GOLD STANDARD LOCAL STAKEHOLDER ......Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report Gold...

GOLD STANDARD LOCAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION REPORT

CONTENTS

A. Project Description

1. Project eligibility under Gold Standard 2. Current project status

B. Design of Stakeholder Consultation Process

1. Description of physical meeting(s) i. Agenda ii. Non-technical summary iii. Invitation tracking table iv. Text of individual invitations v. Text of public invitations

2. Description of other consultation methods used C. Consultation Process

1. Participants‟ in physical meeting(s) i. List ii. Evaluation forms

2. Pictures from physical meeting(s) 3. Outcome of consultation process

i. Minutes of physical meeting(s) ii. Minutes of other consultations iii. Assessment of all comments iv. Revisit sustainable development assessment v. Summary of changes to project design based on comments

D. Sustainable Development Assessment

1. Own sustainable development assessment i. „Do no harm‟ assessment ii. Sustainable development matrix

2. Stakeholders blind sustainable development matrix 3. Consolidated sustainable development matrix

E. Discussion on Sustainability Monitoring Plan

F. Description of Stakeholder Feedback Round

Annex 1. Original participants list Annex 2. Original feedback forms

Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report

Gold Standard Passport version 2.1 July 2009

2

SECTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. 1. Project eligibility under the Gold Standard

[See Toolkit 1.2 and Toolkit Annex C] The proposed project is a small scale voluntary market project hosted in Cambodia. It qualifies under the Gold Standard project eligibility criteria because it is a domestic energy efficient improvement project that displaces fuel needed to boil water. The project uses GS VER methodology entitled, “Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption” which acknowledges the application of the methodology to water treatment project activities including water filter technologies. The methodology recognizes Ceramic Water Purifiers (CWP)1 as a zero emission technology.

A. 2. Current project status

Provide information on the status of key project cycle stages (financing, equipment procurement, construction, commissioning) with dates where possible/ relevant. Please note that if a project is already under construction, the project must apply for retroactive registration and a pre-feasibility assessment must be conducted. [See Toolkit 2.5] The project will undergo retroactive registration and a pre-feasibility assessment will be conducted. Hydrologic Social Enterprise (formerly International Development Enterprise – Cambodia) hereinafter referred to as “hydrologic” has never publicly announced any plans to launch a new production facility or to operate independently without the support of external financing. Retroactive registration Start of construction: 09/02/2010 Production start date: 01/07/2010 Inauguration: 01/10/2010 Additionality: The project faces a major barrier as it is considered the first of its kind as per GS‟ definition. 71.5% of the targeted population boils water and 25.9% does not use any treat the water. The remaining 2.6% of the population use other means to treat water such as water filters and chemical treatment. This is less than the GS threshold of 20% market penetration of the technology in the targeted

1 The CWP is also known as Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier or Super Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier



3

population. The carbon revenue will indirectly subsidize the costs of the filter to the end user, through investment in research and development, quality control and dissemination in remote areas and advertisement, for example.

SECTION B. DESIGN OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS

B. 1. Design of physical meeting(s)

i. Agenda

Please ensure that at least the following points are covered but feel free to add more points as needed:

1. Opening of the meeting 2. Introduction of presenters and participants 3. Purpose of the meeting, review of the agenda 4. Explanation of the project 5. Challenges in Cambodia 6. Hydrologic Social Enterprise, explain social enterprise 7. Demonstration of the Ceramic Water Purifier 8. Overview of Carbon Finance 9. Blind Sustainable development exercise 10. Questions for clarification about the project 11. Closure of the meeting 12. Complete Evaluation forms 13. Refreshments / Lunch served

[See Toolkit 2.6.1 and Toolkit Annex J]

ii. Non-technical summary

Please be aware that carbon market specific terms may not be appropriate for the readers/ audience of this summary. [See Toolkit 2.6 and Toolkit Annex J]

Non-Technical Summary



4

Surface water in Cambodia is plentiful but frequently very poor in quality and not safe to drink, especially in rural areas. An estimated 66% of Cambodians lack access to safe drinking water and are at risk of getting diarrhea or other water borne diseases. To make the water safe for drinking, many families boil it, using wood, charcoal and other biomass which comes from non-renewable sources. Many families also cannot afford to buy firewood, which is scarce in Cambodia, and continue to drink unsafe water. Hydrologic is a Social Enterprise, registered as a private limited company under the Ministry of Commerce. The enterprise is in the business of getting clean water to more people in Cambodia by selling Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifiers (CWP) to the population. CWPs help people access safe drinking water, especially in rural areas, reduce time spent provisioning water or collecting wood, reduce costs for families, reduce child and adult morbidity and mortality, improve attendance at school and increase productivity. Ceramic Water Purifiers provide for removal of microorganisms from water by gravity filtration through porous ceramics, with typical flow rates of 2-3 liters per hour. This technology has been well documented and is proven to function very well in a Cambodian setting. Hydrologic is planning to sell about 300,000 CWP‟s between 2011 and 2017. These units will provide safe drinking water for more than 1.5 million people, and at the same time reduce the demand for water treatment through boiling water with non-renewable biomass. The CWP‟s have a useful life of 2 years or more provided proper care and maintenance. Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifiers, and plastic components are manufactured locally in Cambodia, and therefore contribute to building a local industry and value added in Cambodia, as well as creating much needed sustainable jobs and business opportunities in rural areas. This project has previously only been implemented with donor funding. With the assistance of carbon finance, Hydrologic can become a unique and on-going sustainable enterprise capable of providing emissions-free household water treatment options to rural households, and thereby improve public health, household welfare and economy, as well as contribute to reduced deforestation in Cambodia without depending on continued supply of donor funds.



5

iii. Invitation tracking table

[See Toolkit 2.6 and Toolkit Annex J] Tracking table for June 17, 2011 Stakeholder meeting in Kampong Speu (Session 1)

Category code

Organisation (if relevant)

Name of invitee

Way of invitation

Date of invitation

Confirmation received? Y/N

B Ou An in person 6/6/2011 Y(confirmed the venue of 35

Stakeholders)

A Me Khan in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Por Thol in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Me Khon in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Orem Orn in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Yorem Det in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Khen Song in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Bou Set in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Khut Soeugn

in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Som Huon in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Morm Lieng in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Horm Yan in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Sem Oret in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Sen Channy


A Phorn Phala


A Eom Sev in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Khut Mun in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Nut Than in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Chhang Kuoy


A Phai Sok Khoeurn


A Yeom Sokeann


A Teap Chhuon


A Por in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Hass Soem in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Khut San in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Sam Touch in person 6/6/2011 Y



6

A Oran Nat in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Chhang Sang


A Vat Ven in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Nhork Sory in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Ork Lorn in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Lonh Sarim in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Chuo in person 6/6/2011 Y

A Por Am in person 6/6/2011 Y

B Kaim Kong in person 6/6/2011 Y

Tracking table for June 21, 2011 Stakeholder meeting in Takeo (Session 2)

Category code


Name of invitee

Way of invitation

Date of invitation


B In person 8/6/2011 Y (confirmed the venue of 35

Stakeholders)

A Sok Sorn In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Ng Som In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Brok Lok In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Chhen Chhoeurn

In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Nheob Ory In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Khiev Mum In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Norn Mun In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Pich Yi In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Long Chrorn


A Khuon Sokha


A Long Keob In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Nouv Som In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Long Kan In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Nhoeb Chak


A Pann Chran In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Len Por In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Mum Kea In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Khuo Chomreun


A Khuo Oek In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Sor Srey In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Pann Tunh In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y



7

A Chheng Pheap


A Chey Pov In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Pann Chet In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Chhel Chan In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A San Sao In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Mum Saroeur


A Nornn Sang In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Nob Saren In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Mao Nen In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Khuon Mao In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Theang Saret


A Ros Oran In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

A Pel Sokha In person/phone 8/6/2011 Y

Tracking table for July 1 2011, Stakeholder meeting in Phnom Penh (Session 3)

Category code


Name of invitee

Way of invitation

Date of invitation


D WaterSHED Geoff Revell

Email/in person

Y

D Water SHED Jeff Goldberg

In person Y

D UNICEF Peter Krouwell

email N

D UNICEF Belinda Abraham

email N

D UNHR Samnang Sem

email N

D UNFPA Krist‟l D‟haene

email N

D PATH Michelle Gardner

email Y

D PATH Nop Thunvuth

email Y

D USAID Flynn Fuller email N

D USAID Joan Woods

email N

D World Bank, watsan program

Phyrum Kov

email Y



8

D OXFAM UK Sean Prum email N

D OXFAM Sok Khim email N

D Lien Aid Lyn McLennan

email N

D Lien Aid Aun Hengly email N

D Clear Cambodia Daniel Talstra

email Y

D World Toilet Organisation

Andrew Koh

email N

D Energy and Climate Change

Rogier van Mansvelt

email N

D Entrepreneurs du monde

Sylvie Le Guevel

email N

D GERES Chheng Ngov Veng

email N

D GERES David Beritault

email N

D Antenna Gilles Baube

email Y

D NEXUS Marion Verles

email Y

D NEXUS Sarah Carter

email Y

D Emerging Market

Investments

Mao Savin email N

D HAGAR Chan Sarin email N

D HAGAR Sarah Bearup

email N

D TCE Presence Dr.Eric Mousset

email N

D World Vision Mr. Sim Saora

email Y

D RDI John Burnette

email Y

D RDI Andrew Shantz

email Y

D Future Now Enterprise Cambodia

Mark Dennert

email N

D Future Now Enterprise Cambodia

Karen Genzink

email Y



9

D Health Unlimited Ou Brohs email N

D Vision Fund Preap Piseth

email N

D Vision Fund Top Sok Samphea

email N

D International Cooperation Cambodia

Markus Koeker

email N

D Planet Water Foundation

Penghorn Chheang

email N

D Muslim Aid Ms Lors Sakey

email Y

D Muslim Aid Mahfuzur Rahman

email Y

D Credit MFI Ear Nhar email N

D RDIC Isabelle Gensburger

Email/in person

Y

D Pharmacists without borders

Ania Madalinska

Email/in person

Y

D GIZ Caroline Zimm

Email/in person

Y

D Auplan Long Sochetea

Email/phone Y

D CPA Shom Sina Email/phone Y

D NA Khut Savun Email/phone Y

A RUPP Chhum Ratha

Email/phone Y

A IFL Cheap Puithtika

Email/phone Y

D 1001 Fontaines Helene Lefebre

phone Y

B Ministry of Environment,

cch department (DNA)

Dr. Tin Ponlok

Email/letter N

B Ministry of Environment,

cch department (DNA)

Mr. Sum Thy

Email/letter N

B Ministry of rural development

Dr. Mao Saray

email N

B Ministry of Rural Development

Dr. Chea Samnang

email N



10

B Ministry of Health

Prof. Heng Tay Kry

email N

Please explain how you decided that the above organisations/ individuals are relevant stakeholders to your project. Also, please discuss how your invitation methods seek to include a broad range of stakeholders (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity). The participants were invited from three of the projects districts, including local people impacted by the project, local policy makers and representatives of local authorities. In selecting stakeholders, several factors were considered: Hydrologic relied on local staff which has a good understanding of individuals and relevant organisations in Cambodia that have an interest in offering input on this project. In addition to local leaders and relevant NGO‟s and IO‟s working in similar sectors, relevant national and local government bodies were invited. Because of the large number of districts covered, three stakeholder meetings were held to capture representative stakeholder input. The meetings were held in Kampong Speu, Takeo and Phnom Penh. The two provinces were chosen to get inputs from the rural population as they are the main end users of the CWP. Kompong Speu was chosen to get inputs from CWP users which know our product well. Takeo was chosen to have inputs from a majority of non-users with a different perspective on our project than CWP users. Phnom Penh was finally chosen for as third meeting to target NGOs, government officials and International Organisations which are mainly based in the capital of the country. With these three meetings we hoped to cover a broader range of stakeholders.

iv. Text of individual invitations



11

[See Toolkit 2.6 and Toolkit Annex J] Email invitation to stakeholders (June 17, 2011) Invitation to local consultative stakeholder meeting for the “Sustainable Deployment of the Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier” project. Dear Sir or Madam, Hydrologic Social Enterprise is pleased to invite you to the consultative stakeholder meeting to be held in Phnom Penh on 1st July 2011 to discuss the sustainable development benefits of the Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier project. At present, about 8 million people in Cambodia lack access to safe drinking water (Cambodian National Census 2008). This leads to frequent diarrhea and other water-borne diseases, and 10‟000 deaths each year (WHO Cambodian Statistics 2007). In an attempt to prevent this, about 86% of Cambodian households boil drinking water using fire wood, charcoal or other biomass from non-renewable sources. Through sales of Ceramic Water Purifiers, more than 3 million people in Cambodian households will benefit significantly from reduced waterborne disease and consume less firewood over the next seven years. The socioeconomic benefits of access to clean drinking water are well documented, and include reduced time spent provisioning water, reduced cost for families, reduced child and adult morbidity and improved productivity. This project has previously only been implemented with donor funding. Combined with the Gold Standard carbon finance program the project can become a unique and economically sustainable business which significantly improves public health and reduces deforestation in Cambodia without depending on donor funds. We greatly appreciate your participation and support in the consultative stakeholder meeting to help advance this project .The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss positive and negative impacts of the Ceramic Water Filter project and to give stakeholders and the general public an opportunity to express their views. A brief summary of the project has been attached for your review. The meeting will be held at Location: Baitong Restaurant, street 360, no.7, BKK1, Phnom Penh Date: 1 July 2011 Time: 11 am, lunch to be provided following the meeting Registration: Send an email to [email protected] If you have any questions please contact [email protected] or 023 6911 981 Yours faithfully, Deborah Buschor Carbon Finance Project Manager



12

Email Follow-up to Local and International NGOs that did not respond was sent June 28 to further encourage comments and provide additional time to submit feedback: Follow-up emails were sent to: Dr.Mao Saray Ministry of rural development [email protected] Prof Heng Tay Kry Ministry of Health [email protected] Dr. Tin Ponlok Ministry of Environment cch department [email protected] Sum Thy Ministy of Environment cch department [email protected] Samnang Sem UNHR [email protected] Kristl D’Haene UNFPA [email protected] Kong Kannitha UN WFP [email protected] Ricarda Rieger UNDP [email protected] Flynn Fuller USAID [email protected] Phalla Yin WB watsan program [email protected] Andrew Koh World Toilet Organisation [email protected] Chan Sarin HAGAR [email protected] Ou Brohs Health unlimited [email protected] Chay Lo Veolia water solutions &technologies [email protected] Penghorn Chheang Planet Water Foundation [email protected]

Reminder: Invitation to local consultative stakeholder meeting for the “Sustainable Deployment of the Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier” project.

Dear Sir or Madam, You are receiving this message as a reminder of the upcoming consultative stakeholder meeting scheduled for 1st July 2011, to discuss the sustainable development benefits of the Tunsai Ceramic Water Purifier project. We would greatly appreciate your participation and support to help advance this project.

A brief summary of the project has been attached for your review. The meeting will be held at Location: Baitong Restaurant, street 360, no.7, BKK1, Phnom Penh Date: 1 July 2011 Time: 11 am, lunch to be provided following the meeting Registration: Send an email to [email protected] If you have any questions please contact [email protected] or 023 6911 981 Yours faithfully,



13

Deborah Buschor Carbon Finance Project Manager (+855) 078 70 30 33 (+855) 23 6911 981 www.hydrologichealth.com #38B, st. 494, Sangkat Phsar Deum Thkov, Khan Chamkamon, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

(June 17 email was included in follow-up email with project documents and contact details)

Letter to DNA sent on June 22, 2011:



14



15

Translation into English:



16

v. Text of public invitations

[See Toolkit 2.6 and Toolkit Annex J] Public Invitation published in the Cambodia Daily, Wednesday, June 29, 2011



17

B. 2. Description of other consultation methods used

If individuals and/ or entities (e.g. NGOs) are unable to attend the physical meeting, please discuss other methods that were used to solicit their feedback/ comments (e.g. questionnaires, phone calls, interviews). Stakeholders were encouraged to send questions or comments by email or calling. However, no comments, feedbacks or questions were received. Recognizing that a big majority of stakeholders in the countryside are illiterate , aproximatily twenty one to one interviews were conducted to include local resident‟s comments.

Face to face interview



18

SECTION C. CONSULTATION PROCESS

C. 1. Participants‟ in physical meeting(s)

i. List of participants

[See Toolkit 2.6.1 and Toolkit Annex J] Please attach original participants‟ list (in original language) as Annex 1.

Participants list

Date and time: 17/6/2011 13:00

Location: Kraing Tarot Village, Phneay Commune, Samrong tong District, Kampong Speu Province,

Cambodia

Category

Code

Name of participant,

job/ position in the

community

Male/

Female

Signature Organisation (if

relevant)

Contact details

B Phorn, Village

leader

M See Annexe 1 See Anexe 1

B Me Khon, retired

school teacher

M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Por Thol, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Me Khon, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Orem Orn, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Yoem Det, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khen Song, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Bou Set, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khut Soeugn,

farmer

F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Som Huon, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Morm Lieng, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Horm Yan, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Sem Oret, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Sen Channy, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Phorn Phala, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Eom Sev, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khut Mun, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Nut Than, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1



19

A Chhang Kuoy,

farmer


A Phai Sok Khoeurn,

farmer


A Yeom Sokeann,

farmer


A Teap Chhuon,

farmer


A Po, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Hass Soem, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khut San, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Sam Touch, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Oran Nat, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Chhang Sang,

farmer


A Vat Ven, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Nhork Sory, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Ork Lorn, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Lonh Sarim, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Chuo, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Por Am, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Ou An, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Kaim Kong, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

Participants list

Date and time: 21/6/2011 13:00

Location: Orng Roka Village, Orng Kanh Commune, Traig District, Takeo Province, Cambodia

Category

Code



community

Male/

Female


relevant)

Contact details

B Mao Nin, village

leader


A Sok Sorn, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Ng Som, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Brok Lok, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1



20

A Chhen Chhoeurn,

farmer


A Nheob Ory, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khiev mum, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Norn Mun, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Pich Yi, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Long Chrorn,

farmer


A Khuon Sokha,

farmer


A Long Keob, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Nouv Som, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Long Kan, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Nhoeb Chak,

farmer


A Pann Chran, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Len Por, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Mum Kea, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khuo Chomreun,

farmer


A Khuo oek, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Sor Srey, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Pann Tunh, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Chheng Pheap,

farmer


A Chey Pov, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Pann Chet, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Chhel Chan, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A San Sao, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Mum Saroeur,

farmer


A Nornn Sang, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Nob Saren, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Mao Nen, farmer M See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Khuon Mao, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Theang Saret, F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1



21

farmer

A Ros Oran, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

A Pel Sokha, farmer F See Annexe 1 See Annexe 1

Participants list

Date and time: 01/07/2011 11:00

Location: Baitong Restaurant, st.360, no.7, BKK1, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Category

Code



community

Male/

Female


relevant)

Contact details

D Sompheun F See Annexe 1 Vision Fund See Annexe 1

D Lim Sotheary F See Annexe 1 VFC See Annexe 1

D Khun Sonrtha F See Annexe 1 PATH See Annexe 1

D Helene Lefevre F See Annexe 1 1001 fontaines See Annexe 1

D Nam Phanich M See Annexe 1 TeukSaat 1001 See Annexe 1

D Sébastien Delarue M See Annexe 1 1001 fontaines See Annexe 1

D Marion Genelot F See Annexe 1 1001 fontaines See Annexe 1

D Karen Genzink F See Annexe 1 Future Now

Enterprise

See Annexe 1

D Marion Verles F See Annexe 1 Nexus C4D See Annexe 1

D Karine Jeannin F See Annexe 1 Nexus C4D See Annexe 1

D Sarah Carter F See Annexe 1 Nexus C4D See Annexe 1

D Raphaele Deau F See Annexe 1 Nexus C4D See Annexe 1

D Gilles Baube M See Annexe 1 Nexus C4D See Annexe 1

D Phyran Kov M See Annexe 1 WSP See Annexe 1

D Rob Hughes M See Annexe 1 EKB See Annexe 1

D John Burnettte M See Annexe 1 RDI See Annexe 1

D Jeff Goldberg M See Annexe 1 WaterSHED See Annexe 1

D Khut Savun M See Annexe 1 NA See Annexe 1

D Ea Parioeu F See Annexe 1 RDI See Annexe 1

D Daniel Talstra M See Annexe 1 Clear See Annexe 1

D Lors Sakery F See Annexe 1 Muslim Aid See Annexe 1

D Mang Cheng M See Annexe 1 ADB-TA7373 See Annexe 1

D Jran Cannont M See Annexe 1 ADB-TA7373 See Annexe 1



22

D Geoff Revell M See Annexe 1 WaterSHED See Annexe 1

D Long Socheata M See Annexe 1 AllPlan See Annexe 1

D Shom Sina F See Annexe 1 CPA See Annexe 1

D Caroline Zimm F See Annexe 1 GIZ See Annexe 1

D Isabelle

Gensburger

F See Annexe 1 RDIC See Annexe 1

D Chhum Ratha M See Annexe 1 RUPP See Annexe 1

D Cheap Puithtika M See Annexe 1 IFL See Annexe 1

Comments accompanying Annex 1 June 17, 2011: 36 participants, 24 women and 12 men June 21, 2011: 35 participants, 22 women and 13 men July 1, 2011: 30 participants, 15 women and 15 men



23

ii. Evaluation forms

[See Toolkit 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and Toolkit Annex J] Please add at least 4-5 representative samples in English. Please attach original evaluation forms (in original language) as Annex 2.

Name See annexe 2

What is your impression of the meeting? - Interesting

- Informative, clarification on carbon finance

mechanisms

-Professional, well organised, presentation was

clear and well prepared

-Good discussions and exchange between

participants

- A bit short, get more inputs from participants

during the meeting

- Technical vocabulary

What do you like about the project? - Link between health problems and

environmental preoccupations

- The Tunsai CWP

- Innovative and promising

- Its philosophy and scope

- Carbon reduction and scaling up

- Social marketing

- Health impacts

- Sustainability of the project

- Excited about the model presented

- To provide people access to clean and safe

water with less costs in terms of money and time

- Hydrologic‟s business model and the idea to

use carbon finance to make it sustainable

What do you not like about the project? - The price of the CWP is a bit too high

- Concern: focus on carbon emissions rather

than on health

- Concern: How to measure sustainable use

- Concern: monitor health impacts

- Monitoring, health impacts should be measured



24

- Concern: focus more on education of people

Signature See annexe 2 for original evaluation forms with

signatures

Comments accompanying Annex 2 We received a total of 9 evaluation forms from the first meeting in Kampong Speu, 13 from the second meeting in Takeo and 25 from the third meeting in Phnom Penh. A majority of people in the rural areas are illiterate and therefore comments were mainly assessed through discussions than by written evaluation forms. In the summary above Hydrologic tried to be representative of all comments made.

C. 2. Pictures from physical meeting(s)

[See Toolkit 2.6 and 2.6.1] Kampong Speu 17 june, 2011 (Session 1):

Mr Phorn introduces representatives from Hydrologic



25

Mr Promeak and Mr Sovannara from Hydrologic explaining Carbon Finance mechanisms

Local Stakeholders in Kampong Speu Takeo 21 June, 2011 (Session 2):

Mr Promeak from Hydrologic explaining the project to local stakeholders

Presentation of Tunsai CWP and Carbon Finance Mrs Ham Sokteang demonstrates the use of the Tunsai CWP Phnom Penh 1 July, 2011 (Session 3):



26

Mr Olsen leading the discussion on the Blind sustainable development exercise

Discussion on CWP and Carbon finance

Mr.Burnette from RDI giving feedback on sustainable development benefits

C. 3. Outcome of consultation process

i. Minutes of physical meeting(s)

Please ensure that you include a summary of the meeting as well as all comments received. [See Toolkit 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and Toolkit Annex J]



27

June 17, 2011 The meeting started with a word from the village chief, Mr. Phorn, welcoming participants and introducing Hydrologic Social Enterprise. Hydrologic is a private limited company registered under the Ministry of Commerce. Its aim is to bring cleaner water to more people in Cambodia by manufacturing, marketing and selling Tunsai Ceramic Water Filters to the population. Mr. Inn Promeak of Hydrologic Social Enterprise then introduced representatives from Hydrologic, Mrs. KeAnna Yang, Mr. Sovannara, Mrs. Ham Sokteang and Mrs. Deborah Buschor. Mr. Promeak welcomed participants and thanked participants for attending the stakeholder meeting and for their support. Kampong Speu province was chosen for the meeting because a high percentage of the population there uses Tunsai Water filters and Hydrologic‟s aim was to get a feedback on its project from people who know our product well. Mr.Sovannara from Hydrologic then gave an extensive presentation talking about challenges faced by the rural population in everyday life. People often drink contaminated water, resulting in diharrea or other water borne diseases. 40% of the rural population in Cambodia does not have access to safe drinking water. Further, Mr.Promeak briefly repeated the concept of Ceramic Water Purifiers and the technique of these filters. The filters remove microorganisms from water by gravity filtration through porous ceramics. The filters significantly improve water quality, eliminating up to 99.99% of E. Coli. Mrs Ham Sokteang made a short demonstration on how to use the filter properly, and mentioned advantages of using a filter: it is inexpensive, chemical free, low maintenance, portable, effective and easy to use. It saves time and money collecting or buying fuel wood and has significant health benefits for its users. Mr. Promeak then gave a detailed presentation on carbon finance and benefits of the Carbon Finance Project. First he gave a brief introduction on global warming and explained the implications on our planet. He explained that greenhouse gases, resulting from human activities such as burning of fuels, rise the average temperature on Earth. He explained that this climate change will have negative effects such as increased flooding, increased droughts, increased number of very hot days, increases and decreases in rainfall, highlighting the negative impacts on agriculture, infrastructure, water resources and health. Mr. Promeak further explained that Carbon finance is a market based system whereby companies in industrialized nations, bound by greenhouse gas emission caps, purchase carbon credits from other companies or NGOs that generate carbon credits through their greenhouse gas-reducing activities. He continued that this mechanism has generated into a huge market over the last decade. Mr. Promeak then made the link with Hydrologic‟s CWPs and explained that effective water filters eliminate the need for burning wood to boil water and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, water filter producers can be eligible to receive carbon credits for each filter sold and used by consumers. Water filter projects and companies can then sell these carbon credits on the carbon market and earn an additional revenue. The profits then have to be reinvested in the project or business and would directly benefit the end user. Mr Promeak gave details on how Hydrologic



28

would invest the profits mentioning more extensive R&D, increased advertising and marketing, scale-up and pro-poor subsidies. Mr. Promeak also explained that Carbon finance would make Hydrologic a self sustainable enterprise which would not depend on donor funding anymore. Further, participants were taken through the „do no harm‟ assessment and then had the opportunity to give a feedback. Afterwards, Mr. Promeak lead through the „blind sustainable development matrix exercise‟, discussing each one of the indicators and the impact the project may have on each one of them. Concerns have been risen about the price of the Super Tunsai CWP and about the direct benefits for the end users once the enterprise obtains profits from carbon credits. Discussion points: - Concerns about price of Super Tunsai CWP. Response from the Hydrologic Team: Hydrologic would make losses selling the filter at a lower price. The enterprise is building on self sustainability and not on donor funds and therefore the filter cannot be sold below production costs. The filter has a lifespan of 2 years conservatively assumed. If sales are going well and with potential carbon revenues, the price of the filter can still be adapted in the future. Hydrologic also mentioned that CWP users save money in terms of health treatment expenses and time spent collecting wood and boiling water. - Stakeholders raised concerns about profits from carbon credits. The facilitators answered that all profits would be directly reinvested in the project in form of research, more intensive advertising and marketing, in distributing the product to more remote areas and scaling-up. - Participants asked about the quality of water produced by the filter and if it removes viruses and chemical substances such as arsenic. Hydrologic staff answered that CWPs do not yet purify water from chemical substances and viruses but continuous research is going on to try to improve the product and to solve these issues. - The question was raised who would manage the carbon credits. The facilitators answered that Hydrologic would be responsible for managing the credits but that reports on the usage would be provided to stakeholders on a regular basis. In the closing remarks Mr. Promeak emphasized the importance of access to clean water and the Tunsai CWPs potential to ensure this. The meeting finished at 13:30 and participants were invited for refreshments.



29

June 21, 2011 The second meeting took a similar format to the first one. A a big part of the population in Takeo does not use Tunsai CWPs and therefore a more important part of the meeting was spent to discuss the water situation of rural people in Cambodia and to demonstrate the Super Tunsai and explain the technique of Ceramic Water Purifiers. Once more, facilitators and the Hydrologic team were introduced and participants were given the opportunity to introduce themselves. Mr. Promeak of Hydrologic then said some words about Hydrologic Social enterprise and further continued the presentation by talking about the drinking water issue of the rural population in Cambodia. He explained that surface water contains microbiological organisms and stressed the importance of treating drinking water. He showed participants pictures of people in hospitals and explained the danger of drinking contaminated water and related health improvements of using a filter. To make the presentation more comprehensible for people, big posters were used to illustrate the issues. Further, Mrs Ham Soktean of Hydrologic conducted a demonstration on how to use the Super Tunsai CWP and participants had the opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Promeak then pointed out benefits of the Tunsai CWP such as improved health of all family members, time and money spent from collecting or buying fuelwood, reduced indoor and outdoor air pollution from burning wood to boil water as well as creation of jobs for local producers, middlemen and sellers. Mr. Promeak then introduced the concept of carbon finance. The majority of participants heard about it for the first time. By means of posters he described negative effects of global warming and explained that burning firewood emits Carbon into the air, concluding that excess carbon emission is one of the major causes of global warming. With the assistance of carbon finance, this project can be economically sustainable and provide a significant improvement in public health and household welfare. Carbon credits will ensure the sustainability of Hydrologic, allow to invest more in R&D, scale-up and distribute the filter in more remote areas. Further, participants were taken through the „do no harm‟ assessment and asked for their feedback or inputs. For the „blind sustainable development‟ matrix exercise, facilitators guided a discussion about sustainable development of the project in general. The indicators were either directly addressed by the facilitators or came up naturally in the discussion. There was a general agreement about the positive impact of the CWP project, however, some concern was raised about the quality of the product and the effectiveness of the technology and also about how end users would directly benefit from the carbon credits. - Concern: Does the filter break easily. Response Hydrologic: The filters lifespan is conservatively assumed to be 2 years. End users do get a warranty when they buy a filter and can get a second one for free if the first one breaks. If filters are used correctly they should not break. Depending on the water source filters have to be cleaned with a brush from time to time. If filter elements become



30

damaged they are replaced at no cost to the end user. - Question: Some participants expressed the need to learn more about the CWP and its technology - Concern: How safe is water from the filter. Does it only remove bacteria or also viruses and chemical substances? Response Hydrologic: recent studies found that CWP can remove 99% of E.coli and mean reduction of bacteriophages of 90-99%over more than 600 liters throughout. CWP are therefore a safe option for drinking water treatment at household level. However, the filters do not remove viruses or chemical substances from the water. - Comment: Participants articulated the importance of educating people, to introduce the filter and its technology and to inform the rural population about the water situation in Cambodia. The meeting was followed by refreshments and people had time to address their questions individually with Hydrologic staff members. July 1, 2011 The third meeting took place in Phnom Penh. Olaf Olsen, General Manager of Hydrologic Social Enterprise, introduced the rest of the Hydrologic team and gave participants the opportunity to introduce themselves. Mr. Olsen first mentioned potable water challenges in Cambodia and the company‟s aim to distribute over 600,000 filters within the next 7 years. He then said some words about Hydrologic Social Enterprise and explained the principle of a social enterprise: Profits are reinvested into the company which has either a social or an environmental objective. Further, our filters are sold at a minimum price and operate within a business model and have commercial supply chains. Hydrologics objective is to provide clean water to all without depending on donor funds forever. Mr. Olsen then introduced the Tunsai Ceramic Water filter, briefly explained its technology and mentioned advantages of using CWPs. CWPs are inexpensive, locally manufactured, no chlorine taste, designed to be aspirational and functional in rural households. Mr. Olsen further introduced our project to apply for carbon credits in order to become self sustainable. He explained that unlike donor-funded models, carbon credits provide a market-based means for scaling up access to safe drinking water. Any greenhouse gas reductions achieved from using water filters can be quantified, bundled and sold on the voluntary carbon market. Carbon finance can generate a sustainable revenue stream that reduces the cost of providing safe drinking water to millions of rural poor. Ceramic Water Purifiers eliminate the need for burning wood to boil water and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Water filters are thus eligible to receive carbon credits for each filter sold and used by consumers. Mr. Olsen put a special emphasis on the fact that profits received from carbon credits have to be reinvested into the project, into increased advertising and marketing, R&D, scale-up and pro-poor price subsidies. Mr. Olsen explained that without carbon finance the project would not be self reliant, the costs are too high and the prices too



31

low. It would remain donor funded with a limited possibility to scale up. However, carbon finance would represent a transition towards full sustainability, it would help to scale up the project, to invest in research and technology and to offer more affordable prices. For the blind sustainable development matrix a PowerPoint presentation was used to take participants through the indicators. Mr Olsen basically mentioned three groups of sustainable development indicators, social, economic and environmental. Further, facilitators opened discussion with participants about sustainable development of the project in general. Most of the indicators were addressed naturally. A consensus was reached among participants about its potential impact or relevance to the project. Discussion points: - Concern about the socioeconomic status of recipients and if the rural population can afford the

filter. Answer Hydrologic: Survey already states that the product is affordable to 80% of the poorest of the 5 groups classified in Cambodia

- Question if there will there be sales to health centers. Answer Hydrologic: This is in the remit of other organizations – including RDI, and Hydrologic is trying to add value to Cambodia and not to overlap with other organizations.

- Question about geographical coverage, who can access the product? Response of Hydrologic : theoretically we cover all of Cambodia but it is very difficult to work with certain areas (very remote), so they work with charities who can increase coverage. The carbon credits revenue might increase scaling up and distribution to more remote areas.

- Concern about health risks: what does Hydrologic do to prevent health risks associated with mis-use. Response Hydrologic: Hydrologic trains sales representatives and retailers and we also have radio programs to raise awareness about correct use of filters.

- Concern: Difficulty of providing instructions to illiterate people was mentioned, Hydrologic response: there are picture instructions on the box

- Concern if the clay of the filter is contaminated from arsenic water since Cambodian clay typically has high levels of arsenic. Answer Hydrologic: the clay is therefore flushed for a longer time, and once the filter has been used a few times, the risk is lower. Problem of waste water not addressed yet – it is just put back onto land, however there are possibilities for land remediation activities to mediate this.

- Concern about Ownership of credits: who owns the credits? Answer Hydrologic: Since the

credits originally belong to the users, it is essential to ensure that discussions on what happens to the finance include them, and that these decisions are monitored by other organizations.

- Question where the benefits of carbon finance go? Answer Hydrologic: to upgrade technology,



32

maintain low prices, R&D

- Concerns about the filters flow rate: Studies state a flow rate of 2-3 liters per hour but this was calculated before the silver coating was added. It should be re-calculated after since the experience of RDI is that it could be up to 20% slower afterwards.

The meeting was closed at 12:15. Mr. Olsen thanked participants for their interest and their active participation in the meeting. Hydrologic assured stakeholders that their comments would be considered and a summary and feedback of the meeting would be provided upon request and they were invited for lunch.

ii. Minutes of other consultations

iii. Assessment of all comments

[See Toolkit 2.6] June 17, 2011 (session 3)

Stakeholder comment Was comment taken into account (Yes/ No)?

Explanation (Why? How?)

Concerns about the price of the Tunsai CWP particularly in rural areas.

Yes Response from the Hydrologic team was that the company works as a Social enterprise and therefore cannot give filters away for free. However, Hydrologic sells filters at lowest cost possible and might reduce the costs even further if the company does get carbon revenues. Hydrologic also underlined the fact that CWP users save $145 in financial costs over 2 years (Christopher Root, IDE Cambodia 2010) when compared to similar households that are not using the CWP. The majority of the financial and economic savings for each group are due to reduced diarrhea and, consequently, less money spent on treatment, less time lost



33

due to illness and fewer fatalities from diarrhea. Hydrologic also mentioned their efforts to collaborate with different microfinance institutions in Cambodia to facilitate financing in rural areas.

Concerns about carbon credit revenues, how would end users profit

Yes All profits will be directly reinvested in the project in form of research, more intensive advertising and marketing, in distributing the product to more remote areas and scaling-up. In order for the project to be sustained, sustainable benefits must be demonstrated.

Participants asked about the quality of water produced by the filter and if it removes chemical substances such as Arsenic and Viruses

Yes Hydrologic staff answered that CWPs do not remove chemical contamination from the water and are only meant to purify water from microbiological contamination. However, the staff explained that continuous research is going on to try to improve the product and to solve these issues.

The question was raised who would manage the carbon credits.

Yes Hydrologic answered that the enterprise would be responsible to manage the credits but that reports on the usage would be provided to stakeholders on a regular basis.

June 21, 2011 (session 2)



The concern about the quality of the filter was expressed. Some people wondered if it breaks easily.

Yes Response Hydrologic: The filter‟s lifespan is conservatively assumed to be 2 years. End users do get a warranty when they buy a filter and can get a second one for free if the first one breaks. If filters are used correctly, they should not break. Depending on the water source filters have to be cleaned with a brush from time to time. If filter elements become damaged they are replaced at no cost to the end user.

Some participants expressed the need to learn more about the CWP and its technology

Yes Hydrologic answered that they have local sales people which can be contacted to learn more about the filter. Equally, retailers in



34

shops are educated to explain the CWP technology. For any further questions Hydrologic office in Phnom Penh would be happy to give more information.

Some participants were concerned about the safety of the water from the filter

Yes The Hydrologic team answered that recent studies found that CWP can remove 99% of E.coli and reduce microbiological contamination. CWP are therefore a safe option for drinking water treatment at household level. However, the filters do not remove viruses or chemical substances from the water.

Comment: Participants articulated the importance of educating people, to introduce the filter and its technology and to inform the rural population about the water situation in Cambodia.

Yes Hydrologic answered that they might consider a strategy to better educate people on the water situation in Cambodia and CWPs.

July 1, 2011 (session 3)



Concern if the rural population can afford the filter

Yes Hydrologic answered that different survey already stated that the product is affordable to 80% of the poorest of the 5 groups classified in Cambodia. Additionally, CWP users have financial as well as economic savings due to reduced diarrhea and therefore less money spent on treatment, less time lost due to illness and fewer fatalities from diarrhea.

Question if there will there be sales to health centres

No The hydrologic team answered that this is in the remit of other organizations – including RDI, and Hydrologic is trying to add value to Cambodia and not to overlap with other organizations.

People were curious about geographical coverage and who can access the product

Yes Hydrologic answered that in theory they cover all of Cambodia but it is very difficult to work with certain areas (very remote), therefore they have been with charities which can



35

increase coverage. The carbon credits revenue might increase scaling up and distribution to more remote areas.

People expressed concerns about health risks and asked what Hydrologic does to prevent health risks associated with mis-use.

Yes Hydrologic answered that they train sales representatives and retailers and also have radio programs to raise awareness about correct use of filters. Additionally, CWPs are well known in Cambodia since they have been around for the last decade.

People mentioned the difficulty of providing instructions to illiterate people.

Yes Hydrologic explained that they provided instructions in picture form exactly for this reason.

There was some concern if the clay of the filter is contaminated from arsenic water since Cambodian clay typically has high levels of arsenic.

Yes Facilitators responded that the clay at the factory is therefore flushed for a longer time, and once the filter has been used a few times, the risk is lower. Problem of waste water has not been addressed yet – it is just put back onto land, however there are possibilities for land remediation activities to mediate this.

Stakeholders expressed concern about Ownership of credits and asked who owns the credits.

Yes The Hydrologic team clarified that since the credits originally belong to the users, it is essential to ensure that discussions on what happens to the finance include them, and that these decisions are monitored by other organizations.

Several participants were interested in knowing where the benefits of carbon finance go to.

Yes In their response facilitators explained that revenues will be invested directly into the project and the company to upgrade technology, maintain low prices, R&D and scaling-up.

People were interested in the flow rate of the CWP.

Yes Facilitators responded that studies state a flow rate of 2-3 liters per hour but this was calculated before the silver coating was added. It should be re-calculated after since the experience of RDI is that it could be up to 20% slower afterwards.

iv. Revisit sustainability assessment

Are you going to revisit the sustainable development assessment? Yes No



36

Please note that this is necessary when there are indicators scored „negative‟ or if there are stakeholder comments that can‟t be mitigated [See Toolkit 2.7]

X

Give reasoning behind the decision All concerns have been anticipated by the project developers and therefore a review of the sustainability assessment is not necessary.

v. Summary of alterations based on comments

If stakeholder comments have been taken into account and any aspect of the project modified, then please discuss that here. [See Toolkit 2.6.2, 2.8] All relevant stakeholder comments have been addressed and taken into account by Hydrologic and answered in full during the stakeholder consultation. PP has agreed to the following address the following

monitor how much R&D is spent and how it is spent.

Research will take part to assess the feasibility to improve the quality of the water filters to remove more viruses or chemicals.

PP will also report on the break even price of the water filter + 10% mark up price if there is no carbon finance.

The retailers will be re-informed on water filters sale price; hydrologic will remind periodically to the retailer the Manufacturer's Suggestion Retailer Price.

Field Surveys will monitor and ask how much are people paying for the water filters and assess that the prices are not unreasonable. If the prices are unreasonable, PP shall investigate the reson and take appropriate action. PP believes that this risk is low because there are so many sales people that competition will keep the price low.



37

SECTION D. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

D. 1. Own sustainable development assessment

i. „Do no harm‟ assessment

[See Toolkit 2.4.1 and Toolkit Annex H]

Safeguarding principles

Description of relevance to my project

Assessment of my project risks breaching it (low, medium, high)

Mitigation measure

1 – Human rights Cambodia has ratified the Rome Statues, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. Project micro-planning of the distribution and social mobilization will both meet the health needs and respect cultural framework of the target population

Low -

2 – Involuntary settlements

Cambodia has developed the “Cambodia: Resettlement Policy Framework”2 under the Environmental and Social Management Policy Framework. The project does not involve and is not complicit with involuntary settlements.

Low -

3 – Cultural heritage Cambodia ratified the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 20063. The project does not involve and is not complicit in the alteration, damage or removal of any critical cultural heritage.

Low -

4 – Labor – collective bargaining and freedom of association

Cambodia ratified the the ILO Convention 87 and C98 for

Low -

2 2010 “Cambodia: Resettlement Policy Framework”, http://www.ifredi.org/pdf/reports/M-IWRM-RPF-

Cambodia-Final-November11.pdf

3 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=33391&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html



38

Freedom of Association and collective

bargaining.4

All staff and local partners are pre-screened for labour standards prior to involving them in the project

5 – Forced labor Cambodia ratified the ILO Convention

29 and 105 for Forced Labour5

The project does not involve and is not complicit in any form of forced or compulsory labour. All labour is voluntary.

Low -

6 – Child labor Cambodia ratified ILO Convention C.138 (minimum age) but not C.182 (worst form of child labour)6 on child labour. Hydrologic and local partners do not employ children.

Low -

7 – Labor discrimination Cambodia has ratified the ILO Convention on Equal Treatment (C100 and C111)7. Neither we nor our local partners are involved in labour discrimination.

Low -

8 – Labor safety The Cambodian Constitution provides Cambodians with a range of rights and obligations such as Articles 22-31 of the Labour Law8 Labour conditions are safe and comply with legislation

Low -

9- Environmental harm Article 59 of the Constitution stipulates an obligation of the State to protect the environment, keep natural resources balanced and manage soundly all natural resources9. The project is positive for the environment, since it decreases unsustainable harvesting of wood from forests.

Low -

10 – Degradation of The project protects natural Low -

4 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb282/pdf/lils-7.pdf




8 http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Data/FileUpload/228/WP38_02_FalkusFrost.pdf

9http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/res_ga65_unedited/SGReportHarmonywithNature.FinalVersi

onSingleSpace.pdf



39

habitats ecosystems and habitats by decreasing fuel wood harvesting.

11- Corruption Cambodia ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Sep 200710. All project participants are pre-screened for corruption and are not included if there is any sign of risk

Low -

ii. Sustainable development matrix

[See Toolkit 2.4.2 and Toolkit Annex I]

Indicator Mitigation measure

Relevance to achieving MDG

Chosen parameter and explanation

Preliminary score

Gold Standard indicators of sustainable development

If relevant, copy mitigation measure from „Do No Harm‟ assessment, and include mitigation measure used to neutralise a score of „-‟

Check www.undp.org/mdg and www.mdgmonitor.org Describe how your indicator is related to local MDG goals

Defined by project developer

Negative impact: score „-‟ in case negative impact is not fully mitigated, score „0‟ in case impact is planned to be fully mitigated No change in impact: score „0‟ Positive impact: score „+‟

Air quality NA

Relates to MDG 7 – ensuring environmental sustainability since clean air is an environmental resource on which we all depend

Parameter: Emissions

using fuel consumption as

a proxy for total

emissions.

Air pollutants from fuel combustion are displaced.

+

Water quality and quantity

NA Relates to MDG 7 – since clean water is an

Parameter: Number of

people served with a

satisfactory level of

+

10 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html



40

environmental resource on which we all depend. It also relates to MDG 1,4,5 related to health since it provides clean drinking water to help improve livelihoods and eradicate poverty

safe/potable water.

E.coli and other bacteria are removed. Filter can provide sufficient water to drink in the family.

Soil condition NA

Relates to MDG 7 – ensure environmental sustainability and specifically to the goal of changing the quantity of land area covered by forest.

Parameter: decreased

non-renewable fuel wood

as a proxy for decreased

deforestation.

Assumed to be neutral.

0

Other pollutants NA N/A The project does not reduce nor increase other pollutants

0

Biodiversity NA

Relates to MDG 7 – specifically to the goal of changing the quantity of land area covered by forest




deforestation.

Fuel wood harvesting

causes deforestation

which in turn threatens

biodiversity. By reducing

firewood consumption, the

project will protect

biodiversity and

reduce deforestation. The impact however is not deemed significant therefore this parameter will not be monitored

0

Quality of employment

NA NA

Parameter: number and

jobs created and

payment/work hours as

compared to local workers

in other factories

0



41

Tough Cambodians will be employed during manufacturing, marketing, distributing and monitoring phases, Hydrologic does not expect significant enough impacts to justify monitoring this indicator

Livelihood of the poor

NA

Relates to MDG 1 – eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The project promotes monetary savings among users through saved fuel and reliably and sustainably provides clean water for user families.

Parameter: Money and

time saved by users from

reduced consumption of

firewood and charcoal.

Saved fuel costs and time

could be used elsewhere

to improve household

well-being.

Monitoring will be done through a survey of CWP using population.

+

Access to affordable and clean energy services

NA

Energy is a cross-cutting issue that pertains to MDG 1 eradication of poverty and hunger; MDG 3, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; MDG 7 ensuring environmental sustainability


households served

Targeted end users are currently using firewood and charcoal inefficiently. The project aims to reduce biomass consumption and their time collecting fuel.

0

Human and institutional capacity

NA

Relates to MDG 3, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women

Though employees will be

trained in product

technology, not enough

significant impact from

this project to justify

monitoring this indicator

Expected impacts are in

0



42

transferring technical assistance to local experts on CWP projection and quality assurance.

Quantitative employment and income generation

NA

Relates to MDG 1 eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. By generating new jobs, increased employment will contribute.


new jobs created as a

result of the project

production and

distribution and

monitoring.

The project will generate employment during distribution monitoring and replacement phases.

+

Balance of payments and investment

NA NA

The project represents a

direct investment in the

public health and future of

Cambodia.

However, as a number of

external factors may

influence improvements in

balance of payments.

The impact monitoring of this indicator will not be undertaken.

0

Technology transfer and technological self-reliance

NA NA

By introducing the new technology to Cambodia, the project could expand to domestic manufacturing and transfer technical expertise to local technicians. However, at this time not enough impact is expected to justify monitoring this indicator

0



43

Comments accompanying own sustainable development matrix Hydrologic expects the project to have a positive impact on the population in Cambodia

D. 2. Stakeholders Blind sustainable development matrix

[See Toolkit 2.6.1]




Preliminary score






Air quality NA


Parameter: Emissions using

fuel consumption as a proxy

for total emissions.

Stakeholder participants agree that air pollutants from fuel combustion are displaced

+


NA Relates to MDG 7 – since clean water is an


people served with a +



44

environmental resource on which we all depend. It also relates to MDG 1,4,5 related to health since it provides clean drinking water to help improve livelihoods and eradicate poverty

satisfactory level of

safe/potable water.

Stakeholder Participants agree that E.coli and other bacteria are removed. Filter can provide sufficient water to drink in the family

Soil condition NA


Parameter: decreased non-

renewable fuel wood as a

proxy for decreased

deforestation.

Stakeholders agree that this indicator is assumed to be neutral.

0

Other pollutants NA N/A

Stakeholder participants agree that no by-product pollutant emitted/remained. Energy need for water boiling is displaced.

+

Biodiversity NA





deforestation.

Stakeholder participants

articipants agree that fuel

wood harvesting causes

deforestation which in turn

threatens biodiversity. By

reducing firewood

consumption, the project will

protect biodiversity and

reduce deforestation. The

impact however is not

deemed significant an

therefore this parameter will

not be monitored

+


NA NA

Parameter: number and

jobs created and

payment/work hours as

+



45

compared to local workers

in other factories

Employment is a concern of stakeholders in the meetings: on employment opportunities (quantity) and quality. Stakeholders do not expect significant enough impacts to justify monitoring this indicator


NA

Relates to MDG 1 – eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The project promotes monetary savings among users through saved fuel and reliably and sustainably provides clean water for user families.

Parameter: Money and

time saved by users from

reduced consumption of

firewood and charcoal.

Stakeholder participants agree that saved fuel costs and time could be used elsewhere to improve household well-being.

+


NA

Energy is a cross-cutting issue that pertains to MDG 1 eradication of poverty and hunger; MDG 3, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; MDG 7 ensuring environmental sustainability


households served

Stakeholders agree that targeted end users are currently using firewood and charcoal inefficiently. The project aims to reduce biomass consumption and their time collecting fuel.

0


NA


Stakeholders agree that

though employees will be

trained in product

technology, not enough

significant impact from this

project to justify monitoring

this indicator

Expected impacts are in transferring technical assistance to local experts on CWP projection and quality assurance.

+



46


NA



new jobs created as a

result of the project

production and

distribution and

monitoring.

Stakeholder participants agree that the project would generate employment during distribution monitoring and replacement phases.

+


NA NA

Participants agree that the

project represents a direct

investment in the public

health and future of

Cambodia.

However, as a number of

external factors may

influence improvements in

balance of payments.

The impact monitoring of this indicator will not be undertaken.

0


NA NA

Participants agree that by introducing the new technology to Cambodia, the project could expand to domestic manufacturing and transfer technical expertise to local technicians. However, at this time not enough impact is expected to justify monitoring this indicator.

+

Comments resulting from the stakeholders blind sustainable development matrix The stakeholder‟s blind assessment was very positive.

Give analysis of difference between own sustainable development matrix and the one resulting from the blind exercise with stakeholders. Explain how both were consolidated.



47

Hydrologic anticipated effects from the project related to air quality, water quality and quantity, soil conditions, biodiversity, livelihood of the poor, access to affordable and clean energy services, and quantitative employment and income generation. Participants in the stakeholder meeting found that all the indicators will have a positive impact by the project. No potential negative impacts were found for the sustainable development exercise.

D. 3. Consolidated sustainable development matrix

[See Toolkit 2.4.2]




Preliminary score






Air quality NA


Parameter: Emissions using fuel consumption as a proxy for total emissions. Stakeholder participants agree that air pollutants from fuel combustion are displaced.

+



48


NA

Relates to MDG 7 – since clean water is an environmental resource on which we all depend. It also relates to MDG 1, 4, 5 related to health since it provides clean drinking water to help improve livelihoods and eradicate poverty

Parameter: Number of people served with a satisfactory level of safe/potable water. Stakeholders agree that E.coli and other bacteria are removed. Filter can provide sufficient water to drink in the family.

+

Soil condition NA


Parameter: decreased non-renewable fuel wood as a proxy for decreased deforestation. Assumed to be neutral

0

Other pollutants NA NA

Stakeholders agree that no by-product pollutant emitted/remained. Energy need for water boiling is displaced.

0

Biodiversity NA


Parameter: decreased non-renewable fuel wood as a proxy for decreased deforestation. Participants agree that fuel wood harvesting causes deforestation which in turn threatens biodiversity. By reducing firewood consumption, the project will protect biodiversity and reduce deforestation. The impact however is not deemed significant and therefore this parameter will not be monitored.

0


NA NA

Parameter: number and jobs created and payment/work hours as compared to local workers in other factories Stakeholders do not expect significant enough impacts to justify monitoring this indicator.

0



49


NA

Relates to MDG 1 – eradicate poverty and hunger. The project promotes monetary savings among users through saved fuel and reliably and sustainably provides clean water for user families.

Parameter: Money and time saved by users from reduced consumption of firewood and charcoal. Stakeholder participants agree that saved fuel costs and time could be used elsewhere to improve household wellbeing. Monitoring will be done through a survey of CWP using population.

+


NA

Energy is a crosscutting issue that pertains to MDG 1 eradication of poverty and hunger; MDG3, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; MDG 7 ensuring environmental sustainability.

Parameter: Number of households served Stakeholders agree that target end users are currently using firewood and charcoal inefficiently. The project aims to reduce biomass consumption and their time collecting fuel.

0


NA


Stakeholders agree that through employees will be trained in product technology, not enough significant impact from this project to justify monitoring this indicator Expected impacts are in transferring technical assistance to local experts on CWP projection and quality assurance.

0


NA


Parameter: Number of new jobs created as a result of the project production and distribution and monitoring. Participants agree that the project would generate employment during distribution monitoring and replacement phases.

+



50


NA NA

Participants agree that the project represents a direct investment in the public health and future of Cambodia. However, as a number of external factors may influence improvements in balance of payments. The impact monitoring of this indicator will not be undertaken.

0


NA NA

Participants agree that by introducing the new technology to Cambodia, the project could expand to domestic manufacturing and transfer technical expertise to local technicians. However, at this time not enough impact is expected to justify monitoring this indicator.

0

Justification choices, data source and provision of references A justification paragraph and reference source is required for each indicator, regardless of score

Air quality Air quality is improved in the project because wood or other solid

fuels used for boiling water are displaced in the project.i Families

no longer need to boil drinking water. Particulates emissions that

contribute to indoor and outdoor air pollution and black carbon are

reduced in the project.

Water quality and quantity In Cambodia, an estimated 200,000 people (~1.5% of total pop.)

use a water filter or chemical substances to treat their water for

drinkingii. Diarrheal diseases are main cause of dealth in children

under 5 years of age.

Water quality is greatly improved with ceramic filter use. CWPs are

not marketed as a replacement technology, for buying clean water

or boiling, until more extensive studies have shown that the CWP

is also consistently effective against viruses and protozoan

parasites, arsenic, pesticides and POP‟s. CWP can remove 99%

of E.coli and mean reduction of bacteriophages of 90-99%



51

over>600 liters throughput.

While risks of contamination and water pollutantion remainiii, CWP

is a safe option for drinking water treatment and safe storage at

HH level.iv They reduce the risk of contamination between the

water source and individual, by providing treatment at the

household level.

Studies also find that adequate water for family use is provided by

the filter. Households typically fill the CWP two to three times per

day producing 20 to 30 litres of clean water, which is adequate for

the daily drinking needs of households with up to nine people

(average household size was 5.8). More than one-third of

households reported having enough water for additional uses

including cooking, vegetable washing, and face washingv.

Soil condition The project will contribute to the preservation of woody vegetation cover by reduced fuel wood consumption which prevents soil erosion. However long term improvements depend on several other external factors (anthropogenic and environmental) that cannot be influenced by the project. Similarly the project activity does not directly contribute to any changes in the pollution level of soil. So neutral scoring was assigned and consequently impact monitoring of this parameter will not be undertaken.

Other pollutants Black carbon and other particulates are reduced, because people burn less wood and solid fuels for water boiling. The combustion of fuel for water boiling is displaced.

Biodiversity Pressure on forests is reduced in line with fuel wood demandvi. Fuel wood demand accounts for more than 70% of the targeted population. The project will reduce the demand for fuel wood. However, any improvements depend on a large number of factors, both anthropogenic and environmental which cannot be significantly influenced by the project, thus neutral scoring is assigned. Consequently impact monitoring of this parameter will not be undertaken.

Quality of employment Though there will be job creation during the deployment and monitoring of the project, the quality of employment is not expected to be impacted as a result of this project. It is beyond the scope of the project to monitor quality of employment and hence neutral score has been given.

Livelihood of the poor Decreased firewood and charcoal consumption for boiling water will save time and money for end users. Families can use these saved resources to meet other basic household needs, more productive works, education and better child care. Fuel saving,



52

time saving and better health due to improved water quality and decreased level of indoor air pollution are indicators for better livelihood.


CWP users will have access to clean water and is more affordable and efficient than boiling water by the traditional method of using firewood.

Human and institutional capacity No direct change with respect to gender equality, improved

primary education or empowerment of discriminated parts of the

population can be identified for the project. There may be an effect

on awareness on ecological issues, but this seems impossible to

measure, so the initial neutral score is maintained.


Jobs will be created during the manufacturing, deployment, monitoring and replacement phases of the project, which will directly benefit a number of families.


The project represents a direct investment in the public health and future of Cambodia. However, a number of external factors may influence improvements in balance of payments and therefore impact monitoring of this indicator will not be undertaken.


The CWP technology is not widely available in Cambodia and 66% of Cambodians live without access to improved drinking water sourcevii. Cambodia Millennium Development Goals (CMDGs) targets 50% of rural and 80% of urban populations to have access to "safe water sources” by 2015. Technological self reliance is promoted in the project as most of the CWP technology components are able to be locally produced (the ceramic chamber for example). However a number of external factors may influence improvements in technology transfer and self-reliance, therefore impact monitoring of this indicator will not be undertaken.

References can be an academic or non-academic source, such as a university research document, a feasibility study report, EIA, relevant website, etc.



53

SECTION E. DISCUSSION ON SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING PLAN [See Toolkit 2.4.3 and 2.6.1]

Discuss stakeholders‟ ideas on monitoring sustainable development indicators. Do people have ideas on how this could be done in a cost effective way? Are there ways in which stakeholders can participate in monitoring? During the meeting, several points were discussed how monitoring on sustainable development indicators could be done. Most indicators, such as air quality, water quality, livelihood, access to affordable and clean energy services and quantitative employment and income generation could be monitored by conducting surveys or consulting relevant academic records. (Stakeholders could help to monitor the use of the product and its replacement.)



54

SECTION F. DESCRPTION OF THE DESIGN OF THE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ROUND

[See Toolkit 2.11] In addition to uploading this report to the Gold Standard registry, a summary of this report will be provided to the attendants of the meeting and to the stakeholders that were invited. Additionally, the report will be uploaded on Hydrologic website. This document will be shared prior to validation and any comments will be incorporated based on this feedback round.

Stakeholder Feedback Round (SFR) updated Information

Hydrologic officially opened the Stakeholder Feedback Round on the 17th Dec 2011 by making the PDD, Stakeholder Consultation Report and GS Passport publicly available on the GS Registry and on the 19th Nov 2011 the documents were available on Hydrologic's website.

All the stakeholders that were previously invited to the Stakeholder Consultations were re-invited for the SRF by email, letter or phone call. In addition, invitation announcements were published by 2 different newspapers to invite the general public, :

- The Cambodia Daily (issued on 2nd Dec 2011) - Koh Santephead Newspaper (issued on 30th Nov 2011)

The DNA and other relevant ministries were invited by letter and by email as detailed below:

- H.E Thuk Kroeun Vutha, Secretary of State, Cambodian Ministry of Environment

- H. E Heng Nareth, Ministry‟s Advisor and Director of Department of Environmental Pollution Control

The GS supporting NGO "Save the Earth Cambodia" was invited by email to submit their comments.

In addition, new meetings were held in the villages where the Stakeholder Consultation took place. The villages are:

- Angroka village, Angkanh commune, Traing District, Takeo province. This village meeting was conducted on 28 Nov, 2011, with 25 participants (13 women).

- Kraing Tarort village, Phneay commune, Samrong Torng district, Kampong Speu province. This village meeting was conducted on 29 Nov, 2011, with 17 participants (8 women).



55

A summary of the comments from the Stakeholder Consultation Report was produced in English and Khmer. A copy was provided to all attendees and the document was read out loud. There was no additional comment other than the ones previously mentioned in the Stakeholder Consultation Report. The villagers were also giving the contact details of Hydrologic in case they have additional comments and would like to share them. All the documents, emails, letters, adverts, pictures, meeting notes are available to the DOE. So far no comments have been received.


ANNEX 1. ORIGINAL PARTICIPANTS LIST Original Participants List for June 17, 2011 General Stakeholder Meeting (Session 1) Kampong Speu



57



58



59



60



61



62



63

Original Participants List for June 21, 2011 General Stakeholder Meeting (Session 2) Takeo



64



65

Original Participants List for July 1, 2011 General Stakeholder Meeting (Session 3)



66



67

ANNEX 2. ORIGINAL EVALUATION FORMS

Session 1: Meeting Evaluation Forms Kampong Speu



68

Session 2: Meeting Evaluation Forms Takeo



69

Session 3: Meeting Evaluation Forms Phnom Penh



70


i Sobsey, M.D. (2002). Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water

supply [report]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). ii PATH 2009 Understanding consumers and market for HH water treatment product cambodia:

iii Murphy, McBean and Farahbakhsh 2010 Journal of Water and Health Vol 8 No 4 pp 611–

630 A critical evaluation of two point-of-use water treatment technologies: can they provide water

that meets WHO drinking water guidelines? iv 2010 Brown, J. and Sobsey, MD., Microbiological effectiveness of locally produced ceramic

filters for drinking water treatment in Cambodia v Roberts, 2003:CERAMIC WATER PURIFIER- CAMBODIA FIELD TESTS IDE Working

Paper No. 1

October 2003 vi Sobsey, M.D. (2002). Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water

supply [report]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). vii

Brown and Sobsey2006 Independent Appraisal of Ceramic Water Filtration Interventions in

Cambodia

http://www.irc.nl/url/15082




Date post:	06-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

GOLD STANDARD LOCAL STAKEHOLDER ......Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report Gold...

Documents