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 A/R Working Group (A/R WG), which in turn seeks assistance from experts to conduct a desk review, as described in this section. At the end of this assessment process, A/R WG 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 53, Annex 13. The current guidance is version 1 and replaces earlier guidance in EB 37 Annex 4.

In summary, the assessment process is as follows (sourced from EB 53, Annex 13):

The secretariat prepares a draft pre-assessment in accordance with the criteria found within the CDM: Proposed new methodology assessment form (F-CDM-AR-NMas), and prepares an assessment report using the same form within 30 days of the submission deadline.

The outcome of the assessment is either:

unqualified - which receive no further consideration, but may be re-submitted; or

qualified.

Qualified assessments are made available for public comment for a period of 15 days.

A draft recommendation is prepared by the secretariat (with or without consideration of any independent expert(s)' assessment) and forwarded to two selected A/R Working Group members.

The two A/R Working Group members prepare an initial recommendation for consideration by the A/R Working Group.

The A/R Working Group considers the project participants' submission and the members' initial recommendation and finalises its recommendation on the A/R PNM over the course of no more than 4 consecutive meetings (unless additional guidance from the Executive Board is required).

The secretariat prepares the draft reformatted methodology based on the A/R PNM for consideration of the A/R Working Group.

The A/R Working Group may make:

a final recommendation to the Executive Board to approve the A/R PNM; or

a final recommendation to the Executive Board not to approve the A/R PNM; or

a preliminary recommendation to the project participants who may provide clarification to concerns raised by the A/R Working Group.

If the A/R Working Group cannot make a recommendation to the Executive Board within the time frame stated in step 6, the secretariat presents unresolved issues to the Executive Board at its next meeting for permission to continue considering the A/R PNM.

If the A/R Working Group make a recommendation not to approve the A/R PNM, the secretariat publises on the UNFCCC CDM website the following:

the final recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed new methodology for A/R CDM project activities (form CDM-AR-NM); and

the summary recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed New Methodology - working group recommendation to the Executive Board (form F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar).

If the A/R Working Group make a recommendation to approve the A/R PNM, the secretariat publises on the UNFCCC CDM website the following:

the final recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed new methodology for A/R CDM project activities (form CDM-AR-NM)

the summary recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed New Methodology - working group recommendation to the Executive Board (form F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar); and

the draft reformatted methodology based on the A/R PNM.

The secretariat places the consideration of the recommendation on the A/R PNM on the annotated agenda of the subsequent Executive Board meeting.

Step 1: Pre-assessment

Once the project participant(s)' submissions have been received by a DOE, the DOE must then:

check the completeness of the documents received from the project participants;

complete the CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology form (form F-CDM-AR-NM); and

submit the documents using the A/R PNM submission interface of the UNFCCC website.

The secretariat checks whether the project participants' documents (the completed CDM-AR-NM and CDM-AR-PDD) are complete within 5 working days after the deadline for submissions.

Where the forms are deemed to be completed satisfactorily, the secretariat confirms this with the DOE.

Where the forms are deemed to be completed unsatisfactorily, the secretariat informs the DOE of the reasons for its decision. The DOE may then provide the missing information (if this is the case) within 2 working days after being informed by the secretariat. Otherwise, the submission is assessed as incomplete and rejected.

Once a submission is deemed to be complete, the secretariat then commences the assessment process, discussed below.

Step 2: Assessment by the secretariat

The secretariat assesses each submission in accordance with the criteria in the current version of the CDM: Proposed new A/R methodology assessment form (form F-CDM-AR-NMas) and prepares an assessment report using the same form within 30 days of the submission deadline.

The outcome of the secretariat's assessment is either:

"unqualified"; or

"qualified".

Step 2(a): A/R PNMs assessed as "unqualified"

Where the A/R PNM is assessed as unqualified, the secretariat selects two members of the A/R Working Group and forwards its assessment report to those members to perform an independent assessment of the A/R PNM.

Where both A/R Working Group members confirm the secretariat's assessment, the secretariat forwards its assessment report to the project participants, copying the DOE. The unqualified A/R PNM is not subjected to further consideration, but may be resubmitted again at any time in accordance with EB 53, Annex 13.

Where at least one of the A/R Working Group members does not confirm the secretariat's assessment, the member/members update the assessment report and the A/R PNM is deemed qualified, in which case the process continues as discussed in Step 2(b) below.

Step 2(b): A/R PNMs assessed as "qualified" - public comment

Where the A/R PNM is assessed as qualified, whether by the secretariat's original assessment or via the process in Step 2(a),

the secretariat assigns a reference number to the A/R PNM and makes the A/R PNM (form CDM-AR-NM) publicly available on the UNFCCC CDM website, inviting public comments for a period of 15 calendar days using the current version of the Proposed CDM A/R new A/R methodology - public comment form (form F-CDM-AR-NMpu);

the secretariat informs the public of the call for public comments through the UNFCCC CDM newsletter; and

at the end of the period, the secretariat makes all public comments publicly available on the UNFCCC CDM website

Step 2(c): A/R PNMs assessed as "qualified" - further processes

Different processes follow depending on whether the A/R PNM is assessed as qualified by the secretariat's original assessment or via the process in Step 2(a).

Where the A/R PNM is assessed as qualified on the basis of:

the secretariat's original assessment, then the secretariat must:

prepare a draft recommendation on the A/R PNM taking into account any public comments and independent expert(s)' reports (where independent experts are consulted in relation to technically complex A/R PNM);

select two members of the A/R Working Group to assess the A/R PNM who, taking into account the secretariat's draft recommendation, assess the A/R PNM; and

prepare an initial recommendation for the consideration of the A/R Working Group, taking into account the members' assessment.

the process in Step 2(a), then the secretariat must:

prepare a draft recommendation on the A/R PNM based on the updated assessment report, taking into account any public comments and independent expert(s)' reports (where independent experts are consulted in relation to technically complex A/R PNM); and

forward the draft recommendation to the two A/R WG members (being the two members who initially provided independent assessments of the A/R PNM originally deemed by the secretariat as "unqualified"), who are to prepare an initial recommendation for the consideration of the A/R WG.

Step 2(d): Desk reviews by independent experts

Depending on the technical complexity of the A/R PNM submitted, the secretariat may (with the approval of the Chair of the A/R WG) select 1 or 2 independent experts, at least one of whom is from the roster of experts.

The independent expert(s) shall undertake desk reviews to assess the A/R PNM and report the outcome of such assessment using the latest version of the following forms (where appropriate):

CDM: Proposed New A/R Methodology Expert Form - Lead Review (form F-CDM-AR-NMex_3d); or

CDM: Proposed New A/R Methodology Expert Form - Second Review (form F-CDM-AR-NMex_2d); or

CDM: Proposed new methodology expert form - Second Review (Sectoral/Industry expert) (form F-CDM-NMex_Sect).

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 3: Assessment and recommendation by the A/R Working Group

The A/R Working Group considers the submissions of the project participants and the initial recommendation provided to it and finalises its recommendation on the A/R PNM:

The A/R WG considers the project participants' submission and the members' initial recommendation and finalizes its recommendation on the A/R PNM over the course of no more than four consecutive meetings unless an additional guidance from the Board is required. (EB 53, Annex 13, paragraph 21).

Depending on the progress of the A/R WG's consideration of the A/R PNM, the secretariat may commence preparation of a draft reformatted methodology based on the A/R PNM for the consideration of the A/R WG.

Following each meeting at which the A/R PNM is considered, the A/R WG must do one of the following:

make a final recommendation to the Executive Board to approve the A/R PNM (referred to as "A"); or

make a final recommendation to the Executive Board not to approve the A/R PNM (referred to as "C"); or

make a preliminary recommendation to the project participants who may provide clarification regarding issues raised within that recommendation; or

where no recommendation is agreed upon, continue consideration of the A/R PNM (referred to as a work-in-progress) within the 4-meeting timeframe allowed (giving reasons for this in its meeting report).

No recommendation

Where the A/R WG does not agree whether to recommend the A/R PNM to the Executive Board at 3 meetings, the secretariat presents the unresolved issues to the Executive Board at its next meeting in order to obtain the Board's request to either:

continue the consideration of the A/R PNM by the A/R WG; or

conclude the consideration of the A/R PNM during the next meeting of the A/R WG.

Final recommendation to approve

Where the A/R WG agrees to recommend that the Executive Board approve the A/R PNM, the secretariat publishes on the UNFCCC CDM website the following as agreed by the A/R WG:

the final recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed new methodology for A/R CDM project activities (form CDM-AR-NM);

the summary recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed New Methodology - working group recommendation summary to the Executive Board (form F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar); and

the draft reformatted methodology based on the A/R PNM.

Final recommendation not to approve

Where the A/R WG agrees to recommend that the Executive Board not approve the A/R PNM, the secretariat publishes on the UNFCCC CDM website the following as agreed by the A/R WG:

the final recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed new methodology for A/R CDM project activities (form CDM-AR-NM); and

the summary recommendation using the form CDM: Proposed New Methodology - working group recommendation summary to the Executive Board (form F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar).

Preliminary recommendation

Where the A/R WG agree to the preliminary recommendation, the secretariat publishes it on the UNFCCC CDM website in accordance with the CDM: Proposed new methodology for A/R (form CDM-AR-NM). The secretariat also forwards the recommendation to the project participants, copying the DOE.

Project participants may provide clarifications, through the secretariat, to the A/R WG:

After receiving a preliminary recommendation, the project participants may submit (copying the DOE) through the secretariat, clarifications to the A/R WG concerning the A/R PNM raised in the recommendation. If project participants provide clarifications related to a preliminary recommendation within four weeks of receiving the preliminary recommendation, then the A/R WG considers the A/R PNM at its next meeting. If these clarifications include changes to the A/R PNM as submitted in the CDM: Proposed new methodology form (form CDM-AR-NM), and/or the project design document as submitted in the Project design document for afforestation and reforestation project activities form (form CDM-AR-PDD), then all changes shall be highlighted. The secretariat makes such clarifications available to the Board and publishes them on the UNFCCC CDM website. (EB 53, Annex 13, paragraph 28)

If project participants do not provide a response to the preliminary recommendation within 3 months of the publishing date of the report of the A/R WG meeting at which the A/R PNM received its preliminary recommendation, then the submission is considered withdrawn.

F-CDM-AR-NMSUMar and F-CDM-AR-NM

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.

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)).

Step 4: Consideration by the Executive Board

Following a recommendation by the A/R WG, the secretariat places the consideration of the recommendation on the A/R PNM on the annotated agenda of a subsequent Executive Board meeting. The Executive Board will either approve or not approve the proposed methodology.

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.