Assessing a new methodology

Once a proposed methodology has been submitted, the procedure for consideration of the methodology is as follows:

The UNFCCC checks that documentation is complete and forwards the documentation to the Executive Board and the Small-Scale Working Group (SSC WG).

The proposed new methodology is made public for 14 days and public comment is invited.

An expert is chosen to review the proposed methodology and make recommendations;

The SSC WG considers the proposed new methodology and the recommendation of the expert, and makes a recommendation to the Executive Board.

The Executive Board approves or rejects the proposed new methodology.

Step 1: UNFCCC Secretariat checking and forwarding

After checking that the documentation is complete, the UNFCCC forwards it to the SSC WG and the Executive Board:

After performing a completeness check, the UNFCCC Secretariat shall forward the documentation to the Executive Board and the Small Scale Working Group (SSC WG). The date of the secretariat’s transmission of the documentation to the SSC WG and Executive Board is deemed the date of the Board’s receipt of the proposal for a new SSC methodology (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 3).

Step 2: Inviting public comment

The documentation is made public for 10 days and public comment is invited:

In accordance with the Board’s practice of inviting public input on technical documentation, the secretariat also shall make the proposed new SSC methodology publicly available on the UNFCCC CDM website and invite public inputs for a period of ten (10) working days (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 4).

Public comment must be made using the CDM: Proposed new small scale methodology - public comment form (F-CDM-SSC-NMpu). The latest version of this form is contained in EB 34, Annex 14:

Public inputs on a proposed new SSC methodology shall be made using the current version of the “CDM: Proposed new small scale methodology - public comment form (F-CDM-SSC-NMpu) and sent to the UNFCCC Secretariat at secretariat@unfccc.int. Public inputs received by the secretariat shall be forwarded to the SSC WG soon after receipt and made publicly available at the end of the ten (10) day public comment period (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 5).

The public is invited to comment on the proposed methodology and its application to the draft CDM-SSC-PDD:

Based on an assessment of the proposed small scale methodology and its application in sections A to C of the draft CDM-SSC-PDD, provide your comments to the proposed new small scale methodology. Please indicate the sections or issues to which your comments refer (EB 34, Annex 14).

Step 3: Desk review by an expert

An expert is selected from a roster of experts to review the validity of the proposed new methodology:

The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the SSC WG, with the assistance of the secretariat and in consultation with the assigned SSC WG members, shall, no later than four (4) working days after receipt of the proposed new SSC methodology, select one expert from the roster of experts to undertake a desk review to appraise the validity of the proposed new SSC methodology (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 9).

Each desk reviewer is to prepare a recommendation for the Meth Panel within 10 days of receiving a proposed methodology:

Under the guidance of the Chair of the SSC WG and in accordance with the provisions of the simplified modalities and procedures for small scale CDM projects, the desk reviewer shall prepare a recommendation and forward it to the secretariat within six (6) working days after receiving the assignment, using the current version of the form “CDM: Proposed new small scale methodology expert form (F-CDM-SCC-NM-exp)”4. The desk reviewer shall be paid a fee of two (2) working days. The SSC WG, facilitated by the secretariat, may draw on additional expertise as required for the further assessment of the submission (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 9).

The current version of the desk review form is contained in EB 34, Annex 14 (Version 1). The desk reviewer must consider the appropriateness of:

The applicability conditions
The project boundary
The baseline
The methodological basis for calculating baseline emissions and emission reductions
Leakage
Key assumptions
Data and parameters not monitored
Key data and parameters monitored
Assessment of uncertainties
Transparency, conservativeness and consistency
Changes required for the 2nd and 3rd crediting periods (adapted from EB 34, Annex 14)

The expert should then advise on whether any changes are needed to improve the small-scale methodology.

Step 4: Assessment and recommendation by the Small-Scale Working Group

In parallel to the expert desk review process, two members of the SSC WG are selected to assess the draft pre-assessment report prepared by the secretariat:

The SSC WG shall analyze proposed new SSC methodologies submitted in accordance with these provisions. Under the guidance of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the SSC WG, a minimum of two (2) members of the SSC WG shall be assigned to review each proposed new methodology. The assigned SSC WG members shall each be paid a half-day (0.5) fee for the consideration and review of each proposed new SSC methodology considered at a SSCWG meeting. Any member who does not provide comments by the pre-meeting deadline as provided by the secretariat, shall be paid a quarter-day (0.25) fee and the Chair may decline the payment of any fee outright should he/she determine that input provided is insufficient (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 8).

The secretariat then compiles the inputs from these SSC WG members, the appointed experts and the members of the public, and forwards these to the full SSC WG:

The secretariat shall compile all inputs -- from members of the SSC WG, the public, the expert’s desk review, expertise outside the SSC WG and any additional information obtained from the proponents of the new methodology -- and prepare draft methodologies and recommendations for the SSC WG’s consideration using the current version of the form “CDM: Recommendation form for CDM Small Scale Methodologies (“F-CDM-SSCwg”). The SSC WG, shall base its recommendation on the proposed new SSC methodology in the draft as prepared by the secretariat (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 11).

The secretariat may also request any further information that is required from project participants:

At any stage before preparation of the SSC WG’s final recommendation, the secretariat may request the proponents of the new SSC methodology to provide additional technical information necessary to assist in analysis of the methodology, with a deadline for responses and copies to the selected members of the SSC WG. The secretariat shall make these communications available to the SSC WG and the public on the UNFCCC CDM website as soon as possible or archive them if the proposal is marked confidential (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 10).

If such further information is not provided within 3 months, it will be assumed that the proposal has been withdrawn:

Where the SSC WG has requested further clarifications from the project participants, if there is no response within the timeframe of three (3) months, the case will be considered as withdrawn (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 14).

The SSC WG will then make a recommendation to the Executive Board:

Having analyzed proposed new SSC methodologies in accordance with the paragraphs above, the SSC WG shall, if possible, make a recommendation regarding the approval of the proposed new SSC methodology to the Executive Board at its next meeting. The SSC WG shall not forward to the Board any submissions that it deems not suitable for recommendation to the Board or where it has sought further clarification from the project participants. The responses to the proponents for those submissions not recommended to the Board, are considered as agreed upon by the Board unless revised by the Board at its next meeting (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 13).

In order to be considered by the SSC WG, the proposed methodology must be received at least 8 weeks before the SSC WG meeting:

To be considered at a meeting of the SSC WG, the secretariat shall receive a proposed new SSC methodology at least eight (8) weeks before the meeting. Incomplete proposals submitted by the deadline cannot be guaranteed consideration at the subsequent meeting (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 6).

If several proposals are received, they are dealt with on a 'first-come, first-served' basis:

If more than five (5) proposed new SSC methodologies are submitted by the deadline, cognizant of workload of the SSC WG and priorities set by the Board, the Chair of the SSC WG shall ascertain how many proposals shall be analyzed at the next meeting of the SSC WG and may decide to postpone the analysis of some submissions to the subsequent meeting of the SSC WG. Submissions received and confirmed to be complete by the secretariat shall be treated on a “first come first served” basis (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 7).

Step 5: Executive Board approval

The Executive Board will then approve or reject the proposed new methodology:

The Board shall expeditiously review a submitted proposed methodology in accordance with the simplified modalities and procedures for small scale CDM project activities. Once approved, the secretariat shall make the methodology publicly available and a designated operational entity may proceed with the validation of the project activity applying the new methodology and submit the project design document (CDM-SSC-PDD) for registration (EB 37, Annex 8, paragraph 15).

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 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 small-scale projects. There is, however, no indication small-scale projects are to be excluded from it.