JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

JCM Validation Report Form
A. Summary of validation
A.1. General Information
Title of the projectIntroduction of 1.53MW Rooftop Solar Power
System in Auto Parts Factories

Reference number

PH002

Third-party entity (TPE)

Japan Quality Assurance Organization(TPE-PH-001)

Project participant contracting the TPETokyo Century Corporation

Date of completion of this report

21/04/2021

A.2 Conclusion of validation
Overall validation opinion

Positive
Negative

A.3. Overview of final validation conclusion
Only when all of the checkboxes are checked, overall validation opinion is positive.
Item
Validation requirements
No CAR or CL
remaining
Project design The TPE determines whether the PDD was completed using
document form
the latest version of the PDD forms appropriate to the typeof project and drafted in line with the Guidelines forDeveloping the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) Project
Design Document, Monitoring Plan and Monitoring Report.
Project
The description of the proposed JCM project in the PDD is
description
accurate, complete, and provides comprehension of the
proposed JCM project.
Application of The project is eligible for applying applied methodology andapproved JCM that the applied version is valid at the time of submission of
methodology
the proposed JCM project for validation.
(ies)
Emission
All relevant GHG emission sources covered in thesourcesand methodology are addressed for the purpose of calculating
calculationof project emissions and reference emissions for the proposedemission
JCM project.
reductions
The values for project specific parameters to be fixed ex ante
listed in the Monitoring Plan Sheet are appropriate, if
applicable.
Environmental
The project participants conducted an environmental impact
impactassessment, if required by the Republic of the Philippines,
assessment
in line with Philippine procedures.
Local
The project participants have completed a local stakeholder
stakeholder
consultation process and that due steps were taken to engage
1JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

B. Validation team and other experts

Name

Company

Schemecompetence*

Function*

Mr.
Hiroshi
Team
JQA
Ms.
Motokawa
LeaderMr.
Tsuyoshi
Team
JQA
Ms.
Nakamura
memberMr.
SachikoInternal
JQA
Ms.
Hashizume
ReviewerMr.
Ms.
Please specify the following for each item.

Technical
competence*On-sitevisit

Authorized

Authorized* Function: Indicate the role of the personnel in the validation activity such as team leader, teammember, technical expert, or internal reviewer.
* Scheme competence: Check the boxes if the personnel have sufficient knowledge on the JCM.
* Technical competence: Indicate if the personnel have sufficient technical competence related
to the project under validation.

C. Means of validation, findings, and conclusion based on reporting requirements
C.1. Project design document form
<Means of validation>
In this report, the validation team (hereinafter, the team) validates two versions of PDD, theversion 01.0 submitted for validation and dated 17/09/2020 (hereinafter, the PDD), and theversion 02.0 revised during the validation and dated 20/04/2021 (hereinafter, the revised PDD).
Regarding the document names referred to in this report, the same applies to the Monitoring
Plan Sheet (i.e. the MPS and the revised MPS), Monitoring Structure Sheet (the MSS and therevised MSS) and the Modalities of Communication (the MoC and the revised MoC).
By reviewing the PDD, it is checked and confirmed that the PDD is completed using the latest
version of the PDD form (JCM_PH_F_PDD_ver01.0) appropriate to the type of project anddrafted

in

line

with

JCM

GuidelinesforDeveloping

PDD

and

MR,

JCM_PH_GL_PDD_MR_ver01.0 (hereinafter, the guidelines).
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No outstanding issue was raised.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The validation team (hereinafter, the team) concludes that the PDD is completed using the valid3

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

form and drafted in line with the guidelines.
C.2. Project description<Means of validation>
The proposed JCM project is “Introduction of 1.53MW Rooftop Solar Power System in Auto
Parts Factories” (hereinafter, the project). The project aims to contribute to Philippines'
sustainable development through the use of renewable energy and reduction in greenhousegases (GHG) by introduction of rooftop solar power system to auto parts factories of Enomoto
Philippine Manufacturing Inc. (hereinafter, EPMI) and Aikawa Philippines Inc. (hereinafter,API).
The starting date of project operation is 04/06/2018 and the expected operational lifetime ofthe project is 9 years, which is based on the legal lifetime issued by National Tax Agency,
Japan.
The team conducted desk review and interviews to confirm the accuracy and completeness ofthe project description. The team doesn't conduct an on-site inspection for the project. The
reasons for this are that the following are expected:- Information of the project and technology, necessary for the validation;- Photos taken before and after the project start, and interviews with the PPs;
- Purchase records and/or relevant contracts of the project equipment.
An issue was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
< CAR01 >The “Starting date of project operation” in the PDD indicates a date for each project sites.
However, the project is not to have the date for each project site, and it has only one date of“Starting date of project operation” as instructed by JCM_PH_GL_PDD_MR_ver01.0.
The same applies to “Expected operational lifetime of project”.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs made the revisions in the revised PDD according to CAR01.
< Assessment of PP response >The team confirms the revisions in the revised PDD were appropriately made.
Therefore, this issue was closed.
< CAR02 >The following are not correct and/or don’t comply with the guidelines:- In the figure of C.2, the monitoring point number is not indicated corresponding to the numberof parameter listed in the MPS, i.e. (1);4

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0- In the table of C.3, the values of "Estimated Reference emissions" are not completely
consistent with those in the MPS(calc_process). And the operation days in the beginning andlast year of project operation period are not properly reflected in the emission reduction
calculations;- In the MSS, the means of the data management and quality assurance and quality control
procedures are not included.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs made the revisions in the revised PDD and MSS according to CAR02.
< Assessment of PP response >The team confirms the revisions in the revised PDD and MSS were appropriately made.
Therefore, this issue was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team concludes that the project description in the revised PDD is accurate and complete.
C.3. Application of approved methodology(ies)<Means of validation>
The project applies the approved methodology, PH_AM002 Ver1.0, "Installation of Solar PV
System" (hereinafter, the methodology).
By checking the JCM website at the time of submission of the project for validation, the teamconfirms that the applied version was valid at that time.
By comparing the PDD with the actual text of the methodology, the team confirms that themethodology is correctly quoted and applied.
By checking the relevant documents including documentation referred to in the PDD andreviewing comparable information as deemed necessary, the team confirms that the project
meets each eligibility criterion of the methodology as follows:
Criterion 1: The project installs solar PV system(s).
The PDD states “The proposed project installs a new solar PV system”.
The team received the following documents;- Specifications of the project equipment and monitoring system,- Photos of the project equipment taken before and after the installation,- Implementation report of JCM equipment subsidy project,- System drawing and single line diagram,- Relevant contracts and purchase records.
By reviewing the documents listed above, the team confirms that the new project equipment
5

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

shown in the figure of C.2, are newly installed at project site. Hence, the team determines thatthe project meets Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: The PV modules are certified for design qualifications (IEC 61215, IEC 61646 or
IEC 62108) and safety qualification (IEC 61730-1 and IEC 61730-2).
The PDD states “The PV modules installed in the proposed project are certified for design
qualifications (IEC 61646) and safety qualification (IEC 61730 (JET/TUV)).”.
By reviewing the certificates issued by Tuev Rhineland (Registration No. 50303539 and50303551, issued on 9/02/2015 and 7/10/2016, valid until 8/02/2020 and 6/10/2021,
respectively), the team confirms that the PV modules installed by the project are certified fordesign qualifications (IEC 61646) and safety qualification (IEC 61730).
Hence, the team determines that the project meets Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: The equipment used for monitoring output power of the solar PV system(s) andirradiance is installed at the project site.
The PDD states “The equipment to monitor output power of the solar PV system(s) andirradiance is installed at the proposed project site”.
The team received the following supplementary documents besides the documents received forvalidation of Criterion 1;- Detailed catalogues of the pyranometer and electricity meter, which are issued by the
manufacturer,- Manufacturer’s letter on life time expectations,- Email between the PPs and the electricity meter manufacturer.
By reviewing the documents provided and interviewing with the PPs, the team confirms thatthe monitoring equipment, electricity meter and pyranometer are installed at the project site.
Hence, the team determines that the project meets Criterion 3.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No outstanding issue was raised.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team confirms that the project meets all the eligibility criteria of the methodology whose
applied version is valid at the time of submission of the project for validation. Therefore theteam concludes that the project is eligible for applying the methodology.
C.4. Emission sources and calculation of emission reductions<Means of validation>6

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

The MPS was prepared by using JCM_PH_AM002_ver01.0. By reviewing the relevant
documents, the team confirms the following:- MPS is not altered,- Its required fields are appropriately filled in in line with the methodology and the guidelines,- All the emission sources covered by the methodology are included.
Regarding the parameter to be fixed ex ante, EFRE,i, by reviewing the relevant documents, theteam confirms that all data sources and assumptions of " EFRE,i" are appropriate, and that theparameters are appropriately fixed in line with the methodology and JCM Guidelines for
Validation and Verification, JCM_PH_GL_VV_ver01.0.
As for EFRE,i, the methodology states as follows:- In case the solar PV system(s) in a proposed project activity is directly connected to a regional
grid or connected to a regional grid via an internal grid not connecting to a captive power
generator (Case 1), EFRE,grid is set as following:
Luzon-Visayas grid: 0.507 tCO2/MWh, Mindanao grid: 0.468 tCO2/MWh,- In the case the solar PV system(s) in a proposed project activity is connected to an internal
grid connecting to both a regional grid and a captive power generator (Case 2), EFRE,grid isset as following:
Luzon-Visayas grid: 0.507 tCO2/MWh, Midanao grid: 0.468 tCO2/MWh.
By reviewing the relevant documents, the team confirms the following:- Project solar PV system is connected to an internal grid,- Project site is located at the region of Luzon-Visayas,- PPs applies the value of “0.507” in line with the methodology.
By reviewing the relevant documents and interviewing with the PPs, the team confirms that
“EGi,p” was determined by calculating based on the values in the specification and otherrelated documents, not on the actual operation.
Thus, an issue was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
< CL01 >The value of EGi,p in the MPS(input) is 2,094.2 MWh/p, which is much higher than the annual
average based on the actual monitored values during 2018-2020, i.e. 1,853.5 MWh/y.
The PPs are required to give the team more information and justification regarding thedifference between the values listed above.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs explained that the main reasons of the difference were lower plant load than plannedin EPMI Building 3 due to the shorter operation hours in 2018/2019, and volcanic eruption and
7

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

COVID-19 in 2020.
< Assessment of PP response >By interviewing with the PPs, the team confirms that the main reasons given by the PPs arevery reasonable. And it is considered probable assumption that the circumstance during 20182020 might change during the expected operational lifetime of the project and the actual
generation will be getting close to the PPs’ estimate gradually.
Therefore, this issue was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team reaches the conclusion that the selected emission sources and GHG types are justified
for the project. The team assesses the estimated values for project specific parameters in the
MPS including intermediate processes to derive the values. The issues on the values raised by
the team were fully clarified, which didn’t result in any revisions of the PDD and the MPS. As
a result, the values are considered reasonable in the context of the project.
C.5. Environmental impact assessment<Means of validation>
The team confirms that the project is not subject to environmental impacts assessment (EIA)
according to national regulations by reviewing the relevant documents and/or using local
official sources, "REVISED GUIDELINE FOR COVERAGE SCREENING AND
STANDARDIZED REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE EIS SYSTEM" (Republicof the Philippines, Department of Environment and Natural Resource, EMB Memorandum
Circular

005,

July

2014),

http://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Revised-

Guidelines_Threshold_MC-2014-005.pdf.
This official guideline states that the renewable energy project with the total power generating
capacity of 1.53 MW falls under "Category D" which are not covered by the Philippine EIS(Environment Impact Statement) system and are not required to secure an Environmental
Compliance Certificate.
In details, the guideline has "Annex A Project Thresholds for Coverage Screening andCategorization" indicating that "- 3.2.7. Renewable energy projects such as ocean, solar, wind,tidal power except waste-to-energy and biogas projects" apply to "Category D", if the total
power generating capacity of project is less than 5 MW.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No outstanding issue was raised.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
8

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

The team concludes that the PPs did not conduct any EIA in line with the regulations in the
Republic of the Philippines.
C.6. Local stakeholder consultation<Means of validation>
Since no EIA was required to the project under the regulations in the Republic of thePhilippines, local stakeholder consultation (hereinafter, LSC) was carried out in line with theJCM requirements as described in the PDD.
By reviewing the relevant documents and interviews with the PPs, the team confirms thefollowing:- On 21/09/2018, the invitation letters were delivered to the stakeholders with an interest orconcern in the project, before the LSC was held on 16/10/2018,- The list of organizations/agencies of stakeholders participated in the LSC are provided in the
PDD,- The summary of the received comments provided in the PDD is not provided,- This process are described in the PDD.
As a result, the following cannot be confirmed:(a) Comments have been invited from local stakeholders relevant to the project;(b) The summary of the comments received as provided in the PDD is complete;(c) The PPs have taken due account of all comments received and have described this process
in the PDD.
An issue was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
< CAR03 >Any comments shall be provided in the PDD.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs added the LSC comment to the PDD.
< Assessment of PP response >The comment was provided in the revised PDD based on the minutes. The team confirms thatthe local stakeholders provided no negative comments and no issues that require actions to betaken by the PPs.
Therefore, this issue was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team concludes that the LSC of the project has completed adequately and the process andinformation considered above are stated in the revised PDD.
9

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

C.7. Monitoring<Means of validation>
By reviewing the MPS and relevant documents based on the methodology, the team confirms
the following:- Monitoring point and the type of monitoring equipment, i.e. electricity meter, are illustrated
in the figure of C.2.,- Monitored parameter is one, “EGRE,i” listed in line with the methodology,- Monitoring information described in the MPS(input) complies with the requirements of themethodology and the guidelines.
The team cannot confirm whether the monitoring structure described in the MSS of themonitoring plan seems to be feasible within the project design, because the means of the data
management and quality assurance and quality control procedures are not included in the MSS.
Therefore, the team raised CAR02 above. Also, the manufacturer’s specification for the meter,
which have been prepared by the time of installation, is not provided;
Thus, the issue was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
< CL 02 >In the column of (h) Measurement methods and procedures of "EGi,p", it is stated that the
manufacturer’s specification for the electricity meter has been prepared by the time of
installation.
The PPs are requested to provide the manufacturer’s specification, which has been prepared by
the time of installation.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs provided the catalogues, which had been prepared before the installation, emails
between the meter manufacturer and the PPs, and the meter manufacturer's letter on typical life
time expectations.
< Assessment of PP response >The team confirms that the manufacturer’s specification for the electricity meter has been
prepared by the time of installation, as a result.
Thus, this issue was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team concludes that the monitoring plan described in the MPS complies with therequirements of the methodology and the guidelines, and that the PPs have ability to implement
the described monitoring plan including feasibility of monitoring structure.
10

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

C.8. Modalities of Communication<Means of validation>
By directly reviewing the relevant documents including the company website/brochure, thebusiness cards and specimen signatures of all the personnel shown in the MoC, the teamconfirms the following:- MoC provided by the PP, Tokyo Century Corporation, with whom JQA has a contractual
relationship, has applied the latest version of the form, JCM_PH_F_MoC_ver01.0,- In line with the requirements by the relevant guidelines, the information including specimen
signatures required as per the form is correctly completed and the MoC is duly authorized.
An issue was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
< CAR04 >Section 7: Declaration of avoidance of double registration, in the MoC is not completed.
And the titles of Mr. Yoshihiro Tanaka and Mr. Koichi Haraguchi are missing in Section 2.
< PP response to this issue >The PPs made the revisions in the MoC to correct the sections pointed out by CAR04.
< Assessment of PP response >By reviewing the revised MoC, the team confirms that Section 7 was completed, and that thetitles of Mr. Yoshihiro Tanaka and Mr. Koichi Haraguchi were filled in Section 2.
Thus, this issue was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team concludes that the MoC complied with all relevant forms and requirements.
C.9. Avoidance of double registration<Means of validation>
By reviewing the relevant websites (e.g. CDM website, Markit Environmental Registry, etc.)
and the Section 7 of the MoC, the team confirms that the project is not registered under otherinternational climate mitigation mechanisms.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No outstanding issue was raised.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
11JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

The team concludes that the project is not registered under the other international climate
mitigation mechanisms.
C.10. Start of operation<Means of validation>
By reviewing the relevant documents, e.g. monitored daily data and implementation report ofJCM equipment subsidy project, the team confirms that the starting date of project operation is
04/06/2018 as described in the PDD, and that it does not predate January 1, 2013.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No outstanding issue was raised.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
The team confirms that the starting date of project operation in the PDD is determined
appropriately.
C.11. Other issues<Means of validation>
No other issue was identified.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
Not applicable.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Not applicable.

D. Information on public inputs
D.1. Summary of public inputs
The PDD had been publicly available for 30 days between 09/01/2021 and 07/02/2021 to invite
public inputs on the JCM website, https://www.jcm.go.jp/ph-jp/projects/85.
No public comments were received.

D.2. Summary of how inputs received have been taken into account by the project participants12

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

No action was required to be taken into due account by the project participants.

E. List of interviewees and documents received
E.1. List of interviewees
Mr. Takashi AOKI

Deputy General Manager, International Solutions Support Division,
Tokyo Century Corporation

Mr. Yoshihiro TANAKA,

Assistant Manager, International Products Development Division,
Tokyo Century Corporation

Mr. Koichi HARAGUCHI,

International Products Development Division,
Tokyo Century Corporation

Mr. Mitsuru SHIKANAI,

Global Public Team,
Climate Change and Sustainability Services,
Ernst & Young Shin Nihon LLC

E.2. List of documents received
1. Project Design Documents, JCM_PH_F_PDD_PH002.docx, Version 01.0 dated 06/01/2021
and Version 02.0 dated 20/04/2021
2. Monitoring Plan Sheet and Monitoring Structure Sheet, JCM_PH_AM002_PH002.xlsx,
Version 01.0 and 02.0
3. Modalities of communications statement, JCM_PH_F_MoC_PH002.pdf, Version 01.0 and
02.0
4．Project Design Document Form, JCM_PH_F_PDD_ver01.0.docx
5. JCM Modalities of Communication Statement Form, JCM_PH_F_MoC_ver01.0.docx
6. JCM Approved Methodology, JCM_PH_AM002, “Installation of Solar PV System, Ver.
01.0”
7. Monitoring Plan Sheet and Monitoring Structure Sheet attached to the methodology,
JCM_PH_AM002_ver01.0.xlsx
8. JCM Glossary of Terms, JCM_PH_Glossary_ver01.0,
9. JCM Project Cycle Procedure, JCM_PH_PCP_ver01.0,
10. JCM Guidelines for Developing Project Design Document and Monitoring Report,
JCM_PH_GL_PDD_MR_ver01.0
11. JCM Guidelines for Validation and Verification, JCM_PH_GL_VV_ver01.0.pdf
13

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

12. JCM Validation Report Form, JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0.docx
13. JCM website of project information, https://www.jcm.go.jp/ph-jp/projects/85
14. JCM website of JCM_PH_AM002, https://www.jcm.go.jp/ph-jp/methodologies/111
15. Catalogues of the installed solar power system including solar power modules, inverters,
data loggers, pyranometer, etc. shown in the figure of C.2. of the PDD
16. Layout drawings and photos of all the project equipment, especially taken after and before
the installation of the project equipment
17. Purchase agreements and purchase order indicating the types and numbers of eachequipment installed by the project
18. Evidence for the coordinates shown in the PDD
19. Evidences for the starting date of project operation, i.e. Implementation report of JCM
equipment subsidy project and the monitored data in June of 2018.
20. Legal lifetime of the installed equipment under Japanese tax regulation, https://elaws.egov.go.jp/document?lawid=340M50000040015
21. Two certificates issued by Tuev Rhineland (Registration No. 50303539 and 50303551,
issued on 9/02/2015 and 7/10/2016, valid until 8/02/2020 and 6/10/2021, respectively)
22. Single line diagram
23. REVISED GUIDELINE FOR COVERAGE SCREENING AND STANDARDIZEDREQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE EIS SYSTEM (Republic of the Philippines,
Department of Environment and Natural Resource, Environmental Management Bureau
Memorandum

Circular

005,

July

2014),

http://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/Revised-Guidelines_Threshold_MC-2014-005.pdf.
24. LSC invitation letter issued by the PP
25. LSC presentation materials prepared by the PP and LSC meeting report including LSC
attendees' list
26. Evidences related to electricity meter manufacturer’s specification, i.e. Electricity meter
catalogue issued in 2017, Email between the PPs and the manufacturer, and letter on the life
time of the meter issued by the electricity meter manufacturer.
27. Actual data monitored and restored electronically by the monitoring system after the project
operation start
28. Estimate on the value, EGi,p in MPS (input_separate)
29. Copies of Business cards and signatures of the personnel in the MoC

14

JCM_PH_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Annex Certificates or curricula vitae of TPE’s validation team members, technicalexperts and internal technical reviewers
Please attach certificates or curricula vitae of TPE’s validation team members, technical experts
and internal technical reviewers.
Statement of competenceStatement of competence
Name:

Mr. Hiroshi Motokawa

Name:

Ms. Sachiko Hashizume

Qualified and authorized by Japan Quality Assurance Organization.

Qualified and authorized by Japan Quality Assurance Organization.

Function

Function

Date of qualification

Date of qualification
Validator

2014/12/22

Validator

2015/11/20

Verifier

2014/12/22

Verifier

2015/11/20

Team leader

2014/12/22

Team leader

2018/6/22

Technical area within sectoral scopes

Technical area within sectoral scopes

Date of qualification

Date of qualification
TA 1.1. Thermal energy generation

2014/12/22

TA 1.1. Thermal energy generation

2015/11/20

TA 1.2. Renewables

2014/12/22

TA 1.2. Renewables

2015/11/20

TA 3.1. Energy demand

2014/12/22

TA 3.1. Energy demand

2015/11/20

TA 4.1. Cement and lime production

2014/12/22

TA 4.1. Cement and lime production-

TA 5.1. Chemical industry-

TA 5.1. Chemical industry

TA 10.1. Fugitive emissions from oil and gas-

TA 10.1. Fugitive emissions from oil and gas

TA 13.1. Solid waste and wastewater
TA 14.1. Afforestation and reforestation

2014/12/22-

15

TA 13.1. Solid waste and wastewater
TA 14.1. Afforestation and reforestation

2015/11/20-