Review of issuance

A Party involved in the proposed CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members may request a review of the request for issuance within 28 days of the request of issuance being received by the Executive Board.

Process for a review of issuance

The procedure for a review of registration is set out in "Procedure for Review of Requests for Issuance of CERs" (EB 64, Annex 4) which replaced 4/CMP.1, Annex IV.

In accordance with 3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 5(o), the Executive Board has provided clarifications to facilitate the implementation of such procedures for reviews of issuance. That decision provided that:

The Executive Board shall supervise the CDM, under the authority and guidance of the COP/MOP, and be fully accountable to the COP/MOP. In this context, the Executive Board shall:

(o) Elaborate and recommend to the COP/MOP for adoption at its next session procedures for conducting the reviews referred to in paragraphs 41 and 65 below including, inter alia, procedures to facilitate consideration of information from Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited observers (3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 5(o)).

The latest clarifications are contained in "Procedure for Review of Requests for Issuance of CERs" (EB 64, Annex 4), which can be accessed here, and they are described below:

Step 1: Request for review

The process of requesting a review is as follows (adapted from "Procedure for Review of Requests for Issuance of CERs" (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 7-11).

If a Party involved in a proposed CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members request a review within 28 days of a request of issuance being received by the Executive Board then the Secretariat shall:

a)    Notify the project participants, as identified in the Modalities of Communication form, and the DOE that verified and certified the claimed CER that a party involved in a proposed CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members have requested a review of the request for issuance;

b)    Make publicly available an anonymous version of each request for review form;

c)    Assign a team comprising two experts from the Registration and Issuance Team ("RIT Team") to participate in the assessment of the request for review. The secretariat shall appoint one of the assigned Team members to serve as the lead, who shall be responsible for all communications with the secretariat (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraph 7).

After notification of the request for issuance the Project Participants and the DOE have 28 calendar days in which to provide a response to the issues identified. For each issue raised in the request for review the Project Participants and the DOE shall either:

a)    Respond by making any revisions to the monitoring report (MR) and attached spreadsheets, verification report (VR), and/or certification that they deem necessary to, inter alia, ensure that all facts are clearly stated and sufficiently verified; or

b)    Respond in writing by addressing why no revisions to the MR, VR, and/or certification are necessary (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraph 7).

The secretariat will then schedule the date for the commencement of the review of the request for issuance and inform the Project Participants and the DOE of this date: 

The commencement of the review shall be defined as the date on which the secretariat notifies the project participants and the DOE that the review has commenced (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 7-11).

Step 2: Assessment

Both the secretariat and the RIT Team must then concurrently and independently make an assessment of the request for issuance, each following their own set of  parameters.

The Secretariat makes an assessment:

a) in the context of the reasons for the request for review as indicated in the request for review form and the CDM requirements; and

b) taking into account the responses of the projects participants and the DOE.

The RIT Team makes an assessment:

a) in accordance with the RIT Terms of Reference; and

b) taking into account the responses of the projects participants and the DOE.

The assessments are to be finalised no later than two weeks after the commencement of the review, and must propose a decision to either approve or reject the request for issuance. If the proposed decision is to reject the request for issuance, the assessment report must contain a proposed ruling detailing an explanation of the reasons and rationale (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 12-19).

Furthermore, both the secretariat and the RIT Team have communication requirements, namely:

The RIT Team shall communicate its assessment to the Executive Board by submitting it to the secretariat.

The secretariat shall inform the Executive Board of the availability of each assessment, and make each assessment available to the Executive Board, together with any responses from the project participant and DOE and any revision to the project documentation. (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 18-19)

Step 3: Consideration by the Executive Board

Scenario 1: same proposed decision reached by secretariat and the RIT Team

The proposed decision becomes the final decision of the Executive Board within 20 days. An Executive Board member may object to the proposed decision in writing, to the Chair of the Executive Board through the Secretariat. In such a case the matter is placed before the Executive Board in the next Executive Board meeting (if objection made more than two weeks prior to the next meeting) or the subsequent meeting (if objection made within two weeks of the next meeting).

Scenario 2: different proposed decision reached by secretariat and the RIT Team.

The Executive Board received both proposed decisions and considers them both in the next Executive Board meeting (if received more than two weeks prior to the next meeting) or the subsequent meeting (if received within two weeks of the next meeting).

At the Executive Board Meeting, the Board must decide to either approve or reject the request for issuance (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 20-24).

Step 4: Finalization and Implementation of the ruling

Scenario 1: final decision to approve the registration by Executive Board

… the Executive Board shall instruct the CDM registry administrator to issue a specified quantity of CERs into the pending account of the Executive Board of the CDM registry, in accordance with decision 3/CMP.1, paragraph 66.

It should be noted that the Executive Board's instructions are required to be communicated to any project participant(s), as identified in the Modalities of Communication form. Furthermore, instructions must be made publicly available on the UNFCCC website by the Secretariat (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraph 25-26).

Scenario 2: final decision to reject the request for registration by Executive Board.

… the secretariat shall update the information on the UNFCCC CDM website accordingly on the first working day subsequent to the finalization of the decision. Furthermore, within three weeks of the final decision of the Executive Board, the secretariat will provide the Chair of the Executive Board with an information note, which shall contain a proposed final ruling incorporating the final decision.

Once approved by the Chair of the Board, the secretariat shall make the proposed final ruling available to the Executive Board. The proposed final ruling shall become the final after 10 days, unless a member of the Executive Board objects to the proposed final ruling.

An objection by a member of the Executive Board shall be made by notifying the Chair of the Executive Board, giving reasons in writing, through the secretariat. The secretariat shall acknowledge the receipt of the objection and make it available to the Executive Board.

If an Executive Board member objects to the proposed final ruling more than two weeks prior to the next Executive Board meeting, the matter shall be placed on the agenda of the next. Executive Board meeting; otherwise it shall be placed on the agenda of the subsequent Executive Board meeting.

This formal ruling shall be made publicly available by the secretariat once approved by the Executive Board (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraphs 29-32).

Re-submission of rejected request for issuance

In cases where the reasons for rejection of a request for issuance of CERs can be addressed by means of a revised verification report, based on a revised monitoring report, the DOE may request to be permitted to submit a revised request for issuance of CERs for the same monitoring period covered by the rejection. In such cases, the request for permission to re-submit a request for issuance shall be submitted within 60 days of publication for the final ruling on the rejected request for issuance (EB 64, Annex 4, paragraph 33).

The Executive Board will consider such a request at the subsequent Executive Board meeting following that request in accordance with the procedures and decide on a case-by-case basis. In these cases the Executive Board will provide further guidance, as appropriate. If a revised request for issuance is also rejected it is not possible to resubmit the request for issuance of CERs for a third time (EB 28, paragraph 96).

Related Topics

Party involved

Executive Board

Certified emission reductions (CERs)

Withdrawal of accreditation of DOEs

Project participants

Review of issuance (P)

Review of issuance (SSC)

Review of issuance (A/R)

Review of issuance (PoA)