<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Constantia;
panose-1:2 3 6 2 5 3 6 3 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:458768694;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-629239084 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Candela<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There are two important caveats apply in this case:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>From <a href="http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB70_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=bld8bXp2OXk4fDCak1UXBBRGYBPhffzyKXiR">http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB70_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=bld8bXp2OXk4fDCak1UXBBRGYBPhffzyKXiR</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>(the link below doesn’t work)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Table 1 part 2 (a) refers to the metric which is GHG emissions<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This means that the amount of fuel saved (mass) is <i>not</i> the criterion, only reduction of the total GHG (CO<sub>2</sub>e) mass emitted, if you choose to use this method (AMS-IIG v5 though the link source says v.3).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The second is in 2.2 Applicability: The total energy savings in a single project year (referring to the energy in the burned portion of the fuel that emits the GHG’s) is limited to 180 GigaWatt hours GWH (thermal) per year in ‘fuel input’. This is a different metric from the one that is being used in for the GHG reduction calculation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The reason for the difference is the whole CDM system did not foresee stoves that produced large amounts of char and the matter has not been corrected. So be careful about the project size. The GHG savings is straight forward: emissions are from non-renewable biomass fuel actually combusted, but the total project claims are measured according the heat energy available in the non-renewable biomass fuel taken from the local supply. In the case of stoves that make say, 25% char, it means the upper limit of the claims is only ˝ of what would be calculated directly from the energy avoided should the two stoves have the same overall system efficiency.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Switching people from burning whole wood to burning wood gas and leaving the char will reduce the GHG emissions per MJ of heat released. This is the same case when switching from wood to LPG, however that is a fact of life, not a rule in this document.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The implication is that you should carefully check what the project size limit is before assuming a simply calculation from the ‘saved energy’ will be interpreted as energy in the ‘fuel input’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The 2.4 Normative reference is to the CDM requirement for a demonstration of ‘additionality’. There is a lot of wink-wink on this rule so check what others have done and been successful with.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Footnote 2 states ‘specified efficiency of at least 20%’ but does not state which efficiency is meant: fuel to pot efficiency, heat released to pot efficiency, or heat released compensated for combustion efficiency to pot. Other sections seem to assume it is the heat transfer efficiency: heat theoretically available in the fuel combusted relative to the heat gained (net) by the pot.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This reinforces the contrast between the two rules for determining offsets and the upper claimable limit of total thermal energy for a project.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>4.2 Baseline emissions clearly states in the definition of </span><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Constantia","serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>B<sub>y</sub></span></i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> that the reduction is calculated in tons of biomass per device per year with an energy value of 15 MJ/kg (I converted their number).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So you can see why I highlight the difference between energy from fuel combusted and energy available in the raw fuel. If you do not save fuel mass, you are not allowed to claim the ‘energy use reduction’ that a char-making stove might deliver. Ron Larson has been raising related points from time to time here. I have been responding by pointing the rules are not handling this well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If you have a reduction in GHG emissions without a mass saving in raw fuel consumption, you have a genuine GHG claim, but not an allowable on according to the method shown in 4.2 (assuming both stoves use the same amount of raw fuel and the gasifier produces char).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Note that the method used for determining savings asks for a “KPT” to be performed. A KPT is not a stove test and there is room for significant error in savings if the performance of the new stove is significantly better than the baseline. A quick example is that people will cook longer or engage in commercial cooking if they have the fuel available especially in a place where fuel is non-renewable (in short supply). A change in behaviour and stove use is interpreted by the KPT as ‘the same house doing the same thing and not saving much’ even if the stove is actually saving a lot. So you might prefer to choose an uncontrolled cooking test (which GIZ has accepted in the past) or one of the national standards what evaluates the performance (raw fuel consumption) by a ‘national method’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Footnote 4 on page 5/14 answers your question about LPG. It specifically states that substituting LPG for non-renewable biomass is allowed and gives the conversion factor and the weighting factor when doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>When making the calculation, remember that LPG has lower CO<sub>2</sub> emissions than biomass per kg (if all the biomass is burned, no charcoal being produced).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The baseline products do not have to be assessed individually for ‘efficiency’. You can choose from one of the two categories of device as explained in para 2. on page 6/14.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The ‘efficiency’ of the new device is to be determined annually but you will not that no particular water boiling test is defined, only that it should be ‘water boiling’. This leaves you free to conduct an accurate test that provides the energy efficiency and rates the fuel consumption correctly meeting both conditions mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Option 3 uses a comparison of the ‘Specific Fuel Consumption’ of the two devices. This is the most unreliable metric because the calculation method usually applied to produce this number has errors. Were I a CO<sub>2</sub> vendor I would not accept it unless it was demonstrated on paper that the definition of <i>SC<sub>new,y</sub></i><sub> </sub>was met. Even then, the fuel burn rate per hour is a very unreliable indication of performance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The problem with energy v.s. fuel consumption inherent in the Method again arises in 13 (b) when <i>B<sub>old</sub></i> is calculated using ‘the amount of thermal energy generated’. For some stoves this is significantly different from the total energy value of the fuel needed to operate the stove, and they are definitely trying to save fuel mass, confirmed again in 14 where the charcoal is determined in mass needed, not energy released from the mass needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Again in para 18 on p 8/14 shows that the reduction in fuel mass consumed per annum is the driver of the equation for calculating fuel saved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I will end there. The LPG substitution in an area of non-renewable biomass use is provided for, and a CO<sub>2</sub>e value given. The test method used to determine the relative performance <i>must</i> (not maybe) determine the mass of fuel drawn from the available supply. Be careful that the water boiling test you select does <i>not</i> evaluate the energy released during cooking and calculate that back to an equivalent mass of fuel, dry or otherwise or you will run afoul of the overriding intent of the document which is to reduce the draw-down of raw fuel per stove per year. With LPG you can reduce that draw to zero (theoretically though they will probably still heat water with wood) but you can’t claim 100% of the reduction, only that fraction allowed according to the formula.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I hope this is helpful. I suggest you discuss this with any potential funder so you are agreed on how the calculations will be done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The uncontrolled cooking test is cheaper than a KPT. A CSI-WBT lab test would be an even less expensive a culturally appropriate test based on actual cooking practices, fuels and pots and would provide an accurate alternative subject to negotiations with the funder.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Candela de la sota sández<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:44 AM<br><b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Questions about CDM Methodology AMS.II-G: "Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello again!<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm using the CDM methodology AMS.II-G: "Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass" and I'm facing some problems.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> I don't know if this methodology can be applied to a project which aims to deplace traditional biomass by LPG stoves. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The scope and applicability definition don't consider the option of swiching non-renewable biomass use by fossil fuel use, but it is not excluded either.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Here is the link to the methodology. I think it is quite ambiguous on this point. If you look at equation 5 (page 6) is MAYBE here where we can introduce LPG consumption.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB70_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=NHJ8bXp1bDNufDDA-vLs3oAZbIPBlUqf1vbZ">http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/7/m/24G3EKN6PT0QJ1BHRICMYDX97OW8UF.pdf/EB70_repan30_AMS-II.G_ver05.0.pdf?t=NHJ8bXp1bDNufDDA-vLs3oAZbIPBlUqf1vbZ</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Could anyone help me with this?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>candela<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2014/1/22 Candela de la sota sández <<a href="mailto:candelasota@gmail.com" target="_blank">candelasota@gmail.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0mm'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear stovers,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Does anyone know a improved biomass cook stoves Program of Activities under de Clean Development mechanism <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>of the UNFCCC<b> in Sudan</b>?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> I mean not only registered programs, but any which is being developed...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Thanks a lot in advance!</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Candela</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0mm 0mm 0mm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0mm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>