Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Conclusions The rules of the CDM are constantly evolving through a complex interaction between several rule-making entities. Framework rules that are stable have been defined by the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakech Accords. On the other hand, the EB and its panels and working groups decide according to the immediate requirements of the CDM process. With the increase of submission of methodologies and CDM projects, the volume of decisions has increased. These decisions are not presented in a clear, formal way, but as elements in and annexes to the EB’s meeting reports as well as in occasional guidance documents. While some case law is developing, the EB occasionally revises or even withdraws previous decisions. The COP serves as link between the framework level and the day-to-day decisions. However, it is reluctant to take “technical” decisions. Sometimes, disagreements persist between the COP and the EB, which lead to iterative admonitions of the COP to the EB. Over time, the EB’s requirements for application of baseline and monitoring methodologies have been strengthened and the key determinants of additionality testing are better understood. The consolidated additionality tool has become the de facto standard of additionality determination. Data used for the investment test and argumentation about barriers are increasingly sophisticated and referencing improves. While the monitoring plan was initially not seen as a key element of the PDD, it has become its cornerstone. A credible, redundant management structure for monitoring and an emphasis on choice of adequate measurement equipment characterise good PDDs. A challenge is still an objective definition of quality assurance and – control procedures. One area where the EB has so far not been able to provide adequate incentives and rules relates to validation. So far, no DOE has been suspended. Despite increasing evidence of validator failures, the rules remain surprisingly fluid. Even if a project is rejected, there will not be an automatic spot check of the DOE even if DOE performance is in doubt. 120
Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. © Crown Copyright 2007. Printed on material that contains a minimum of 100% recycled fibre for uncoated paper and 75% recycled fibre for coated paper. www.defra.gov.uk PBXXXXX B
Page 1 and 2:
Understanding CDM Methodologies A g
Page 3:
Introduction The success of the Cle
Page 7 and 8:
1. Introduction Climate Change is a
Page 9 and 10:
Aim of Guidebook This guidebook wil
Page 11 and 12:
Special Status of the Marrakech Acc
Page 13 and 14:
Small Scale Thresholds over Time Cr
Page 15 and 16:
Transparency, Conservativeness, Con
Page 17 and 18:
Role of DOEs - Absence of Accredita
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 2: The CDM project cycle CER
Page 21 and 22:
EB Decision Making and the Role of
Page 23 and 24:
While COP/MOP has provided that Lar
Page 25 and 26:
Verification Regarding verification
Page 27 and 28:
3. Barrier analysis, with the aim t
Page 29 and 30:
Rejections due to Lack of Additiona
Page 31 and 32:
4. Methodologies Methodology Case L
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 9: Fuel switch family tree M
Page 35 and 36:
Interpretation of top 20% in Approa
Page 37 and 38:
4.1.4 Leakage Unclear Definition of
Page 39 and 40:
Top-down Methodology Development fo
Page 41 and 42:
Table 4: Methodology revisions 2005
Page 43 and 44:
5. Key elements and application of
Page 45 and 46:
Two Methodologies added Nitric Acid
Page 47 and 48:
Methodological Concept Power Genera
Page 49 and 50:
Box 13: Exclusion of immaterial par
Page 51 and 52:
Build Margin Build Margin: newest P
Page 53 and 54:
Box 16: OM/ BM calculation where th
Page 55 and 56:
Project Emissions With the exceptio
Page 57 and 58:
Applicability Conditions Grid has t
Page 59 and 60:
Leakage Leakage: Transfer of Equipm
Page 61 and 62:
Box 20: Sufficient natural gas supp
Page 63 and 64:
• Option 3: The emission factor o
Page 65 and 66:
Industrial Gas Methodologies 5.3 De
Page 67 and 68:
No Additionality Problem Another co
Page 69 and 70:
In a second step, it is tested whet
Page 71 and 72: Determination of the Emission Facto
Page 73 and 74: Baseline scenario and additionality
Page 75 and 76: Box 27: Ensuring accuracy of measur
Page 77 and 78: 5.4.2 Basic concept Emissions Reduc
Page 79 and 80: Default Cogen Plant Efficiency 90%
Page 81 and 82: 5.4.4 AMS-II.D Project Description
Page 83 and 84: 5.4.5 AM0046 This methodology warra
Page 85 and 86: • Information on any changes made
Page 87 and 88: Displacement of Natural Gas in Pipe
Page 89 and 90: Landfill gas capture and flaring ac
Page 91 and 92: Ex post: The main parameters that n
Page 93 and 94: Box 31: Deviation of monitoring met
Page 95 and 96: Box 32: Measurement of the flare ef
Page 97 and 98: Expanding of Applicability Conditio
Page 99 and 100: Seven-Step Procedure for Measuremen
Page 101 and 102: Project boundary Transport of Waste
Page 103 and 104: Biomass Leakage: Proving that there
Page 105 and 106: 5.6 .3 ACM0008 Description of the c
Page 107 and 108: • Methane used for electricity an
Page 109 and 110: Applicability conditions Definition
Page 111 and 112: or retrofit. This baseline holds fo
Page 113 and 114: • For biomass-fired projects, a s
Page 115 and 116: A handful of projects have submitte
Page 117 and 118: Submission of further Baseline Scen
Page 119 and 120: Heat only Projects Baseline Scenari
Page 121: • Quantity of steam diverted from
show all

Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?