibela Coordinates Latitude 26°38'31.42" S Longitude 28°51'22.27" E

Phomolong Coordinates Latitude 26°37'41.43" S Longitude 28°52'17.61" E

Thaba Bosiu Coordinates Latitude 28°35'45.23" S Longitude 28°51'46.56" E

The Target Area (see applied methodology for definition) is defined by the borders of the main places Matsieng, Thaba Bosiu, Thaba Tshweu, Thibela, Witsieshoek and Phomolong defined in the 2001 Census, the most recent official statisticas, well as Tlholong, Kestell, Tshiame, Harrismith, 42nd Hill, Intabazwe and the Golden Gate Highlands National Park. The population of above mentioned main places is give as 13 722 households in 2001.

Thaba Bosiu is a rural area which had 1 927 households in 2001. Of these 40.01% used coal as primary energy source for heating while only 20.45% used electricity.

Phomolong is a peri-urban area which 1 545 households in 2001. Of these 43.37% used coal as primary energy source for heating while 20.32% used electricity.

9 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Matsieng is a peri-urban area which 5 609 households in 2001. Of these 38.58% used coal as primary energy source for heating while 17.95% used electricity.

Thebela is a peri-urban area which 1 204 households in 2001. Of these 34.55% used coal as primary energy source for heating while 32.56% used electricity.

Witsieshoek is a peri-urban area which 997 households in 2001. Of these 30.59% used coal as primary energy source for heating while 13.64% used electricity.

Thaba Tshwe is a peri-urban area which had 2 440 households in 2001. Of these 33.85% used electricity as primary energy source for heating while 27 .34% used coal.

Because the implementation focussed on specific area, with different characteristics, the monitoring survey was stratified into three strata, corresponding to the borders of Thaba Bosiu, Phomolong, Matsieng, Thibela, Witsieshoek and Thaba Tshwe for sampling and reporting purposes.

A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity: Project type: Type II: Energy Efficiency Improvement project.

The project activity is the introduction of an alternative ignition technique that causes households to switch from a less efficient ignition technique with significant greenhouse gas emissions to a technique that results in considerably less emissions.

Project category: Category II.C.: Demand-side energy efficiency programmes for specific technologies

The project comprises a programme that encourage the adoption of an alternative ignition teqnique that results a more energy-efficient burning process for domestic coal fires.

Technology/measure:

A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period

Estimation of Year annual emission reductions in tonnes of CO2e 2010 787

10 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

2011 3213 2012 4500 2013 4500 2014 4500 2015 4500 2016 4500 2017 4500 2018 4500 2019 4500 Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 40000 Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average of the estimated reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO e) 2 4000 Table 2: Estimation of Annual Emission Reductions

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: Nova is a registered as a company not for profit under section 21 of the South Africa companies act. Nova is also registered as a Non-Profit Organisation as and such is legally permitted to receive charitable donations. Nova did not receive any public money as funding for VER projects. The main source of funding for the project is the sale of Verified Emission Reductions exists. The project is therefore not viable without income from the sale of Verified Emission Reductions.

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large scale project activity: The project is a micro- scale project.

11 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: Title Voluntary Gold Standard: “Programme, baseline and monitoring methodology for the introduction of an alternative ignition technique as measure to improve the energy efficiency of domestic coal fires”. Version 01 Reference http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/fileadmin/editors/files/6_GS_technical_docs/manuals_and_methodolgi es/Alternative_Ignition.pdf

B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: The methodology was especially developed for the project activity by the Nova Institute.

The applicability criteria as stated in the methodology apply to the project. The methodology applies to: “ ... programs or activities introducing an alternative ignition technique for domestic coal fires to households within a distinct geographical area. The project activity is the introduction of an alternative ignition technique that causes households to switch from a less efficient ignition technique with significant greenhouse gas emissions to a technique that results in considerably less emissions." (page 2). The proposed project complies exactly with this condition. Furthermore, the methodology applies where: “...the project activity is implemented by a project coordinator who acts as a project participant. The households will not act as project participants." (page 2). This is the case with the proposed project. The project meets the conditions set in the applicability conditions section of the methodology for the following reasons:

• The households involved use bituminous coal in an open fire or coal burning device for domestic thermal energy. • The project does not in any way encourage equipment change. • The coal-using households are not included in another CDM or voluntary market project where greenhouse gas emissions from domestic coal use forms part of the baseline or project emissions. • The alternative ignition technique is unambiguously discernible form the conventional ignition technique because in the conventional technique wood and paper is placed below the pile of coal and in the alternative technique wood and paper is placed on top of the pile of coal with only one or two handfuls of coal on top of the wood. The alternative technique is known colloquially as “Basa Magogo” or “Basa Mama”. • The project activity takes place and the households are located within the defined Target Area.

The project reduces anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by causing domestic coal users to switch from an inefficient bottom-up ignition technique, which is pervasive and culturally entrenched, to an alternative, more efficient top-down ignition technique which is counter-intuitive and is rarely adopted by coal users in the absence of active measures to promote its use. The introduction of this alternative ignition technique by way of house and public demonstrations is the project activity. The reduction in

12 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

greenhouse gas emissions is additional because the conversion to the alternative (more efficient) ignition technique would not have taken place in the absence of the project activity. The Department of Minerals and Energy (then DME, now DE) commissioned the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to conduct laboratory tests to determine characteristics of the alternative ignition technique in comparison with the conventional ignition technique relating to inter alia particulate emissions and gaseous emissions including carbon monoxide emissions (Le Roux et al 2005:3). The study concluded that: “It is clear that for the conventional bottom-up ignited fires there was a longer period (about 10 minutes) before peak CO concentration was reached (Figure 3). The concentration then stayed more or less the same for about 45 minutes before decreasing. With the Basa njengo Magogo method the CO concentration peaked within about 3 minutes, remained at this concentration for another two to three minutes when it decreased rapidly.The latter procedure thus lowers the exposure time considerably and can therefore be considered as having lower risk to human health. ” (Le Roux et al 2005:24) The emission reduction effected by the project is expected to be below 5000tC02eq per year as will be shown under B.6.4. In case the emission reductions exceed 5000tC02eq, the excess will be discounted.

B.3. Description of the project boundary: The Project Boundary is defined in accordance with the methodology as the coal burning devices of households within the Target Area who have switched to the alternative ignition technique because of the project activity. The Target Area is defined by the geographical area of the main places Matsieng, Thaba Bosiu, Thaba Tshweu, Thibela, Witsieshoek and Phomolong, all as defined by Statistics South Africa's official name database. Please refer to the map and coordinates which were submitted under A 4.1 and A 4.1.4 respectively. The extent of the project boundary, i.e. the number of households who use the alternative ignition technique, changes over time. This is because new users are added by demonstration campaigns and because coal use declines or people move out of the Target Area. The method for monitoring changes in the extent of the project boundary is discussed under B.7.1.

The greenhouse gasses included in the project boundary is given in Table 3.

Source Gas Included?

Cooking, space heating, water CO2 Yes

heating, ironing with coal

Baseline Ignition of coal fire with wood CO2 No

Cooking, space heating, water CO2 Yes

heating, ironing with coal Projectactivity

13 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Ignition of coal fire with wood CO2 No

Table 3: Greenhouse Gasses

B.4. Description of baseline and its development: Only households using coal for domestic thermal energy is included in the project boundary. The baseline scenario is the use of coal ignited using the conventional bottom-up ignition technique as source of domestic thermal energy within the project boundary in the absence of the project activity.

The project activity started on 1 May 2010. Teams of field workers invited household members to attend demonstrations of the alternative ignition technique at a neighbour’s house. Households were invited on a door to door basis, and coal using households only were invited. Record of invitation was kept electronically by every field worker. The results of the invitation survey question “Does this household use coal?” were as follows:

YES – coal user NO-coal user Not at home Feel unsafe

GS 1027 – 3 977 438 374 20 Maluti South

Demonstrations continued until the end of the winter season (31 August 2010) after which measuring and monitoring commenced. During this time, the following numbers of households were reported to have attended a demonstration on the alternative ignition technique by the project applicant: 3 952 households.

The methodology requires that the project proponent follow the following steps to identify the baseline scenario:

• Step 1: Determine the extent of domestic coal use within the Target Area on a year to year basis • Step 2: Determine the extent of use of the alternative ignition technique among domestic coal users within the Target Area a year to year basis • Step 3: Identify sources that facilitate the switch to the improved ignition technique apart from the project activity on a year to year basis. This procedure is to be repeated annually. The table below gives the sources of data used to determine the baseline scenario based on the annual Household coal use survey:

Recording Data Variable Source of data Data unit frequency

14 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

1. Fraction of population that Coal use survey Fraction Annually use coal for domestic thermal energy within Target Area 2. Population of Target Area Number Annually Estimate based on 2001 Census (default value) , other available official statistics (Surveyor general, Municipality) and own surveys. 3. Fraction of coal users who Coal use survey Fraction Annually use the alternative top-down ignition method present within Target Area 4. Date on which users of the Coal use survey Month, Annually alternative technique started Year use 5. Fraction of users of the Coal use survey Fraction Annually alternative ignition technique who use the technique because of sources other than the project activity

Table 4: Baseline Data

The baseline survey has been conducted by the Nova Institute between 10 August 2010 and 11 February 2011. For the purposes of this project, winter is considered to be the months May up to and including August while Summer is considered to be the months September up to and including April. Results are presented in the Table below:

Data Variable Value 1. Fraction of population that use coal for 36% domestic thermal energy within Target Area 2. Population of Target Area 12047 3. Fraction of coal users who use the 71% alternative top-down ignition method present within Target Area

4. Date on which users of the alternative technique started use

15 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

5. Fraction of users of the alternative ignition 0.0015 technique who use the technique because of sources other than the project activity Table 5: Baseline Survey (10 August 2010-11 February 2011) Results.

The annual monitoring survey will monitor and report the dates on which users of the alternative technique have started to use the technique and the way of introduction to the alternative technique which caused them to switch from the conventional technique. With this information, the baseline scenario (i.e. the proportion of the population who use coal as well as the proportion who use the alternative ignition technique including the proportion of these who use the alternative ignition technique because of the project activity) will be described.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the baseline survey, the following conclusions can be drawn:

 Result of step 1: There is significant levels of domestic coal use in the Target Area.  Result of step 2: Before the start of the project activity the use of the alternative ignition technique was almost completely absent within the Target Area.  Result of step 3: Apart from the project activity, there are no significant sources of conversion to the alternative ignition technique in the Target Area.

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 small-scale CDM project activity: Project timeline

The table below summarises the development of this and similar projects by the Nova Institute. The alternative ignition technique was developed during a participative research project undertaken by Nova with the support of Sasol in eMbalenhle, Mpumalanga. The development of the demonstration method and the first implementation took place in eMbalenhle between 1999 and 2002. In 2007 Nova developed a methodology for the quantification of greenhouse gas emission reductions for the alternative ignition technique based on the WBCSD/WRI GHG Project Protocol and undertook the first third party verification for emission reductions from 2001 to 2006. Assurance was obtained from KPMG Services that the methodology was aligned to the protocol and that the emission reductions were fairly stated. When it became clear that Carbon Finance was viable, Nova undertook implementations in the most important coal using ares in South Africa. Implementation has been ongoing since 2007. Nova is currently working in four provinces: Gauteng, Free State, Mpumalanga and Kwa-Zulu Natal.

From the project timeline it is clear that the current project was implemented after Carbon Finance has been considered and was indeed made possible through Carbon Finance.

Code and Year Activity Areas Comment phase

16 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

MAQI 1997 Scoping study eMbalenhle MAQII 1998- In-use evaluation of eMbalenhle 1999 technical alternatives MAQIII 1999- Baseline and desirability eMbalenhle 2000 study MAQIV 2001 Implementation of BM in eMbalenhle Start of emission eMbalenhle South reductions MAQV 2002 Implementation of BM in eMbalenhle eMbalenhle North MAQVI 2002- Scoping for the functional eMbalenhle Never 2004 household project implemented MAQVII 2004- Research into improved eMbalenhle 2005 uptake

Code and Year Activity Areas Comment phase MAQVIII 2007 Monitoring and eMbalenhle First issuance of quantification of GHG VER under GHG emission reductions Project Protocol for vintages 2001- 2006 HAQI 2007 Winter street demonstrations Ratanda & Heidelberg ext. 22 and Mass 23,Namahadi, Thembalihle, implementation of Sakhile, Vukhuzakhe, Mkuzi & after development Newtown, Siyathemba of methodology based on GHG Protocol HAQII 2007 Spring street demonstrations Sakhile HAQ III 2008 Winter street and house Zamdela,Tsiame Namahadi & demonstrations Bolata, eMbalanhle, Wesselton Phumula & Breyton, Daggakraal, Perdekop & eSizameleni, eZamokuhle, Osizweni Jakkalspan & Blaubosch

17 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

MAQIX 2008,2009 Monitoring and eMbalenhle Second issuance of quantification of GHG VER under GHG emission reductions Project Protocol for vintages 2007 HAQ IV 2008 Monitoring of 2007 and pre- Ratanda & Heidelberg ext. 22 and 2007 implementation areas 23, Namahadi, Thembisile, Sakhile, Vukhuzakhe, Mkuzi & Newtown, Siyathemba eMbalanhle, Zamdela HAQ V 2009 Monitoring of 2007 and All areas where implementation 2008 implementation areas has taken place except Thembalihle HAQ- 2009 Implementation in Emfuleni Emfuleni The project Emfuleni described in the PDD Methodology 2009 First draft of GS methodology HAQ VI 2010 Expansion in current and All areas where implementation new areas has taken place plus new high priority areas Methodology 2010 Final version of GS Methodology used methodology accepted in this project Table 6: Project Timeline

Application of the CDM Additionality tool

The methodology requires that the CDM Additionality Tool be used. The CDM Additionality tool prescribes specific steps to be taken in the demonstration of additionality. These steps are:

1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with mandatory laws and regulations AND 2. Investment analysis to determine that the proposed project activity is not the most economically or financially attractive OR 3. Barriers analysis AND 4. Common practice analysis

Each of these steps has a number of sub-steps. These will be discussed below and applied to the project. Steps 2 and 3 are alternatives. Step 2 is chosen in this case.

Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with mandatory laws and regulations

Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity

Alternative 1: Continuation of the business-as-usual scenario

The alternatives to the project activity for the households within the Target Area are to continue to use the bottom-up ignition technique for as long as coal use continues. Coal is the cheapest energy source in the target area for domestic cooking when combined with space heating. Households with limited

18 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

income cannot afford better technologies and/or cleaner energy sources. The price of LP gas and electricity per MJ heat delivered is far higher than that of coal. (Friedl et al 2008:51). Winkler et al (2006:150-151) gives the 2001 price of LPG as R124.4 /GJ for and the price of coal at R3.45/GJ ).

Alternative 2: Project without sale of Verified Emission Reductions

Since coal users do not pay to attend demonstrations the project can only be financed through sponsorships of the full project cost or through the sale of verified emission reductions. The estimated cost of the project will be presented under step 2b. Historical experience of the Nova Institute has shown that the likelihood of obtaining a full and uninterrupted sponsorship for the project over the full 10 year project life-cycle is very low.

Conclusion to Step 1a: It is very likely that coal use and the use of the conventional ignition technique will continue in the Target Area in the absence of the project activity. It is not viable for the project proponent to engage in the same project without trading Verified Emission Reductions produced by the project.

Sub-step 1b. Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations

There is no enforcement of any laws or regulations concerning the domestic use of coal or emissions from such use that are enforced within the Target Area. Coal is a survival product for poor households in a cold environment and enforcing emission standards on these households would be to criminalise poverty. It is thus unlikely that any enforcement of emission standards for domestic coal use within the Target Area will take place soon.

Step 2. Investment analysis

Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method

The project activity generates no financial or economic benefits other than income related to the sale of Verified Emission Reductions. The methodology requires that option 1 (Simple cost analysis) be applied.

Sub-step 2b. - Option I. Apply simple cost analysis

Demonstration of the improved top-down ignition method has no inherent economic return for the project participant since household members attending the demonstrations in the Target Area do not pay to attend demonstrations. The only economic return from the project activity is the sale of Verified Emission Reductions.

The project participant is also a “not for profit” organization governed by Section 21 of the South African Companies act. This means that the applicant has to spend any available funds as per the conditions in their constitution.

Step 4. Common Practise analysis

Sub-step 4a: Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity

19 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

The alternative ignition technique was developed jointly by the Nova Institute and the community of eMbalenhle. The Nova Institute's eMbalenhle Air Quality Project was the first project in South Africa that employed demonstrations of an alternative ignition method to achieve environmental benefits in an environment where domestic coal use leads to local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. (See Van Niekerk 2006)

The HAQ – Maluti South project is an expansion of the original project.

Since it was developed in 2001, the implementation of the alternative ignition technique that was originally developed by Nova had been imitated a number of times: firstly, by the national government's departments of Minerals and Energy (now Minerals) and Environmental Affairs and Tourism (now Environment), and secondly, by a limited number of municipalities in Gauteng.

Although broadly using the same technology, these projects were neither of the same scope as the applicant’s projects nor functioning in a comparable environment with respect to regulatory framework, investment climate, access to technology and access to financing : demonstration of the alternative ignition technique to households have only been implemented in the certain parts of Gauteng (excluding the geographical location of the project under application), with one other project funded by a coal mining company in eMalahleni (Mpumalanga, about 100km from eMbalenhle, also outside of the project boundary). Funds available to such projects, either in the form of government tenders or corporate sponsorships were allocated in an ad hoc manner on a year to year and location to location basis. There is to date no overarching strategy for the implementation of alternative top-down ignition that proved to be effective or had enough resources to reach all or even a substantial number of coal users. The 2008 statistical release of the South African General Household Survey found that more than 500 000 households used coal as primary heating source (Statistics South Africa, 2009:96). This is however a major under- reporting of real coal use, as extensive research found that households often switch between fuel sources based on seasonal and financial factors, while the survey in question does not allow for any such flexibility by only asking for "the main source". For example, chapter two of the Monitoring report attached as Annex 4 provides results from the 2001 census for coal use (Tables 2.1 to 2.4). It shows coal use at much lower levels than the results of the monitoring survey survey done for this project. This trend continues through the whole of the target area (compare results of chapters 2 and 3 for all main places). This is partly due the census only allowing one answer to the question on energy source used for heating.

If the 2001 census estimation is adjusted in line with these and similar findings, one can project that there are approximately one million coal using households in South Africa. In order to convert these households through demonstration of the alternative technique to them at a rate of approximately R140 per conversion (project applicant costs per conversion in first year of implementation plus 8% inflation per annum), funding of at least R 140 million would be needed.

For the year 2008, the department of Minerals and Energy allocated only R 900 000 over a period of 24 months for implementation of the alternative ignition technique (South Africa, 2008:231). For the period 2009 to 2012, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (currently the department of Environmental Affairs) have positioned all airquality interventions under the "Air Quality Management and Climate Change programme" (South Africa, 2009b:8). The total funding for the programme ranges from R39 million to R47 million per annum. However, approximately half of these funds are allocated to technology requirements (South Africa, 2009b:11), while the rest "(in the first five sub-programmes) is mainly used for salaries and other personnel related costs" (South Africa, 2009b:11). What funds remain,

20 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

is to be divided between the numerous initiatives of the programme, of which implementation of the alternative ignition technique is but one activity amongst many.

It is clear that current potential governmental funding for the implementation of the alternative ignition technique will not have a major impact on converting coal using households to the alternative ignition technique. In effect, this means that local governments will have to attempt to secure funding from external sources to effectively implement the alternative technique.

To date, the only external sources that provided funding were from the Royal Danish Embassy through their development aid and NGO support budgets (e.g. the Royal Danish Embassy's UEMP: http://www.uemp.org.za/index.php/home) as well as from ad hoc corporate sponsorships.

During the years 2009 and 2010, policy change amongst international development aid contributors saw a dramatic decline in funding as the focus shifted to applying funds to promoting international freedom and human rights and the construction bi- lateral trade agreements that stimulate economic growth, rather than just providing development aid funding (Royal Danish Embassy, 2010). There are to date no examples of NGOs, like the Nova Institute, who initialise and continue to maintain projects from its own funds or funds that are derived from the sale of Verified Emission Reductions.

Sub-step 4b: Discuss any similar Options that are occurring

As per Sub-step 4a, there are no similar Options that are occurring.

Conclusion

The business as usual scenario that would continue within the Target Area in the absence of the project activity is that bottom-up ignition of coal would continue. The change to an alternative top-down ignition technique would not have taken place in the absence of the project activity made possible by the sale of Verified Emission Reductions. Other activities would not alter the business as usual scenario significantly during the project.

B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Exclusion of wood use

The methodology provides for the possibility of leaving the wood used to ignite the coal out of consideration if it can be shown that the mass of wood used does not differ between the baseline and the project scenario or that the wood is sourced from renewable sources. The main source of fire wood used by households within the project boundary is sourced from waste, mainly in the form of palettes used to support containers that is moved by forklift (Nova Institute 2010:30). The only other significant source of wood is exotic invader species such as various eucalyptus species and Australian wattle (Acacia species) which are invasive weeds originally from Australia

21 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

(South Africa 2004:108 and 114). There are no natural occurring woodlands in the project target area where wood is being harvested to domestic use since the highveld is a grassland.

Seasonal variation

There is seasonal variation in coal use because coal is used more as source of space heating than as source of cooking energy. For this reason summer and winter baseline and project coal use is calculated separately

Baseline emissions

The project activity introduces a technique that reduces coal used for domestic thermal energy. This energy is used for domestic purposes such as space heating and cooking, water heating and ironing. This project introduces an energy efficiency technique (improved top-down ignition) that displaces a technique that uses a fossil fuel (coal) in an inefficient way (conventional bottom-up ignition). The baseline emissions is therefore defined as all significant GHG emissions related to domestic coal burning present within the project boundary in the absence of the project activity. The baseline emission is calculated from the coal consumption that would have taken place in the absence of the project activity multiplied by an emission coefficient using the CDM Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Version 2). The basic formula applied to domestic coal use is:

BE y = CB, y COEF (1)

Where:

BEy = The baseline CO2 emission from domestic coal combustion within the project boundary in the absence of the project activity for the year y (tCO2 /yr)

CB,y = The mass of coal (in tonnes) that would have been combusted by households within the project boundary in the absence of the project activity for the year y (t/yr)

COEF = The CO2 emission coefficient for domestic coal combustion (tCO2/t coal)

The methodology allows for the CO2 emission coefficient COEF to be calculated using one of either of the two options described in the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Version 2) depending of the availability of data. If data is available, option A must be used. Since data on the chemical composition of local coal is available from literature (see variable XCcoal in B.6.2), option A is used.

The value of COEF is therefore calculated as:

22 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

44 COEF = W  (2) C 12

Where:

COEF = The CO2 emission coefficient for domestic coal combustion (tCO2/t coal) WC = The weighted average mass fraction of carbon in South African D grade coal

The used for value of WC is given under B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation.

The calculation of the mass of coal (CB,y) that would have been combusted by households within the project boundary in the absence of the project activity is calculated by applying an energy efficiency factor to the current coal consumption of these households. The increase in energy efficiency brought about by the improved ignition technique is calculated by comparing the mass of coal used over a specific period (in the case of the baseline survey: a month) in the baseline scenario with the coal use in a similar period after conversion to the improved ignition method when similar thermal energy needs are present.

An energy efficiency factor for a specific household is calculated in accordance with the methodology as:

Cante,t,j eef j = (3) C post,t,j

Where: eefj = Energy efficiency factor for the households j Cante,t = Coal consumption for the time period t directly before conversion to the improved ignition technique for households j (units) Cpost,t = Coal consumption for the time period t directly after conversion to the improved ignition technique for households j (units)

In the case of the project there is likely to be seasonal variation in coal use. For this reason the energy efficiency factor is to be calculated separately for winter (the months May to August) and summer (the months September to April).

The energy efficiency factor is be used to calculate the mass of coal that the specific household would have used in the baseline scenario for meeting similar thermal energy needs. In accordance with the methodology, this is calculated for a simple case as:

y C = eef C  (4) B, y,i,j i,j t,i, j t

Where: CB,y,i,j = Baseline coal consumption for the year y for households j per format type i (tonnes)

23 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

eefi,j = Energy efficiency factor for the households j per format type i Ct,i,j = Current (at time of survey) coal consumption for households j per time period t and format type i (tonnes) t = Time period (in days) y = One year of 365 days

Since there is a difference in coal consumption during winter and summer, the annual baseline coal consumption is the sum of the winter and summer coal consumption.

s1 s2 CB, y,i, j = (eef i, j,s1 C  )+(eef i, j,s C  ) (5) s1,t,i, j t 2 s2,t,i, j t

CB,y,i,j = Baseline coal consumption for the year y for households j per format type i (tonnes) eefj,s1 = Energy efficiency factor for the households j per format type i eefj,s2 = Energy efficiency factor for the households j per format type i Ct,i,j = Current (at time of survey) coal consumption for households j per time period t and format type i (tonnes) t = Time period (in days) s1 = Season 1 (in days) where s1 + s2 = 365 days s2 = Season 2 (in days) where s1 + s2 = 365 days

When the baseline coal consumption has been calculated for each household, the average baseline coal consumption for all the households in the survey can be calculated. In accordance with the methodology, the average annual baseline coal consumption of coal using households within the project boundary for the year of monitoring is calculated as follows:

CB,i,j,y  FC i i j CB, y = (6) XU alt  n

Where:

= Average baseline mass of coal consumed by households within the Project CB,y Boundary in year y (tonnes) CB,i,j,y = Baseline coal consumption for households j in units of format i in year y (calculated according to Equation 3) (units) FCi = Weight for each format in which coal is sold (tonne or kg) n = The sample size XUalt.y = The fraction of users of the alternative ignition technique present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey

24 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

who have been converted through demonstration (the project activity) that took place before the start of the crediting period i.e. before 2010.

The methodology requires that the information in the Project Implementation Database on number of users who switched to the alternative ignition technique in a specific year (Uy) is compared to the estimation derived from the annual coal use survey. As a conservative measure, Uy must be used in the cases where Uy < XUaly,y _ XUcoal,y _ Popy.

A total of 4809 households were approached. 4415 interviews were conducted. Out of these households, 3977 used coal. Demonstration records show that 3952 households were represented at demonstrations.

In order to estimate the baseline coal consumption for the entire project boundary, the average coal consumption calculated for the sample has to be projected to the population that make out the project boundary in a conservative manner. The methodology prescribes that this be done as follows:

CB, y = ((XU alt,y  XU coal,y  Pop y )  (XU other,y  XU coal,y  Pop y ))CB, y (7)

Where: = Average baseline mass of coal consumed by households within the Project CB, y Boundary in year y (tonnes) CB,y = Project coal consumption in year y (tonne) XUalt.y = Fraction of coal users converted to the alternative ignition technique present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey XUcoal.y = The fraction of coal users present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey Popy = Population of Target Area (number) XUother.y = Fraction of Coal users converted to the alternative ignition technique through sources other than the project activity present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey

Project emissions

The methodology defines project emissions as all significant GHG emissions within the project boundary after the implementation of the project activity. Because the project activity leads to the implementation of a more efficient method of ignition, the project emissions are lower than the baseline emissions.

Project emissions are calculated from the coal consumption of coal using households within the Project Boundary using the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Version 2) similar to the way in which Baseline Emissions is calculated.

The basic formula applied to domestic coal use is:

25 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

PE y = CP, y COEF (8)

Where: PEy = Project Emissions for year y (tCO2/yr) CP,y = Project coal consumption in year y COEF = The CO2 emission coefficient for domestic coal combustion (tCO2/t coal)

Similar to the calculation of baseline coal consumption, Project coal consumption is calculated as:

CP, y = ((XUalt, y  XUcoal, y  Pop y )  (XUother, y  XUcoal, y  Pop y ))CP, y (9)

Where: CP,y = Project coal consumption in year y XUalt,y = Fraction of coal users converted to the alternative ignition technique present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey XUcoal,y = The fraction of coal users present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey Popy = Population of Target Area (number) XUother.y = Fraction of Coal users converted to the alternative ignition technique through sources other than the project activity present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey C = Average mass of coal consumed by households within the Project Boundary P,y in year y

Where is calculated as:

Ci, j,y  FC i i j CP, y = (10) XU alt  n

Where:

= Average mass of coal consumed by households within the Project Boundary CP,y in year y (tonnes) Ci,j,y = Current units of coal consumed by households j and format i in the sample in year y (units) FCi = Weight for each format in which coal is sold (tonne or kg)

26 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

n = The sample size XUalt.y = The fraction of users of the alternative ignition technique present within the Target Area for the year y estimated from the sample proportion of the Household coal use survey

The fraction of users of the alternative ignition technique includes the users converted from other campaigns that have been implemented through mass media like newspapers, billboards as well as users who have been converted through demonstration (the project activity) that took place before the start of the crediting period i.e. before 2010.

Where Ci,j,y is the sum of winter and summer coal consumption:

s1 s2 Cy,i,j = (C  )+(C  ) (11) s1,t,i, j t s2,t,i, j t

CB,y,i,j = Project coal consumption for the year y for households j per format type i (tonnes) Ct,i,j = Current (at time of survey) coal consumption for households j per time period t and format type i (tonnes) t = Time period (in days) s1 = Season 1 (in days) where s1 + s2 = 365 days s2 = Season 2 (in days) where s1 + s2 = 365 days

Leakage

In accordance with the methodology, no significant leakage aspects are anticipated from project activities. Leakage Emissions (LE) is therefore 0.

Emission Reductions

ER y = BE y  PE y  LEy (12)

Where: ERy = Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr) BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr) PEy = Project emissions in year y (t CO2/yr) LEy = Leakage emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

27 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Data / Parameter: Pop Data unit: Number Description: Population of Target Area

Estimate based on 2001 Census (default value) , other available official statistics Source of data used: (Surveyor general, Municipality) and own surveys.

Value applied: 12047 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement Official statistic methods and procedures actually applied : Any comment:

Data / Parameter: XCcoal Data unit: Fraction Description: Carbon content of domestic coal Source of data used: Le Roux et al 2005:29 Value applied: 0.6544 Justification of the choice of data or Local scientific literature focused specifically description of measurement of the qualification of emission from methods and procedures actually domestic coal use applied : Any comment:

Data / Parameter: XO2 Data unit: Fraction Fraction of unburnt coal per operating cycle Description: per device type Source of data used: Gillenwater et al 2005. Value applied: 0.98 Justification of the choice of data or No IPCC values exist. Oxidation factor for description of measurement inefficient coal burning devices used methods and procedures actually applied : Any comment:

28 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

Data Variable Estimate d Value Fraction of population who use coal for 0.3641 domestic thermal energy within Target Area Population of Target Area 12047 Fraction of coal users who use the alternative 0.7059 ignition technique present within Target Area Proportion of users of the alternative ignition 0.0015 technique who use the technique because of sources other than the project activity Mean energy efficiency factor (winter) 1.97 Mean energy efficiency factor (summer) 1.72 Average annual baseline coal consumption 373.74 (total) Annual baseline coal consumption 1119.97 Average annual project coal consumption (total) 262.09 Annual project coal consumption (total) 785.4 Carbon content of domestic coal 0.6544 Fraction of coal oxidised 0.98 The CO2 emission coefficient for domestic coal 2.3515 combustion Baseline Emissions 2633.58 Project Emissions 1846.85 Leakage Emissions 0 Emission Reductions 787 Table 7: Ex-ante calculation of Emission Reductions

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Annual estimation Years of emission reductions in tonnes of CO2 e 2010 787 2011 3213 2012 4500

29 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

2013 4500 2014 4500 2015 4500 2016 4500 2017 4500 2018 4500 2019 4500 Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 40000 Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average of the estimated reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO2e)

4000 Table 8: Annual Estimation of Emission Reductions

B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: Uy Data unit: Number Description: Number of users who switched to the alternative ignition technique in a specific year Source of data to be used: Project implementation database Value of data Record is kept of all interaction between user and the project personnel such as invitations or attendance of demonstrations Description of measurement methods Continuous throughout project, once per new and procedures to be applied: user QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Statistical comparison of results between implementation teams Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Cante,t,i

30 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Data unit: Units of coal consumed over the time period t for the format type i Description: Units of coal consumed before switch to alternative technique Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data See sheet “Summary.of.winter.eef.by.town” in GS 1027-MalutiSouth-ER-2010 Calc-Issue 2 Description of measurement methods Annually, for a sample of new users and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Statistical comparison of results between periods and populations Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Cpost,t,i Data unit: Units of coal consumed over the time period t for the format type i Description: Units of coal consumed after switch to alternative technique Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data See sheet “Summary.of.winter.eef.by.town” in GS 1027-MalutiSouth-ER-2010 Calc-Issue 2 Description of measurement methods Annually, for a sample of new users and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Statistical comparison of results between periods and populations Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCi Data unit: Kg Description: Weight for each format in which coal is sold Source of data to be used: Coal merchant survey Value of data See sheet “Summary.of.winter.eef.by.town” in GS 1027-MalutiSouth-ER-2010 Calc-Issue 2 Description of measurement methods Standard weighing equipment and procedures to be applied:

31 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Compare price per kg of coal between formats. Any comment: If price per kilogramme differs significantly between formats (taking into account volume discounts), additional measurements must be conducted

Data / Parameter: XUalt.y Data unit: Fraction Description: Coal users converted to the alternative ignition technique present within the Target Area (project boundary) for the year y Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data 0.713268 Description of measurement methods Survey of sample from the entire population and procedures to be applied: within target area QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Cross-check with project implementation database Any comment: This is calculated the proportion of survey respondents who have indicated during the interview that they use coal and that they use the alternative ignition technique to ignite their coal fire using the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval as described in Annex B.

Data / Parameter: Ci,t Data unit: Units, i is format (e.g. bag, truckload) Description: Coal consumed in period t Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data GS 1027-MalutiSouth-ER-2010 Calc-Issue 2 Description of measurement methods Survey respondents are asked to report the and procedures to be applied: format in which they purchase coal and the number of units consumed per week or month (e.g. 3 bags). QA/QC procedures to be applied: Statistical analysis of results between populations Any comment:

Data / Parameter: XUcoal.y

32 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Data unit: Fraction Description: Fraction of coal users present within the Target Area (project boundary) for the year y Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data 0.364 Description of measurement methods Survey of sample from the entire population and procedures to be applied: within Target Area QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Statistical comparison of results between periods and populations Cross-check with project implementation database Compare with official statistics where available

Any comment: This is calculated from the proportion of survey respondents who have indicated during the interview that they use coal.

Data / Parameter: XUother.y Data unit: Fraction Description: Fraction of users of the alternative ignition technique that can be attributed to sources other than the project activity for a specific year Source of data to be used: Household coal use survey Value of data 0.0015 Description of measurement methods Survey of sample from the entire population and procedures to be applied: within Target Area QA/QC procedures to be applied: Standard survey QC best practise Statistical comparison of results between periods and populations Cross-check with project implementation database

33 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Any comment: This is calculated from the proportion of survey respondents who have indicated during the interview that they use coal, use the alternative ignition technique and have provided details about the event (start date, place of demonstration, media used) that has lead to them starting to use the alternative technique that can not be unambiguously connected to the activities of the project coordinator.

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: Operational Structure for data collection All data collection will be planned, managed, carried out and quality controlled by the Nova Institute

Operational Structure for data assessment Data analysis and the writing of the monitoring report will be carried out by the Nova Institute. Nova may hire specialist consultant to assist with data analysis

Data archiving Data is archived in an online database with redundancy measures in place to ensure reliable storage

Project implementation database The project will maintain a project implementation database in accordance with the requirements of the methodology as specified in paragraph 35 a) to c)

Household coal use survey The project proponent will conduct an annual household coal use survey in accordance with paragraphs 36 and 37 of the methodology

34 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Coal merchant survey The project proponent will conduct an annual coal merchant survey in accordance with paragraph 38 of the methodology

A pro forma monitoring report is attached as Annex 4.

B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) The methodology was completed in July 2010. The entity responsible for the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology to the project activity is also a project participant listed in Annex 1.

35 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

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: 1 May 2010

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 10 years from the start of demonstrations of the alternative ignition technique

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: NA

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: NA

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date: 1 May 2010

C.2.2.2. Length: 10 years

36 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: Not required. The project activity has no negative environmental effects

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: Not required. The project activity has no negative environmental effects

37 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: The project application is for retro- active registration. The applicant by default does extensive local stakeholder consultation in any implemented project, including the current one under application. This stakeholder consultation normally takes the form of a steering committee which is set up in the project area, with multiple meetings being conducted throughout the calendar year and the project lifespan. Representatives of the governmental-, political-, societal- and religious spheres are invited to become members of the steering committee. Membership is also open throughout the life cycle of the project, and new members are free to join as they please or as they are suggested/ nominated. As part of the feedback round the local Gold Standard supporter NGOs were contacted and invited to comment on the project. The interaction with these NGOs is described in the report on previous consultation activities (Nova 2011). A series of feedback meetings was also held during the feedback period to provide a platform for local stakeholders to give feedback. The minutes of these meetings are also contained in the report on previous consultation activities (Nova 2011b).

E.2. Summary of the comments received: Section 3.2 of the "Previous Consultation Activities" report uploaded to the GS registry contains a full list of all comments, questions, answers and ensuing action taken as a result of the consultation activities. Comments made or questions raised during all four meetings related to representation at meetings, recruitment of field workers, and the clear demarcation of implementation areas.

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: Comments made or questions raised during the feedback meetings were resolved during the meetings. Section 3.2 of the report on consultation activities and feedback received (Nova 2011b) contains details of questions raised and answeres given. No written questions or comments were received to date.

38 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: The Nova Institute Street/P.O.Box: P. O. Box 38465, Garsfontein East Building: City: Pretoria State/Region: Gauteng Postfix/ZIP: 0060 Country: South Africa Telephone: +27 12 807 7991 FAX: +27 86 538 7958 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.nova.org.za Represented by: CJ Pauw Title: Programme Director Salutation: Dr Last Name: Pauw Middle Name: Johannes First Name: Christiaan Department: Director: Project Development Mobile: +27 82 557 4328 Direct FAX: +27 86 538 7958 Direct tel: +27 44 675 0749 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

39 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

40 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

41 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

42 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Please refer to Annex 4

43 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

Baseline and monitoring information is contained in a separate document: “GS 1027 – Maluti- South-ER-Calc-2010-111102-Issue-2” - - - - -

44 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Annex 5

REFERENCES

References used in The Project Design Document - - - - - Airshed Planning Professionals and Bentley West Management Consultants, 2004. Study to examine the potential socio-economic impact of measures to reduce air pollution from combustion. final report. Technical report, Trade and Industry Chamber / Fund for Research into Industrial Development, Growth and Equity (FRIDGE), Johannesburg. (uploaded on GS registry as: “ Fridge Dirty Fuels FINAL REPORT_Final Publication 21 April 2.pdf”)

Engelbrecht J.P, Swanepoel L, Chowa J.C, Watson J.G, Egamia R.T. 2002. The comparison of source contributions from residential coal and low-smoke fuels, using CMB modeling, in South Africa. Environmental Science & Policy 5 (2002) 157–167. (uploaded on GS registry as: “Engelbrecht et al 2002.pdf”)

Friedl A, Holm D, John J, Kornelius G, Oosthuizen R, Pauw C.J. and Van Niekerk A.S, 2008. Air pollution in dense, low-income settlements in South Africa. Technical report, Nova Institute for the Royal Danish Embassy. (uploaded on GS registry as: “DANIDA_report_20080806.pdf”)

Gillenwater M, Woodfield M, Simmons T, McCormick M, Camobreco V, Hockstad L, Davis K, Jones B, Levin K, Nelson C, Schmitz S, and Upton B. Calculation Tool for Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion. WRI and WBCSD, 3rd edition, July 2005. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/Stationary_combustion_tool_%28Version4%29.xls

Le Roux L.J, Zunckel M, and McCormick S.G, 2005. Laboratory controlled quantitative information about reduction in air pollution using the basa njengo magogo methodology and applicability to low- smoke fuels. Technical report, CSIR: Division of Water, Environment and Forestry Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/1095

Norman R, Barnes B, Mathee A, Bradshaw D and the South African Comparative Risk Assessment. 2007a. Estimating the burden of disease attributable to indoor air pollution from household use of solid fuels in South Africa in 2000. South African Medical Journal, 97(8):764–771 http://www.sahealthinfo.org/bod/pollution.pdf

Norman R, Cairncross E, Witi R, Bradshaw D and the South African Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group, 2007b. Estimating the burden of disease attributable to urban outdoor air pollution in South Africa in 2000. South African Medical Journal, 97(8):782–790. http://www.sahealthinfo.org/bod/urban.pdf

Nova Institute, 2009. Demonstration of an improved top-down ignition method in the Emfuleni municipality. Phase 1, Baseline report. Technical Report, Nova Institute for the Royal Danish Embassy, 2009. http://www.nova.org.za/webimages/bsadan-090804-baselinreport-FINAL.pdf

Nova Institute, 2010. Demonstration of an improved top-down ignition method in the Emfuleni municipality. Technical Report, Nova Institute for the Royal Danish Embassy, 2010. (uploaded on GS registry as: "bsadan-finalreport-ISSUE1.pdf")

45 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

Nova Institute, 2011a. HAQ-Maluti South project Baseline and monitoring report for the year 2010. Carbon Monitoring Report, Nova Institute for The Gold Standard Foundation, 2011. (uploaded on GS registry as: " GS_baseline-reportMaluti_South.pdf")

Nova Institute, 2011b. Highveld Air Quality – Maluti South project Report on consultation activities and feedback received. Carbon Monitoring Report, Nova Institute for The Gold Standard Foundation, 2011. (uploaded on GS registry as: "HAQ_Maluti_South_Previous_Consultations_report_ISSUE1.pdf")

Royal Danish Embassy, 2010. Priorities of the Danish Government for Danish Development Assistance. http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/10513/pdf/priorities_danish_development_assistance.pdf

Royal Danish Embassy, unknown date. Urban Environmental Management Programme. http://www.uemp.org.za/index.php/home

Scorgie Y. and Kornelius G, 2009. Modelling of acid deposition over the South African highveld. NACA. http://www.airshed.co.za/documents/Recent/Scorgie%20and%20Kornelius%20NACA%202009Rev01.p df

South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), 2004. National Environment Management: Biodiversity Act. List 3: List of invasive species in terms of Section 70. Pretoria. http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=98583

Statistics South Africa, 2009. General Household Survey 2008. (uploaded on GS registry as: " General Household Survey July 2008.pdf")

South Africa, Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), 2008. Annual financial Statements. http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=93533

South Africa, South African National Treasury (SANT), 2009b Estimates of Public Expenditure, 2009. Pretoria. http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/Estimates%20of%20Public%20Expenditure/2009/Vote%2025.pd f

Van Niekerk W, 2006. From technology transfer to participative design: a case study of pollution prevention in South African townships. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa. Vol 17 No 3. http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/jesa/volume17/17-3jesa-vanniekerk.pdf

Winkler H(ed), Davidson O, Kenny A, Prasad G, Nkomo J, Sparks D, Howells M, Alfstad T, Mwakasonda S, Cowan B, Visagie E, 2006. Energy policies for sustainable development in South Africa: Options for the future. Technical Report, Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town. (uploaded on GS registry as: "Winkler 2006 Energy Policies for Sustainable Development in SA.pdf")