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

1
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

2
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

3
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 Conclusion

evidence
Provide evidence that The project became Board minutes OK
th
the starting date of the operational 15 of April dated 6
CDM project activity 2004 (starting date of December 2002
falls between 1 January project activity) and the evidence that
2000 and the date of the project was registered CDM was
registration of the first with the CDM EB considered before
project activity. Board on 21 May 2006. the starting date
of the project
Provide evidence that activity.
the incentive from the
CDM was seriously
considered in the
decision to proceed with
the project activity.

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and
regulations

Requirements Assessment Documentary Conclusion

evidence
Sub-step 1a: Define In the absence of the For further The viable scenario in
alternatives to the project activity, the reference, see the the absence of the
project activity. following scenarios validation report. project is that the
have been considered: capacity addition to the

4
Ibid section 3.3.2

4
 grid would have been
1. Provision of by the addition of fossil
equivalent amount of fuel plants and the
power output by the biomass would have
grid to which the project been burned in an
is connected. uncontrolled manner or
left for decay.
2. Construction of a
biomass power plant
with an equal installed
capacity as the project,
but without the CDM
component.

Sub-step 1b: All alternatives in sub- The Indian OK

Enforcement of step 1a are in Electricity Act of
applicable laws and compliance with all 2003 does not
regulations. applicable legal and restrict the fuel
regulatory choice for power
requirements. generation.

There is no legal
requirement to obligate
the use of biomass
such as rice husk,
juliflora etc as fuel for
power generation in
India.

Step 3: Barrier analysis

Requirements Assessment Documentary Conclusion

evidence
Sub-step 3a: Identify Financial barrier For further The project is
barriers that would reference, see the additional in the sense
prevent the The project validation report. that it would not be
implementation of type demonstrates viable without CDM

5
of the proposed project additionality mainly revenues.
activity. 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.
Sub-step 3b: Show that The barrier is not For further The barrier would not
the identified barriers applicable to alternative reference, see the prevent alternative 1 in
would not prevent the 1 to the project activity validation report. sub-step 1a.
implementation of at identified in sub-step
least one of the 1a.

6
alternatives.

Step 4: Common practice analysis

Requirements Assessment Documentary Conclusion

evidence
Sub-step 4a: There are 34 low For further OK
Analyze other activities capacity biomass power reference, see
similar to the proposed plants operating in the Attachment 1.
project activity. 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.
Sub-step 4b: The tariff price for For further OK
Discuss similar options power sale was reference, see
that are occurring. reduced from Rs. 3.48 Attachment 1.
st
to Rs. 2.88 as of 31
March 2004. Since
then, no biomass power
projects have been
commissioned in the
state of Andhra
Pradesh without CDM
revenue.

Step 5: Impact of CDM registration

Requirements Assessment Documentary Conclusion

evidence
Impact of CDM The CDM revenues OK

7
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:

Biomass price

Coal price

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.

8
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

9
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 Score (-2 to 2) Conclusion

- Indicators

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, 0 Not relevant.
where relevant, toxicity,
radioactivity, POPs,
stratospheric ozone layer

8
Ibid section 3.4
9
Ibid section 3.4.1

10
 depleting gases)

- Soil condition (quality and 0 No effect.

quantity)

- Biodiversity (species and 0 No major change compared to

habitat conservation) baseline. Biomass used is locally
available and grown in a sustainable
manner.
Sub total +1

Social sustainability and

development

- Employment (including job +2 The project has generated jobs directly

quality, fulfillment of labor and indirectly. Local biomass suppliers,
standards) 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.

11
 - Livelihood of the poor
(including poverty
alleviation, distributional
equity and access to
essential services)
- Access to energy services
- Human and institutional
capacity (including
empowerment, education,
involvement, gender)
Sub total
Economic and technological
development
+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.
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.
+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.
+4
12
- Employment (numbers)
- Balance of payments
(sustainability)
- Technological self reliance
(including project
replicability, hard currency
liability, skills development,
institutional capacity,
technology transfer)
+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.
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.
+1 The technology is Indian, thus
contributing towards technological self
reliance.
13
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

14
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

15
 - 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 Biomass supplier
business)
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.

16
The main stakeholder consultation will be carried out in parallel with the Gold Standard
12
validation of the project.

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.

17
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 Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m),

Development calculated (c) or
Indicator estimated (e)
Water quantity Water Water used m3/hour m
Waste water Waste Water Water reused m3/hour m
treatment
performance
Availability of Survey on local e
13
biomass availability of
biomass types
used in the
project
Employment Employment Employees m
(number of jobs) contracted to
work in the
operations of the
plant.

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.

18
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.

19
Attachment 1
BIOMASS POWER PROJECTS IN ANDHRA PRADESH
Plant Installed Year when Criteria for
capacity operations sucess
started
1 Gowthami 2.75 MW March 1996 Low price on Along with the
Solvents Oil Ltd biomass fuel. low price on
biomass they
got tariff price
for power sale
3.48 Indian
st
rupees till 31
March 2004.
2 HCL Agro Power 6 MW October 2000 Low price on Same as 1
Ltd biomass fuel.
3 Ind-Barath 6 MW October 2000 CDM Project
Energies Ltd (0970)
4 Jyothi Bio-Energy 4.5 MW November Low price on Same as 1
Pvt. Ltd 2000 biomass fuel.
5 Sudha Agro Oil & 6 MW December Low price on Same as 1
Chemical 2000 biomass fuel.
Industries Ltd
6 Gayatri Agro 6 MW February CDM Project
Industrial Power 2001 (0797)
Ltd
7 Rayalseema 5.5 MW February CDM Project
Green Energy Ltd 2001 (0546)
8 Matrix Power Ltd 4 MW February CDM Project
2001 (0281)
9 Jocil Limited 5 MW March 2001 Financially Yes
viable without
CDM.
10 Gowthami 6 MW July 2001 Under validation
Bioenergy as a CDM
14
Project.
11 SLS Power Ltd 6 MW August 2001 Financially Yes
viable without
CDM.
12 Roshni Power tech 6 MW August 2001 Under validation Validation visit
Ltd as a CDM scheduled in
project. August 2007.
13 Vamsi Industries 4 MW April 2001 Financially Yes
Ltd viable without
CDM.
14 Vijay Agro 4 MW January 2002 Under validation

14
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/LT1FOW78UPX6GDZVL7635GTIKCNVIW/view.html

20
 Products Pvt Ltd as a CDM
15
project.
15 Varam Power 6 MW January 2002 CDM Project
Projects Private (0697)
Ltd
16 My Home Power 9 MW February CDM Project
Limited 2002 (0476)
17 KMS Power (P) Ltd 6 MW July 2002 CDM Project
(0374)
18 Rithwik Energy 6 MW September CDM Project
Systems Ltd 2002 (0253)
19 Veeraiah Non- 4 MW October 2002 Financially
Conventional viable without
Power Project Ltd CDM.
20 Sathya Kala Power 4 MW October 2002 Financially
Project viable without
CDM.
21 Suchand Power 6 MW November Financially Yes
Generation Pvt Ltd 2002 viable without
CDM.
22 Rithwik Power 6 MW November Under validation
Projects Ltd 2002 as a CDM
16
project.
23 Shalivahana 6 MW December CDM Project
Constructions Pvt. 2002 (0591)
Ltd
24 Indur Green Power 6 MW February CDM Project
(P) Ltd 2003 (0391)
25 Perpetual Energy 6 MW March 2003 CDM Project
Systems Ltd (0390)
26 Adl Laxmi 150 KW April 2003 Financially Yes
Industries viable without
CDM.
27 Saro Power & 6 MW June 2003 Financially Not operational.
Infrastructures Ltd viable without
CDM.
28 Balaji Agro Oils Ltd 6 MW June 2003 Under validation
as a CDM
17
project.
29 Agri Gold Projects 6 MW July 2003 CDM Project
Limited (0534)
30 Sree Rayalseema 6 MW August 2003 Financially Plant is not
Hi-Strength Hypo viable without running.
Ltd CDM.
31 B. Seenniah & 6 MW October 2003 The project is At present it is
Company going for CDM under major
18
(projects) Ltd validation. 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

21
32* Om Shakti 6 MW January 2004 Considering
19
Renergies Ltd CDM.
33* Clarion Power 12 MW February CDM Project
Corporation 2004 (075)
Limited
34* Satyamaharshi 6 MW July 2004 CDM Project
Power Corporation (0396)
Ltd

* Projects commissioned since 2004.

19
http://www.netinform.net/KE/files/pdf/PDD_Om_shakti_revised.pdf

22
Attachment 2
20
Environmental and Social Impacts Checklist

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 / ? . Is this likely to result in a

Briefly describe 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.

23
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 Yes/ No / ? . Is this likely to result in a
Impacts Briefly describe 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

24
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

25
the project to present
socioeconomic problems?

26