Module Calibration regarding accreditation assessment requirements Calibration through enhanced CDM-AP direct communication with stakeholders (DOEs/ATs) A. Ricardo J. Esparta Accreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert 7 th CDM Joint Coordination Workshop Bonn, March 2011

Methodologies related requirements VVM - chapter V, section E (baseline and monitoring methodology, p. 65 to 93; additionality of a project activity, p. 94 to 121; monitoring plan, p. 122 to 133), but not limited to it. AT - always indicate the related VVM requirement for every single non-conformity (2/8)

Systemic versus project specific Everybody knows but it doesn't hurt to repeat: both sides should concentrate on addressing the issues at the systemic level instead of on specific project solutions Examples – Emission factor change from the GSP to the validated PDD – Others? (3/8)

Avoid personal interpretations, but… Methodologies are not perfect Reality rarely corresponds 100% to the methodology scenario Use of your common sense is very welcome but do not forget to disclose the rationale behind the decision Upside: if you trust your judgment and the rationale is clearly unveiled  faster process (4/8)

Avoid personal interpretations, but… Nobody is forced to blindly accept the “other side” interpretation/assessment In case of doubt/disagreement, request clarification Clarification is not consulting, interact with the Panel (Assessment team, Secretariat, Panel) Downside: longer assessment (5/8)

CMP.6 - Further Guidance to the CDM §22. Requests the Executive Board to develop and implement modalities and procedures with a view to enhancing direct communication with stakeholders and project proponents in relation to issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams; these modalities and procedures should provide for: a)Direct communication that can be initiated by the secretariat, as needed, with project proponents, on issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams; b)Stakeholder consultations on general issues, and the publication of the outputs thereof; c)Intensified use of public calls for input in relation to major regulatory decisions, including the possibility to make submissions; (6/8)

EB 59th Meeting Report, § 22 The Board requested the CDM-AP to consider the appropriateness and, if applicable, modalities of its direct interaction with the DOE/AE Coordination Forum, to be considered by the Board at a future meeting. (7/8)

Thank you very much and do not hesitate to interact with the Panel (Secretariat, Assessment Teams, Accreditation Panel…) at any assessment stage. A. Ricardo J. Esparta Accreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert (8/8)