Download - WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERT-1
1
Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable
Sources Biomass Power Project in India (Project ID Number 0362)
Annex to the PDD including Gold Standard
validation requirements.
27 September 2007
2
Index
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 3 2. Project Type Eligibility Screen.................................................................................... 3 3. Additionality Screen.................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Previous public announcement check..................................................................... 3 3.2 Additionality tool .................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Official Development Assistance........................................................................... 9 3.4 Conservative approach........................................................................................... 9 3.5 Technology transfer and Knowledge Innovation.................................................... 9
4. Sustainable Development .......................................................................................... 10 4.1 Sustainable development assessment ................................................................... 10 4.2 EIA requirements ................................................................................................ 14 4.3 Public consultation .............................................................................................. 15
5. Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 17 5.1 Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators ............................................. 18 5.2 Request for clarification by GS-TAC................................................................... 18
Attachment 1................................................................................................................. 20 Attachment 2................................................................................................................. 23
3
1. Introduction
The purpose of this annex to the PDD of the Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable
Sources Biomass Power Project is to enable a validation of the project against the Gold
Standard. The Gold Standard validation will be carried out retroactively for the purpose of
submitting the project for registration with the Gold Standard Foundation. A review of the project
has been carried out by two members of the GS-TAC. The review dated 16 May 2007 will be
submitted to the validating DOE in accordance with Gold Standard requirements.
The Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable Sources Biomass Power Project is located in
Chennur Village, Chennur Mandal, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, India. The project was
registered with the CDM Executive Board on the 21st of May 2006. The project activity consists of
the construction of the biomass power plant in Chennur Village and the generated electricity is
fed to the state grid. The fuel to be used in the power plant is locally available surplus biomass.
2. Project Type Eligibility Screen1 Biomass projects claiming emission reductions derived from electricity generation are eligible
under the Gold Standard. The biomass used falls into the Gold Standard eligible category Agro-
processing and other residues. In the absence of the project activity, the biomass would be burnt
in the fields or left to decay. Thus, there is no competing use of the biomass. The project activity
will use locally available biomass and the CO2 emissions due to leakage are negligible. The
power plant has not used other fuels such as coal since starting operations in April 2004.
3. Additionality Screen2
3.1 Previous public announcement check3
Please refer to Step 0 in the CDM Executive Board Additionality Tool (version 2) in section 3.2.
1 The Gold Standard Manual for CDM Project Developers section 3.2 2 Ibid section 3.3 3 Ibid section 3.3.1
4
3.2 Additionality tool4 GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: The additionality tool has not been applied in its totality – the preannouncement check as well as the common practice check is missing.
Step 0: Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the project activity
Requirements Assessment Documentary
evidence
Conclusion
Provide evidence that
the starting date of the
CDM project activity
falls between 1 January
2000 and the date of the
registration of the first
project activity.
Provide evidence that
the incentive from the
CDM was seriously
considered in the
decision to proceed with
the project activity.
The project became
operational 15th of April
2004 (starting date of
project activity) and the
project was registered
with the CDM EB
Board on 21 May 2006.
Board minutes
dated 6
December 2002
evidence that
CDM was
considered before
the starting date
of the project
activity.
OK
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and
regulations
Requirements Assessment Documentary
evidence
Conclusion
Sub-step 1a: Define
alternatives to the
project activity.
In the absence of the
project activity, the
following scenarios
have been considered:
For further
reference, see the
validation report.
The viable scenario in
the absence of the
project is that the
capacity addition to the
4 Ibid section 3.3.2
5
1. Provision of
equivalent amount of
power output by the
grid to which the project
is connected.
2. Construction of a
biomass power plant
with an equal installed
capacity as the project,
but without the CDM
component.
grid would have been
by the addition of fossil
fuel plants and the
biomass would have
been burned in an
uncontrolled manner or
left for decay.
Sub-step 1b:
Enforcement of
applicable laws and
regulations.
All alternatives in sub-
step 1a are in
compliance with all
applicable legal and
regulatory
requirements.
There is no legal
requirement to obligate
the use of biomass
such as rice husk,
juliflora etc as fuel for
power generation in
India.
The Indian
Electricity Act of
2003 does not
restrict the fuel
choice for power
generation.
OK
Step 3: Barrier analysis
Requirements Assessment Documentary
evidence
Conclusion
Sub-step 3a: Identify
barriers that would
prevent the
implementation of type
Financial barrier
The project
demonstrates
For further
reference, see the
validation report.
The project is
additional in the sense
that it would not be
viable without CDM
6
of the proposed project
activity.
additionality mainly
through the existence
of a tariff policy related
barrier. By 31 March
2004, the policy
changes related to tariff
rates in Andhra
Pradesh reduced the
tariff from Rs. 3.48 per
unit to Rs. 2.88 per unit.
While the policy change
takes into account the
variable cost of power
generation and fixes an
increase of 5 % every
year, the increasing
cost of raw material is
creating an imbalance
in the % increase in the
variable cost and the
actual operating cost.
The policy change by
which electricity units
generated at plant load
factors greater than 80
% are priced at Rs.
1.52 per unit, which is
approximately Rs. 0.24
less than the actual
generating cost, is also
seen as a main
deterrent.
revenues.
Sub-step 3b: Show that
the identified barriers
would not prevent the
implementation of at
least one of the
The barrier is not
applicable to alternative
1 to the project activity
identified in sub-step
1a.
For further
reference, see the
validation report.
The barrier would not
prevent alternative 1 in
sub-step 1a.
7
alternatives.
Step 4: Common practice analysis
Requirements Assessment Documentary
evidence
Conclusion
Sub-step 4a:
Analyze other activities
similar to the proposed
project activity.
There are 34 low
capacity biomass power
plants operating in the
state of Andhra
Pradesh.
A majority (62 percent)
of all commissioned
biomass power projects
in the state of Andhra
Pradesh are either
registered CDM
projects or undergoing
CDM validation.
For further
reference, see
Attachment 1.
OK
Sub-step 4b:
Discuss similar options
that are occurring.
The tariff price for
power sale was
reduced from Rs. 3.48
to Rs. 2.88 as of 31st
March 2004. Since
then, no biomass power
projects have been
commissioned in the
state of Andhra
Pradesh without CDM
revenue.
For further
reference, see
Attachment 1.
OK
Step 5: Impact of CDM registration
Requirements Assessment Documentary
evidence
Conclusion
Impact of CDM The CDM revenues OK
8
registration enable the
implementation of the
project as it helps the
project to overcome
above-mentioned
barrier. As a
consequence, the
project contributes to a
decrease in greenhouse
gas emission reductions
as compared to
alternative 1 identified in
sub-step 1a.
GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: On the justification of additionality, it would have been interesting to see how the generation costs for fossil fuels relate to those for biomass power generation. Answer from the project proponent:
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 1 and 2: The coal price increases and the biomass price increases or remains stable.
The regular coal-fired power plants are of much larger scale and owned by the government to a
large extent. While they are subject to raw material price hikes (represented by the bold line),
these increases are most often passed on to the customers. Reference is made to the answers to
the request for review for project ID number 0591.
Biomass price
Coal price
9
Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Scenario 3 and 4: The coal price remains stable or decreases whereas the biomass price
increases or remains stable. In both cases, the project could switch to coal or simply stop
operations and capacity addition to the grid would happen by the addition of fossil fuel plants.
3.3 Official Development Assistance5
The project is not a diversion of official development assistance (ODA) funding towards India.
Please refer to the validation report.
3.4 Conservative approach6
Please refer to the PDD and the validation report.
3.5 Technology transfer and Knowledge Innovation7
The technology is already available in India and the technology transfer will thus take place from
an urban to a rural area. The technology selected for the project is energy efficient and deemed
good practice. Please refer to the PDD and the validation report.
5 Ibid section 3.3.3 6 Ibid section 3.3.4 7 Ibid section 3.3.5
10
4. Sustainable Development8
4.1 Sustainable development assessment9 GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: There is no Sustainable Development Impact Assessment – local economic impacts of rising biomass cost or non-competitiveness with food supply of the new demand for biomass should be addressed.
Sustainable Development Impact Assessment:
Component
- Indicators
Score (-2 to 2)
Conclusion
Local/regional/global
environment
- Water quality and quantity
0 No effect.
- Air quality (emissions other
than GHGs)
+1 The project will reduce the generation
of local pollution due to the
uncontrolled burning of biomass
residues in the fields. Furthermore, the
plant has adopted several measures to
mitigate impacts on the environment
due to project activities. Please refer to
the validation report for further details.
A green belt has been developed
around the power plant to serve as a
wall for air pollutants.
- Other pollutants (including,
where relevant, toxicity,
radioactivity, POPs,
stratospheric ozone layer
0 Not relevant.
8 Ibid section 3.4 9 Ibid section 3.4.1
11
depleting gases)
- Soil condition (quality and
quantity)
0 No effect.
- Biodiversity (species and
habitat conservation)
0 No major change compared to
baseline. Biomass used is locally
available and grown in a sustainable
manner.
Sub total
+1
Social sustainability and
development
- Employment (including job
quality, fulfillment of labor
standards)
+2 The project has generated jobs directly
and indirectly. Local biomass suppliers,
including farmers and biomass
transporters benefit in the sense that
they can sell biomass to the power
plant. Small farmers are getting
reasonable monitory gains for the sale
of agricultural waste to the plant. These
statements from relevant stakeholders
have been verified by DNV.
The construction and operation of the
project has created a large number of
direct and indirect job opportunities.
The job opportunities include both
skilled as well as unskilled labor. Local
stakeholders have highlighted that the
project has created opportunities for
young people and has contributed
towards a decrease in migration from
the area. These statements from
relevant stakeholders have been
verified by DNV.
12
- Livelihood of the poor
(including poverty
alleviation, distributional
equity and access to
essential services)
+1 The biomass supply chain has created
a source of income for farmers
collecting the biomass and also for
transporters.
It is noted here that the biomass was
burnt in the fields before the CDM
became known and the only reason for
a possible price hike is that the
biomass can now be sold to other
project sites. Hence, at no time was
there a direct competition between
biomass supply to the plant and for
example poor households.
- Access to energy services
0 The electricity is sold to the grid,
thereby not directly affecting energy
services to local people. The project
activity contributes towards a more
sustainable energy mix since its
baseline scenario is a coal fired power
plant.
- Human and institutional
capacity (including
empowerment, education,
involvement, gender)
+1 The project has contributed towards
work opportunities derived from the
biomass supply chain and the biomass
itself is a new source of income as
compared to the baseline. The
construction and operation of the plant
should also be mentioned in this
context. These statements from
relevant stakeholders have been
verified by DNV.
Sub total
+4
Economic and technological
development
13
- Employment (numbers)
+2 During the construction of the plant, 20
persons were employed by Sri Balaji
Biomass Power Ltd and an additional
90 workers were employed on a
contract labor basis. Approximately 80
of these workers are from neighboring
Kadapa village and Kokkiraipalli
village. The entire building material
was supplied by using the facilities of
local transport suppliers.
When synchronizing the plan with the
grid in April 2004, Sri Balaji Biomass
Power Ltd had 53 employees on its
payroll. 45 of the employees are from
Kokkiraipalli village and 8 are from
Kadapa village which is situated close
to the project site. Please refer to
document signed by the Office of the
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner.
During the operations of the plant 60-
70 percent of the skilled employees are
from the local area surrounding the
plant and most of the unskilled labor is
also hired from local villages.
- Balance of payments
(sustainability)
0 India is a net importer of coal. Net
foreign currency savings result through
a reduction of coal imports as a result
of CDM projects.
- Technological self reliance
(including project
replicability, hard currency
liability, skills development,
institutional capacity,
technology transfer)
+1 The technology is Indian, thus
contributing towards technological self
reliance.
14
Sub total
+3
TOTAL
+8
4.2 EIA requirements10 GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: There is no detailed justification using the pre-EIA assessment test explaining why no detailed EIA is necessary
The Gold Standard requires an EIA when required by the host country and/or the CDM Executive
Board. In the absence of any host country legal requirements, the project proponent should check
the project against the Gold Standard requirements on EIA.
1. Host country EIA requirements
Renewable energy biomass power projects such as this project do not fall under the Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest in India. For
further details please refer to the PDD.
2. CDM Executive Board EIA requirements
The CDM Executive Board does not require an EIA for the project activity.
3. Gold Standard Initial Stakeholder Consultation
Individual meetings were held with relevant stakeholders during a period from December 2002 to
November 2004. The question about any negative issues has been asked explicitly and no
negative comments regarding the project have been made by interviewed stakeholders. These
statements have been verified by DNV.
4. Sustainable Development Assessment Matrix?
10 Ibid section 3.4.2
15
According to the Gold Standard methodology, the sustainable development indicators should be
assessed compared to the baseline scenario. The project does not score negative when
assessed against the sustainable development indicators. Please refer to section 4.1.
5. Conclusions
No EIA is required for the project activity.
4.3 Public consultation11 GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: There is insufficient documentation whether the first round of the stakeholder consultation would have complied with the Gold Standard requirements (e.g. documentation of who was contacted, were local GS NGO supporters invited, was a public meeting hold, was a non-technical summary of the project available in the language spoken locally, were the right questions asked). This allows no indication of whether stakeholders identified significant issues that would have needed to be addressed in the PDD. The stakeholder consultation has been accused of being copy-paste by an Indian NGO in a widely publicized accusation of fraud in the CDM (see http://www.cseindia.org/programme/geg/pdf/CDM-presentation.pdf). While the GS does not judge whether these accusations are true or not, a thorough documentation of stakeholder consultation is particularly necessary for this project.
1. Initial stakeholder consultation
Individual meetings were held with relevant local stakeholders during the period of December
2002 to November 2004. All contacted stakeholders responded, amongst them village
representatives, transporters and biomass suppliers. Appointments were made over the
telephone and then the project proponent cordially went there to meet them. During the meeting,
an oral non-technical summary has been provided for all relevant local stakeholders in local
language. Project details such as types of biomass going to be used, amount of energy to be
supplied to the grid, etc. were addressed and made available to the stakeholders. The written
comments by the relevant local stakeholders confirm that no issues/questions were left open or
unanswered. Furthermore, they confirm that the following significant issues came up:
- All stakeholders were happy to learn about the project’s existence
- Local labor should be used as much as possible.
- Small farmers will get monetary gains for the sale of agricultural waste to the plant.
11 Ibid section 3.4.3
16
- Transporters of biomass benefit from the project
- Migration of people from the region has been reduced as a consequence of
implementation the project.
Participant Company/organization Function
E. Daptagiri Chennur Village Sarpanch
J. Ramalakshmamma
Yanapalle Village Sarpanch
Chintala Malamma Kokkarayapalli Village Sarpanch
K. Suresh Babu Zilla Parishad, Cuddapah Chairperson
Pedda Reddy Biomass supplier (small
business)
Biomass supplier
V. Obul Reddy Transporter (small business) Individual transporter
The PDD was made publicly available on the UNFCCCs website and parties, stakeholders and
NGOs were invited to comment on the project for a period of 30 days from 2005-09-07 to 2005-
10-06. No comments were received.
Late October 2005, DNV has interviewed stakeholders for the purpose of confirming selected
information and to resolve outstanding issues. Apart from village representatives and biomass
suppliers, stakeholders interviewed by DNV include a representative of Non-Conventional Energy
Development Corporation of A.P. (NEDCAP) on availability of biomass. Interviews with
representatives of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and Forest Range Officer
flying squad, Cuddapah, on the environmental performance of the project, complaints, potential
threats to forests and control on usage of restricted biomass have been carried out by DNV. For
further reference including a list of interviewed stakeholders, please consult the validation report.
2. Main stakeholder consultation
GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: There is no second stakeholder consultation round in which stakeholders could have checked whether any issues they might have addressed in the first round were properly addressed in the PDD.
17
The main stakeholder consultation will be carried out in parallel with the Gold Standard validation of the project.12 A second stakeholder meeting will be held at the plant on 18 October 2007 2.00 PM to 6.00 PM. Address of the plant: Sri Balaji Biomass Power Private Limited Kokkirayapalli Road, Chennur, Kadapa Andhra Pradesh, India – 516 567 Phone: 08562 – 232222, 232223
The validating DOE will be present at the stakeholder meeting. Invitations will be made using
local media but also through personal communication. The Gold Standard Environmental and
Social Impacts Checklist (Attachment 2) will be translated into Telugo and submitted to the
stakeholders attending the meeting.
Full project documentation will be made publicly available for two months, including:
(i) The original and complete PDD
(ii) A non-technical summary of the project design document (in Telugu)
(iii) All relevant supporting information
(iv) During the consultation period the project proponent will respond to
comments and questions by interested stakeholders.
The report on the main stakeholder consultation will include:
(i) A description of the procedure followed to invite comments, including addressing all
the details of the oral hearing such as, place, date, participants, language, local or
national Gold Standard NGO supporters, etc. The Gold Standard Foundation shall be
invited to comment on the project.
(ii) All written or oral comments received.
(iii) The argumentation on whether or not comments are taken into account.
5. Monitoring Plan
12 Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications 5 July 2007 section 6 states the following: The 60-day period during which stakeholders must be able to make comments on the GS-PDDs during the main stakeholder consultation can be in parallel to the validation process. Validation can be concluded at the earliest 60 days after commencement of the main stakeholder consultation.
18
GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: The monitoring plan fails to address critical sustainable development indicators that should be drawn from both the Sustainable Development Impact Assessment as well as the stakeholder consultation.
5.1 Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators
Table 1: Data to be collected in order to monitor sensitive sustainable development indicators.
Sustainable
Development Indicator
Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m),
calculated (c) or estimated (e)
Water quantity Water Water used m3/hour m
Waste water
treatment
performance
Waste Water Water reused m3/hour m
Availability of
biomass13
Survey on local
availability of
biomass types
used in the
project
e
Employment Employment
(number of jobs)
Employees
contracted to
work in the
operations of the
plant.
m
5.2 Request for clarification by GS-TAC GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007: Monitoring of biomass used: Indicator D3.4 records the amount of biomass used, indicator D.3.5
13 Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications 5 July 2007 section 5 states the following: For biomass projects, resource competition must be monitored with suitable Sustainable Development Indicators and be included in the Monitoring Plan.
19
records the type/calorific value of biomass used. The GS-TAC would like to see the monitoring methodology for indicator D.3.4 especially further explained. Are fuel purchase records internal records or confirmed by suppliers?
Answer from project proponent:
The fuel at the plant is stored in lots. Daily fuel reports are prepared at the plant on the
basis of net weight of each trip measured on the weight bridge. A Goods Received and an
Inspection Report is prepared for each trip and the payment to the supplier is made on the basis
of Inspection Reports. All the reports are made at the plant by plant personnel. The supplier is
paid as per the invoice submitted by him and it corresponds to the inspection records which are
also confirmed by the supplier.
20
Attachment 1
BIOMASS POWER PROJECTS IN ANDHRA PRADESH Plant Installed
capacity Year when operations started
Criteria for sucess
1 Gowthami Solvents Oil Ltd
2.75 MW March 1996 Low price on biomass fuel.
Along with the low price on biomass they got tariff price for power sale 3.48 Indian rupees till 31st March 2004.
2 HCL Agro Power Ltd
6 MW October 2000 Low price on biomass fuel.
Same as 1
3 Ind-Barath Energies Ltd
6 MW October 2000 CDM Project (0970)
4 Jyothi Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd
4.5 MW November 2000
Low price on biomass fuel.
Same as 1
5 Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries Ltd
6 MW December 2000
Low price on biomass fuel.
Same as 1
6 Gayatri Agro Industrial Power Ltd
6 MW February 2001
CDM Project (0797)
7 Rayalseema Green Energy Ltd
5.5 MW February 2001
CDM Project (0546)
8 Matrix Power Ltd 4 MW February 2001
CDM Project (0281)
9 Jocil Limited 5 MW March 2001
Financially viable without CDM.
Yes
10 Gowthami Bioenergy
6 MW July 2001 Under validation as a CDM Project.14
11 SLS Power Ltd 6 MW August 2001 Financially viable without CDM.
Yes
12 Roshni Power tech Ltd
6 MW August 2001 Under validation as a CDM project.
Validation visit scheduled in August 2007.
13 Vamsi Industries Ltd
4 MW April 2001 Financially viable without CDM.
Yes
14 Vijay Agro 4 MW January 2002 Under validation 14 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/LT1FOW78UPX6GDZVL7635GTIKCNVIW/view.html
21
Products Pvt Ltd as a CDM project.15
15 Varam Power Projects Private Ltd
6 MW January 2002 CDM Project (0697)
16 My Home Power Limited
9 MW February 2002
CDM Project (0476)
17 KMS Power (P) Ltd 6 MW July 2002 CDM Project (0374)
18 Rithwik Energy Systems Ltd
6 MW September 2002
CDM Project (0253)
19 Veeraiah Non-Conventional Power Project Ltd
4 MW October 2002 Financially viable without CDM.
20 Sathya Kala Power Project
4 MW October 2002 Financially viable without CDM.
21 Suchand Power Generation Pvt Ltd
6 MW November 2002
Financially viable without CDM.
Yes
22 Rithwik Power Projects Ltd
6 MW November 2002
Under validation as a CDM project.16
23 Shalivahana Constructions Pvt. Ltd
6 MW December 2002
CDM Project (0591)
24 Indur Green Power (P) Ltd
6 MW February 2003
CDM Project (0391)
25 Perpetual Energy Systems Ltd
6 MW March 2003 CDM Project (0390)
26 Adl Laxmi Industries
150 KW April 2003 Financially viable without CDM.
Yes
27 Saro Power & Infrastructures Ltd
6 MW June 2003 Financially viable without CDM.
Not operational.
28 Balaji Agro Oils Ltd 6 MW June 2003 Under validation as a CDM project.17
29 Agri Gold Projects Limited
6 MW July 2003 CDM Project (0534)
30 Sree Rayalseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd
6 MW August 2003 Financially viable without CDM.
Plant is not running.
31 B. Seenniah & Company (projects) Ltd
6 MW October 2003 The project is going for CDM validation.18
At present it is under major shut down.
15 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/3AO8ZZWJ5MPF4FMKGYU8HY5CZ55JQ1/view.html 16 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/3H3GM4FEJGU9MPI0WJY8FXO6SR19QT/view.html 17 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/CR5OLTZXJG8F85U3YG0YZ9T5BFRPID/view.html 18 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/TCY418BXNOW8VUGJYSOX2M3P7CIR2K/view.html
22
32* Om Shakti Renergies Ltd
6 MW January 2004 Considering CDM.19
33* Clarion Power Corporation Limited
12 MW February 2004
CDM Project (075)
34* Satyamaharshi Power Corporation Ltd
6 MW July 2004 CDM Project (0396)
* Projects commissioned since 2004.
19 http://www.netinform.net/KE/files/pdf/PDD_Om_shakti_revised.pdf
23
Attachment 2 Environmental and Social Impacts Checklist20 The project proponent will clarify that the first answer column refers to a scenario with the project implemented as compared to the baseline scenario, i.e. a situation without the project, but including other future development at the location. Environmental Impacts Yes/ No / ? .
Briefly describe Is this likely to result in a significant effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
1. Will construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project use or affect natural resources or ecosystems, such as land, water, forests, habitats, materials or, especially any resources which are non-renewable or in short supply?
2. Will the Project involve use, storage, transport, handling, production or release of substances or materials (including solid waste) which could be harmful to the environment?
3. Will the Project release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air?
4. Will the Project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?
5. Will the Project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into surface waters, groundwater, coastal wasters or the sea?
6. Are there any areas on or around the location which are protected under international or national or local legislation for their ecological value, which could be affected by the project?
7. Are there any other areas on or around the location, which are important or sensitive for reasons of their ecology, e.g. wetlands, watercourses or other water bodies, the coastal zone, mountains, forests or woodlands,
20 The Gold Standard Manual for CDM Project Developers Appendix E.
24
which could be affected by the project? 8. Are there any areas on or around the location which are used by protected, important or sensitive species of fauna or flora e.g. for breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, overwintering, migration, which could be affected by the project?
9. Are there any inland, coastal, marine or underground waters on or around the location which could be affected by the project?
10. Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions e.g. temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause the project to present environmental problems?
Socioeconomic and Health Impacts
Yes/ No / ? . Briefly describe
Is this likely to result in a significant effect? Yes/No/? – Why?
11. Will the Project involve use, storage, transport, handling, production or release of substances or materials (including solid waste) which could be harmful to human health or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks to human health?
12. Will the Project release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air that could adversely affect human health?
13. Will the Project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation that could adversely affect human health?
14. Will the Project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into surface waters, groundwater, coastal wasters or the sea that could adversely affect human health?
15. Will there be any risk of accidents during construction or operation of the Project which could affect human
25
health? 16. Will the Project result in social changes, for example, in demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?
17. Are there any areas on or around the location, protected or not under international or national or local legislation, which are important for their landscape, historic, cultural or other value, which could be affected by the project?
18. Are there any transport routes or facilities on or around the location which are used by the public for access to recreation or other facilities and/or are susceptible to congestion, which could be affected by the project?
19. Is the project in a location where it is likely to be highly visible to many people?
20. Are there existing or planned land uses on or around the location e.g. homes, gardens, other private property, industry, commerce, recreation, public open space, community facilities, agriculture, forestry, tourism, mining or quarrying which could be affected by the project?
21. Are there any areas on or around the location which are densely populated or built-up, or occupied by sensitive uses e.g. hospitals, schools, places of worship, community facilities, which could be affected by the project?
22. Are there any areas on or around the location which contain important, high quality or scarce resources e.g. groundwater, surface waters, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, tourism and minerals, which could be affected by the project?
23. Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions e.g. temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause
26
the project to present socioeconomic problems?