Verification Report

Verification
Report
Periodic Verification of the Registered CDM Project
Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste Management
UNFCCC 0461CDMP
Monitoring period 3: 01.10.2008 to 30.04.2010
Report No. 600500565
14 July 2011
TV SD Industrie Service GmbH

Carbon Management Service
Westendstrasse 199 - 80686 Munich - GERMANY
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
PERIODIC VERIFICATION
Page 1 of 15
Report No.
Date of first issue
Version No.:
Revision date
600500565
21.04.2011
05
14.07.11
Subject:
Third Periodic Verification
Executing Operational Unit:
TV SD Industrie Service GmbH, Carbon Management Service
Westendstrasse 199 - 80686 Munich, Federal Republic of Germany
Project Participant (client):
Pronaca S.A. ; Av. de los Naranjos N44-15 y Av. de los Granados, Quito - Ecuador
Registration number / Project Title
Project 0461: Pronaca: Valentina, San
Javier Swine Waste Management
Monitoring period:
01.10.2008 to 30.04.2010
First Monitoring Report (version/date)
Version 01 / 11.03.2011
Final Monitoring Report (version/date)
Version 03 / 14.07.2011
Summary:
TV SD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the third periodic verification of the registered
CDM project: Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste Management. The project consists
of the implementation of Deep Bedding System, which includes the change of the barns floor
and the use of rice husk or similar product as bed for the animals, in the Valentina, San Javier
Swine Farm in Ecuador. The implementation has been carried out since 09 November 2002 to
Janaury 2005 in five barns in Valentina farm and 6 barns in San Javier farm.
The management of Pronaca is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data and
the reported GHG emission reductions.
A document review, followed by a site visit was conducted to verify the information submitted by
the project participant regarding the present verification period. Based on the assessment
carried out, the verifier confirms the following:
the project has been implemented and operated in accordance with the description given in
the registered PDD (version 04, 27-05-2006, registration date 25-09-2006).
the project is completely implemented as described in the registered PDD.
the monitoring plan complies with the applied methodology (AM0006 - GHG emission
reductions from manure management systems, version 1) and the monitoring has been
carried out exactly following the revised monitoring plan. Based on the decision made by the
EB in response to the Deviation Request to the Monitoring Plan submitted by TUV-SUD prior
to the first verification, the Board instructed the DOE to submit a revised monitoring plan prior
to requesting issuance for future monitoring periods if the default value Vs would be used
permanently. The revised monitoring plan was approved on 21-03-2009.
Installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions run reliably and the meters are
calibrated appropriately. The project is generating emission reductions as a CDM project.
The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material
misstatements. Our opinion refers to the projects GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission
reductions reported, both determined using the valid and registered projects baseline, its
monitoring plan and its associated documents.
Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm that the implementation of
the project resulted in 16 207 t CO2e of emission reductions during the verification period
01.10.2008 to 30.04.2010.
Assessment Team Leader:
Javier Castro
Technical Review:
Rachel Zhang
Praveen Pyata
Certification Body responsible:
Thomas Kleiser
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 2 of 15
Abbreviations
AM
CAR
CDM
CDM-EB
CER
CMP
Approved Methodology
Corrective Action Request
Clean Development Mechanism
CDM Executive Board
Certified Emission Reduction
Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol
CO2e
Carbon dioxide equivalent
CR / CL
Clarification Request
DNA
Designated National Authority
DOE
Designated Operational Entity
EIA / EA Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment
ER
Emission Reduction
FAR
Forward Action Request
GHG
Greenhouse Gas(es)
GWP
Global Warming Potential
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRL
Information Reference List
KP
Kyoto Protocol
MP
Monitoring Plan
MR
Monitoring Report
PDD
Project Design Document
PP
Project Participant
TV SD TV SD Industrie Service GmbH
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VVM
Validation and Verification Manual
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 3 of 15
Main Documents (referred to in this report)

Methodology (name / version)
Scope
Technical Area
Registered PDD:
Revised Monitoring Plan:
Published Monitoring Report
Revised Monitoring Report
Project documentation link:
AM0006, Version 01
13, 15
13.2 - 15.2
Version 4, date 27-05-2006
Date of approval 21-03-2009
Version
Date
1
11.03.2011
3
14.07.2011
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNVCUK1149775382.07/view
Table of Contents
1
4
5
Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Objective ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.2
Scope ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.3
GHG Project Description .............................................................................................. 4
Methodology........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1
Verification Process...................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Verification Team ......................................................................................................... 6
2.3
Review of Documents .................................................................................................. 6
2.4
On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews .............................................................. 7
2.5
Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions ............................................... 7
2.6
Resolution of Clarification and Corrective and Forward Action Requests ..................... 7
2.7
Internal Quality Control................................................................................................. 8
Verification Results.............................................................................................................. 9
3.1
FARs from Validation / Previous Verification ................................................................ 9
3.2
Project Implementation in accordance with the registered Project Design Document ... 9
3.3
Compliance of the Monitoring Plan with the Monitoring Methodology ........................... 9
3.4
Compliance of the Monitoring with the Monitoring Plan .............................................. 10
3.5
Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions ........ 11
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 12
Verification Statement ....................................................................................................... 15
Annex 1: Verification Protocol

Annex 2: Information Reference List
Annex 3: Appointment Certificate
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 4 of 15
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
Procesadora Nacional de Alimentos PRONACA has commissioned an independent verification
by TV SD Industrie Service GmbH (TV SD) of its registered CDM project: Pronaca:
Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste Management.
The objective of the verification work is to comply with the requirements of paragraph 62 of the
CDM Modalities and Procedures. According to this assessment TV SD shall:
ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered
PDD Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste Management Version 04.-27-05-2006,
and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering
equipment) of the project are in place,
ensure that the published MR and other supporting documents provided are complete,
verifiable and in accordance with applicable CDM requirements,
ensure that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems
and procedures described in the revised monitoring plan approved on 21-03-2009 and the
approved methodology,
evaluate the data recorded and stored as per the GHG emission reductions from manure
management systems, AM0006 Version 01.
1.2 Scope
The verification scope encompasses an independent and objective review and ex-post
determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the Designated Operational
Entity. The verification is based on the submitted monitoring report, the validated project design
documents including its monitoring plan and validation report, previous verification reports, the
applied monitoring methodology, relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP
and the EB and any other information and references relevant to the project activitys resulting
emission reductions. These documents are reviewed against the requirements of the Kyoto
Protocol, the CDM Modalities and Procedures and related rules and guidance.
Based on the requirements in the VVM, TV SD has applied a rule-based approach for the
verification of the project. The principles of accuracy, completeness, relevance, reliability and
credibility were combined with a conservative approach to establish a traceable and transparent
verification opinion.
The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions.
The verification is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the client. However, stated
requests for clarifications, corrective and/or forward actions may provide input for improvement
of the monitoring activities.
1.3 GHG Project Description

Project activity:
UNFCCC registration number:
Project Participants:
Location of the project:
Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste

Management
0461
PRONACA S.A.
The Climate Cent Foundation
Valentina: 0 11 15 S
79 11 32 W
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 5 of 15
San Javier: 0 4 43 S
79 17 29 W(measure onsite)
Date of registration:
25-09-2006
Starting date of the crediting period: 01-05-2003 (renewable)
The waste management system proposed by Pronaca at its Valentina and San Javier pig farms
involve the exchange of anaerobic lagoons for a solid manure handling system in conjunction
with a deep bedding system in the pig barns.
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 6 of 15
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Verification Process
The verification process is based on the approach depicted in the Validation and Verification
Manual.
Standard auditing techniques have been adopted for the verification process. The verification
team performs first a desk review, followed by an on-site visit, which results in the formation of a
protocol that includes all the findings. The next step involves the evaluation of the findings
through direct communication with the PPs and then finally the preparation of the verification
report. This verification report and other supporting documents then undergo an internal quality
control by the CB climate and energy before submission to the CDM-EB.
2.2 Verification Team

The appointment of the verification team takes into account the technical area(s), sectoral
scope(s) and relevant host country experience required amongst team members for verifying
the ER achieved by the project activity in the relevant monitoring period for this verification.
The CB TV SD operates the following qualification levels for team members that are
assigned by formal appointment rules:
Assessment Team Leader (ATL);

Verifier (V);
Verifier Trainee (T);
Technical Experts (TE).
The verification team consisted of the following members:
Name
Javier Castro
Qualificatio
n
Coverage of
scope
Coverage of
technical area
ATL
(All)
Coverage of
financial aspect
Host
country
experience
Technical reviewer:
Rachel Zhang and Praveen Pyata.
2.3 Review of Documents

The Monitoring Report version 1 submitted by the PP was made publicly available on the
UNFCCC website before the verification activities started. The published MR was assessed
based on all the relevant documents as listed above. The aim of the assessment in the desk
review was to:
verify the completeness of the data and the information presented in the MR,
check the compliance of the MR with respect to the monitoring plan depicted in the
registered PDD and verify that the applied methodology was carried out. Particular
attention to the frequency of measurements, the quality of the metering equipment
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 7 of 15
including calibration requirements, and the quality assurance and quality control
procedures was paid,
evaluate the data management and the quality assurance and quality control system in
the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions.
A complete list of all documents reviewed is available in annex 2 of this report.
2.4 On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews

During 02.05.2011 to 04.05.2011, TV SD performed a physical site inspection and on-site
interviews with project stakeholders to:
confirm the implementation and operation of the project,
review the data flow for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters,
confirm the correct implementation of procedures for operations and data collection,
cross-check the information provided in the MR documentation with other sources,
check the monitoring equipment against the requirements of the PDD and the approved
methodology, including calibrations, maintenance, etc.,
review the calculations and assumptions used to obtain the GHG data and ER,
indentify if the quality control and quality assurance procedures are in place to prevent or
correct errors or omissions in the reported parameters.
A list of the persons interviewed during this verification activity is included in annex 2.
2.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions

Among several evidence items submitted, the following relevant and reliable evidence material
have been used by the audit team during the verification process:
Animal entrance form
Mortality form
Animal exit form
Animal entrance to slaughter house invoice
Rice husk invoice
Farm excel files Brill (especial software for pig farms)
Laboratory result of moisture of the piles
Sufficient evidence covering the full verification period in the required frequency is available to
validate the figures stated in the final MR. The source of the evidence will be discussed in
chapter 3 of this report. Specific cross-checks have been done in cases that further sources
were available. The monitoring reports figures were checked by the audit team against the raw
data. The data collection system meets the requirements of the monitoring plan as per the
methodology.
2.6 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective and Forward Action

Requests
The objective of this phase of the verification process is to resolve any outstanding issues which
require clarification for TV SDs positive conclusion of the achieved GHG emission reduction.
The findings raised as Forward Action Requests (FARs) (if any) indicated in previous reports
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 8 of 15
(validation/verification) were discussed during this phase and, issues raised in the FARs were
resolved, during communications between the PP and TV SD.
Concerns raised in the desk review, the on-site audit assessments and the follow up interviews
and the responses provided forthe raised concerns are documented in Annex 1 (verification
protocol) to guarantee the transparency of the verification process.
A Corrective Action Request is raised where TV SD identifies:
non-conformities in monitoring and/or reporting with the monitoring plan and/or methodology;
that the evidence provided is not sufficient to prove conformity;
mistakes in assumptions, data or calculations that impair the ER;
FARs stated during validation that are not solved until the on-site visit.
A Clarification Request is raised where TV SD does not have enough information or the
information is not clear in order to confirm a statement or data.
A Forward Action Request is raised where TV SD identifies that monitoring and/or reporting
require special attention or adjustments for the next verification period.
Information or clarifications provided as a response to a CAR, CR or FAR could also lead to a
new request.
2.7 Internal Quality Control

As a final step of verification, the final documentation including the verification report and
annexes have to undergo an internal quality control by the Certification Body (CB) climate and
energy, i.e. each report has to be finally approved either by the Head of the CB or the Deputy
In case one of these two persons is part of the assessment team, the approval can only be
given by the person who is not a part of the assessment team. If the documents have been
satisfactorily approved, the Request for Issuance is submitted to the CDM-EB along with the
relevant documents.
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 9 of 15
3 VERIFICATION RESULTS
In the following sections the results of the verification are stated. The verification results relate to
the project performance as documented and described in the final Monitoring Report
(14.07.2011, version 3 ). The verification findings for each verification subject are presented
below:
3.1 FARs from Validation / Previous Verification

The verification team confirms that all the FARs presented in the second verification report have
been correctly addressed by the PPs. The same has been confirmed onsite and is based on
further documents received from the PP and the result of additional communication with the PP.
3.2 Project Implementation in accordance with the registered Project

Design Document
The project is fully implemented according to the description presented in the registered PDD.
The verifier confirms, through the visual inspection that all physical features of the proposed
CDM project activity including data collecting systems and storage have been implemented in
accordance with the registered PDD. The project activity is completely operational and the same
has been confirmed on-site.
By comparing the actual ER claimed in this monitoring period with the estimate in the registered
PDD. The actual result is smaller than what is stated in the PDD.
Additionally it shall be clarified that the PDD mentioned that in order to avoid ammonia
production the C:N ratio in the manure shall be maintained in a define level. The effect of a
wrong management that could produce ammonia is the appearance of odours. During the onsite visit no odours could be detected, hence no ammonia emission is possible.
3.3 Compliance of the Monitoring Plan with the Monitoring

Methodology
The monitoring plan applied complies with the methodology AM0006, version 1. Nevertheless
the PDD and methodology have a minimum difference, and needed a revision of the monitoring
plan to have a 100% compliance with the actual operation. Based on the decision made by the
EB in response to the Deviation Request to the Monitoring Plan submitted by TUV-SUD prior to
the first verification, the Board instructed the DOE to submit a revised monitoring plan prior to
requesting issuance for future monitoring periods if the default value Vs would be used
permanently.
The Project owners response was that based on the decision made by the CDM Executive
Board in response to the Deviation Request to the Monitoring Plan submitted by TUV-SUD, the
Daily Feed Intake, Feed Digestible Energy and Feed Ash Content parameters previously
needed to calculate Vs are not taken into consideration, as the EB has instructed that the Vs
value used in the PDD to estimate project emissions be used for verification purposes.
According to this description, the project participants developed a revised monitoring plan,
which was approved by EB on March, 2009.
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 10 of 15
3.4 Compliance of the Monitoring with the Monitoring Plan

The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the
revised and approved monitoring plan. All parameters were monitored and determined as per
the Monitoring Plan.
The verification of the parameters required by the monitoring plan is provided as follows:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Means of
verification/Comments:
Cross-check
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Means of
Cross-check
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Means of
Cross-check
Animal Population
# heads
Annual swine herd inventory

Swine herd inventories are tracked weekly to account for herd inventory
adjustments due to emptying, re-filling of rearing facilities and number of
deceased animals. These data are transferred to the file of the farm, and in
the excel file.
All invoices (remission guides) are archived in the project file. A cross check
between excel files and files of the farm was performed during on site visit.
The information is checked against the Brill system to confirm the
correctness of the data
The information from brill has been crosschecked on-site with the amount of
feed bought during the period and no deviations has been found.
Weightss
Kg
Site Specific Animal Weight
Weight of animals are taken daily through the sample. However, in order to
be in concordance with the methodology, the frequency presented in the MR
is monthly, based on the average weight of animals entering and leaving the
rearing facilities, and the average daily weight gain, based on known growth
rates, average animal weights can be actively calculated.
The equipment used has been calibrated according to the requirements of
the approved monitoring plan.
An example was performed on site and verified the balance functionality.
The total feed intake can be used to compare with the weight gained, this
crosscheck shows no relevant deviations..
Rice Husk
Cubic meter
Amount of Rice Husk Added to the Manure

All invoices are archived in the project file at the farm. A cross check
between excel files and files of the farm was performed during on site visit.
Moisture and temperature control of the bed was performed, the procedure
was correctly applied, and the results were in the proper range.
The information has been cross checked with the control of trucks that enter
the farm and the information of the amount necessary to be entered in each
barn, taking into account that around 30% is changed with each change of
animals (around 3.5 times a year).
According to the PDD but not included in the monitoring plan, the moisture in the piles shall be
monitored. As this is not included as parameter neither in the original monitoring plan nor in the
revised monitoring plan. During verification has been confirmed the the moisture is monitored. In
order to monitored this samples are taken and submitted to a laboratory for the analysis of
moisture. The result of the laboratory have been presented on-site (IRL 12), hence the
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 11 of 15
verification team can confirm that the moisture has been monitored, hence the statement in the
PDD (that is outside of the monitoring plan) is complied with.
3.5 Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas

Emission Reductions
All data has been available and all the parameters have been monitored in accordance with the
registered monitoring plan.
The reported data have been cross-checked against other sources available as explained
above in chapter 3.4.
The verifier confirms that the methods and formulae used to obtained the baseline, project and
leakage emissions are appropriate. The same has been done in accordance with the methods
and formulae described in the registered monitoring plan and applicable methodology.
The verifier confirms that the monitoring report includes all parameters and the monitored data
at the intervals required by the methodology and PDD.
The verifier confirms that all the default values have been correctly justified.
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 12 of 15
4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The verifier can confirm that the published MR and related documents are complete and
verifiable in accordance with the CDM requirements. All the findings that were raised by the
verification team, the responses by the PPs and the conclusion from the team are presented in
Annex 1. The means of verification and resulting changes in the MR or related documents are
identified in the following table:
CAR 1: The parameter in MR shall be the same as in the PDD.
CAR 1, means of verification
The name has been corrected
CAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents
MR has been updated
CAR 2:
The calibration frequency of the balances in the farm shall be define according to the
manufacturer or national/ international requirements.
The information of the calibrations done, relevant to this monitoring period, shall be
included in the MR.
According to the responsible institution for normalization (INEN) the calibration of balances
(scales) is every year, this has been further confirmed by the reports of calibrations done by
the INEN.
The calibrations done are correctly presented and were verified against the calibration sheets
The excel file includes the corrections and the MR has been updated
CAR 3: The balance used for the exit of the animals shall be included in the monitoring report
with all the relevant information. For the delays in the calibrations the correction according to
the EB guidelines shall be done.
During the on-site visit it was evident that the information of the balance from the farm is not
enough as reference as the final value for the animals that exit the barn (even that are
weighted in the farm) is the balance that is located in the slaughter house. The relevant
information for this balance has been verified against the calibration sheets.
Taking into account that the weight of animals is only relevant for the calculation of the NO2
emissions and this is applied in project emissions and in baseline, in order to be conservative
the correction has been done in both directions (adding and substracting the error of the
balances) for project emissions and baseline respentively assuring a conservative approach.
The delay in calibration occurs only in the balance used for weighting the exit of the animals in
the slaughter house. As the calibration sheet shows that the balance was working properly
and the error was within the acceptable uncertainty of 30 kg, hence the correction has been
done using the uncertainty of the equipment.
The correction has been done following the requirements of EB52/annex 60.
The frequency of calibration of all balance is one year as defined by the INEN (see CAR 2)
The MR has been correctly updated
CAR 4:
The MR shall be corrected to include the correct information of the weight related only
to the lots applicable to this monitoring period
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 13 of 15
The weights shall be corrected due to adjustments done during the calibration and due
to delays during calibrations
During on-site it has been detected that one lot was not included in the calculations even that it
is part of the monitoring period, this lot has been correctly included in the calculations, this has
been verified against the data available in the Brill system.
The result of one calibration (even that there was no delay in the calibration) shows that the
balance has been adjusted, hence this adjustment has been included in the calculations in a
conservative way.
The excel file has benn corrected and the MR updated
CAR 5:
The calculation tool shall include the information of this parameter to show the
correctness of the values presented in the MR
The amount of rice husk for 2008 in San Javier and trucks and amount of rice husk for
2009 from Valentina shall be corrected according to the information available in the
farm
The information about the rice husk has only been included in the MR but not in the excel file,
now the excel file has the correct information.
The information has been verified based on the excel file in the farm, which includes all the rice
husk transported, the mistakes were mainly a typo in the MR.
Excel file and MR have been updated
CAR 6:
The weekly information of animal stock in the MR shall not exceed the monitoring
period.
The information of the barn 3 shall be corrected as it has been changed to normal
operation in 12.10.09, from this date on cannot be included in the ER
The weekly information presented in the MR now covers the complet verification period
The information from the barn 3 after the transformation to normal operation has been
eliminated from the calculation.
MR and excel file were updated
CAR 7: The final emission reductions shall be down rounded.
The formula presented in the excel file now shows the down rounding in the final calculation
Excel file has been corrected and MR has been updated
CAR 8: The MR shall include information on how the moisture of the pile is moitored according
to the PDD requirements
The moisture of the pile is monitored by taking samples and send them to a laboratory for the
measurement of the moisture, the results are available on-site and have been revised during
the on-site visit. This is not a parameter of the monitoring plan but it is included in the PDD,
ther results are not relevant for any calculation.
The MR includes an explanation of the monitoring of the moisture
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 14 of 15
CR 1: The GPS coordinates shall be clearly described according to measurements on-site.

CR 1, means of verification
The correct GPS were measure on-site directly and revised with official information for an
environmental study.
CR 1, changes in the MR or related documents
MR has been corrected
CR 2: It has to be clearly explained that the discarded animals are included in the total number
of heads for the calculation because the real weight of the discarded is included in the average
weight of the respective lot.
The explanation has been confirmed via interview with the responsible of all the pig farms in
the region. It can be also confirmed via recalculation that the weight of the discarded pigs is
included in the average (this animals are always below the average weight) hence this
approach is conservative, and the fact that the amount of discarded animals are not included in
the calculation, makes the complete approach more conservative
The MR has been updated with this information
CR 3: It has to be clarified the units of NEX and how is used in the formula
The calculations are correctly done in a yearly basis and only the final result is transform based
on the amount of days the animals stay in each barn.
No change is necessary to be done
CR 4: The density of animals per barn increased during this period in relation with the
information presented in the PDD (capacity divided by barns ~ 1530 animals per barn).
The explanation of the density has been checked against results on-site in the Brill system and
confirmed via interview with the farm operators, hence the explanation is correct.
The MR includes a clear explanation of this issue
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Page 15 of 15
5 VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TV SD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the Third periodic verification of the CDM
project: Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste Management. The verification is based
on the currently valid documentation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).
The management of Procesadora Nacional de Alimentos PRONACA is responsible for the
preparation of the GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emission reductions on the basis
set out within the projects Monitoring Plan indicated in the registered PDD version 04, dated
27-05-2006 and the applied methodology AM0006, Version 01. The monitoring report has been
revised and approved by the EB on 21-03-2009
The verifier can confirm that:
the development and maintenance of records and reporting procedures are in accordance
with the registered monitoring plan;
the project is operated as planned and described in the project design document approved
by the EB;
the installed equipment being essential for generating emission reduction runs reliably and is
calibrated appropriately;
the monitoring system is in place and generates GHG emission reductions data;
the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements;
the monitoring plan in Monitoring Report is as per the PDD and monitoring plan approved by
the EB;
the monitoring plan in the approved PDD is as per the applied methodology.
Our opinion is based on the projects GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions
reported, which have been both determined through the valid and registered projects baseline,
its monitoring plan and its associated documents.
Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm the following statement:
Reporting period: From 01.10.2008 to 30.04.2010
Verified emissions in the above reporting period:
Valentina
San Javier
Baseline emissions: 9 788
9 856
Project emissions:
1 694
1 741
Leakage emission:
0
0
Emission reductions*: 8 093
8 114
Total
19 644 t CO2e
3 435 t CO2e
0 t CO2e
16 207 t CO2e
*The emission reductions are downrouded (the exact values are presented in the excel file)
Munich, 14.07.2011
Munich, 14.07.2011
___________________________________
Certification Body climate and energy
TV SD Industrie Service GmbH
___________________________________
Assessment Team Leader
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Annex 1
Verification Protocol
Project Title: Pronaca: Valentina-San Javier Swine Waste Management
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Table of Contents
1. Project Activity Implementation
1.1. Technology
1.2. Organization
1.3. Quality Management System
1.4. Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded
issues of validation report)
2. Monitoring Plan Implementation
2.1. Parameters
2.2. Parameters measured directly with instruments
2.3. Parameters measured through sampling
Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461
2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and

accounting data
2.5. Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but
included in the PDD
3. Data Processing and ER calculation
4. Additional assessment
4.1. Internal Review
4.2. Peculiarities
4.3. Further additional requirements
4.4. Data Reporting
5. Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs
Page A-1
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
1.
Project Activity Implementation

1.1.
Technology
Location (s)
PDD Description
Verified Situation
Conclusion
and IRL
Description / Address:
Km. 26 via Quininde and km 9 via Quininde, Santo Domingo Regin, Pichincha
Province, Ecuador
Santo Domingo is not anymore part of

Pichincha province, in 2007 the new province Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas was
created with Santo Domingo as capital.
This information has been submitted to
the EB already during the last verification
and is explained in the last verification
report.
GSP coordinates:
NA
Clarification Request No. 1

The GPS coordinates shall be clearly described according to measurements onsite.
CR
Technical Equipment Main Components

PDD Description
Verified Situation
Conclusion
and IRL
Description
No technical equipment is used in the

project only instruments are used.
Only measuring instruments are used in

the project activity
Component 1:
Technical Features
NA
NA
Operation Status during verification

Page A-2
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Verified Situation
Conclusion
and IRL
Approvals / Licenses
The licenses are clearly presented in the office in the farm. These documents are valid
and are signed by the national authorities
Actual Operation Status
Start date of operation (each site if applicable):

Valentina
Barn 3
03.03.03 until 12.10.09 (transformed to normal operation)
Barn 4
03.03.03
Barn 5
07.03.03
Barn 6
12.03.03
Barn 7
12.01.05
San Javier
Barn 1
22.05.03
Barn 2
27.05.03
Barn 3
03.06.03
Barn 4
25.08.03
Barn 5
29.08.03
Barn 6
03.09.03
Under construction
In operation
Out of operation
Reason and date (if out of operation):
The MR includes the information of when the barns were constructed and when the
first animals were introduced in the barns. This information has been checked against
commisionning contracts and information from the old system (pig champ) information
in the main office (IRL 02)
IRL 04
Page A-3
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Remarks to Special Operational

Status During the Verification Period
1.2.
Phased implementation: Since the first inclusion of animals with deep bedding system the control of moisture and temperature of the bed has been performed. The different barns start project operation in different dates depending on the construction
date and on the deep bedding system implementation (inclusion of animals in the barn
already prepared with rice husk)
Special cases: NA
Organization
Project Participant (s)

Verified Situation
Conclusion
and IRL
IRL (05)
Entity / Responsible person:
The responsible entity is Pronaca and the overall responsible person is the manager of
environmental management. The responsibilities are clearly presented in CDM Manual
Responsabilidades del personal sistema deep bedding (Responsibilities
Entity / Responsible person:
The Climate Cent Foundation / Marco Berg
CDM Project management:
The responsible person is the manager of environmental management.
1.3.
Quality Management System
General aspects of the Quality Management System

Verified Situation
Quality Management Manual:
The reporting procedures are defined in the CDM manual manual de manejo. Specifically exists for quality assurance of data the procedure ITGC 11 Levantamiento de
informacion sistema deep bedding (information of deep bedding) (See IRL06).
Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-4
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Responsibilities:
The responsibilities are defined in manual de manejo The overall responsibility lies on
manager of environmental management. The responsibilities of every person related to
this activity is also described in the manual (See IRL 07)
Qualification and Training:
Personnel responsible for production facility management have been properly trained
by PRONACA (IRL 08) and provided with a list of standard operating procedures outlining the proper management of deep-bedding to ensure correct operation of the system, following the procedure PGC 15 Capacitacion sistema deep bedding (IRL 09).
The corporate policy at PRONACA demands that all new staff receives instruction on
the appropriate handling of the processes
Implementation of QM-system
All the documentation is available on site in Spanish and is known by the operators.
The verifier has confirmed on-site the correct application of the procedures.
1.4.
Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report)
Remaining Requests from Previous

Verifications
Forward action request No. 1:

Minor errors should be corrected in
order to have a total concordance
between all the documentation also
on the detailed level.
Forward action request No. 2:
The serial number of all the components of the balance should be clearly
documented in the calibration sheets
and in the internal documentation.
Summary of project owner

response
There is a control of errors weekly in the brill system
and the farm is informed in order to avoid inconsistencies.
Audit team
Conclusion and IRL
Calibration sheets are available
All the calibration sheets are clearly related to

the farm or slaughter house
Data on-site has been checked and no inconsistencies where found
Page A-5
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
2.
Monitoring Plan Implementation

2.1.
Parameters
Parameters
Meth/tool
PDD
MR
Included in table
Compliance
Animal
Population
Swine
stock
Animal
Population
2.4 Table 1
The parameter has been correctly monitored
Average
weight of
Animals
Animal
weight
Weightss
2.2 Table 1
Volatile
solid excretion per
animal and
day
Vs
Vs
2.4 Table 2
Value is default for the crediting period
Nitrogen
excretion
per animal
and day
NEX
NEX
2.4 Table 2
Value is default for the crediting period
Rice husk
added to
the manure
Bo; MCF;
MS, EF3
Rice Husk
2.2 Table 2
Bo; MCF;
MS, EF3
2.4 Table 2
Values are default for the crediting period
Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-6
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
2.2.
Parameters measured directly with instruments
Table 1
Parameter and instrumentation Information
PDD
Meth/Tool
MR
Verified
Parameter title
Animal weight
Average weight
of Animals
Weightss
Parameter ID (if available)
PM-2 and BC-2
Corrective Action Request No.1

The parameter in MR shall be the
same as in the PDD.
NA
Data Unit
kg
kg
kg
Consistent
Monitoring frequency (reading)
Monthly
At entrance and
exit of animals
Monthly
Consistent with the revised MP
Monitoring frequency (recording)
Monthly
At entrance and
exit of animals
Monthly
Calibration requirements
yearly
Uncertainty level
0.5 kg

The calibration frequency of the
balances in the farm shall be
define according to the manufacturer or national/ international requirements.
The information of the calibrations done, relevant to this
monitoring period, shall be included in the MR.
Calibration certificates has been
Conclusion
and IRL
CAR
CAR
CAR
Page A-7
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Measurement Principle (if

applicable)
30 kg
checked on-site. The adjustments

done in calibrations have to be taken
into account in the calculation,
seeCorrective Action Request No.4
Electrical balance
Balances are operational on-site
Technical aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
CAR
Instrument Type:
Balance. The balance in Valentina has been changed on:

The digital component in San Javier has been changed on:
Both balances in each farm were all the time calibrated at least once a year as required.
The balance used for the exit of the animals shall be included in the monitoring report with all
the relevant information. For the delays in the calibrations the correction according to the EB
guidelines shall be done.
Serial Number:
Valentina 71586 (old balance 10659) and San Javier 72862 (old digital component 81584)
B8917890
Manufacturer Model Nr.:
Valentina Tru-Test GSW 3000 (old balance Ed-2000) and San Javier GSC VW200 (old digital component SGW-3015)
AD-4321A
Specific Location:
Valentina, San Javier farms entrance of barns

Entrance at slaughter house
Measurement Range:
0-1 500
0 60 000
Gaps in operating time of

instrument :
Period: NA
Default value used: NA
Page A-8
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Source of data
Justification: NA
QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Remission guides (Internal invoices documenting the entrance and exit of animals and weight)
Type: paper
Procedures: working procedure ITGC 13
IRL 3
Implementation of procedure: the personel knows the procedures and follows them
Responsibility: the manager of the farm is the responsible for the correct implementation of the
procedures
Archiving of raw data and

protection measures
Raw data in paper is archived and typed in excel files and uploaded into the brill system
Data transfer and protection

of input data for calculations
Typing errors are reduce via cross check with brill information for entrance from other farms and
exit to the slaughter house
Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL
Completeness of data
Data covers the complete monitoring period, the real data is used for the ER calculations. The
data for the lots where the animals entered the barn before the start of the monitoring period or
that leave after the end of the monitoring period are corrected and adjusted to the monitoring
period taking into account the average daily gain of weigth.
Data verification
Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: the calculation tool has the same information
as the raw data, no inconsistencies found
Page A-9
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The calculation tool has all the information of the farm. The information presented in the MR does not include all the lots applicable for this period, the lot missing has not been included in the last periodic verification, hence
no double counting is possible.
The MR shall be corrected to include the correct information of the weight related only to
the lots applicable to this monitoring period
The weights shall be corrected due to adjustments done during the calibration and due
to delays during calibrations
Crosscheck (if available)
CAR
The information from remission guides can be confirmed with the information in brill. The total
feed intake can be used to compare with the weight gaine, this crosscheck shows no relevant
deviations.
Table 2
Parameter and instrumentation Information
PDD
MR
Verified
Conclusion
and IRL
Rice Husk
Parameter is in accordance with the

revised PDD
Rice husk
added to the
manure
PM-4
NA
Data Unit
Consistent
Monitoring frequency (reading)
Each truck
Each truck
Monitoring frequency (recording)
Yearly
Yearly
Parameter title
Meth/Tool
Page A-10
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
FAR
Calibration requirements
No applicable,
The operators confirm that the measurement is manually done with normal
meters
Forward Action Request No. 1
It shall be clear procedure on how to
measure the volume of each truck, to
avoid subjectivity. The procedure shall
include possible crosschecks and protection of the information.
Uncertainty level
1 cm (per side)
NA
Measurement Principle (if

applicable)
meter
Meters are used
Technical aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Instrument Type:
NA
Serial Number:
NA
Manufacturer Model Nr.:
NA
Specific Location:
With each operator
Measurement Range:
0-5 m
Gaps in operating time of

instrument :
Period: NA
Justification: NA
QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-11
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Source of data
Invoices from rice husk transport

Type:paper
Procedures: see Forward Action Request No. 1
FAR
Implementation of procedure: measurement is totally simple
Responsibility: the manager of the farm is the responsible for measurement of each truck
Archiving of raw data and

protection measures
Raw data in paper is send to accounting department. The information is saved only in this department for all the monitoring period
Data transfer and protection

of input data for calculations
Data is transfer to the accounting department. Nevertheless see Forward Action Request No. 1
Quality of evidence
Data covers the complete monitoring period.
Data verification
Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: the calculation tool has no information about
this parameter
The calculation tool shall include the information of this parameter to show the correctness of the values presented in the MR
The amount of rice husk for 2008 in San Javier and trucks and amount of rice husk for
2009 from Valentina shall be corrected according to the information available in the farm
Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: See Corrective Action Request
No.5.
The information has been cross checked with the control of trucks that enter the farm and the
information of the amount necessary to be entered in each barn, taking into account that around
30% is changed with each change of animals (around 3.5 times a year).
FAR
Conclusion
and IRL
CAR
IRL 14
CAR
Page A-12
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
2.3.
Parameters measured through sampling
NA
2.4.
Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data
Table 1
External sources and accounting information
PDD
Meth/Tool
MR
Verified
Parameter title
Swine stock
Animal Population
Animal Population
Consistent with the

meth and in concept
is also consistent
with the PDD
PM-1 and BC-1
Consistent
Data Unit
Head
Head
Head
Consistent
Technical aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Conclusion
and IRL
Description of Data / Data Refers to:
Brill system is the source of information
Date of Data:
Update every week
Gaps in data
Period: NA
Justification: NA
Page A-13
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Type: Digital
Responsibility: The manager of the farm is responsible for the data as this information
is the business of the company
Representativeness: Data includes all the animals hence is 100% representative
Reliability of Data Source:
As the information is vital for the business the data is reliable

It has to be clearly explained that the discarded animals are included in the total number
of heads for the calculation because the real weight of the discarded is included in the
average weight of the respective lot.
CR
Is the Data up-to-date?
Update every week
Archiving of raw data and protection

measures
Data is saved in the PRONACA system, hence is pretected ans correctly archive
Data transfer and protection of input

data for calculations
Manual counting of animals (at entrance, exit of when an animal dies) is transfer into the
system, this is the basis for the information in the calculation tool
Source of data
Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL
Data is available for the complete monitoring period
Data verification
Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: Data is obtained fdirectly from the Brill
system, and this is double controlled by the different parts of the company that get the
animals, on one side the animals are borned in a different farm and this is the entrance
information for this farm, on the other side the animals are send to the slaughter house
and is the exit information of the farm. The system confirm the information from the
three sites, hence any error will be analyse and corrected as a normal company control
Page A-14
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
independent of the CDM project
Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The information is consistent. Nevertheless the information in the MR shall be only for the relevant monitoring
period.
The weekly information of animal stock in the MR shall cover the entire monitoring period.
The information of the barn 3 shall be corrected as it has been changed to normal operation in 12.10.09, from this date on cannot be included in the ER
The information from brill has been crosschecked on-site with the amount of food
bought during the period and no deviations has been found.
CAR
Table 2
External sources and accounting information
PDD
Meth/Tool
MR
Verified
Parameter title
Vs, NEX, Bo;

MCF; MS, EF3
Vs, NEX
Vs, NEX, Bo;

MCF; MS, EF3
Consistent with the revised

MP and with the methodology when relevant
PM-3 and BC-3, 5,

6, 7, 8, 9
3, 4
Consistent
Data Unit
Vs - kg/day
Bo - CH4/kg Vs
NEX -
Vs - kg dry matter
/animal /day
NEX - kg dry mat-
Vs - kg/day
Bo - CH4/kg Vs
NEX -

It has to be clarified the units
CR
Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-15
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Kg/head/day
EF3 - kg N2O-N/kg
N excreted
Others unitless
ter /animal /day
Kg/head/year
EF3 - kg N2O-N/kg
N excreted
Others unitless
of NEX and how is used in

the formula
Technical aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Description of Data / Data Refers

to:
Data is default as define in IPCC and in PDD (revised MP). According to the methodology
the data is to be obtained from IPCC 1996, and based on the decision of the EB Vs is based
on the data from the registered PDD
Date of Data:
IPCC 1996 and registered PDD
Gaps in data
Period: NA
Justification: NA
QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Type: Digital
Responsibility: The CDM manager of PRONACA is responsible for the correct application
of the default values int he calculations
Representativeness: Data is 100% representative
Reliability of Data Source:
IPCC and PDD are reliable source of information
Is the Data up-to-date?
NA
Archiving of raw data and protection measures
NA
Source of data
Page A-16
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Data transfer and protection of

input data for calculations
Correctly applied in the calculation tool

Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL
Data is available for the complete monitoring period
Data verification
Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: Data in calculation tool is the same as the
default values in IPCC and PDD
Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: Data is consistent with the tool
and IPCC
NA
2.5.
Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD
Page A-17
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
3.
Data Processing and ER calculation
Description of data processing from transferred data to final results in the calculation tool
Step
Description
Conclusion
and IRL
Consistency
In general all data is consistent, nevertheless see Corrective Action Request No.6 and Clarification Request No. 3
CAR
Calculation Tool
description
See Clarification Request No. 3

The density of animals per barn increased during this period in relation with the information presented in
the PDD (capacity divided by barns ~ 1530 animals per barn).
CR
Elimination of not
plausible data (if
applicable)
NA
Transformation from
useable data to input data for further
calculation (if applicalbe)
NA
Ex-ante data
NA
Default parameter
Apart from the default values presented in the tables above, also the GWP for methane and N2O is correctly applied
Formulae check
All the formulae is correctly presented in the excel file
Rounding functions
No rounding has been included

CAR
Page A-18
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
The final emission reductions shall be down rounded.

Calculation tool
changes and protection measures
The source of the calculation tool is the brill system which is protected. The formulas used in the excel file
are correct and not protected as required by the CDM guidelines.
Reported data
The final amount of ER is consistent between the tool and MR
Page A-19
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
4.
Additional assessment
4.1.
Internal Review
Description and performance of internal review

Description
Conclusion
and IRL
Procedure
The quality of the data collected is assured due to the internal audits (different department as the production) The procedures of internal audit are in Manual de manejo
IRL (07)
Documentation
All documentation is in Manual de manejo. All documentation was checked during on site visit.
IRL (07)
Responsibilities
The final responsibility lies on Manager environmental management. The responsibilities are clearly identifying in all procedures.
IRL (05)
4.2.
Peculiarities
Description of Peculiarities and unexpected Daily Events during the verification period
Description
Conclusion
and IRL
Performance
The performance of the farm is high as all process has been preformed according to best practice of animal production. There was not any peculiarity during on site visit.
Documentation
Not applicable since no peculiarities has happened during the verification period and this has been confirmed during the on site visit.
Measures
Not applicable.
Page A-20
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
4.3.
Further additional requirements
Description of additional requirements to be checked

Description
Conclusion
and IRL
PDD requirement
The PDD mentioned that the moisture of the pile shall be continuos monitored.
Mainly the rice husk directly after used is send to different farms (not selled) there is complete information
regarding the transport and location of use. (IRL 13 Remission guides). Hence no further monitoring is
necessary. In case that is pile stored on-site the moisture is measured by the laboratory of Pronaca and
the temperature is measure on-site.
The transport to different locations happen since 2009, before all the rice husk used (from deep bedding)
has been used in the farmas fertilizer assuring aerobic process.
The MR shall include information on how the moisture of the pile is monitored according to the PDD requirements.
Even that the remissions guides are available the information in the excel file is not complete, this
should be improve to facilitate the control of transport of rice husk from the farm to the locations
where it is used as fertilizer and the assurance.
The information should also include the type of farm and not only the name.
In case of internal use this shall be also documented in a remission guide
CAR
FAR
MR information
The MR include 2 measurements that are done periodically to assure the correct performance of the
project activity. These are moisture and temperature of the bed.
Information regarding this control activities has been available on-site (IRL 10)
4.4.
Data Reporting
Page A-21
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
Description of the Monitoring Report

Comments and Results
Conclusion
and IRL
Compliance with
UNFCCC regulations
The information in the MR follows the guidelines, nevertheless see CARs and CRs presented avobe
CAR
Completeness and
Transparency
The information is complete and transparent
Correctness
The information is correctly presented
Page A-22
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
5.
Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs
Corrective Action Requests by audit team

Issue

The parameter in MR shall be the same as in the PDD.
Response
The name of the parameter in the MR has been adjusted to match the name of the same
parameter in the PDD
Assessment
The name is now in accordance with the PDD

The calibration frequency of the balances in the farm shall be define according to the
manufacturer or national/ international requirements.
The information of the calibrations done, relevant to this monitoring period, shall be
included in the MR.
Issue
Response
The scales at the project sites are calibrated every six months. Calibrations are performed
by a certified third party.
The information on the calibrations relevant to the monitoring period has been included in
the MR
Assessment
The frequency accordance with the INEN (institution responsible for normalization in Ecuador) is yearly, the reports of calibration shown that the calibration frequency is higher than
this, they do every 6 months but not with exact date. Following the requirementsof the INEN
they comply with the national regulations (IRL 16)
Issue

The balance used for the exit of the animals shall be included in the monitoring report with
all the relevant information. For the delays in the calibrations the correction according to the
Ref
Conclusion
and IRL
Chapter
2.2
Chapter
2.2
Chapter
2.2
Page A-23
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28

EB guidelines shall be done.
Response
The scale used for animals exiting the farms has been included in the MR along with all the
relevant information. Delays in calibrations (calibrations are to be done once a year) have
been addressed according to EB Guidelines and this is reflected both in the calculation tool
and in the MR
Assessment
The calibration sheets show the correct information of the balances. The correction has
been done for all the period where the calibration was delyed. The delay occurs only in the
balance used for weighting the exit of the animals in the slaughter house. As the calibration
sheet shows that the balance was working properly and the error was within the acceptable
uncertainty of 30 kg, hence the correction has been done using the uncertainty of the
equipment.
The frequency of calibration of all balance is one year as defined by the INEN (see CAR 2)
The MR shall be corrected to include the correct information of the weight related
only to the lots applicable to this monitoring period
The weights shall be corrected due to adjustments done during the calibration and
due to delays during calibrations
Issue
Response
Both items have been corrected in the calculation tool and the MR has been adjusted to
reflect such corrections
Assessment
Some lots that are part of this monitoring period where not included in the calculation tool,
this has been corrected
The adjustment done in the balance during one calibration has been applied conservatively
to the calculation during the period affected by that calibration.
The calculation tool shall include the information of this parameter to show the correctness of the values presented in the MR
Issue
Chapter
2.2
Chapter
2.2
Page A-24
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28
The amount of rice husk for 2008 in San Javier and trucks and amount of rice husk
for 2009 from Valentina shall be corrected according to the information available in
the farm
Response
The parameter and its values have been included in the calculation tool
The rice-husk amounts and the number of trucks have been corrected in line with the information registered at the project sites
Assessment
The data regarding rice husk is now included in the excel file
The typos in the MR have been corrected
The weekly information of animal stock in the MR shall cover the entire monitoring
period.
The information of the barn 3 shall be corrected as it has been changed to normal
operation in 12.10.09, from this date on cannot be included in the ER
Issue
Response
Weekly information of animal stock has been adjusted and information relating to barn #3s
having been converted back to the traditional system was considered in the calculation
sheet in order not to include this barn in the ER calculations after 12.10.09
Assessment
The MR only include information relevant for this monitoring period

The information from the barn 3 has been excluded from the calculation
The final emission reductions shall be down rounded.
Issue
Response
Final emission reduction figures have been rounded down as requested
Assessment
The excel file includes the value down rounded and the value with decimals to show the
correctness.
The MR shall include information on how the moisture of the pile is monitored according to
Issue
Chapter
2.4
Chapter 3
Chapter
Page A-25
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28

the PDD requirements
Response
In line with the registered PDD, Pronaca monitors the moisture content of the piles by taking
a sample and sending it to a laboratory. This has been included in the MR
Assessment
The information presented is the same as obtained during the on-site visit via interview to
the personn
4.3
Clarification Requests by audit team

Issue
Ref
Conclusion
and IRL
Chapter
1.1
Response

The GPS coordinates shall be clearly described according to measurements on-site.
GPS coordinates have been clearly stated in the MR
Assessment
Data has been correctly updated
Issue

It has to be clearly explained that the discarded animals are included in the total number of
heads for the calculation because the real weight of the discarded is included in the average
weight of the respective lot.
Discarded animals are animals that weigh less than market animals. Discarded animal
weights are considered for the calculation of average market animal weights. However, discarded animals are NOT considered in the ER calculations, as the number of animals used
for ER calculations does not include either discarded animals or deaths. This is the most
conservative way to calculate ER
The explanation is clear and shows the real operation of the farms of Pronaca
Chapter
2.4

It has to be clarified the units of NEX and how is used in the formula
Chapter
2.4
Response
Assessment
Issue
Page A-26
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28

Response
Assessment
Issue
Response
In the MR, the parameter NEX has been expressed in kg/head/year in order for the parameter to be in line with the units used in the methodology. The calculation of all parameters is
made on an annual basis and final figures are then adjusted to reflect the number of days
that animals remain in each lot
The units are in accordance with the calculation of the methodology (per year) and the calulation correct at the end the amount of days the animals stay in the barns
The density of animals per barn increased during this period in relation with the information
presented in the PDD (capacity divided by barns ~ 1530 animals per barn).
Animal density has changed greatly from 1.35 m2 per pig (with 1155 pigs) in 2004 to 0.96 m2
per pig (with 1632 pigs) in late 2009. Animal density increased due to the implementation of
sorting on farms and did not affect the performance in livestock goals
Farm Code
Assessment
Lot Code
Barn #
Swine Entry
Date
Output Age
Number of
Animals
that Entered
the Barn
Average
Weight
(kg)
Total
Weight
(kg)
Daily Gain
(kg)
Chapter 3
Swine
Output Date
AFT
2007-30
2 (DBT)
1/30/2008
165.31
1,530
29.07
111.23
0.896
5/1/2008
AFT
2007-01
4 (DBT)
7/9/2007
164.51
1,530
30.95
118.34
0.966
10/7/2007
AFT
2007-32
4 (DBT)
2/14/2008
163.72
1,530
29.54
113.25
0.927
5/14/2008
AFT
2007-17
5 (DBT)
10/26/2007
165.82
1,530
31.11
116.57
0.899
1/29/2008
8/22/2009
AFT
2008-46
6 (DBT)
5/18/2009
166.52
1,550
30.27
113.08
0.866
AFT
2007-18
7 (DBT)
11/2/2007
168.12
1,530
31.09
113.83
0.860
2/7/2008
AFT
2009-44
4 (DBT)
5/3/2010
171.16
1,632
25.76
118.07
0.913
8/12/2010
AFT
2010-25
4 (DBT)
12/26/2010
173.91
1,632
28.23
119.28
0.881
4/8/2011
AFT
2009-46
7 (DBT)
5/17/2010
175.43
1,632
26.17
120.50
0.907
8/29/2010
As it can be seen in the table above, even though swine density decreased by increasing
the number of animals per barn, the Weight Daily Gain column shows that animal weight
gained per day was either maintained or increased.
The explanation of the density shows that this increase did not affect the results in the per-
Page A-27
Date of Completion:
14.07.2011
Number of Pages: 28

formance of the barns, hence it is normal development for the Pronaca group that is not
affected by the CDM project. The information presented above is obtained directly from the
brill system, this has been verified.
Forward Action Requests by audit team
Issue
Response
Assessment
Issue
Response
Assessment
Ref
Conclusion
and IRL

I It shall be clear procedure on how to measure the volume of each truck, to avoid subjectivity. The procedure shall include possible crosschecks and protection of the information
Pronaca will further formalize the procedure to measure truck volumes and this will be included in the procedimiento de manejo de las camas deep-bedding, which is the deepbeding operational procedure
To be verified next verification
Chapter
2.2

Even that the remissions guides are available the information in the excel file is not
complete, this should be improve to facilitate the control of transport of rice husk
from the farm to the locations where it is used as fertilizer and the assurance.
The information should also include the type of farm and not only the name.
In case of internal use this shall be also documented in a remission guide
This will be conducted in order to make the information on the guides consistent with that in
the Excel file. For the composted material that is transported outside of Pronacas facilities,
a record of the composted material application will be kept. For the case where the composted material is used internally, a remission order will be generated
To be verified next verification
Chapter
4.3
Page A-28
Annex 2
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011
Final
Report
14.07.2011
Verification of the CDM Project

Pronaca: Valentina-San Javier Swine Waste Management
Page
1 of 2
Ref
.
No.
Author/Editor/
Issuer
Title/Type of Document. Publication place
Issuance and/or
submission
date(dd/mm/yyyy)
Additional
Information
(Relevance in CDM
Context)
Onsite interview (02.05.2001 04.05.2011) carried out by TV SD:

Validation Team:
Javier Castro
Interviewed Persons:
Wilmer Perez
Oscar Silva
Miguel Cabrera
Paulina Martinez
Bolivar Granda
Jaime Lascano
German Cripovich
Environmental Manager Pronaca

Site 3, Manager Pronaca
Administrator Brill Pronaca
Coordination Enviroment Pronaca
Administrator Valentina
Administrator San Javier
Consultant

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1149775382.07/view
20.04.2011
Pronaca
VALENTINA ANCLD BRILL 01-2010.xls

SAN JAVIER ANCLD BRILL 01-2011.xls
02.05.11
Monitoring
2.
Pronaca
Guias de remision, remission guides animals (available on-site digital)
02.05.11
Monitoring
3.
Pronaca
ITGC13 llenado de registros, Register filling procedure (available on-site)
03.05.2011
Animal control
4.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
Operation certificates (available on-site)
03.05.2011
License
5.
Pronaca
6.
Pronaca
0.
UNFCCC Webpage
1.
Manual de Manejo - Responsabilidades del personal sistema deep

03.05.2011
bedding Responsibilities (available on-site)
ITGC 11 Levantamiento de informacion sistema deep bedding (information
03.05.2011
of deep bedding) (available on-site)
TV SD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH
Organization
QM
Final
Report
14.07.2011
Verification of the CDM Project

Page
2 of 2
manual de manejo Operation manual
03.05.2011
Additional
Information
(Relevance in CDM
Context)
QM
Training certificates of personnel (available on-site)
03.05.2011
QM
Pronaca
PGC 02 Educacion y Capacitacion (Training system) (available on-site)
03.05.2011
QM
10.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
Results of control of temperature Temperature cama deep bedding RGC

23 (available on-site digital in Valentina and paper in San Javier)
03.05.2011
Monitoring
11.
Pronaca
PMP 05 - Manejo de la cama deep bedding deep bedding bed

management (available on-site)
03.05.2011
Monitoring
At least once in three

months
Monitoring
Ref
.
No.
Author/Editor/
Issuer
7.
Pronaca
8.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
9.
12.
Title/Type of Document. Publication place
Pronaca laboratory Results of monitoring of moisture from deep bedding process
Issuance and/or
submission
date(dd/mm/yyyy)
13.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
archivo saque de tamo.xls Summary of all the remission guides

Guias de remision Remission guides for rice husk (composted) (available
on-site)
Each transport
Monitoring
14.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
Ingreso de tamo.xls rice Husk entrance per year (available on-site)
Each transport
Monitoring
15.
Valentina San
Javier Farm
RGC05 registry mortality (available on-site - paper)
Each animal death
Monitoring
16.
INEN
Precision Servicio
tecnico
Calibration sheets
Each calibration
Monitoring
17.
TV SD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH
Annex 3
Appointment Certificates
Version 06 _ 08/02/2011

Verification Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Verification Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Verification

Report No. 600500565

TV SD Industrie Service GmbH

Main Documents (referred to in this report)

Annex 1: Verification Protocol

1.3 GHG Project Description

Pronaca: Valentina, San Javier Swine Waste

2.2 Verification Team

Assessment Team Leader (ATL);

2.3 Review of Documents

2.4 On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews

2.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions

2.6 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective and Forward Action

2.7 Internal Quality Control

3.1 FARs from Validation / Previous Verification

3.2 Project Implementation in accordance with the registered Project

3.3 Compliance of the Monitoring Plan with the Monitoring

3.4 Compliance of the Monitoring with the Monitoring Plan

Annual swine herd inventory

Amount of Rice Husk Added to the Manure

3.5 Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas

CR 1: The GPS coordinates shall be clearly described according to measurements on-site.

Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461

2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and

Project Activity Implementation

Santo Domingo is not anymore part of

Clarification Request No. 1

Technical Equipment Main Components

No technical equipment is used in the

Only measuring instruments are used in

Operation Status during verification

Actual Operation Status

Start date of operation (each site if applicable):

Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461

Remarks to Special Operational

Project Participant (s)

Entity / Responsible person:

Entity / Responsible person:

The Climate Cent Foundation / Marco Berg

CDM Project management:

The responsible person is the manager of environmental management.

Quality Management System

General aspects of the Quality Management System

Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461

Qualification and Training:

Remaining Requests from Previous

Forward action request No. 1:

Summary of project owner

Calibration sheets are available

All the calibration sheets are clearly related to

Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461

Data on-site has been checked and no inconsistencies where found

Monitoring Plan Implementation

The parameter has been correctly monitored

The parameter has been correctly monitored

Value is default for the crediting period

Value is default for the crediting period

The parameter has been correctly monitored

Values are default for the crediting period

Checklist is applicable to registered CDM Project Activity No.: 0461

Parameters measured directly with instruments

Parameter ID (if available)

PM-2 and BC-2

Corrective Action Request No.1