Module 2.2 - Calibration regarding accreditation assessment requirements

Calibration through enhanced CDM-AP direct

communication with stakeholders (DOEs/ATs)

A. Ricardo J. EspartaAccreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert

7th CDM Joint Coordination WorkshopBonn, 12-13 March 2011

Methodologies related requirements

• VVM - chapter V, section E (baseline and monitoring methodology, p. 65 to 93; additionality of a project activity, p. 94 to 121; monitoring plan, p. 122 to 133), but not limited to it.

• AT - always indicate the related VVM requirement for every single non-conformity

(2/8)

Systemic versus project specific

• Everybody knows but it doesn't hurt to repeat: both sides should concentrate on addressing the issues at the systemic level instead of on specific project solutions

• Examples– Emission factor change from the GSP to the

validated PDD– Others?

(3/8)

Avoid personal interpretations, but…

• Methodologies are not perfect• Reality rarely corresponds 100% to the

methodology scenario• Use of your common sense is very welcome

but do not forget to disclose the rationale behind the decision

• Upside: if you trust your judgment and the rationale is clearly unveiled faster process

(4/8)

Avoid personal interpretations, but…

• Nobody is forced to blindly accept the “other side” interpretation/assessment

• In case of doubt/disagreement, request clarification

• Clarification is not consulting, interact with the Panel (Assessment team, Secretariat, Panel)

• Downside: longer assessment

(5/8)

CMP.6 - Further Guidance to the CDM

§22. Requests the Executive Board to develop and implement modalities and procedures with a view to enhancing direct communication with stakeholders and project proponents in relation to issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams; these modalities and procedures should provide for: a) Direct communication that can be initiated by the secretariat, as

needed, with project proponents, on issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams;

b) Stakeholder consultations on general issues, and the publication of the outputs thereof;

c) Intensified use of public calls for input in relation to major regulatory decisions, including the possibility to make submissions;

(6/8)

EB 59th Meeting Report, § 22

• The Board requested the CDM-AP to consider the appropriateness and, if applicable, modalities of its direct interaction with the DOE/AE Coordination Forum, to be considered by the Board at a future meeting.

(7/8)

Thank you very much and do not hesitate to interact with the Panel (Secretariat, Assessment Teams,

Accreditation Panel…) at any assessment stage.

A. Ricardo J. EspartaAccreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert

(8/8)