Harmonized implementation of CDM Accreditation

2003-03-28

CDM-Accreditation Panel

2

Contents

Foreword

Part 1: Impact of revision of Procedure for accrediting OEs

Part 2: Significant issues in Requirements for OEs and Procedure for accrediting OEs

3

Foreword

This paper provides clarifications by the CDM Accreditation Panel (AP) on Provisions in Procedure for accrediting Operational Entities (OEs) and Requirements for OEs in order to ensure harmonized implementation of CDM accreditation.

Part 1 summarizes main impacts of recent revision of Procedure for accrediting OEs while Part 2 covers significant issues in Requirements for OEs and Procedure for accrediting OEs.

Part 1: Impact of revision of Procedure for accrediting OEs (1)

1.1 Implementation of revised Procedure;

1.2 Object of accreditation;

1.3 Object of witnessing;

1.4 Val. and/or Ver./Cert. activities that were witnessed during assessment;

1.5 Projects subject to Val. and/or Ver./Cert. witnessed;

4

Part 1: Impact of revision of Procedure for accrediting OEs (2)

1.6 Grouping of witnessing activities;

1.7 Phase-wise accreditation;

1.8 Publication of new application;

1.9 Requirements vs. check-list; and

1.10 Resolution of any inadequacy.

5

1.1 Implementation of revised Procedure (Para. 2)

• Any revision shall be immediately made public;• A revised procedure supersedes any previous

version as of the date indicated on the document [e.g. 30 January, 2003 for this revision]; and

• A revision to a step in the procedure shall not be applied retroactively if an AE started to undergo this step before the relevant revision took effect.

6

1.1 AP clarification:

• Regarding the third bullet point (not retroactively), ATs’ attention is drawn to the fact that many of the revisions adopted in the current version are based on the decisions of clarifications/reminders already made by EB before this revision.

7

1.2 Object of accreditation (Para. 4.2)

• Only those premises of an AE where the on-site assessment took place shall receive the accreditation/designation as an AE.

• Any other part of that entity is not accredited/designated.

8

1.3 Object of witnessing (Para. 4.3)

• Witnessing activities at the stage of validation, and, if appropriate, verification and certification, may be undertaken by considering documentary evidence (e.g. a “procedural report”).

9

1.4 Val. and/or Ver./Cert. activities that were witnessed (Para. 4.

3)• Validation and/or verification and

certification activities witnessed during the accreditation procedure, are considered valid if the AE is successfully accredited by the EB.

10

1.5 Projects subject to Val. and/or Ver./Cert. witnessed

(note 6 to Para. 4.3)• The [Val. and/or Ver./Cert.] tasks witn

essed by AT shall be carried out on either proposed and/or registered CDM project activities, as applicable.

11

1.6 Grouping of witnessing activities (Para. 4.3)

• Third sentence: AP shall decide whether more than one witnessing per scope is required.

• The second last sentence: “… which minimizes costs for an AE (e.g. grouping of such activities for the AE, implementation in conjunction with the on-site assessment of the AE.)”

12

1.6 AP clarification

• A single witnessing of the AE activities might serve, where appropriate, for building confidence in the AE’s competence in a couple of related scopes.

13

1.7 Phase-wise accreditation (Para. 6 and note 10 to Para.19.5)• The accreditation of an AE may be undertak

en in phases. If this is the case, the EB may decide to accredit the AE initially only for validation for the sectoral scope(s) which the AE applied for. The full accreditation shall only be granted to an AE once verification and certification activities have been successfully witnessed …..

14

1.8 Publication of new application (Para. 17 and 23)

• Sec.: To publish the name of the AE and the sectoral scope(s) applied for;

• Parties, accredited NGOs and stakeholders: To provide any comments and information within 15 days; and

• Sec.: To make the comments received publicly available immediately.

15

1.9 Requirements for OE vs. check-list

(note 12 to Para. 20 and note 14 to Para.29.1)

• Questions* contained in check-list of Reporting Forms shall be considered as prescriptive provisions of generic requirements described in “Standards for OEs”. [ * e.g.1(g), F-CDM-DR]

16

1.9 AP note:

• The AP is revising, for immediate use by AT members, the CDM-AT report forms, including F-CDM-DR. Revised version of the report forms will be available to AT members shortly.

17

1.10 Resolution of any inadequacy (Para.29.2)

• AT shall inform the AE of any inadequacy of the documentation for resolution before proceeding with on-site assessment.

18

1.10 AP clarification:

• AT shall inform the AE of any inadequacy of the documentation with regard to such documentation listed to be submitted in Application Form, by the judgment of the TL, for resolution before proceeding with on-site assessment.

19

Part 2: Significant issues of Requirements for OEs and Procedure f

or accrediting OEs

2.1 Para 8 of EB07 report

2.2 Applicant as a legal entity

2.3 Geographical area of activity

2.4 Conflict of interests

2.5 Requirements vs. check-list

2.6 Reporting Form on witness activity

20

2.1 Para 8 of EB07 report (1)Para. 8 of EB07 Report:“The Board agreed to clarify that when a project

activity proposes a new methodology, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the CDM M&P, a DOE is to check whether documents are complete and shall, without further analysis, forward the new methodology to the Board for its review and approval. After approval of the methodology by the EB, the same DOE, or another DOE, shall undertake the validation of the project activity in accordance with the CDM M&P.”

21

2.1 Para 8 of EB07 report (2)• The EB recently agreed to further clarify that:• An applicant entity may submit a new

methodology to the EB only if the following conditions are met:– 1. A CDM-AT has been assigned to the AE (i.e. the

CDM-AP has undertaken a preliminary consideration of the AE and the AE has agreed to the composition of the CDM-AT), and

– 2. The AE maintains documentary evidence (e.g. a procedural report) for each new methodology submitted to the EB.

22

2.1 AP clarification

• AP has recognized that the recent EB clarifications should be reflected to the AP work by asking all AEs’ confirmation whether they wish either to undergo the on-site assessment not in conjunction with witnessing or to postpone the on-site assessment until such time when they can provide opportunities for on-site assessment in conjunction with witnessing after approval of the new methodology by the EB.

23

2.2 Applicant as a legal entity• It has been identified that an application was

submitted on behalf of a CDM section within a legal entity.

• It has also been identified that an application was submitted on behalf of a person who is not formally authorized to represent the legal entity. AP has reminded the applicant that AP is only authorized to accept the application from a person who is formally authorized to represent the legal entity.

24

2.2 AP clarification• The AP is only authorized to accept the

application from a legal entity but not from a section thereof.

• The AP is only authorized to accept the application from a person who is formally authorized to represent the legal entity.

25

2.3 Geographical area of activity (1) • The recent revision of “Procedure” includes a

provision “Only those premises of an AE where the on-site assessment took place shall receive the accreditation/designation as an operational entity”

• Para.1 (f) (vi) of Standards refers to “Regional aspects”

• Para. 27 (d) of Section E refers to “subcontracting”

• EB 07 decision not to include “Regional scope(s)”

26

2.3 AP clarification: • An AT should assess the AE’s policy and procedure which

ensure confidence in activities to be carried-out outside of the office that was subject to on-site assessment.

• The premise of AE which is assessed shall have documented internal procedures for carrying out its functions in any region it chooses to operate; and a management structure that has overall responsibility for performance and implementation of the functions; including all decisions on items (a) through (h) of Para 27 of Section E. It shall not delegate its responsibility to others, including its branch office or subcontracted organization(s).

27

2.3 AP clarification, annex-1Section E “Designated operational entities” of “CDM M&P” 27. A designated operational entity shall:

– (a) Validate … ; – (b) Verify and certify …; – (c) Comply with applicable laws …; – (d) Demonstrate that it, and its subcontractors, have no real or

potential conflict of interest with …; – (e) Perform … , – (f) Maintain a publicly available list of all CDM …, – (g) Submit an annual activity report …., and – (h) Make information obtained from project participants publicly

available … .

28

2.3 AP clarification, annex-2

“Standards for OEs” sections:1(e): Have documented internal procedures for carrying o

ut its functions including , among others, procedures for the allocation of responsibility within the organization and for handling complaints. These procedures shall be made publicly available.

1(g): An OE shall have a management structure that has overall responsibility for performance and implementation of the entity’s functions, including quality assurance procedures, and all relevant decisions relating to validation, verification and certification. The AE shall make available (i) through (vi).

29

2.4 Conflict of interests (1) Para. 27 (d) of Section E of CDM M&P:

A DOE shall demonstrate that it, and its subcontractors, have no real or potential conflict of interest with the participants in the CDM project activities for which it has been selected to carry out validation or verification and certification functions.

30

2.4 Conflict of interests (2) Para. 2 of “Standards of OEs”: An AE shall meet th

e following operational requirements:(a) Work in a credible, independent, non-discrimina

tory and transparent manner, complying with applicable national law and meeting, in particular, the following requirements:

(i) An AE shall have a documented structure, which safeguards impartiality, including provisions to ensure impartiality of its operations;

31

2.4 Conflict of interests (3) (ii) If it is part of a larger organization, and where

parts of that organization are, or may become, involved in the identification, development or financing of any CDM project activity, the applicant operational entity shall:

- Make a declaration of all the organization’s actual and planned involvement in CDM project activities, if any, indicating which part of the organization is involved and in which particular CDM project activities;

32

2.4 AP clarification: 1. The AE, including its subcontractors, shall n

ot be involved in the CDM project activity including consultancy, at any stage/time, for which it has been selected to carry out validation and/or verification and certification functions. (27 (d) M&P and Appendix A M&P 2 (a) (i))

2. The word “it” in Para. 2 (a) (ii) of “Standards of OEs” shall be understood as “the AE” (Appendix A M&P) but not as “a section within the AE.”

33

2.5 Requirements vs. check-list

• It has been noted that in some instances the check-list in Desk Review Report Form does not adequately address the requirement for OEs, e.g. 1 (e) and (g) of “Standards for OEs” and that Report Form on witnessing has not been amended while the recent revision of “Procedure” allows witness activities at the stage of validation undertaken by considering documentary evidences provided by AE.

34

2.5 AP note:

• The AP is revising, for immediate use by AT members, CDM Report Forms including Report Form on Witness Activity. Revised version of the report forms will be available to AT members shortly.

35