Revising and withdrawing an approved methodology
In certain circumstances, the revision of an approved methodology may be required. A revision in this context is defined as:
…the modification of an approved methodology in order to improve it or broaden its scope and applicability. The revision results in the approved methodology with a new version number (EB 27 Annex 10, paragraph 3).
However, this guidance is misleading, as it suggests that any modification will result in a new ‘version’ of the same methodology. Contrasting guidance in the same Executive Board decision states that in fact only minor corrections can result in a new ‘version’, while major corrections will result in an entirely new methodology:
For minor revisions and corrections a simplified procedure is foreseen: They are to be approved as “versions” rather than “revisions” as is the practice of the Board. Minor revisions include also the incorporation of a proposed new methodology into an approved methodology that requires only minor modification. The source and project participant of the incorporated methodology should be mentioned in the new version. Minor revisions (including incorporations) result in a new “version” of the approved methodology, rather than a new consolidated methodology (EB 27 Annex 10, paragraph 6).
When can revisions be carried out?
The circumstances when revisions of approved methodologies can be carried out are set out in Clarifications to project participants on when to request a revision, clarification to an approved methodology or a deviation (EB 31, Annex 12; previously EB 30, Annex 1), and also in the Criteria for consolidations and revision of methodologies (EB 27 Annex 10).
A revision may be carried out when:
- new or a better understanding of scientific evidence indicate that emission reductions may be over- or under estimated based on the existing approved methodology or that the reductions may not be real, measurable and verifiable;
- the applicability conditions require broadening to include more potential project types or conditions for use;
- there are identified inconsistencies, errors and/or ambiguities in the language and/or formulae used within or between methodologies;
- there is scope for simplification and or more clarification in order to improve its user-friendliness (also to include clarifications that have been given by the Meth Panel in response to queries regarding the applicability of approved methodologies) (EB 27, Annex 10, paragraph 4).
A revision may also be carried out after a request from the COP/MOP, the Executive Board, the Meth Panel and working groups:
The revision of approved methodology may be carried out in response to requests by a project participant, relevant stakeholders, the Executive Board, the Meth Panel or Working Groups in accordance with the latest version of the procedures (EB 31 Annex 12, paragraph 5).
The revision may be carried out in response to requests recommended in the meetings by the COP/MOP, Executive Board, the Meth Panel and working groups. In addition revisions may be carried out in response to request for revisions as per the procedures for revisions (EB 27, Annex 10, paragraph 5).
It is appropriate for a project participant to request a revision when the proposed project activity is broadly similar to the project activity to which an approved methodology applies:
A request for revision is suited for situations where an approved methodology is not applicable to a project activity but the project activity is broadly similar to the project activities to which the approved methodology is applicable. Similarity is based on the nature (technology/measure) of the project activity and sources of the emissions affected by the project activity. For example, the approved methodology may not be applicable as the source of emissions affected by the project activities are the same but the technology/measure used in the project activity is not covered under the applicability conditions; or the procedures provided in the methodology for estimating emissions from sources are not applicable because of slight variations in the approach, flow of events or structure chosen in the project activity (EB 31, Annex 12, paragraph 6).
A new proposed methodology will be required where the revision would limit the ability of other projects activities to use the applicability conditions of approved methodologies:
The request for revisions shall not include changes to the approved methodology that would result in the exclusion, restriction, narrowing of the applicability conditions of the approved methodologies for other project activities. Should the request result in the above the project participant is advised to submit a new proposed methodology (EB 31 Annex 12, paragraph 8).
Revision process
Project participants, DOEs, DNAs or stakeholders who wish to propose a revision to an approved methodology must submit the required documents to a UNFCCC Secretariat:
To propose a revision to an approved SSC methodology for the Executive Board’s consideration and approval, project participants, DOEs, DNAs or stakeholders shall submit the following completed forms, completed in both MS Word and PDF formats, to the UNFCCC Secretariat at secretariat@unfccc.int:
- The “CDM: Form for Submissions on Small Scale Methodologies and Procedures (F-CDMSSC-Sub)” indicating that the submission is a proposed revision to an existing approved SSC methodology;
- A draft revised version of the approved SSC methodology2 highlighting proposed changes attached as an annex to the form “CDM: Form for Submissions on Small Scale Methodologies and Procedures (F-CDM-SSC-Sub)”;
- Appropriate contact information (i.e., a primary and a secondary contact) (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 2).
The UNFCCC Secretariat will check the documentation and forward it to the SSC WG:
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 proposed revision to an approved SSC methodology (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 3).
The request for revision will be made publicly available:
The secretariat also shall make the request for revision of an approved methodology publicly available on the UNFCCC CDM website (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 4).
The request for revision will then be reviewed by the SSC WG:
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, one (1) member of the SSC WG shall be selected and in cases when more detailed consideration is required, the Chair may select an additional member, to review the draft recommendations as prepare by the secretariat. The assigned SSC WG member(s) shall each be paid a half-day fee for the consideration and review of each proposed revision to an approved SSC methodology considered at the SSCWG meeting. Any member who does not provide comments by the pre-meeting deadline as provided by the secretariat, shall be paid a quarterday (0.25) fee and the Chair may decline the payment of any fee outright should he/she determine that input provided is insufficient. The SSC WG, facilitated by the secretariat, may draw on additional expertise as required for the further assessment of the submission (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 7).
The secretariat will prepare a draft response to the query to assist the SSC WG:
The secretariat shall compile all inputs -- from members of the SSC WG, the public, expertise outside the SSC WG and any additional information obtained from the proponents of the request – and prepare draft a recommendation for the consideration by the members of the SSC WG (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 9).
The secretariat may request additional information:
At any stage before preparation of the SSC WG’s final recommendation, the secretariat may request the proponents of the request for revision of the approved SSC methodology to provide additional technical information necessary to assist in analysis of the request, with a deadline for responses keeping selected members of the SSC WG informed. The secretariat shall make these communications available to the SSC WG and the public on the CDM website as soon as possible or archive them if the proposal is marked confidential (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 8).
The SSC WG will then recommend that the proposed revision be adopted, or that the methodology remain the same, using the CDM: Recommendation form for CDM Small Scale Methodologies form F-CDM-SSCwg:
As justified, the SSC WG shall recommend either a revision to an approved SSC methodology or the continued validity of the approved SSC methodology. The SSC WG may also recommend the revision of an approved SSC methodology based on the experience gained through the examination of submissions of new SSC methodologies in order to ensure a consistent approval process. The recommendation and response to the proponents of the revision shall be made on the form “CDM: Recommendation form for CDM Small Scale Methodologies (F-CDM-SSCwg”) (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 10).
If the recommendation is in favour of revision, it will be forwarded to the Executive Board:
Having analyzed proposed revisions in accordance with the paragraphs above, the SSC WG shall, if possible, make a recommendation 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. The responses to the proponents for those requests for revision not recommended to the Board, are considered as agreed upon by the Board unless revised by the Board at is next meeting (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 11).
The Board will consider the proposed revision as soon as possible:
The Board shall expeditiously review the proposed revision to an approved SSC methodology in accordance with the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities. Once approved, the secretariat shall make the revised SSC methodology publicly available. The revised methodology will replace the previously approved SSC methodology and shall be published on the UNFCCC CDM website within five (5) calendar days after the date of publication of the report of the Board. The date of revision shall be effective 14 calendar days from the date of publication on the UNFCCC CDM website (24h00 GMT) (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 12).
If revised, the previous versions will be displayed in the history section of the methodology:
The section on approved SSC methodologies on the CDM website shall display a ‘full view and history’ of all previous versions of an approved SSC methodology (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 13).
If a request for revision is to be considered at a meeting of the SSC WG, it must be available to the SSC WG at least 4 weeks before the meeting:
To be considered at a meeting of the SSC WG, the secretariat shall receive a proposed revision to an approved SSC methodology at least four (4) weeks before the meeting. Incomplete proposals submitted by the deadline cannot be guaranteed consideration at the subsequent meeting (EB 34 Annex 7, paragraph 5).
Queries will be considered on a 'first come, first served' basis:
Bearing in mind the timelines and deadlines for the consideration of documents by the SSC WG and priorities set by the Board and the Chair of the SSC WG, the working group shall consider the proposed revision at its next meeting, if feasible and if received by the secretariat at least four (4) weeks before the meeting. Submissions received and confirmed to be complete by the secretariat shall be treated on a “first come first served” basis (EB 37, Annex 7, paragraph 6).
Effect of revisions on registered project activities
Revisions are only applicable to project activities registered subsequent to the date of revision, and so do not affect existing registered project activities or project activities already in the Global Stakeholder Process stage:
The revision of an approved SSC methodology or tool referred to in a SSC methodology shall not affect (i) registered CDM project activities during their crediting period; and (ii) project activities that have been published for public comments for validation using the previously approved methodology or tool, so long as the project activity is submitted for registration within 8 months of the date when the revision became effective (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 14).
The same rule applies where a methodology is withdrawn:
In case the revision results in the withdrawal of existing approved SSC methodologies the withdrawal shall not affect (a) registered CDM project activities using the withdrawn methodologies during their crediting period; and (b) project activities that have been published for public comments for validation using the previously approved methodology or tool, so long as the project activity is submitted for registration within 8 months of the date when the revision became effective (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 15).
Methodologies put ‘on hold’ during the revision process
Where a significant revision is required, it may be necessary to put the use of a methodology ‘on hold’:
At its fifteenth meeting, the Board agreed that if an approved methodology is expected to require a significant revision or a revision could have significant implications for the use of the methodology, the Board may agree to suspend the use of the methodology, by putting it “on hold” with immediate effect. This shall be announced on the UNFCCC CDM website and the CDM News facility. The revision of such a methodology shall be undertaken in an expedited manner (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 16).
Project activities that are registered or have been submitted for registration within 4 weeks of the methodology being put ‘on hold’ will not be affected. Other projects, however, will not be permitted to use the methodology until a decision on the revision has been made:
Project activities that use a small-scale methodology that is “on hold”, but have not been submitted for registration within four (4) weeks after the Small-scale methodology was put “on hold”, will not be permitted to use the methodology until the Board has decided on any revision of the Small-scale methodology (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 17).
However, if a methodology is put ‘on hold’ a revised methodology must be made available within no more than 3 Executive Board meetings:
If the Board puts a methodology "on hold", in accordance with paragraph 17 above, a revised methodology should be approved no later than the third meeting of the Board after it has agreed to put the methodology "on hold" (EB 34, Annex 7, paragraph 17).