1. Motoharu Yamazaki UNFCCC secretariat (SDM Programme) Alignment of CDM and JI accreditation processes 1 st Sustainable Development Mechanisms Joint Coordination Workshop Bonn, Germany, 24-25 March 2012

2. Background CDM accreditation procedure Initially adopted in Aug 2002, currently ver. 10.1 Major revision took place at ver. 9 revision (Mar 2009), replacing all witnessing activities with performance assessments In addition to the accreditation procedure, CDM EB introduced DOE performance monitoring framework in Nov. 2010, as complementary measure JI accreditation process Initially adopted in Sep 2006, currently ver. 7 Major revision took place at ver. 5 revision (Sep 2009) and ver. 6 revision (Apr 2010), reducing the role of witnessing activities, and at ver. 7 revision (Sep 2011), finally replacing witnessing activities with performance assessments

3. CDM/JI accreditation process comparison CDM accreditation processJI accreditation process GovernanceCDM EB CDM-AP CDM-AT JISC JI-AP JI-AT Assessment steps 1.Desk review 2.On-site assessment 3.Performance assessments 4.Regular surveillance 5.Re-accreditation (every 3 years) 1.Desk review 2.On-site assessment 3.Performance assessments 4.Regular surveillance 5.Re-accreditation (every 5 years) StandardCDM accreditation standard (ver 3)JI accreditation standard (ver 1) Entities accredited 41 (as of 23 Mar 2012)11 (as of 23 Mar 2012) OtherDOE performance monitoring framework Annual activity report

4. Mandates JISC, when making the latest revision of JI accreditation procedure, agreed to: Align the steps of JI accreditation procedure with the steps of CDM accreditation procedure Align with the elements of the process (procedure, standard and functioning) easily implementable Seek views of CDM EB on aligning the CDM and JI accreditation processes Explore the feasibility of full integration of CDM and JI accreditation processes including accreditation panels CDM EB endorsed to: Collaborate between CDM-AP and JI-AP CMP encouraged JISC to: Continue to streamline JI accreditation process, including efforts to align with CDM accreditation process

5. Questions Which areas of CDM and JI accreditation processes can be further improved? What are the priority areas for alignment in the short term (in the context of Marrakech Accords framework)? What alignment is preferable in the long-term (in the context of future mechanism)? Note: Under the CDM, in accordance with CDM Management Plan 2012, a project to improve the performance and role-definition of operational entities within the mechanism, including through revised standards and procedures will be conducted this year.