Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

changes were applied for a review of CER issuance. This decision has given the EB substantial discretion in evaluating projects. Since the setup of the Registration and Issuance Team (RIT) and with the increasing availability of UNFCCC staff, scrutiny of registration requests has increased substantially. The option to register or issue “with corrections” is now chosen frequently (see Tables 1 and 2 below) and corrections are even asked for if a request for review is not agreed by the EB. Table 1: Rejections, corrections and requests for review and reviews of registration requests (by Sep. 28, 2007) 2004 2005 2006 2007 Registrations (=100%) 1 62 408 329 Requests for review 2 (200%) 5 (8.1%) 73 (17.9%) 134 (40.7%) Reviews 2 (200%) 4 (6.5%) 22 (5.4%) 59 (17.9%) Corrections required* – 1 (1.6%) 32 (7.8%) 59 (17.9%) Rejections – – 10* (2.5%) 25 (7.6%) * Includes registrations “as corrected” ** One further rejection was withdrawn in 2007 PDD Template Increased Emphasis on Monitoring Sections Format of DNA Approval Letters 2.2.5 Administrative decisions taken only by EB For development of the PDD, a template has been provided since August 2002. It has been revised twice, with considerable impacts on the presentation of emissions reduction and application of the baseline and monitoring methodology. The first version contained 6 generic sections on general project description, baseline methodology, choice of crediting period, monitoring methodology, calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental impacts and stakeholder comments. In its second version of July 2004, the titles of the sections were changed and the section on monitoring expanded considerably to differentiate between data needed to determine the baseline and those that determine project emissions; an option for direct monitoring of emissions reduction was also included. Data for leakage calculation would feature in another subsection. A description of the management structure used for monitoring was now also required. The third version of July 2006 combines the baseline and monitoring methodology sections and eliminated the section on estimation of greenhouse gas emissions. This took into account the change in the methodology procedures where baseline and monitoring methodologies were now combined. Description of data sets is now differentiated into data available at validation and data sets that are monitored. Measurement methods have to be described for each data unit. The monitoring sections of the PDD have thus gained importance over time; they are the sections which are most likely to generate problems during validation. After initial problems with differing formats of DNA approval letters, the EB decided that an approval letter should contain the following statements: The country has ratified the Kyoto Protocol; the approval of voluntary participation in the proposed CDM project activity; and for host countries the statement that the proposed CDM project activity contributes to sustainable development 145 . 145 EB 16, Annex 6 22
Verification Regarding verification, according to the CDM glossary, there is no prescribed length of the verification period. It shall, however, not be longer than the crediting period. The first monitoring report made publicly available by DOEs on the CDM website shall be the one prepared by the project participants prior to the verification 146 . If activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the verifier shall make the most conservative assumption theoretically possible 147 . In case the verifier has requested corrections, the revised monitoring report shall be submitted as an additional document. If a verifier finds that there has been a deviation from “the provisions contained in the documentation related to the registered CDM project” it can either reject certification or lodge a request for deviation with the EB 148 . Verifiers shall ensure that all monitoring parameters required by the registered monitoring plan are reported by the project participants at the intervals required by the registered monitoring plan. These data should be contained in the monitoring report before a request for issuance is made, and submitted to the secretariat in a format which allows for assessment by the RIT member appointed to conduct the appraisal 149 . Shift of Start Date of Crediting Period CER Issuance Start dates of crediting periods can be changed once after registration for up to one year into the past or future from the date indicated in the PDD, provided that the start date in the past is not earlier than the date of registration. A shift of more than 1 but less than 2 years into the future can be made if a confirmation from a DOE is submitted that no changes have occurred which would result in a less conservative baseline and that substantive progress has been made by the project participants to start the project activity. Moreover, a confirmation from the host country DNA is required that the revision to the crediting period will not alter the project’s contribution to sustainable development 150 . This has led to the bizarre situation that a project with already issued CERs was able to change the start date of its crediting period afterwards 151 . In contrast to registration, issuance practice has not changed substantially over time. Reviews are more infrequent and rarely have led to a reduction in CER issuance (see Table 2). Requests for permission to resubmit requests for issuance for previously rejected requests for issuance have to be lodged within 60 days from the date of rejection 152 . Table 2: Rejections, corrections and requests for review and reviews of issuance requests (by Sep. 28, 2007) 2005 2006 2007 Issuances (=100%) 4 126 239 Requests for review – 15 (11.9%) 41 (17.2%) Reviews – 6 (4.8%) 8 (3.3%) Corrections required – 3 (2.4%) 18 (7.5%) Rejections – 2 (1.6%) – 146 EB 25, para 107 147 EB 26, para 109 148 EB 22, Annex 6 149 EB 26, para 109 150 EB 24, annex 31 151 EB 25, para 105 152 EB 31, para 86 23
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: While COP/MOP has provided that Lar
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?