Review of issuance
Issuance is considered final 6 weeks after the receipt of a request for issuance, unless a review is requested:
The period to request review by a Parties involved or three Board members shall be six weeks from the date of receipt of the request for issuance (EB 32, Annex 39, paragraph 22).
This contrasts with the position for CDM project activities, for which issuance is deemed final unless a review is requested within 15 days.
Therefore, a request for review may be initiated by the submission of a request for review to the Executive Board. The request for review must be:
- Submitted within 6 weeks of the receipt of the request for issuance; and
- Submitted by a Party involved in the PoA or at least three members of the Executive Board.
A request for review will result in the Executive Board assessing whether certified emission reductions (CERs) should be issued in response to a request for issuance.
3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 65 sets out the parameters for a reviewing a request for issuance:
Such a review shall be limited to issues of fraud, malfeasance or incompetence of the designated operational entities and be conducted as follows:
- Upon receipt of a request for such a review, the Executive Board, at its next meeting, shall decide on its course of action. If it decides that the request has merit it shall perform a review and decide whether the proposed issuance of CERs should be approved;
- The Executive Board shall complete its review within 30 days following its decision to perform the review;
- The Executive Board shall inform the project participants of the outcome of the review, and make public its decision regarding the approval of the proposed issuance of CERs and the reasons for it (3/CMP.1, Annex, paragraph 65).
The procedures relating to reviews of issuance for CDM project activities apply also to Programmes of Activities (PoA) and CDM Programme Activities (CPAs) within a PoA:
The procedures for verification, certification and request for issuance of certified emission reductions (CERs) as referred to in paragraphs 62, 63 and 64 of Decision 3/CMP.1 and the procedures for review of requests for issuance of CERs as contained in Annex IV to Decision 4/CMP.1 and subsequent related decisions of the Executive Board shall apply unless modified through the provisions below (EB 32, Annex 39, paragraph 18).
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) and "Procedures for Requests for Issuance of CERs" (EB 54, Annex 35, paragraphs 16 - 20):
EB 54, Annex 35 sets out the procedure for requesting a review of a request for issuance:
16. A request for review by a Party involved in the CDM project activity shall be sent by the relevant designated national authority to the Executive Board, through the secretariat, using official means of communication (such as recognized official letterhead and signature or an official dedicated e mail account). A request for review by any member of the Executive Board shall be made by notifying the Executive Board through the secretariat.
17. The secretariat shall acknowledge the receipt of a request for review and promptly make it available to the Executive Board.
18. A request for review shall be considered to be received by the Executive Board on the date it has been received by the secretariat. A request for review will not be considered by the Executive Board if it is received after 17:00 GMT of the last day of the 28 day period following the publication of the request for issuance.
19. A request for review shall:
a. include the latest CDM project activity issuance review form (F-CDM-IR) adopted by the Executive Board,
b. provide reasons for the request for review, based on the latest version of the 'Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Manual' and other CDM requirements, and any supporting documentation.
20. If a Party involved in a CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members request a review of the request for issuance, the secretariat shall:
a. notify the project participants and the DOE that conducted the verification that a Party involved in a CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members have requested a review of the request for issuance,
b. mark the request for issuance as 'under review' on the UNFCCC CDM website (EB 54, Annex 35, paragraphs 16-20).
Procedure for Review of Requests for Issuance of CERs further clarifies and adds to the procedures for requesting a review, namely:
7. If a Party involved in a proposed CDM project activity or at least three Executive Board members request a review of the request for issuance, 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).
8. The project participants and the DOE shall provide responses to the issues identified in the request for review no later than 28 calendar days after the notification of the request for review.
9. For each issue (or sub-issue) raised in the request for review, the project participants and 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.
10. The secretariat shall schedule the commencement of the review of the request for issuance in accordance with its operational plans and in accordance with any relevant instructions from the Executive Board. These plans and instructions shall be made publicly available. Upon scheduling the commencement date, the secretariat shall inform the project participants and DOE of this scheduled commencement date and any alterations to it.
11. 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:
18. The RIT Team shall communicate its assessment to the Executive Board by submitting it to the secretariat.
19. 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
25. … 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, Annex, 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
27. … 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.
The communication requirements related to the above decision making are set out below:
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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).