Reviews of registration

A Party involved in a project activity or at least three members of the Executive Board may request a review of the registration of that project activity. 3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 41 sets out the parameters for reviewing a request for registration:

The review by the Executive Board shall be made in accordance with the following provisions:

It shall be related to issues associated with the validation requirements

It shall be finalized no later than at the second meeting following the request for review, with the decision and the reasons for it being communicated to the project participants and the public (3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 41).

The procedure for a review of registration is set out in 4/CMP.1, Annex III (previously 18/CP.9, Annex II, and before that was prepared in draft for EB 9 (Annex 6) and EB 15 (Annex 2)).

In accordance with 3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 5(o), the Executive Board has provided clarifications to facilitate the implementation of the procedure for reviews of registration described in 4/CMP.1, Annex III, by annotating those procedures. 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:

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), previously 17/CP.7, Annex, paragraph 5(o)).

The latest clarifications are contained in EB 38, Annex 20 (which replaces earlier guidance in EB 29 Annex 15, EB 28 Annex 41, EB 27 Annex 15, EB 25 Annex 44, EB 24 Annex 28, EB 22 Annex 18, EB 21 Annex 23, and EB 16 Annex 5). These procedures are described below.

Step 1: Request for review

The process of requesting a review is as follows (adapted from 4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraphs 4-9; EB 29, Annex 15 and EB 38, Annex 20):

A request for review (with reasons for the request) is made within 8 weeks using the CDM project activity registration review form (F-CDM-RR):

By a Party involved, through the relevant designated national authority (DNA) to the Executive Board (through the secretariat) using official means of communication; or
By at least three members of the Executive Board, by notifying the Executive Board (through the secretariat). Reasons for requesting the review must be clearly stated, and if the issues are of a minor nature that could be corrected through additional clarifications and/or revised documentation, this should be indicated. In such a case, the Executive Board will indicate that the project is "registered with corrections". If clarifications are requested, these must be provided by project participants to the secretariat within 2 weeks. If the secretariat and the Chair of the Executive Board considers the clarifications adequate, the project will be automatically registered and will not be reconsidered by the Executive Board. If the Chair of the Executive Board deems the corrections not satisfactory the Executive Board will determine at its next meeting whether a full review should be conducted.

The secretariat confirms whether the correct documentation has been received, and if so, acknowledges the receipt of the request and forwards it to the Executive Board.
Consideration of the review of the proposed project activity is included in the agenda for the next Executive Board meeting, unless the requests for review are received after the deadline for circulation of the meeting agenda (i.e. 3 weeks before the meeting), in which case they will be considered at the subsequent meeting.
The Executive Board notifies the project participants and the DOE that validated the project activity that a review has been requested. These parties are invited to submit comments. The deadline for submitting these comments is determined as follows. In general, the deadline is 2 weeks from receipt of the notification. If, on the date the notification is provided, there are less than 4 weeks until the next meeting, project participants can choose either to:

Submit the required clarifications or corrections on or before the date which is 2 weeks before the next meeting (although this will be a shorter timeframe than the usual 2-week deadline); or
Inform the secretariat within 1 week of receiving the notification that they wish to take the full 2 weeks to consider the request and submit the required clarifications or corrections, in which case the project will not be considered until the subsequent meeting.

The project participants, the designated operational entity (DOE) and other stakeholders are also invited to attend the relevant meeting.
An RIT member prepares an appraisal in accordance with the procedure for appraising a project for registration.
The secretariat (under the guidance of the Chair of the Executive Board) prepares a decision sheet for the consideration of the Executive Board.
The Executive Board may address questions to the project participants or the DOE during the meeting. A contact person for these questions must be nominated (in the case of project participants, in accordance with the modalities of communication).
The proposed project activity is marked 'under review' on the UNFCCC CDM website.

Step 2: Scope and modalities of review

The Executive Board considers at its next meeting whether to undertake a review of the proposed project activity:

The Executive Board shall consider, at its next meeting, a request for review, and either decide to undertake a review of the proposed project activity or register it as a CDM project activity (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 10).

The Executive Board may decide to register the project activity but nonetheless request that the project participants and the DOE make corrections to the project documentation. The revised documentation will then be considered by the secretariat in consultation with the RIT member or the Chair of the Executive Board. If the corrections have not been made properly or further issues arise, the proposed project activity will be placed on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting (EB 29, Annex 15, annotation to paragraph 10).

If the Executive Board decides to undertake a review, it decides at the same meeting on the scope of the review and the composition of the review team:

If the Executive Board agrees to undertake a review of a proposed project activity, it shall, at the same meeting, decide on:

The scope of the review relating to issues associated with validation requirements, based on the consideration in the request for a review;

The composition of a review team. The review team shall consist of two Board members, who will be responsible for supervising the review, and outside experts, as appropriate (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 11).

These decisions are made publicly available, and project participants and the relevant DOE is notified:

The decision make by the Board on the scope of the review shall be made publicly available as part of the report of its meeting (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 13).

Project participants and the DOE which validated the proposed project activity shall be notified of the decision by the Executive Board (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 14).

Step 3: Review process

The review process is led by the review team, whose role is set out in 4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 12:

The review team, under the guidance of Board members responsible for supervising the review, shall provide inputs, prepare requests for clarification and further information to the DOE and project participants, and analyse information received during the review (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 12).

The review team must send a detailed request for clarification to project participants within 1 week after being nominated by the Executive Board (EB 29, Annex 15, annotation to paragraph 16). Answers must be provided by the DOE and/or project participants to the secretariat within 5 working days, and these answers will then be sent to the review team:

Requests for clarification and further information may be sent to the DOE and the project participants. Answers shall be submitted to the review team, through the secretariat, within five working days after the receipt of the request for clarification. The secretariat shall acknowledge the receipt of the answers and forward them to the review team (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 15).

The review team will make a recommendation, which must be forwarded to the Executive Board at least 1 week before the next meeting:

The recommendation by the review team shall be made available to the Board no later than one week before the next Board meeting (EB 38, Annex 20).

This replaces earlier guidance in the modalities and procedures which required the recommendations to be drafted by the Executive Board members supervising the review, and for these recommendations to be forwarded to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the next Board meeting:

The two Board members supervising the review shall be responsible for compiling inputs and comments and preparing the recommendation to be forwarded to the Executive Board via listserver at least two weeks before the next Executive Board meeting (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 16).

Step 4: Review decision

Taking into account the recommendations of the two Executive Board members responsible for the review, the Executive Board decides whether:

To register the project activity;

To request that the DOE and project participants make corrections to the project documentation (within 12 weeks) before proceeding with registration; [or]

To reject the project activity (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 18).

This decision must be finalised no later than the second meeting following a request for review (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 17).

Once this decision is made, it is made public:

In accordance with paragraph 41, the Board shall communicate the decision to the project participants, the DOE that validated the proposed project activity and the public (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 19).

If corrections are requested and are provided by project participants within 12 weeks, the revised documentation will be checked by the Chair of the Executive Board and the secretariat. If the Chair considers that the corrections are adequate, the project will be registered. If the Chair considers that the corrections should be assessed by the Board, this will take place at the next meeting, or if the revised documentation was received within 2 weeks of the next meeting, at the subsequent meeting. If the Board considers the corrections adequate, the project will be registered; otherwise, it will be rejected (EB 38, Annex 20).

If, during the review, the Executive Board has identified any issues relating to the performance of the DOE, the Executive Board may decide to examine that DOE's activities more closely:

If the review indicates any issues relating to performance of the DOE, the Board shall consider whether to trigger a spot-check of the DOE, in accordance with the procedures for accrediting operational entities (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 20).

To assist in determining whether to trigger a spot-check, the Executive Board maintains a tracking system to record the number of times each DOE is involved with a request for review (EB 29, Annex 15, annotation to paragraph 20).

Costs of review

The costs of reviewing a proposed project activity are paid by the Executive Board, unless a project is rejected and the DOE is found to have engaged in misconduct or to have been incompetent:

The Executive Board shall bear the costs for reviewing a proposed project activity. If the Executive Board decides to reject the registration of a proposed project activity and if a DOE is found to be in the situation of malfeasance or incompetence, the DOE shall reimburse the Board for the expenses incurred as a result of the review. This provision is subject to review as experience accrues (4/CMP.1, Annex III, paragraph 21).