Assessing a new A/R methodology

Once a proposed methodology has been created and submitted, it must be considered by the Executive Board as quickly as possible, but at least within 4 months:

The Executive Board shall expeditiously, if possible at its next meeting but not more than four months later, review the proposed new baseline or monitoring methodology in accordance with the modalities and procedures of the present annex. Once the Executive Board has approved the new baseline or monitoring methodology, it shall make it publicly available, together with any relevant guidance and the DOE may proceed with the validation of the proposed afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM. In the event that the COP/MOP requests the revision of an approved methodology, no afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM may use this methodology. The project participants shall revise the methodology, as appropriate, taking into consideration any guidance received (5/CMP.1, paragraph 13).

In practice, the Executive Board has delegated much of this function to the Methodologies Panel, which in turn seeks assistance from experts to conduct a desk review, as described in this section. At the end of this assessment process, the Methodologies Panel will provide a recommendation to the Executive Board on whether the methodology should be accepted.

The process for consideration and assessment of new methodologies is set out in EB 37, Annex 4. The current guidance is version 7 and replaces earlier guidance in EB 32 Annex 18, EB 21 Annex 18 and EB 15 Annex 10.

In summary, the assessment process is as follows (adapted from EB 32, Annex 13):

The secretariat prepares a draft pre-assessment using the CDM: Proposed new methodology assessment form (F-CDM-AR-NMas), and forwards it (together with all documentation) to a member of the Meth Panel.

Either:

The AE/DOE undertakes a voluntary pre-assessment, in which case the proposed methodology is forwarded directly to the A/R Working Group and the Executive Board (the grading by the A/R Working Group member described below is not required); or

If no voluntary pre-assessment is undertaken, the A/R Working Group member reviews the documentation and grades the proposed methodology as ‘1’ (ready for A/R Working Group review) or ‘2’ (further work required). If the proposed methodology is graded 1, it is forwarded by the secretariat to the A/R Working Group and the Executive Board (at least 10 weeks prior to the next meeting of the A/R Working Group). If it is graded 2, it is sent back to the proponents, who may amend and resubmit it.

The secretariat makes the proposed methodology publicly available on the UNFCCC website and invites public comment (using the public comment form F-CDM-AR-NMpu) for a period of 15 working days. Comments received are forwarded to the Meth Panel at the moment of receipt.

Two experts are chosen from a roster of experts, one as lead reviewer and one as second reviewer. The experts each produce a desk review report using the lead expert desk review form (F-CDM-AR-NMex_3d) and the second expert desk review form (F-CDM-AR-NMex_2d).

The proposed methodology is assessed by the Meth Panel as follows:

Four members of the Meth Panel are selected to review the draft pre-assessment prepared by the secretariat.

The secretariat compiles the inputs from the experts, the members of the members of the Meth Panel appointed to review the draft pre-assessment (and any other members that have provided input) and members of the public, and forwards these inputs to the Meth Panel.

The Meth Panel prepares a summary recommendation using the CDM – Proposed new methodology – Meth Panel recommendation summary to the Executive Board form (F-CDM-AR-NMSUMmp) and a full recommendation using the CDM – Proposed new methodology – Meth Panel recommendation to the Executive Board (CDM-AR-NMmp), based on the draft pre-assessment and taking into account the inputs compiled by the secretariat.

The summary recommendation is sent to the proponents. The proponents may, within a timeframe stipulated by the Chair of the Meth Panel (not more than 4 weeks), submit clarifications to the Meth Panel.

Based on the clarifications received, the Meth Panel drafts a final recommendation to the Executive Board, which is forwarded to Board members via the secretariat. The final recommendation consists of an updated version of each of CDM-AR-NMSUMmp and CDM-AR-NMmp prepared earlier.

The Executive Board considers the proposed methodology and the Meth Panel recommendation and approves or does not approve it.

Step 1: Pre-assessment

Once the registration fee and all documents have been received, the secretariat will prepare a draft pre-assessment using the CDM: Proposed new methodology assessment form (F-CDM-AR-NMas) and will forward this to a member of the Meth Panel:

Having checked that the “CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology form” (F-CDM-AR-PNM) has been duly filled by the DOE and documentation provided by the DOE is complete, the secretariat shall prepare a draft pre-assessment using the latest version of the “CDM: Proposed new AR methodology assessment form” (F-CDM-AR-NMas)3 to assess the quality of the submission and forward it along with the documentation submitted by the project participant (CDM-AR-NM & CDMAR-PDD) to one member of the A/R Working Group for consideration (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 5).

F-CDM-NMas requires the secretariat to respond ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to eleven questions relating to the proposed methodology:

The responses to the evaluation criteria below shall be considered as substantiation to evaluate a case as 1 or 2.

If one of the evaluation criteria below is checked as NO the documentation will be graded as 2 and is to be sent back to the project participants.

If all the evaluation criteria below are checked as YES the documentation will be graded as 1 and shall be considered as received by the Board and be forwarded by the secretariat for consideration of the Board and the Meth Panel (F-CDM-NMas, Ver 04)).

If any ‘No’ answers are given, an explanation is required on the form.

The questions set out in the form are as follows:

The evaluation criteria in EB 32 Annex 16 require the Meth Panel to assess the following issues:

Coverage of the CDM-AR-NM sections as outlined in the applicable guidelines

The language is sufficiently transparent, precise and unambiguous to undertake a full assessment

The CDM-AR-NM reflects methodology-specific information and not project-specific information.

The CDM-AR-NM seems to be internally consistent, i.e. the applicability conditions, project boundary, procedure for estimation of the baseline net greenhouse gas removals by sinks, procedure for estimation of the actual net greenhouse gas removals by sinks, leakage, and monitoring section are consistent with each other.

The baseline methodology addresses the identification and selection of the most likely baseline scenario in a clear and concise way.

Changes in carbon pools in the baseline scenario are calculated (with relevant formulas provided and explained).

Changes in carbon pools, emissions by sources and leakage due to the project activity are calculated (with relevant formulas provided and explained).

The additionality section has clear and concise presentation of methodological steps to assess additionality and relationships between them.

Proper, clear documentation and drafting of Proposed New Methodology: Monitoring in accordance with applicable guidelines.

If it is a resubmitted C case, all the issues raised in the previous recommendations are addressed or are sufficiently/properly explained.

No other issue were raised that leads to a 2-rating (see below for an explanation on ratings).

Step 2(a): Voluntary pre-assessment by the DOE/AE

A DOE/AE may carry out a voluntary pre-assessment in which case the grading by the Meth Panel (Step 2(b)) is not required:

A DOE/AE may voluntarily undertake a pre-assessment of a newly proposed methodology before submitting it. If a voluntary pre-assessment has been undertaken, no pre-assessment by the A/R Working Group, as referred in paragraph 5 above, is needed. The submitted methodology may be in such case be considered as received once the secretariat has confirmed that the “CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology form” has been duly filled by the DOE and documentation provided by the DOE is complete (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 6).

Step 2(b): Grading by a member of the A/R Working Group

If no voluntary pre-assessment is undertaken, the proposed methodology will be forwarded to one member of the A/R Working Group for grading:

This member is to assess the quality of the submission and grade it between 1 and 2 and substantiate the appraisal (one paragraph). If the member grades the documentation as being 2, the documentation is to be sent back to the project participants. If the grade is 1, the documentation shall be considered as received by the Board and be forwarded by the secretariat for consideration of the Board and the A/R Working Group. The A/R Working Group shall finalize its recommendation to the Board within two meetings of the panel. The member responsible for pre-assessing a proposed new methodology shall receive a half-day fee as remuneration (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 5).

The grading must use the same criteria set out in F-CDM-NMas.

Step 3: Public comment

While the preliminary assessment and grading is taking place, the secretariat will make the proposed methodology publicly available and invite the public to make submissions on it using the Proposed new methodology – public comment form (F-CDM-AR-NMpu):

At the same time, in accordance with the practice of the Executive Board to invite public input on technical documentation developed by the Executive Board and its panels and working groups, the secretariat shall make the proposed new A/R methodology publicly available on the UNFCCC CDM website and invite public inputs for a period of 15 working days. Public inputs on a proposed new A/R methodology shall be made using the “Proposed new A/R methodology - public comment form”(F-CDM-AR-NMpu)4. Comments shall be forwarded to the A/R Working Group at the moment of receipt and made available to the public at the end of the 15 working day period (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 7).

The CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology - public comment form (F-CDM-AR-NMpu) is contained in EB 25 Annex 21 (Version 2).

The current public comment form requires the following information from a person or organisation commenting on the proposed new methodology:

Name of person / organization responsible for completing and submitting this form

Contact information (address, phone, e-mail …)

Related F-CDM-AR-NM document ID number (EB 25, Annex 21).

Comments should be based on assessment of the CDM-AR-NM and its application in sections A to C of the draft CDM-AR-PDD:

Based on an assessment of the CDM-AR-NM and its application in the draft CDM-AR-PDD, please provide your comments to the proposed new AR methodology. Please indicate the sections or issues to which your comments refer (EB 25, Annex 21).

Comments received are forwarded to the A/R Working Group for consideration:

Comments shall be forwarded to the A/R Working Group at the moment of receipt and made available to the public at the end of the 15 working day period (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 7).

Step 4: Desk review by experts

Two experts are selected from a roster of experts to review the validity of the proposed new methodology and provide feedback that will be considered by the A/R Working Group in the preparation of its recommendation to the Executive Board:

The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the A/R Working Group, with the assistance of the secretariat and in consultation with the four selected A/R Working Group members, shall, no later than seven working days after the receipt of the proposed new A/R methodology, select two experts from a roster of experts6 (lead and second reviewers) who are to undertake a desk review to appraise the validity of the proposed new A/R methodology. The lead reviewer is to be paid a three (3) days fee and the second reviewer a two (2) days fee for the first 100 pages of the proposed new methodology (CDMNM) and for each additional 30 pages, or part thereof, a (1) one day fee. The two reviewers should provide inputs independently (EB 37 Annex 4, paragraph 13).

Each desk reviewer is to prepare a recommendation for the A/R Working Group within 10 days of receiving a proposed methodology:

Each desk reviewer shall prepare, under the guidance of the Chair of the A/R Working Group and in accordance with the provisions of the modalities and procedures for CDM A/R project activities, his/her recommendation to the A/R Working Group. He/she shall forward it, wherever possible, within 10 working days after having received a proposed methodology using the respective current version of the forms “CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology – lead expert desk review form”(F-CDM-AR-NMex_3d) and “CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology – second expert desk review form”(F-CDM-AR-NMex_2d) (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 14).

The current versions of the desk review forms are found in EB 22 Annex 13(b) and 13(c). The review forms are used by methodology lead experts providing desk review for a proposed new methodology.

The desk review forms are called 3d and 2d to indicate that the lead reviewer should spend 3 days preparing his or her report, and other reviewer should spend 2 days:

In order to make more efficient use of expertise, to select one lead reviewer from among the two desk reviewers selected to consider each case; the lead reviewer is to be paid 3 days fee and the second reviewer a 2 days fee. The two reviewers should provide inputs independently. The modalities of work between the lead reviewer and the second reviewer shall be further developed at the twentieth meeting of the Board (EB 19, Agenda sub-item 3(b)(f)) .

F-CDM-AR-NMex_3d and F-CDM-AR-NMex_2d

The lead review form (F-CDM-AR-NMex_3d) and second review form (F-CDM-AR-NMex_2d) require a general evaluation of the proposed new methodology, setting out any changes (major and minor) needed to improve the methodology (EB 22, Annexes 13(b) and 13(c)).

Both F-CDM-NMex_3d and F-CDM-NMex_2d require the reviewer to provide general information on the methodology, including:

The purpose of the methodology;

The appropriateness of the selected baseline approach;

The applicability conditions of the methodology;

Selected carbon pools and emissions sources;

Summary description of the main A/R baseline and monitoring methodological steps;

Relationship with approved or pending A/R methodologies (if applicable);

The definition of the project boundary;

Procedure for the selection of the baseline scenario;

Demonstration of additionality;

Estimation of baseline net GHG removals by sinks;

Ex ante net actual greenhouse gas removals by sinks;

Leakage;

Ex ante net anthropogenic removals by sinks;

Data needed for calculations;

Reviewers must then make recommendations on the appropriateness of:

Monitoring project implementation;

Sampling design;

Determination of ex post baseline net GHG removals by sinks;

Calculation of ex post actual net GHG removals by sinks;

Leakage;

Ex post net anthropogenic GHG removal by sinks;

Conservative approach and uncertainties (adapted from EB 22, Annexes 13(b) and 13(c)).

Step 5: Assessment and recommendation by the A/R Working Group

In parallel to the expert desk review process, up to four members of the A/R Working Group are selected to assess the draft pre-assessment report prepared by the secretariat:

Upon receipt of a proposed new methodology, four members of the A/R Working Group, one as lead who will be responsible for presenting the case at the meetings, shall be selected on a rotational basis in alphabetical order to independently review the draft recommendation prepared by the secretariat (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 12).

Less than four members may be appointed if the current case load is very large.

The secretariat then compiles the inputs from these A/R Working Group members, the appointed experts and the members of the public, and forwards these to the full A/R Working Group. The secretariat may also request any further information that is required from project participants:

The secretariat shall be responsible for compiling different inputs, including those from other members of the A/R Working Group, public and desk reviewers, and prepare a draft recommendation for consideration by the A/R Working Group. The secretariat may seek guidance of the Chair of the working group, as required. The secretariat may request the project participants, copying the selected members and the DOE, to make available additional technical information necessary to further clarify or assist in analyzing the proposed new methodology with a deadline for responding. The four selected panel members shall be paid a fee for one (1) working day for the review of the draft recommendations as prepared by the secretariat (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 12).

The A/R Working Group prepares a summary recommendation using the Proposed new methodology – A/R Working Group summary recommendation to the Executive Board form (F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar) and a full recommendation using Proposed new methodology – A/R Working Group recommendation to the Executive Board form (F-CDM-AR-NMar). These are based on the draft pre-assessment and must take into account the inputs compiled by the secretariat:

The A/R Working Group, taking into consideration public comments and the recommendations by the desk reviewers, shall prepare its preliminary recommendation regarding the approval of the proposed new A/R methodology to the Executive Board using the form “CDM: Proposed New Methodology – working group recommendation summary to the Executive Board” (F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar)7 based on the draft prepared by the secretariat and independently reviewed by the four selected members of the A/R working group. The recommendations used for consultations with project participants shall be documented in the latest version of the “CDM: Proposed New Methodology for A/R (CDM-AR-NM)” form (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 15).

As noted above, the current version of the procedures does not refer to F-CDM-AR-NMar, and requires the A/R Working Group to prepare only a summary recommendation using F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar. However, the current version of F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar states that it is to be used in conjunction with F-CDM-AR-NMar, and F-CDM-AR-NMar is still available on the ‘Forms’ section of the CDM website, indicating that it is still used by the A/R Working Group to make recommendations to the Executive Board.

In order to prepare the draft recommendation, the A/R Working Group must have access to a proposed methodology ten weeks before its next meeting:

A proposed new A/R methodology shall be available to the A/R Working Group at least ten weeks prior to its next meeting. The secretariat shall make public, through the UNFCCC CDM website, the date of a meeting and the corresponding deadline at least ten weeks prior to the meeting (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 8)

F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar and F-CDM-AR-NMar

The recommendation forms require the A/R Working Group to evaluate certain aspects of the methodology (similar to the criteria listed above for the preliminary assessment) and reach an overall recommendation of either ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’, where:

‘A’ means approve this proposed methodology with minor changes;

‘B’ means reconsider this proposed methodology, subject to required changes; and

‘C’ means not approve the proposed methodology.

The recommendation forms are only forwarded to the Executive Board once the methodology has received an ‘A’ or ‘C’ classification. If a ‘B’ classification is awarded, the preliminary recommendation is sent to the proponents and further information is requested:

The A/R Working Group shall, through the secretariat, copying the DOE, forward its preliminary recommendation to project participants.

Within a timeframe stipulated by the Chair of the A/R Working Group (but not exceeding 4 weeks), after the receipt of the preliminary recommendation of the A/R Working Group by the project participants, the project participants may submit (copying the DOE), clarifications to the A/R Working Group, through the secretariat, on technical issues concerning the proposed new methodology raised in the preliminary recommendation by the A/R Working Group. Technical clarifications provided by the project participants shall include the revisions, in the form for baseline and monitoring methodologies (CDM-AR-NM) in a highlighted form. Clarifications provided by the project participants shall be made available to the Executive Board and to the public soon after they have been received by the secretariat (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 15(c)).

If clarifications are requested from project proponents and received, the A/R Working Group prepares a final recommendation to the Executive Board. Both the summary recommendation and the full recommendation are then forwarded to Board members via the secretariat:

If project participants provide clarifications related to the preliminary recommendation by the A/R Working Group, the A/R Working Group shall consider these clarifications at its next meeting and prepare its final recommendation to the Executive Board. The final recommendation shall be forwarded to the Executive Board and made publicly available (EB 32, Annex 13, paragraph 15(d)).

Where possible the Meth Panel shall make a recommendation to the Executive Board on the approval of the proposed methodology at its next meeting:

Whenever a proposed new A/R methodology is submitted to the A/R Working Group in accordance with paragraph 8 and 9 above, it shall analyze it and, if possible at its next meeting, make a recommendation regarding the approval of the proposed new A/R methodology to the Executive Board (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 11).

However, some submissions may be postponed by the Chair of the A/R Working Group if there are more than ten proposed new methodologies:

In case more than ten (10) proposed new A/R methodologies are submitted by the deadline for submissions of proposed new A/R methodologies, the Chair of the A/R Working Group shall ascertain how many proposals shall be analyzed at the next meeting of the A/R Working Group and decide to postpone the analysis of some submissions to the subsequent meeting of the A/R Working Group. Submissions received and confirmed to be completed by the secretariat shall be treated on a “first come first served” basis (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 10).

Step 6: Approval by the Executive Board

At its next meeting, the Executive Board will either approve or not approve the proposed methodology:

The Executive Board shall consider a proposed new A/R methodology at the next meeting following the receipt of the recommendation regarding the approval (“A” case) or non-approval (“C” case) of the proposed new A/R methodology by the A/R Working Group (EB 37, Annex 43, paragraph 16).

Once it has been approved, the methodology is made publicly available and validation of the project activity may continue:

Once approved by the Executive Board, it shall make the approved methodology publicly available and the designated operational entity may proceed with the validation of the proposed CDM A/R project activity and submit the project design document (CDM-AR-PDD) for registration (EB 37, Annex 4, paragraph 3).

Relationship between the submission and consideration of new methodologies and DOE accreditation

At EB 7, the Executive Board clarified the relationship between the process of accreditation and designation of DOEs and the approval of new methodologies. The graph below describes this relationship (EB 7, Annex 1). It describes steps in the process, including timelines, for submitting and approving a new methodology (baseline and/or monitoring). The graph highlights in particular that

the witnessing of an applicant entity for validation shall take place simultaneously with the validation of an approved methodology and subsequent registration of the proposed CDM project activity.

shows that the role of the DOE at validation of a proposed methodology is limited to checking whether the documentation is complete.

two scenarios may arise after approval of a new methodology:

The proposed methodology was accepted without modification. Validation can proceed immediately if all information required for validation is available;

The proposed methodology was modified. Validation only proceeds once project participants have adjusted their documentation (dotted line).

It should be noted that this clarification is expressed only in general terms, without specific reference to A/R projects. There is, however, no indication that A/R projects are to be excluded from it.