Verification report

The DOE must assess and verify the implementation of the project activity. The verification assessment is done to ensure the project complies with paragraph 62 of the CDM modalities and procedures (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 169).

The verification report forms the basis for certification of the project's emission reductions or removals, which is required for issuance of certified emission reductions (CERs) or temporary certified emission reductions (tCERs) and long-term certified emission reductions (lCERs).

Specifically, the verification report must ensure the project activity has been correctly implemented, monitoring systems have been complied with and all data is verifiable and stored appropriately:

  1. Ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place;
  2. Ensure that the monitoring report and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with applicable CDM requirements;
  3. Ensure that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan and the approved methodology;
  4. Evaluate the data recorded and stored as per the monitoring methodology (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 170).

The verification assessment must also involve a review of the relevant project documentation and include an on-site visit. The DOE must include the following documentation in the review:

  1. The registered PDD, including the monitoring plan and the corresponding validation report;
  2. Previous verification reports, if any;
  3. The applied monitoring methodology;
  4. Relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board;
    (e) Any other information and references relevant to the project activity's resulting emission reductions (e.g., IPCC reports, data on electricity generation in the national grid or laboratory analysis and national regulations) (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 174).

The DOE's verification must be based on both qualitative and qualitative information on emission reductions:

The DOE's verification of the project documentation provided by the project participant shall be based upon both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. Quantitative information comprises the reported numbers in the monitoring report submitted to the DOE. Qualitative information comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, procedures for transfer of data, frequency of emissions reports, and review and internal audit of calculations (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 173).

DOE's must also confirm the project participants have addressed forward action requests (FAR) identified during validation.

Verification Methods

The DOE must apply standard auditing techniques to assess the quality of the information including desk review and on-site assessment.

The DOE shall apply standard auditing techniques to assess the quality of the information, including but not limited to:

  1. Desk review, involving:
    1. Review of the data and information presented to verify their completeness;
    2. Review of the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements, the quality of metering equipment including calibration requirements, and the quality assurance and quality control procedures;
    3. Evaluation of data management and the quality assurance and quality control system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions;
  2. On-site assessment involving:
    1. Assessment of the implementation and operation of the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD;
    2. Review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters;
    3. Interviews with relevant personnel to confirm that the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan in the PDD;
    4. A cross-check between information provided in the monitoring report and data from other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources;
    5. A check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance and observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PDD and the selected methodology;
    6. Review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and emission reductions;
      (vii) Identification of quality control and quality assurance procedures in place to prevent or identify and correct any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 176).

A clear audit trail must be established when verifying the reported emission reductions. It should include evidence and records that validate or invalidate the stated figure and source documents that form the basis for assumptions.

Matters to address when assessing the audit trail include:

  1. Whether sufficient evidence is available, both in terms of frequency (time period between evidence) and in covering the full monitoring period;
  2. The source and nature of the evidence (external or internal, oral or documented, etc.);
  3. If comparable information is available from sources other than that used in the monitoring report, then the DOE shall cross check the monitoring report against the other sources to confirm that the stated figures are correct (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 178).

In addition, the DOE must assess that the data collection system meets the requirements of the monitoring plan in accordance with the applied methodology.

Any issues related to monitoring, implementation or operations of the proposed CDM project activity that could impair the capacity of the activity to achieve emissions reductions should be identified in the verification report.

If there are non-conformities, mistakes are made or issues identified through a forward action request (FAR) in validation that have not been resolved, the DOE must raise a correction action request (CAR).

The DOE shall raise a CAR if one of the following occurs:

  1. Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient;
  2. Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions;
  3. Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 182).

The DOE must also raise a clarification request (CL) if the information submitted by the project participant is insufficient or unclear. FARs should be raised during verification if the monitoring and reporting require attention for the next verification period.

All CARs, CLs and FARs must be reported on in the verification report.

Verification of specific requirements

The DOE must ensure the project has been implemented in accordance with the registered PDD.

The verification report must describe the implementation status of the project, the actual operation of the proposed CDM project activity and information in the monitoring report that is different to the information stated in the registered PDD.

For each monitoring period, the verification report shall describe:

  1. The implementation status of the project. For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall indicate the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in the each phase under verification;
  2. The actual operation of the proposed CDM project activity;
  3. Information (data and variables) provided in the monitoring report that is different from that stated in the registered PDD and has caused an increase in estimates of the emission reductions in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the estimates of emission reductions in the future monitoring periods (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 189).

The DOE must also ensure the monitoring plan complies with the monitoring methodology and provide a statement that the plan is in accordance with the approved methodology. If it is not in accordance with the monitoring methodology the DOE must request a revision to the plan prior to concluding its verification. It is encouraged that the DOE bring to the Executive Board's attention any monitoring aspects not specified in the methodology which enhance the level of accuracy.

  1. If during verification, the DOE concludes that the monitoring plan is not in accordance with the monitoring methodology, the DOE shall request a revision to the monitoring plan55 prior to concluding its verification and making its certification decision. The DOE may request for revision of the monitoring plan covering the monitoring period under verification, for approval by the Board.
  2. For monitoring aspects that are not specified in the methodology, particularly in the case of small-scale methodologies (e.g. additional monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency and calibration frequency), the DOE is encouraged to bring to the attention of the Board issues which may contribute in enhancing the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring plan (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraphs 192-193).
The monitoring of the monitoring plan must also be assessed in the verification report. The DOE must list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and clearly state how it has verified the values in the monitoring reports.

The verification report shall indicate that monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD or the accepted revised monitoring plan. The report shall list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and clearly state how the DOE has verified the values in the monitoring reports (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 197).

The parameters and additional information that must be included in the report include:

  1. The monitoring plan and the applied methodology have been properly implemented and followed by the project participants;
  2. All parameters stated in the monitoring plan, the applied methodology and relevant CDM;
  3. Executive Board decisions have been sufficiently monitored and updated as applicable, including:
    1. Project emission parameters;
    2. Baseline emission parameters;
    3. Leakage parameters;
    4. Management and operational system: the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan.
  4. The accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is in accordance with the relevant guidance provided by the CDM Executive Board and is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan;
    1. Monitoring results are consistently recorded as per approved frequency;
    2. Quality assurance and quality control procedures that have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 196).

Calculation of GHG emission reductions should be carried out using the selected methodology. The DOE must also determine a complete set of data is used for the specified monitoring period, all information provided has been cross checked, calculations have been carried out using the appropriate formulae and assumptions are justified.

The DOE shall determine whether:

  1. A complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available. If only partial data are available because activity levels or non- activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the DOE shall opt to either make the most conservative assumption theoretically possible in finalizing the verification report60, or raise a request for deviation if appropriate;
  2. Information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis;
  3. Calculations of baseline emissions, proposed CDM project activity emissions and leakage, as appropriate, have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document;
  4. Any assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified;
  5. Appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values have been correctly applied (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 199).

In the verification report, the DOE must include the following:

  1. An indication whether data were not available because activity levels or non-activity parameters were not monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan as well as any actions taken by the DOE to ensure that the most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been made;
  2. A description of how the DOE cross-checked reported data;
  3. A confirmation that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed; and
  4. An opinion if the assumptions, emission factors and default values that were applied in the calculations have been justified (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 200).

Additional approvals

If there has been a deviation from the registered monitoring plan, the DOE must submit a request for deviation before providing its verification conclusion.

A request for deviation is only appropriate if the change in procedures for estimating emissions was caused by change in project circumstances. The deviation must be project specific.

A request for deviation is appropriate only if a change in the procedures for estimating or monitoring emissions was required due to a change in the conditions or circumstances of the proposed CDM project activity after it was registered as a proposed CDM project activity. The deviation shall be project-specific and shall not deviate from the methodology to the extent that a revision of the methodology would be required (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 203).

Circumstances where a request for deviation is not suitable are:

  1. The monitoring plan is not in accordance with the monitoring methodology applied by the project activity;
  2. The version of the approved methodology selected by the proposed CDM project activity is no longer valid;
  3. The request would result in revisions to the approved methodology;
  4. The request would result in a change in default parameter values other than those given in the approved methodology (EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 204).

If the deviation from the provisions will continue into future monitoring periods the DOE should submit a request for revision of the monitoring plan, not a request for deviation.

The DOE should ensure the accuracy and completeness in the monitoring and verification process will not be reduced as a result of a proposed revision.

The DOE must ensure the verification report includes how monitoring report addresses the request for revision of the monitoring plan and if it complies with guidance form the CDM Executive Board.

The table below illustrates the differences between requests for deviation and requests for revision of the monitoring plan.

Comparison between requests for deviation and requests for revision of the monitoring plan

 

Request for deviation

Request for revision of the

monitoring plan

Definition

A formal request for guidance from the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism regarding deviations from provisions of the registered project documentation for the verified period only.

 

A formal request to the CDM Executive Board to revise the monitoring plan to comply with the monitoring methodology or to improve accuracy and/or completeness of information

 

Required documents

 

- Request for deviation form a

- Other relevant documents

 

- Revised monitoring plan

- The DOE's validation opinion

- Other relevant documents

Submission

Via a dedicated web interface

Via a web interface or an email from the DOE

Note: Requests for deviation or revision of the monitoring plan cannot be used to request guidance on changes in the project design from the project design document.

a The form shall provide clear and precise assessment and description of the impact of the deviationon the emission reductions achieved by the project activity for the Executive Board to evaluate.

Overview of Verification Report

The verification report must provide a summary of the verification process, details of the verification team, all the DOE's findings and conclusions and description of any parameter listed.

The verification report shall provide the following:

  1. A summary of the verification process and the scope of verification;
  2. Details of the verification team;
  3. Findings of the desk review and site visit;
  4. All the DOE's findings and conclusions as to whether the proposed CDM project activity has been implemented in accordance with the PDD, the compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology, the compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan and assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions;
  5. A list of each parameter specified by the monitoring plan and a clear statement on how the values in the monitoring report have been verified;
  6. Assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued to the project participants;
  7. Assessment of remaining issues from the previous verification period, if appropriate;
  8. Conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved EB 44, Annex 3, paragraph 212).

If requested, the DOE should make available any documentation supporting verification in the report.

Related Topics

What is verification? (P)

What is certification? (P)

Designated operational entity (DOE)

Emission reductions

Certified emissions reductions (CERs)

Long term certified emission reduction (lCER)

Temporary certified emission reduction (tCER)

Forward action request

Clarification request

Corrective action request