Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accounts 68 . The EB is “fully accountable” to COP/MOP, which means that it has to produce a report and a management plan 69 . The EB consists of 10 members 70 and an equal number of alternates 71 , see Box 3; it has to be regionally representative 72 . Full Members and Alternates Decision Making and Voting Role of Committees and Panels Box 3: The changing role of alternates in the EB While the Marrakech Accords did not envisage a role for alternates other than ensuring that members unable to attend a meeting could be replaced, EB rules of procedure allow alternates to act as de facto members 73 . They participate fully in all meetings and discussions, even if the members they are to represent are attending. As a term as alternate does not count towards the maximum time a member is allowed to serve on the EB. Over time, some persons have rotated between being a member and being alternates. The EB can only decide if 2/3 of its members are present, including a majority of members from Annex I and Non-Annex I countries 74 . Decisions should be based on the consensus principle but can be taken by a ¾ majority if “all efforts at reaching a consensus have been exhausted” 75 . Voting is rare and avoided as far as possible. The EB can establish committees, panels or working groups but has to take into account regional balance of their membership 76 , see Box 4. It has made extensive use of this possibility, setting up six panels and working groups 77 which are providing the bulk of technical work. Essentially the panels and working groups fulfil the same functions for the EB that the EB fulfils for the COP. Generally the EB has expanded the role of members – as chairs of panels and in conducting reviews. A contrasting approach would be to rely on the UNFCCC secretariat and ensure the EB is genuinely focused 78 . Box 4: Impacts of the regional representation rule Tension between Expertise and Representation The necessity to assign membership in the EB and its panels to represent all UN regions has led to the problem that expertise required for a specific panel may be scarce within certain regions. For example, the UNFCCC Secretariat had to repeat calls for selection of a member from the Eastern European and CIS region as there were no applications. This has also led to the necessity to expand panels to ensure a critical mass of expertise. 68 Ibid., para 6 (c) 69 Annex to decision 3/CMP.1, para 5 (d) 70 Ibid., para 7 71 Ibid., para 9 72 Ibid., para 7 73 Decision 4/CMP.1, rules 29, 4 74 Annex to decision 3/CMP.1, para 14 75 Ibid., para 15 76 Ibid., para 18 77 Afforestation and Reforestation Working Group (ARWG), Accreditation Panel (AP), Accreditation Teams (AT), Methodology Panel (MP), Registration and Issuance Team (RIT) and the Small-Scale Working Group (SSC WG). 78 Decision 2/CMP.1, para 7 (e) asks the EB “to emphasize its executive and supervisory role by, inter alia, ensuring effective use of its support structure, including its panels, other outside expertise and the secretariat, and by strengthening the role of designated operational entities.” 14
Role of DOEs – Absence of Accreditation, Validation and Verification Standards DNAs check Sustainable Development Impacts DOEs validate 79 proposed CDM projects and verify emission reductions 80 . They have to show that they are free of conflict of interest regarding the project participant 81 . To get accreditation as a DOE, companies or institutions have to fulfil a number of requirements listed in, including the need to have insurance cover 82 , a management structure with quality assurance procedures 83 and documented structures which safeguard impartiality 84 . As project participants can freely select among accredited DOEs 85 , an intense competition for getting validation and verification assignments has developed between DOEs. In addition, project participants not only select DOEs but contract and remunerate them for their services. Some have argued for a revision of this relationship because of a potential conflict of interest – where DOEs may have difficult rejecting validation of projects as they could lose clients whose projects did not achieve validation. There are no standards for validation and verification (see section 2.2.3). No liability other than the risk of losing the accreditation exists for mistakes in validation. DOEs are liable for “excess CERs” issued due to significant deficiencies in verification found in an EBmandated review by another DOE 86 ; however no DOE has been fined so far. Countries can only participate in the CDM if they have ratified the Kyoto Protocol 87 . Countries have to specify a Designated National Authority (DNA) for project approval 88 . Annex B countries can use CERs only if they fulfil the requirements of Article 5 and 7 of the Kyoto Protocol regarding their emission inventory and specification of their emissions budget 89 . Companies and public entities have to be authorized to participate in CDM projects 90 ; this is usually done within the text of the approval letter by the DNA. They can only buy and sell CERs if the authorizing country is allowed to use CERs. Figure 1: CDM institutions accredits elects COP/MOP EB supervises support, recommend DOE MP A&R – WG AP, AT SSC – WG RIT UNFCCC Secretariat 79 Annex to decision 3/CMP.1, para 27 (a) 80 Ibid., para 27 (b) 81 Ibid., para 27 (d) 82 Appendix A to decision 3/CMP.1, para 1 (c) 83 Ibid., para 1 (g) 84 Ibid., para 2 (a) (i) 85 Annex to decision 3/CMP.1, para 37 86 Ibid., para 22 87 Ibid., para 30 and 31 (a) 88 Ibid., para 29. The preamble of 17/CP.7 had specified that sustainable development impacts of a proposed CDM project are only checked by the host country. 89 Ibid., para 31. These requirements have been elaborated in decisions 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 21/CMP.1 90 Ibid., para 33 15
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: Transparency, Conservativeness, Con
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 and 122:
• Quantity of steam diverted from
Page 123:
Published by the Department for Env
show all

Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

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

Delete template?

Save as template?