Metodologia 2

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Standard
CDM validation and verification standard for
project activities
Version 01.0
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Standard: CDM validation and verification standard for project activities
Version 01.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................... PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5
1.1. Background .................................................................................................... 5

1.2. Objectives ....................................................................................................... 5
2. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY AND ENTRY INTO FORCE ............................................ 6

2.1. General ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Application ...................................................................................................... 6

2.3. Entry into force ............................................................................................... 6
3. NORMATIVE REFERENCES .................................................................................... 6
4. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 6

5. PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................. 7
5.1. General ........................................................................................................... 7

5.2. Independence................................................................................................. 7
5.3. Ethical conduct ............................................................................................... 7
5.4. Fair presentation ............................................................................................ 7

5.5. Due professional care .................................................................................... 7
6. GENERAL VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ......................... 7
6.1. General validation and verification approach................................................. 7

6.2. Use of and compliance with applicable standards ......................................... 8
6.3. Use of applicable forms.................................................................................. 8
6.4. Use of applicable global warming potentials.................................................. 9

7. VALIDATION FOR REGISTRATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES ........................... 9
7.1. General validation requirements .................................................................... 9
7.2. Demonstration of prior consideration of the clean development

mechanism ..................................................................................................... 11
7.3. Identification of project type ........................................................................... 13

7.4. General description of project activity ............................................................ 13
7.5. Selection of methodologies and standardized baselines............................... 15
7.6. Application of methodologies and standardized baselines ............................ 16

7.7. Start date, crediting period type and duration ................................................ 28
2 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.8. Environmental impacts ................................................................................... 28

7.9. Local stakeholder consultation ....................................................................... 28
7.10. Sustainable development co-benefits ............................................................ 30

7.11. Approval and authorization ............................................................................ 30
7.12. Modalities of communication .......................................................................... 31

7.13. Specific validation requirements for small-scale project activities ................. 33
7.14. Specific validation requirements for afforestation and reforestation

project activities .............................................................................................. 35
7.15. Specific validation requirements for small-scale afforestation and
reforestation project activities......................................................................... 39
7.16. Specific validation requirements for carbon dioxide capture and storage
7.17. Global stakeholder consultation ..................................................................... 46
7.18. Validation status and outcomes, opinion and report...................................... 47
8. VALIDATION OF POST-REGISTRATION CHANGES ............................................. 49
8.1. General validation requirements .................................................................... 49

8.2. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied
methodologies or applied standardized baselines ......................................... 50
8.3. Permanent changes ....................................................................................... 51
8.4. Specific validation requirements for afforestation and reforestation
9. VERIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ................................. 55
9.1. General verification requirements .................................................................. 55
9.2. Verification of compliance .............................................................................. 62

9.3. Specific verification requirements for small-scale project activities ............... 68
9.4. Specific verification requirements for afforestation and reforestation

9.5. Specific verification requirements for carbon dioxide capture and

storage project activities................................................................................. 69
9.6. Global stakeholder consultation ..................................................................... 71
9.7. Verification status and verification and certification report ............................ 71

10. VALIDATION FOR RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD ....................................... 73
10.1. General ........................................................................................................... 73
3 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
APPENDIX. CALIBRATION .......................................................................................... 77
4 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(CMP) established the basis of the regulatory framework for the clean development
mechanism (CDM) to implement Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol through the following:
(a) Annex to decision 3/CMP.1: Modalities and procedures for a clean development
mechanism (hereinafter referred to as the CDM M&Ps);
(b) Annexes to decision 4/CMP.1, including annex II: Simplified modalities and
procedures for small-scale clean development mechanism project activities
(hereinafter referred to as the CDM SSC M&Ps);
(c) Annex to decision 5/CMP.1: Modalities and procedures for afforestation and
reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism
(hereinafter referred to as the CDM A/R M&Ps);
(d) Annex to decision 6/CMP.1: Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale
afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development
mechanism (hereinafter referred to as the CDM SSC A/R M&Ps);
(e) Decision 7/CMP.1: Further guidance relating to the clean development
mechanism;
(f) Decision 10/CMP.7: Modalities and procedures for carbon dioxide capture and
storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project
activities (hereinafter referred to as the CDM CCS M&Ps).
2. The CMP revised some of the provisions in these decisions through new decisions in
subsequent sessions.
3. Pursuant to its mandate from the CMP to operationalize the CDM, the Executive Board of
the CDM (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has adopted various standards including
baseline and monitoring methodologies (hereinafter referred to as methodologies), tools
and standardized baselines, procedures, guidelines, clarifications and forms, and revised
them with a view to improving the CDM process.
1.2. Objectives
4. The objectives of the “CDM validation and verification standard for project activities”
(hereinafter referred to as the standard) are to:
(a) Enhance consistency and clarity of minimum requirements for CDM validation and
verification activities;
(b) Improve the quality and consistency in the preparation, execution and reporting of
CDM validation and verification activities;
(c) Enhance the overall efficiency and integrity of the CDM.
5 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
2. Scope, applicability and entry into force

2.1. General
5. This standard provides designated operational entities (DOEs) with minimum
requirements for validation and verification of a CDM project activity based on the CDM
rules and requirements approved by the Board.
2.2. Application
6. Sections 5 and 6 contain general principles and requirements for validation and
verification.
7. Sections 7 contains validation requirements for registration of all types of CDM project
activities. The requirements in sections 7.13−7.16 apply specifically to small-scale project
activities, large-scale afforestation and reforestation (A/R) project activities, small-scale
A/R project activities, and carbon dioxide capture or storage (CCS) project activities,
respectively.
8. Sections 8 and 10 contain validation requirements for post-registration activities applicable
to all types of CDM project activities, validation requirements for post-registration activities
specific to large-scale A/R project activities, and validation requirements for the renewal
of the crediting period for all types of CDM activities including CCS project activities.
9. Section 9 contains verification requirements applicable to all types of CDM project
activities. The requirements in sections 9.3−9.5 apply specifically to small-scale project
activities, large-scale A/R project activities and CCS project activities, respectively.
2.3. Entry into force

10. Version 01.0 of this standard enters into force on 1 June 2017.
3. Normative references
11. The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this standard:
(a) “CDM accreditation standard”;
(b) “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”;
(c) “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(d) “Glossary: CDM terms”.
4. Terms and definitions

12. In addition to the definitions contained in the “Glossary: CDM terms”, the following terms
apply in this standard:
(a) “Shall” is used to indicate requirements to be followed;
(b) “Should” is used to indicate that among several possibilities, one course of action
is recommended as particularly suitable;
6 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) “May” is used to indicate what is permitted.
5. Principles
5.1. General
13. The following principles1 guide the preparation, execution, and reporting of validation and
verification activities.
5.2. Independence
14. Remain independent of the activity being validated or verified, and free from bias and
conflict of interest. Maintain objectivity throughout the validation or verification to ensure
that the findings and conclusions are based on objective evidence generated during the
validation or verification.
5.3. Ethical conduct

15. Demonstrate ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion
throughout the validation or verification.
5.4. Fair presentation

16. Reflect truthfully and accurately the validation or verification activity, findings, conclusions
and reports. Report significant obstacles encountered during the validation or verification,
as well as unresolved, diverging opinions among validators or verifiers, the responsible
party (e.g. the secretariat/the Board) and the client (e.g. the project participants).
5.5. Due professional care

17. Exercise due professional care and judgement based on the importance of the task
performed and the confidence placed by clients and intended users. Have the necessary
skills and competences to undertake the validation or verification.
6. General validation and verification requirements

6.1. General validation and verification approach
18. The DOE shall select a competent team to perform the validation or verification for the
CDM project activity.
19. In carrying out its validation or verification work, the DOE shall:
(a) Follow this standard and integrate its provisions into the DOE’s own quality
management systems;
1 This text is taken from ISO 14064-3:2006 - Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for
the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions and is reproduced with the permission of the
International Organization for Standardization, ISO. This standard can be obtained from any ISO member
from the website of the ISO Central Secretariat at the following address: <www.iso.org>. Copyright
remains with ISO.
7 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(b) Apply the most recent applicable decisions and guidance provided by the Board;
(c) Determine whether each CDM project activity meets all applicable CDM rules and
requirements, including those specified in the “CDM project standard for project
activities”, relevant methodologies, tools and standardized baselines;
(d) Assess the accuracy, conservativeness, relevance, completeness, consistency
and transparency of the information provided by the project participants;2
(e) Determine whether information provided by the project participants is reliable and
credible;3
(f) Apply consistent validation/verification criteria:
(i) To the requirements of the applicable approved methodologies and, where
applicable, the applicable approved standardized baselines throughout the
crediting period(s);
(ii) To CDM project activities with similar characteristics such as a similar
application of the approved methodologies, approved standardized
baselines, use of technology, time period or region;
(iii) To expert judgements, over time and among CDM project activities;
(g) Base its findings and conclusions on objective evidence and conduct all validation
or verification activities in accordance with CDM rules and procedures;
(h) Not omit evidence that is likely to alter the validation or verification opinion;
(i) Present information in the validation report or verification and certification report in
a factual, neutral and coherent manner and document all assumptions, provide
references to background material, and identify changes made to the
documentation;
(j) Safeguard the confidentiality of all information obtained or created during the
validation or verification.
6.2. Use of and compliance with applicable standards

20. In carrying out its validation and verification work, the DOE shall use and comply with the
valid version of standards, methodological tools and guidelines provided by the Board and
other relevant provisions.
6.3. Use of applicable forms

21. The DOE contracted to conduct a validation for registration of a proposed CDM project
activity, post-registration changes or the renewal of the crediting period of a registered
2 Principles for each can be found in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
3 Information is credible if it is authentic and is able to inspire belief or trust, and the willingness of persons
to accept the quality of evidence. Information is reliable if the quality of evidence is accurate and credible
and able to yield the same results on a repeated basis.
8 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
CDM project activity shall prepare a validation report using the valid version of the relevant
validation report form.4
22. The DOE contracted to conduct a verification and certification for the implementation of
the registered CDM project activity and monitored greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals shall prepare a verification and
certification report using the valid version of the relevant verification and certification report
form.5
23. When completing a validation or verification and certification report form, the DOE shall
follow the instructions therein.
6.4. Use of applicable global warming potentials

24. The DOE shall determine whether the global warming potentials (GWPs) were correctly
applied in the PDD and in the monitoring report in accordance with relevant requirements
in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
7. Validation for registration of project activities

7.1. General validation requirements
7.1.1. Objectives of validation

25. The DOE shall conduct a thorough and independent assessment of a proposed CDM
project activity against the applicable CDM rules and requirements.
7.1.2. Validation approach

26. In carrying out its validation work, the DOE shall:
(a) Determine whether the proposed CDM project activity complies with the
requirements in paragraph 37 of the CDM M&Ps (with the exception of paragraph
37 (c) for CCS CDM project activities), the applicability conditions of the selected
methodologies, and, where applicable, the selected standardized baselines, and
guidance provided by the Board;
(b) Assess the claims and assumptions in the project design document (PDD). The
evidence used in this assessment shall not be limited to that provided by the project
participants.
27. The DOE shall make publicly available the PDD received from the project participants in
accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
7.1.3. Means of validation
7.1.3.1. Standard auditing techniques

28. The DOE shall assess the information provided by the project participants.
4 All types of validation report forms are available on the UNFCCC CDM website.
5 All types of verification and certification report forms are available on the UNFCCC CDM website.
9 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
29. In assessing the information, the DOE shall apply the means of validation specified
throughout this standard and, where appropriate, standard auditing techniques, including,
but not limited to:
(a) Document review, involving:
(i) A review of data and information;
(ii) Cross checks between the information provided in the PDD and information
from sources other than those used; if available, the DOE’s sectoral or local
expertise; and, if necessary, independent background investigations;
(b) Follow-up actions (e.g. on-site inspection and telephone or e-mail interviews),
including:
(i) Interviews with relevant stakeholders in the host country, such as personnel
with knowledge of the project design and implementation;
(ii) Cross checks between information provided by interviewed personnel (i.e. by
checking sources or other interviews) to ensure that no relevant information
has been omitted;
(c) Reference to available information relating to projects or technologies similar to the
proposed CDM project activity under validation;
(d) Review, based on the selected methodologies and, where applicable, the selected
standardized baselines, of the appropriateness of formulae and accuracy of
calculations;
(e) Sampling approach in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for
CDM project activities and programme of activities”, including:
(i) A random sampling for cases where the project participants did not apply a
sampling approach;
(ii) An acceptance sampling or another sampling approach for cases where the
project participants applied a sampling approach.
30. It is mandatory for the DOE to conduct an on-site inspection at validation for the proposed
CDM project activity if:
(a) Its estimated annual average of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals is more than 100,000 t CO2 eq; or
(b) There is pre-project information that is relevant to the requirements for registration
of the project activity and may not be traceable after the registration.
31. For cases that are not referred to in paragraph 30 above, it is optional for the DOE to
conduct an on-site inspection at validation. If the DOE does not conduct an on-site
inspection as a means of validation, it shall describe the alternative means used and justify
that they are sufficient for the purpose of validation.
32. Where no specific means of validation is specified, the DOE shall apply the standard
auditing techniques described in paragraph 29 above.
10 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.1.3.2. Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forward action

requests
33. If the DOE identifies issues that require further elaboration, research or expansion in order
to determine whether the project activity meet the CDM rules and requirements and can
achieve credible GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals, the DOE
shall ensure that these issues are accurately identified, formulated, discussed and
concluded in the validation report.
34. The DOE shall raise a corrective action request (CAR) if one of the following situations
occurs:
(a) The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the
proposed CDM project activity to achieve real, measurable, verifiable and
additional GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals;
(b) The applicable CDM rules and requirements have not been met;
(c) There is a risk that GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals
cannot be monitored or calculated.
35. The DOE shall raise a clarification request (CL) if information is insufficient or not clear
enough to determine whether the applicable CDM rules and requirements have been met.
36. The DOE shall raise a forward action request (FAR) during validation to identify issues
related to project implementation that require review during the first verification of the
proposed CDM project activity. The DOE shall not raise a FAR that relates to the CDM
rules and requirements for registration of the project activity.
37. The DOE shall resolve or “close out” CARs and CLs only if the project participants modify
the project design, rectify the PDD, or provide additional explanations or evidence that
satisfy the DOE’s concerns. If this is not done, the DOE shall not submit a request for
registration of the proposed CDM project activity.
38. The DOE shall report on all CARs, CLs and FARs in its validation report. This reporting
shall explain the issues raised, the responses provided by the project participants, the
means of validation of such responses and references to any resulting changes in the
PDD or supporting annexes.
7.2. Demonstration of prior consideration of the clean development mechanism

39. The DOE shall determine whether CDM benefits were considered necessary in the
decision to undertake the project as a proposed CDM project activity if the starting date of
the proposed CDM project activity is prior to the start of validation, which is the date of
publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation.
40. The DOE shall determine whether the start date of the proposed CDM project activity,
specified in the PDD, is determined in accordance with the definition of start date in the
“Glossary: CDM terms”. The DOE shall determine whether it is a project activity with a
start date:
(a) On or after 2 August 2008; or
(b) Before 2 August 2008.
11 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
41. For a proposed CDM project activity with a start date on or after 2 August 2008, the DOE
shall confirm, by referring to the list of prior consideration notifications from the UNFCCC
CDM website and communication between the project participants, the secretariat and the
host Party DNA, if the DNA exists, regarding the commencement of a new project activity
and the intention to seek CDM status for the project activity, or referring to the UNFCCC
CDM website, whether the PDD has been published within 180 days of the start date. If
such notification has not been provided by the project participants or if the PDD has not
been published for global stakeholder consultation within 180 days of the start date in
accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”, the DOE shall
determine that the CDM was not seriously considered in the decision to implement the
project activity.
42. For a proposed CDM project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, the DOE shall
assess the project participants’ prior consideration of the CDM. Specifically, the DOE shall
assess whether the project participants:
(a) Had an awareness of the CDM prior to the project activity start date, and that the
benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the
project. Evidence to support this could include, inter alia, minutes and/or notes
related to the consideration of the decision by the board of directors, or equivalent,
of the project participants, to undertake the project as a proposed CDM project
activity;
(b) Demonstrated that real and continuing actions were taken to secure CDM status
for the project in parallel with its implementation in accordance with relevant
provisions related to the supporting evidence in the “CDM project standard for
project activities”.
43. Assessment of real and continuing actions shall be conducted by the DOE and should
focus on real documented evidence as indicated in paragraph 42 (b) above, including an
assessment by the DOE of the authenticity of the evidence. The DOE shall assess letters,
e-mail exchanges and other documented communications submitted by the project
participants to substantiate the above information, and these shall be considered as
evidence only after the DOE has assessed the reliability and authenticity of such
communications, inter alia through cross-checking (e.g. interviews).
44. In validating proposed CDM project activities where:
(a) There is a gap of less than two years between the documented evidence, the DOE
shall conclude that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status
for the project activity;
(b) A gap between documented evidence is greater than two years and less than three
years, the DOE may determine that continuing and real actions were taken to
secure CDM status for the project activity and shall justify any positive or negative
validation opinion based on the context of the evidence and information assessed;
(c) A gap between documented evidence is greater than three years, the DOE shall
conclude that continuing and real actions were not taken to secure CDM status for
the project activity.
12 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
45. If evidence to support the serious prior consideration of the CDM as indicated above is not
available, the DOE shall determine that the CDM was not considered in the decision to
implement the project activity.
46. The validation report shall:
(a) Describe the validation of the project activity start date provided in the PDD;
(b) Describe the evidence for prior consideration of the CDM (if necessary) that was
assessed and the process of cross-checking the evidence, including the real and
continuing action;
(c) Provide a validation opinion regarding whether the proposed CDM project activity
complies with the applicable requirements related to the prior consideration of the
CDM.
7.3. Identification of project type

47. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants identified the type of CDM
project activity they intend to design and implement in accordance with the “CDM project
standard for project activities”.
48. The DOE shall determine whether the PDD has been completed using the valid version of
the PDD form appropriate to the type of the proposed CDM project activity.
49. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the PDD has been completed using the valid
version of relevant form and following instructions therein.
7.4. General description of project activity

50. The DOE shall determine whether the description of the proposed CDM project activity in
the PDD is accurate, complete, and provides an understanding of the proposed CDM
project activity.
51. If the proposed CDM project activity involves the alteration of an existing installation or
process, the DOE shall assess whether the project description states the differences
resulting from the project activity compared to the pre-project situation.
52. If the proposed CDM project activity is in the same geographical location as a registered
CDM project activity whose crediting period has or has not expired (hereinafter referred to
as former project), as declared by the project participants in the PDD or based on the
finding of the DOE during validation, the DOE shall confirm that the proposed CDM project
activity shall not lead to the discontinuation or modification of the former project and will
not decrease the GHG emission reductions or removals by the former project based on
the relevant requirement of the “CDM project standards for project activities”.
53. In the case of the implementation of distributed units in household projects without the
relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for programme of activities” being met,
the DOE shall validate and confirm by other means that the proposed project activity will
not lead to the discontinuation or modification of the former project and will not decrease
GHG emission reductions or removals by the former project, and justify the assessment
in its validation report. The DOE shall use its local and sectoral expertise to confirm that
there is no overlap of different measures and where applicable, apply the “Guidelines for
13 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
the consideration of interactive effects for the application of multiple CDM methodologies
for a programme of activities” to address cross-effects.
54. In all other cases, if the project participants have not submitted a communication to the
Board to request clarification in accordance with the “CDM project standard for project
activities”, the DOE shall submit such communication to the Board in accordance with the
“Procedure: Direct communication with stakeholders” prior to submitting a request for
registration of the project activity.
55. If the proposed CDM project activity was a component project activity (CPA) that has been
previously excluded from a registered CDM programme of activities (PoA), the DOE shall
assess whether:
(a) The project activity transparently declares that it was a CPA in a registered CDM
PoA and has been previously excluded from it, either voluntarily or due to
erroneous inclusion;
(b) The crediting period type (i.e. renewal or fixed) and the total length of the crediting
period (e.g. maximum 10 years for the fixed crediting period type and maximum 21
years for the renewal crediting period type) and its end date are the same as before
the exclusion;
(c) The project activity meets all relevant requirements for registration of project
activities valid at the time of submission of the request for registration as a CDM
project activity;
(d) If the project activity applies a methodology that potentially accrues negative
emission reductions, emission reductions have been continuously monitored since
the end of the monitoring period in the last published monitoring report for the CPA,
including the exclusion period. For such a project activity, if there were net negative
emission reductions during the period before the registration as a CDM project
activity, the amount shall be deducted from the first requests for issuance after the
registration;
(e) If the CPA has been excluded as a result of erroneous inclusion and if certified
emission reductions (CERs) have been issued for the CPA, an equivalent amount
of Kyoto credits have been compensated by the DOE that included the CPA or that
validated the CPA at its first verification if it was included by the
coordinating/managing entity, in the CDM registry in accordance with the “CDM
project cycle procedure for project activities”.
56. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe the process undertaken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the
project description;
(b) State its opinion on the accuracy and completeness of the project description.
14 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.5. Selection of methodologies and standardized baselines
7.5.1. General
57. The DOE shall apply specific guidance and/or clarifications provided by the Board with
respect to the approved methodologies, any applicable tools, and/or the approved
standardized baselines that is(are) selected by the project participants.
7.5.2. Deviation from methodology and/or methodological tool

58. The DOE may seek guidance from the Board on the acceptability of a deviation from an
approved methodology and/or methodological tool prior to the submission of a request for
registration or publication of the PDD, if the DOE, when performing validation for the
proposed CDM project activity, or upon request from the project participants before the
publication of the PDD, finds that, due to a project-specific6 issue implying that a revision
of the methodology and/or methodological tool would not be required to address the issue,
the project participants deviated from:
(a) An approved methodology and/or methodological tool; or
(b) A section (or sections) in the selected methodology that is(are) not standardized
by the selected standardized baseline, if the proposed CDM project activity uses
an approved standardized baseline.
59. The DOE shall submit to the Board an assessment of the case including demonstration
that the deviation does not require revision of an approved methodology and/or
methodological tool, and shall include a description of the impact of the deviation on GHG
emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by the proposed CDM project
activity in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
6 Examples of project-specific issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) The methodology requires measurements using instrumentation of certain specifications or using a
certain method. The project participants of the proposed CDM project activity identify a difficulty in
acquiring the specified instrumentation or difficulty in implementing the measurement method;
however, they can achieve comparable accuracy of measured parameters using an alternative
instrumentation or measurement method;
(b) A proposed CDM project activity does not have access to the data sources specified by the
methodology for a certain parameter; a different source of data can be accessed by the CDM project
activity to estimate the parameter with equal reliability and accuracy;
(c) A minor deviation is sought for a project-specific situation, which is well justified and conservative.
For example: a methodology requires limiting production in the project scenario between +/- 5% of
rated capacity, if the historical baseline is to be applied. Due to government restrictions, the plant
has never been operated at its rated capacity but at a capacity which is much below its rated capacity
(20% below the rated capacity). A deviation can be presented specifying conservative approaches
to calculate the emission reduction in such a project-specific case;
(d) A conservative estimation technique or default factor suggested addressing uncertainties related to
project-specific situations, which are not addressed in the methodology. For example, a well-justified
conservative uncertainty factor proposed to be used in equations of baseline emissions to address
uncertainties in the real-life situation during the crediting period.
15 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
60. Alternatively, if the DOE considers that a revision of the methodology and/or
methodological tool would be required to address the project situation then the DOE shall
request the project participants to submit a request for revision in accordance with the
“CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
7.5.3. Clarification on applicability of methodology, tool and/or standardized baseline

61. If the DOE cannot make a determination regarding the applicability of the selected
methodology, the approved tool and/or the selected standardized baseline to the proposed
CDM project activity, then the DOE shall request clarification of the methodology, the tool
and/or the standardized baseline in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for
project activities”. The DOE shall conduct an assessment to ensure that the request is not
submitted with the intention of revising an approved methodology, an approved tool and/or
an approved standardized baseline to expand its applicability.
7.6. Application of methodologies and standardized baselines
7.6.1. General
62. The DOE shall validate that the selected methodologies and, where applicable, the
selected standardized baselines are applicable to the proposed CDM project activity and
that the selected versions are valid at the time of submission of the proposed CDM project
activity for registration.
63. The DOE shall determine whether the selected methodologies and, where applicable, the
selected standardized baselines apply to the proposed CDM project activity and was
correctly applied with respect to the following:
(a) Project boundary;
(b) Baseline identification;
(c) Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions;
(d) Additionality;
(e) Monitoring methodology.
64. The DOE shall determine whether the methodologies and, where applicable, the
standardized baselines are correctly quoted and applied by comparing them with the
actual text of the valid version of the methodologies and, where applicable, of the
standardized baselines, 7 and relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for
project activities” and any other applicable standard or guideline.
65. If the PDD of a proposed project activity is based on a previous version(s) of a
methodology and, where applicable, a standardized baseline and was(were) published for
global stakeholder consultation but was(were) not submitted for registration within the
grace period, the DOE shall request the project participants to provide a revised PDD in
7 An approved methodology and, where applicable, an approved standardized baseline applies to the
proposed CDM project activity if the applicability conditions of the methodology and, where applicable,
the standardized baseline are met.
16 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
66. The DOE shall request the project participants to provide a revised PDD in accordance
with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities” if:
(a) The PDD has been published for global stakeholder consultation when no
applicable approved standardized baseline was valid;
(b) An applicable approved standardized baseline whose selection is mandatory has
become valid after the publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation
but before the submission of a request for registration of the proposed CDM project
activity;
(c) The request for registration has not been submitted within 240 days after the
standardized baseline became valid.
67. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed CDM project activity meets each of the
applicability conditions of the approved methodologies, any tool, other methodology
component referred to therein and, where applicable, the approved standardized baseline.
This shall be done by validating the documentation referred to in the PDD and by verifying
that the documentation content is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. If the DOE,
based on local and sectoral knowledge, is aware that comparable information is available
from credible sources other than that used in the PDD, then the DOE shall cross-check
the PDD against other sources to confirm that the CDM project activity meets the
applicability conditions of the methodologies and, where applicable, the standardized
baselines.
68. For each applicability condition listed in the selected methodologies and, where
applicable, the selected standardized baselines, the DOE shall describe the steps taken
to assess the relevant information contained in the PDD against these criteria. The DOE
shall state its opinion on the applicability of the selected methodologies and/or selected
standardized baselines to the proposed CDM project activity.
7.6.2. Project boundary, sources and greenhouse gases

69. The DOE shall determine whether all main GHG emission sources, the project boundary
of the proposed CDM project activity, and other relevant project and baseline emission
sources covered in the selected methodologies and, where applicable, the selected
standardized baselines are included within the project boundary for the purpose of
calculating project and baseline emissions for the proposed CDM project activity.
70. The DOE shall confirm the project boundary based on documented evidence and, where
conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, shall corroborate it by an on-site
inspection.
71. If the methodologies allow the project participants to choose whether a source or gas is to
be included within the project boundary, the DOE shall determine whether the project
participants have justified that choice. The DOE shall determine whether the justification
provided is reasonable, based on an assessment of supporting documented evidence
provided by the project participants and corroborated by observations if required.
72. For the proposed CDM project activities that have both A/R and non-A/R components, in
order to avoid double counting of emission sources, the DOE shall confirm that the
emissions associated with the A/R activity will be accounted for and documented by the
A/R CDM project activity.
17 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
73. The DOE shall describe how the validation of the project boundary has been performed
by detailing the documentation assessed (e.g. a commissioning report) and, where
conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, by describing its observations
during any on-site inspection undertaken (i.e. observations of the physical site or
equipment used in the process).
74. The DOE shall state whether the identified boundary and the selected sources and gases
are justified for the proposed CDM project activity. Should the DOE identify emission
sources that will be affected by the implementation of the CDM project activity and which
are expected to contribute more than 1 per cent of the overall expected average annual
GHG emissions reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals, and are not addressed
by the selected methodologies and, where applicable, the selected standardized
baselines, the DOE shall request clarification of, revision to, or deviation from the
methodology and, where applicable, the standardized baseline, as appropriate.
7.6.3. Baseline scenario

75. The DOE shall determine whether the baseline identified for the proposed CDM project
activity is the scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources
of GHGs that would occur in the absence of the proposed CDM project activity.
76. The following applies to a proposed CDM project activity using an approved standardized
baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario instead of paragraph 75 above: The DOE
shall determine whether the baseline scenario for the proposed CDM project activity
described in the PDD is the scenario identified by the selected standardized baseline.
77. The DOE shall determine whether any procedure contained in the methodology to identify
the most reasonable baseline scenario has been correctly applied. If the selected
methodology requires the use of tools (such as the “Tool for the demonstration and
assessment of additionality” and the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and
demonstrate additionality”) to establish the baseline scenario, the DOE shall consult the
methodology on the application of these tools. In such cases, the specific guidance in the
methodology shall supersede the corresponding requirements of the tools.
78. If the methodologies require several alternative scenarios to be considered in the
identification of the most plausible baseline scenario, the DOE shall, based on financial
expertise and local and sectoral knowledge, determine whether all scenarios that are
considered by the project participants and any scenarios that are supplementary to those
required by the methodologies, are realistic and credible in the context of the proposed
CDM project activity and that no alternative scenario has been excluded.
79. The DOE shall determine whether the most plausible baseline scenario identified is
reasonable by validating the assumptions, calculations and rationales used in the PDD. It
shall determine whether documents and sources referred to in the PDD are correctly
quoted and interpreted. The DOE shall cross-check the information provided in the PDD
with other verifiable and credible sources, such as local expert opinion, if available.
80. The DOE shall determine whether the PDD provides a description of the identified baseline
scenario, including a description of the technology that would be employed and/or the
activities that would take place in the absence of the proposed CDM project activity.
81. The DOE shall determine whether, drawing on its knowledge of the sector and/or advice
from local experts, all applicable CDM rules and requirements have been taken into
18 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
account in the identification of the baseline scenario for the proposed CDM project activity,
as well as relevant national and/or sectoral policies, regulations and circumstances, such
as sectoral reform initiatives, local fuel availability, power sector expansion plans, and the
economic situation in the project sector. Two types of national and/or sectoral policies or
regulations have to be taken into account:
(a) National and/or sectoral policies or regulations that give comparative advantages
to more emissions-intensive technologies or fuels over less emissions-intensive
technologies or fuels, otherwise known as policies that increase GHG emissions,
and are called type E+ policies. For this type of national and/or sectoral policies or
regulations, only those that have been implemented before the adoption of the
Kyoto Protocol by the Conference of the Parties (COP) (decision 1/CP.3,
11 December 1997) shall be taken into account when identifying a baseline
scenario. If such national and/or sectoral policies or regulations were implemented
since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the baseline scenario shall refer to a
hypothetical situation without the national and/or sectoral policies or regulations
being in place;
(b) National and/or sectoral policies or regulations that give comparative advantages
to less emissions-intensive technologies over more emissions-intensive
technologies (e.g. public subsidies to promote the diffusion of renewable energy or
to finance energy efficiency programmes), otherwise known as policies that
decrease GHG emissions, and are called type E- policies. For this type of national
and/or sectoral policies or regulations, those that have been implemented since
the adoption by the COP of the modalities and procedures for the CDM8 need not
be taken into account in identifying a baseline scenario (i.e. the baseline scenario
could refer to a hypothetical situation without the national and/or sectoral policies
or regulations being in place).
baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario instead of paragraphs 77–81 above: The
DOE shall determine whether the description of the identified baseline scenario in the PDD
is in accordance with the selected standardized baseline.
83. The DOE shall describe the steps taken to assess the requirements and state its opinion
on whether:
(a) All the assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD,
including their references and sources;
(b) All documentation used is relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and
correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD;
(c) Assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline scenario are
justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable;
(d) Relevant national and/or sectoral policies, regulations and circumstances are
considered and listed in the PDD;
8 Decision 17/CP.7.
19 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(e) The methodologies have been correctly applied to identify the most plausible
baseline scenario and the identified baseline scenario reasonably represents what
would occur in the absence of the proposed CDM project activity.
84. The DOE shall describe other steps taken and sources of information used to cross-check
the information contained in the PDD.
baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario instead of paragraphs 83 and 84 above:
The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the description of the identified baseline
scenario in the PDD is in accordance with the selected standardized baseline.
7.6.4. Demonstration of additionality
7.6.4.1. General
86. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed CDM project activity is additional as
demonstrated in the PDD.9
87. The DOE shall assess and verify the reliability and credibility of all data, rationales,
assumptions, justifications and documentation provided by the project participants to
support the demonstration of additionality. This requires the DOE to critically assess the
evidence presented, using local knowledge and sectoral and financial expertise.
88. If required by the applicable approved methodologies, the DOE shall consider tools and
guidelines provided by the Board to demonstrate the additionality of proposed CDM
project activities. The DOE shall also consider specific complementary or alternative
requirements included in the methodologies for demonstrating the additionality of the
proposed CDM project activity.
baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraphs 87 and 88 above and 96–
109 below: The DOE shall assess whether the proposed CDM project activity meets the
additionality criteria (e.g. positive lists of technologies) in the selected standardized
baseline.
90. The DOE shall describe all steps taken and sources of information used to cross-check
the information contained in the PDD. The DOE shall describe how it has determined that
the evidence assessed is credible, where appropriate.
7.6.4.2. Identification of alternatives

91. The requirements contained in paragraphs 92–95 below are not applicable to a proposed
CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes the
baseline scenario.
9 In accordance with decision 3/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 43, “A CDM project activity is additional if
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have
occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity.” While specific elements of the
assessment of additionality are discussed in further detail below, not all elements discussed below will
be applicable to all proposed CDM project activities.
20 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
92. Where the baseline scenario is not prescribed in the approved methodologies, the DOE
shall assess the list of identified credible alternatives to the proposed CDM project activity
in the PDD selected to determine the most realistic baseline scenario.
93. The DOE shall assess the list of alternatives given in the PDD and to determine whether:
(a) The list of alternatives includes as one of the options that the project activity is
undertaken without being registered as a proposed CDM project activity;
(b) The list contains all plausible alternatives that the DOE, on the basis of its local
and sectoral knowledge, considers to be viable means of supplying the comparable
outputs or services that are to be supplied by the proposed CDM project activity;
(c) The alternatives comply with all applicable and enforced legislation.
94. Where the baseline scenario is prescribed in the approved methodologies, no further
analysis is required.
95. The DOE shall describe whether it considers the listed alternatives to be credible and
complete.
7.6.4.3. Investment analysis

96. If investment analysis has been used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed
CDM project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the proposed CDM project activity
would not be:
(a) The most economically or financially attractive alternative; or
(b) Economically or financially feasible without the revenue from the sale of CERs.
97. The DOE shall apply the valid version of the “Methodological tool: Investment analysis” as
provided by the Board and other relevant provisions.
98. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed CDM project activity is not the most
economically or financially attractive alternative, or that it is not economically or financially
feasible without the CDM:10
(a) The proposed CDM project activity would produce no financial or economic
benefits other than CDM-related income. The DOE shall determine whether the
documented costs associated with the proposed CDM project activity and the
alternatives identified demonstrate that there is at least one alternative which is
less costly than the proposed CDM project activity;
(b) The proposed CDM project activity is less economically or financially attractive
than at least one other credible and realistic alternative;
(c) The financial returns of the proposed CDM project activity would be insufficient to
justify the required investment.
10 It should be noted the valid version of the “Methodological tool: Investment analysis”, and the
requirements of specific methodologies may preclude the use of one of these options in certain
scenarios.
21 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
99. To verify the accuracy of financial calculations carried out for any investment analysis, the
DOE shall:
(a) Determine the suitability of the financial indicator selected by the project
participants and conduct a thorough assessment of all parameters and
assumptions used in calculating such financial indicators, and determine the
accuracy and suitability of these parameters using available evidence and applying
its expertise in relevant accounting practices;
(b) Cross-check the parameters against third-party or publicly available sources, such
as invoices or price indices;
(c) Review, as appropriate, feasibility reports, public announcements and annual
financial reports related to the proposed CDM project activity and the project
participants;
(d) Assess the correctness of computations carried out and documented by the project
participants;
(e) Assess, where applicable, the sensitivity analysis by the project participants to
determine under what conditions variations in the result would occur, and the
likelihood of these conditions.
100. To confirm the suitability of any benchmark applied in the investment analysis, the DOE
shall:
(a) Determine whether the type of benchmark applied is suitable for the type of
financial indicator presented;
(b) Ensure that any risk premiums applied in determining the benchmark reflect the
risks associated with the project type or activity;
(c) Determine whether it is reasonable to assume that no investment would be made
at a rate of return lower than the benchmark.
101. Where the project participants rely on values from feasibility study reports (FSRs) that are
approved by national authorities for proposed CDM project activities, the DOE shall
determine whether:
(a) The FSR is the basis for the decision to proceed with the investment in the project,
i.e. that the period of time between the finalization of the FSR and the investment
decision is sufficiently short that it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project
activity that the input values would have materially changed;
(b) The values used in the PDD and associated annexes are fully consistent with the
FSR, and where inconsistencies occur the DOE shall assess the appropriateness
of the values;
(c) The input values from the FSR are valid and applicable at the time of investment
decision. The DOE shall confirm this on the basis of its specific local and sectoral
expertise and by cross-checking or other appropriate means.
22 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
102. The DOE shall:

(a) Describe in detail how the parameters used in any financial calculations, including
those taken from the FSR, if applicable, have been validated;
(b) Describe how the suitability of any benchmark applied has been assessed;
(c) Confirm whether the underlying assumptions are appropriate and the financial
calculations are correct.
7.6.4.4. Barrier analysis

103. If barrier analysis11 was used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed CDM project
activity, the DOE shall determine whether the proposed CDM project activity faces barriers
that:
(a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed CDM project activity;12
(b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives.
104. The DOE shall determine whether issues that have a direct impact 13 on the financial
returns of the proposed CDM project activity are not considered barriers and shall be
assessed by investment analysis. This does not refer to either:
(a) Risk-related barriers, for example risk of technical failure, that could have negative
effects on financial performance; or
(b) Barriers related to the unavailability of sources of finance for the project activity.
105. The DOE shall apply a two-step process in assessing the barrier analysis performed, as
follows:
(a) Determine whether the barriers are real: The DOE shall assess the available
evidence and/or conduct interviews with relevant individuals (including members
of industry associations, government officials or local experts if necessary) to
determine whether the barriers listed in the PDD exist. The DOE shall determine
whether the existence of barriers is substantiated by independent sources of data
such as relevant national legislation, surveys of local conditions and national or
international statistics. If the existence of a barrier is substantiated only by the
opinions of the project participants, the DOE shall not consider this barrier to be
adequately substantiated. If the DOE considers, on the basis of its sectoral or local
expertise, that a barrier is not real or is not supported by sufficient evidence, it shall
raise a CAR to have reference to this barrier removed from the project
documentation;
11 Barriers are issues in project implementation that could prevent a potential investor from pursuing the
implementation of the proposed CDM project activity. The identified barriers are only sufficient grounds
for demonstration of additionality if they would prevent potential project participants from carrying out the
proposed CDM project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity.
12 See the valid version of the “Guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers”.
13 Defined in this context as those issues whose impacts can be expressed in monetary terms with
reasonable certainty.
23 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(b) Determine whether the barriers prevent the implementation of the proposed
CDM project activity but not the implementation of at least one of the
possible alternatives: Since not all barriers present an insurmountable hurdle to
a project activity being implemented, the DOE shall apply its local and sectoral
expertise to judge whether a barrier or set of barriers would prevent the
implementation of the proposed CDM project activity and would not equally prevent
implementation of at least one of the possible alternatives, in particular the
identified baseline scenario.
106. The DOE shall:
(a) Provide an assessment of each barrier listed in the PDD, which describes how it
has undertaken validation of the barrier;
(b) Provide an overall determination of the credibility of the barrier analysis performed.
7.6.4.5. Common practice analysis

107. For proposed large-scale CDM project activities, unless the proposed project type is a first
of its kind as determined in accordance with the relevant guidelines, the DOE shall assess
whether the project participants have conducted a common practice analysis.14
108. The DOE shall use official sources and its local and sectoral expertise to:
(a) Assess whether the geographical scope (e.g. the defined region) of the common
practice analysis is appropriate for the assessment of common practice related to
the project activity’s technology or industry type. For certain technologies, the
relevant region for assessment will be local and for others it may be
transnational/global. If a region other than the entire host country is chosen, the
DOE shall assess the explanation of why this region is more appropriate;
(b) Determine to what extent similar and operational projects (e.g. using a similar
technology or practice), other than CDM project activities,15 have been undertaken
in the defined region;
(c) Assess, if similar and operational projects, other than CDM project activities, are
already “widely observed and commonly carried out” in the defined region, whether
there are essential distinctions between the proposed CDM project activity and the
other similar activities.
109. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe how the geographical scope of the common practice analysis has been
validated, considering the technology or industry type to which the proposed CDM
project activity belongs;
(b) Describe how it has undertaken an assessment of the existence of similar projects;
14 This is a test to complement the investment analysis (step 2 of the additionality tool) or barrier analysis
(step 3 of the additionality tool) to confirm that the proposed CDM project activity is not widely observed
and commonly carried out in the region.
15 Registered CDM project activities and proposed CDM project activities that have been published on the
UNFCCC website for global stakeholder consultation as part of the validation processes.
24 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Describe how it has assessed the essential distinctions between the proposed
CDM project activity and any similar projects that are widely observed and
commonly carried out;
(d) Confirm whether the proposed CDM project activity is not common practice.
7.6.5. Estimation of emission reductions or net anthropogenic removals

110. The DOE shall determine whether the description of how to undertake the ex post
calculation of baseline, project and leakage GHG emission reductions, to be achieved by
the proposed CDM project activity, and the ex ante calculation of them for each year of
the crediting period provided in the PDD, are in accordance with the applied
methodologies including applicable tools and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baselines and the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and
programme of activities”.
111. Where the methodologies and, where applicable, the standardized baselines allow for
selection between options for equations or parameters, the DOE shall determine whether
adequate justification has been provided (based on the choice of the baseline scenario,
context of the proposed CDM project activity and other evidence provided) and that the
correct equations and parameters have been used, in accordance with the methodologies
applied 16 including applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baseline.
112. The DOE shall verify the justification given in the PDD for the choice of data and
parameters used in the equations:
(a) Data and parameters fixed ex ante: If data and parameters will not be monitored
throughout the crediting period of the proposed CDM project activity but have
already been determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, the
DOE shall determine whether all data sources and assumptions are appropriate
and calculations are correct as applicable to the proposed CDM project activity,
and will result in an accurate or otherwise conservative estimate of the emission
reductions. If the applied methodologies require that any of these data and
parameters be determined in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and
surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”, the DOE shall
determine whether the sampling efforts were undertaken in accordance with this
standard;
(b) Data and parameters to be monitored: If data and parameters will be monitored
or estimated on implementation and hence become available only after validation
of the proposed CDM project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the
estimates provided in the PDD for these data and parameters are reasonable. If
the applied methodologies require that any of these estimates be determined in
accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities
and programme of activities”, the DOE shall determine whether the sampling
efforts were undertaken in accordance with this standard.
16 For proposed CDM project activities that have both A/R and non-A/R components, in order to avoid
double counting of emission sources, the emissions associated with A/R activity shall be accounted for
and clearly documented by the proposed A/R CDM project activity (see EB 25 report, paragraphs 38 and
48).
25 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
113. The DOE shall describe the steps taken to assess the requirements and state its opinion
on whether:
(a) All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD,
including their references and sources;
(b) All documentation used by the project participants as the basis for assumptions
and source of data is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD;
(c) All values used in the PDD including GWPs are considered reasonable in the
context of the proposed CDM project activity;
(d) The methodologies, any corresponding tools and, where applicable, the
standardized baselines have been applied correctly to calculate baseline, project
and leakage GHG emissions, as well as GHG emission reductions;
(e) All estimates of the baseline GHG emissions can be replicated using the data and
parameter values provided in the PDD;
(f) The sampling efforts were undertaken in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling
and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”, where the
applied methodologies require that the data and parameters be determined in
accordance with this standard.
114. The DOE shall describe how it has verified the data and parameters used in the equations,
including references to any other data sources used.
7.6.6. Monitoring plan
7.6.6.1. General
115. If the project participants included a monitoring plan in the PDD for validation for
registration of the proposed CDM project activity, the DOE shall apply the requirements in
section 7.6.6.2 below.
116. If the project participants chose to delay the submission of the monitoring plan for the
proposed CDM project activity, the DOE shall apply the requirements in section 7.6.6.3
below.
7.6.6.2. Validation of the monitoring plan

117. The DOE shall determine whether the description of the monitoring plan included in the
PDD complies with the applied methodologies including applicable tools and, where
applicable, the applied standardized baselines and, where applicable, the “Standard:
Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”.
118. The DOE shall apply a three-step process to meet the above requirement:
(a) To assess compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodologies
including applicable tools and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baselines, the DOE shall:
26 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(i) Identify the list of parameters required by the applied methodologies

including applicable tools and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baselines by means of document review;
(ii) Confirm that the description of the monitoring plan contains all necessary
parameters, that they are described, and that the means of monitoring
described in the plan comply with the requirements of the applied
methodologies including applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the applied
standardized baseline;
(b) To assess the feasibility of the plan the DOE shall, by means of review of the
documented procedures, interviews with relevant personnel, project plans and,
where conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, any on-site
inspection of the proposed CDM project activity, assess whether:
(i) The monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible
within the project design;
(ii) The means of implementation of the monitoring plan, including the data
management and quality assurance and quality control procedures, are
sufficient to ensure that GHG emission reductions achieved by/resulting from
the proposed CDM project activity can be reported ex post and verified;
(c) To determine whether the proposed sampling plan provides parameter value
estimates in an unbiased and reliable manner, where the project participants
applied a sampling approach to determine data and parameters, the DOE shall
assess the proposed sampling plan in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling
and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”.
119. The DOE shall:
(a) State its opinion on the compliance of the monitoring plan with the requirements of
the applied methodologies including applicable tool(s), the applied standardized
baseline and, where applicable, the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM
project activities and programme of activities”;
(b) Describe the steps undertaken to assess whether the monitoring arrangements
described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the project design;
(c) State its opinion on the project participants’ ability to implement the monitoring
plan.
7.6.6.3. Delayed validation of monitoring plan

120. The DOE shall confirm whether the project participants chose to delay the submission of
the monitoring plan for the proposed CDM project activity.
121. The DOE shall determine whether the relevant sections for the monitoring plan in the PDD
do not contain the information related to the monitoring plan and clearly state that the
delayed submission of the monitoring plan has been chosen by the project participants.
122. The DOE shall document the decision taken by the project participants to delay the
submission of the monitoring plan.
27 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.7. Start date, crediting period type and duration

123. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants specified the following on the
start date and crediting period type and duration of the proposed CDM project activity in
accordance with relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”:
(a) Start date of the proposed CDM project activity;
(b) Expected operational lifetime;
(c) Type and duration of the crediting period;
(d) Start date of the crediting period.
124. The DOE shall assess the start date and crediting period type and duration specified in
the PDD by means of a document review, use of official sources and its local and sectoral
expertise, interviews with relevant personnel and/or, where conducted in accordance with
paragraph 30 or 31 above, on-site inspection(s).
125. The DOE shall describe the steps taken to assess and state its opinion on the start date
and crediting period type and duration specified in the PDD with the relevant requirements
in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
7.8. Environmental impacts

126. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants conducted an analysis of the
environmental impacts of the proposed CDM project activity, including transboundary
impacts, and whether those impacts are considered significant by the project participants
or by the host Party.
127. The DOE shall also determine whether the project participants conducted an
environmental impact assessment, if considered significant by the project participants or
by the host Party, in accordance with the host Party’s procedures.
128. The DOE shall assess the above requirements by means of a document review and/or
using local official sources and expertise.
129. The DOE shall state whether the project participants have undertaken an analysis of
environmental impacts and, if considered significant by the project participants or by the
host Party, an environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as
required by the host Party.
7.9. Local stakeholder consultation

130. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants have completed the local
stakeholder consultation in accordance with the relevant requirements in the “CDM project
131. The DOE shall determine whether there are applicable host Party rules on local
stakeholder consultation. Where such rules exist, the DOE shall, by means of document
review and interviews with local stakeholders and/or the DNA, as appropriate, determine
whether the local stakeholder consultation was conducted in accordance with the rules.
28 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
132. If applicable host Party rules on local stakeholder consultation do not exist, the DOE shall,
by means of document review and interviews with local stakeholders and/or the DNA as
appropriate, determine whether the local stakeholder consultation was conducted in
accordance with the requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”
pertaining to:
(a) Scope of local stakeholder consultation;
(b) Minimum group of stakeholders to be involved;
(c) Means for inviting stakeholders’ participation;
(d) Information to be made available to stakeholders;
(e) Conduct of consultation;
(f) Summary of comments received;
(g) Consideration of comments received;
(h) Timing of local stakeholder consultation.
133. If the DOE used interviews with local stakeholders and/or the DNA as a means of
validation as referred to in paragraphs 131 and 132 above, and if the local stakeholders
and/or the DNA provided no response to the DOE’s request for an interview within 14 days
of the request being made, the DOE may proceed with the information available.
134. If the DOE, after the completion of the local stakeholder consultation, receives complaints
from local stakeholders on the handling of the outcome of the consultation forwarded by
the DNA in accordance with the “CDM project standard for project activities”, it shall
promptly forward them to the project participants and thereafter determine whether the
project participants have duly taken them into account. The DOE may proceed with the
validation with the complaints received within 14 days of the request for forwarding, if any.
135. The DOE shall determine whether changes to the PDD are made after the local
stakeholder consultation. If the DOE identifies such changes, it shall assess whether:
(a) The comments received through the local stakeholder consultation are still valid;
(b) The scope of the local stakeholders engaged is still valid.
136. If significant changes to the project design occurs after the local stakeholder consultation,
the DOE shall determine whether a new local stakeholder consultation was conducted
with relevant stakeholders in accordance with paragraphs 131 and 132 above.
137. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe the steps taken to assess the adequacy of the local stakeholder
consultation;
(b) State its opinion on the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation.
29 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.10. Sustainable development co-benefits

138. The DOE shall state whether a document describing how the project participants intend to
monitor sustainable development co-benefits of the proposed CDM project activity was
developed by the project participants separately from the monitoring plan.
7.11. Approval and authorization
7.11.1. Approval
139. The DOE shall determine whether the designated national authority (DNA) of each Party
indicated in the PDD as being involved in the proposed CDM project activity has provided
a written letter of approval.
140. The DOE shall determine whether each letter provided by the DNA of each Party involved
in the proposed CDM project activity confirms that:
(a) The Party is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol;
(b) The participation in the CDM project activity is voluntary;
(c) In the case of the host Party, the CDM project activity contributes to achieving the
sustainable development of the country;
(d) It refers to the precise title of the CDM project activity in the PDD being submitted
for registration (i.e. there shall be no difference between the title in the letter and
that in the PDD).
141. The DOE shall determine whether the letter of approval is unconditional with respect to
paragraph 140(a)−(d) above.
142. The DOE shall determine whether the letter of approval indicates that a proposed CDM
project activity or proposed bundled small-scale CDM project activities have only one host
Party in which the project activity(ies) are located, as set out in the PDD.
143. The DOE shall determine whether the letter of approval has been issued by the respective
Party’s DNA and is valid for the proposed CDM project activity under validation.17
144. If the DOE doubts the authenticity of the letter of approval, it shall verify with the DNA that
the letter of approval is authentic.
145. The DOE shall, for each Party involved:
(a) Indicate whether a letter of approval has been received, referencing the letter itself
and any supporting documentation;
(b) Indicate whether the DOE received the letter of approval from the project
participants, or directly from the DNA;
(c) Indicate the means of validation employed to assess the authenticity of the letter
of approval if paragraph 144 above applies;
17 A list of DNAs is available on the UNFCCC CDM website.
30 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(d) Include a statement on whether the letter of approval meets the requirements
referred to in paragraphs 140−144 above, as applicable.
146. If the letter of approval refers to a specific version of the validation report and the DOE
therefore is unable to submit this precise version of the validation report, the DOE shall:
(a) Insert a statement in the validation report to indicate that the final letter of approval
has not been received and that a request for registration will not be submitted until
it has been received; or
(b) Update the validation report to reflect the receipt of the letter of approval. If this
option is selected, the whole number of the version number of the validation report
shall remain unchanged and the tens decimal place shall be increased (e.g. from
1.0 to 1.1). The DOE shall confirm in the validation report that the confirmation of
the receipt of the letter of approval is the only change that has been made to the
version referred to in the letter of approval.
7.11.2. Authorization
147. The DOE shall determine whether each project participant of the proposed CDM project
activity has been authorized to participate in the project activity by at least one Party
involved in the letter of approval referred to in paragraph 139 above or in a separate
authorization letter.
148. The DOE shall confirm that the project participants of the proposed CDM project activity
are listed in the PDD and that this information is consistent with the information provided
in the section that contains the contact information of project participants.
149. The DOE shall confirm that no entities other than those authorized as the project
participants of the proposed CDM project activity are included in these sections of the
PDD.
150. The DOE shall confirm that the authorization has been issued from the relevant DNA, and
if in doubt, shall verify with the DNA that the authorization is valid for the project
participants of the proposed CDM project activity.
151. The DOE shall, for each project participant of the proposed CDM project activity:
(a) Indicate whether the participation has been authorized by a Party to the Kyoto
Protocol;
(b) Describe the means of validation used to support the conclusions.
7.12. Modalities of communication
7.12.1. General
152. The DOE shall validate the corporate identity of all project participants and focal points
included in the Modalities of Communication (MoC) statement, as well as the personal
identities, including specimen signatures and employment status, of their authorized
signatories.
31 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
153. The DOE shall validate the identities referred to in paragraph 152 above through:
(a) Directly checking evidence of corporate and personal identities and other relevant
documentation;
(b) Notarized documentation; or
(c) Written confirmation from the project participant that submits the MoC statement
that all corporate and personal details, including specimen signatures, are valid
and accurate.
154. When the DOE validates the identities by applying paragraph 153 (c) above, the DOE
shall ensure that the MoC statement is received from a project participant with whom the
DOE has a contractual relationship.
155. When the DOE validates the identities by applying paragraph 153 (c) above, the DOE
shall ensure that the official who submits the MoC statement to the DOE and the official
who signed the written confirmation (if a different person) are duly authorized to do so on
behalf of the respective project participant.
156. If the DOE is unable to validate the requirements by applying paragraph 153 (a), (b) or (c)
above, the DOE may perform further validation activities in order to confirm that the
corporate and personal details, employment status and specimen signatures included in
the MoC statement are valid and accurate, and comply with the requirements of this
section.
157. The DOE shall state that it has performed due diligence on the MoC statement in
accordance with the requirements in this section.
7.12.2. Modalities of the communication statement

158. The DOE shall validate that the MoC statement has been correctly completed and duly
authorized.
159. The DOE shall check that:
(a) The valid version of the form “Modalities of Communication statement”
(CDM-MOC-FORM) has been used;
(b) The information required as per the CDM-MOC-FORM, including its annex 1, is
correctly completed;
(c) The project participants’ authorized signatories signing the CDM-MOC-FORM
correspond to the project participants’ authorized signatories included in the
CDM-MOC-FORM, annex 1.
160. The DOE shall state that the MoC statement was completed and duly authorized in
accordance with the valid version of the form and the information required therein.
32 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.13. Specific validation requirements for small-scale project activities
7.13.1. General
161. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed small-scale CDM project activity that
follows the CDM SSC M&Ps and other CDM rules and requirements for small-scale project
activities applies only small-scale approved methodologies. However, for a proposed
small-scale CDM project activity that is within the small-scale activity threshold but applies
a large-scale approved methodology, the DOE shall determine whether this project activity
follows the CDM M&Ps and other CDM rules and requirements for large-scale project
activities.
7.13.2. Project activity type and eligibility

162. The DOE shall determine whether:
(a) The proposed CDM project activity qualifies within the thresholds of the three
possible types of small-scale project activities, as defined in the “CDM project
standard for project activities”;
(b) The proposed CDM project activity conforms to one or more of the approved
small-scale methodologies applied in conjunction with the “Guideline: General
guidelines for SSC CDM methodologies”.
163. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the proposed CDM project activity is within the
thresholds for small-scale project activities.
7.13.3. Bundling of project activities

164. The DOE shall determine whether the bundle of proposed small-scale CDM project
activities is designed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the “CDM project
standard for project activities” if the project participants bring together more than one
proposed small-scale CDM project activity as a bundle.
165. A single DOE may validate the bundle of proposed small-scale CDM project activities.
166. The DOE shall assess the compliance with the applicable requirements in the “CDM
project standard for project activities” by means of a document review, interview with
relevant personnel and/or, where conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31
above, an on-site inspection of the project sites.
167. The DOE shall:
(a) State its opinion on the compliance of the bundle of proposed small-scale CDM
project activities with the applicable requirements in the “CDM project standard for
project activities”;
(b) Describe the steps taken to assess the compliance.
33 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.13.4. Debundling of project activity

168. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed small-scale CDM project activity is not a
debundled component of a large-scale CDM project activity in accordance with the
“Methodological tool: Assessment of debundling for SSC project activities”.18
169. The DOE shall determine the proposed small-scale CDM project activity to be a debundled
component of a large-scale CDM project activity if there is a registered small-scale CDM
project activity or an application to register another proposed small-scale CDM project
activity.
170. The DOE shall, where appropriate, take into account specific debundling requirements for
Type I project activities and small-scale transport project activities.
171. The DOE shall state its conclusion and specific details on how it assessed whether the
proposed small-scale CDM project activities are not a debundled component of a large-
scale activity.
7.13.5. Description of project activity

172. If the project participants included more than one component in the proposed small-scale
CDM project activity, the DOE shall confirm that the project participants provided
information on the project type (i.e. Type I, II and/or III), technology/measure of the project
activity, and application of the selected methodologies separately for each component.
7.13.6. Application of selected methodologies and standardized baselines
7.13.6.1. General
173. If the proposed small-scale CDM project activity contains more than one component, the
DOE shall determine whether the PDD describes, for each component separately, how to
undertake the ex post calculation of baseline, project and leakage GHG emissions as well
as GHG emission reductions, and provides the ex ante calculation of them, in accordance
with the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
7.13.6.2. Demonstration of additionality

174. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed small-scale CDM project activity is
additional in accordance with CDM rules and requirements applicable for small-scale CDM
project activities.
175. Paragraph 86 above applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity using an
approved standardized baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraph 174
above.
176. The DOE shall refer to the “Methodological tool: Demonstration of additionality of small-
scale project activities” and the “Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate
additionality for SSC project activities” or any applicable additionality tool.
18 If the proposed small-scale CDM project activity is deemed to be a debundled component but the total
size of such an activity combined with the previous registered small-scale CDM project activity does not
exceed the limits for small-scale project activities, then the project activity can qualify to use the CDM
SSC M&Ps.
34 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
177. In the case of Type I project activities up to 5 MW (or an appropriate equivalent) that
employ renewable energy as their primary technology, Type II energy efficiency project
activities that aim to achieve energy savings at a scale of no more than 20 GWh per year
(or an appropriate equivalent), and Type III project activities that aim to achieve emissions
reductions at a scale of no more than 20 kt CO2e per year, instead of paragraphs 92–109
above, the DOE shall assess the relevant criteria to establish the automatic additionality
for these project activities in accordance with the “Methodological tool: Demonstration of
additionality of microscale project activities”.
178. Paragraph 89 above applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity using an
approved standardized baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraph 177
above.
179. The DOE shall describe all steps taken and sources of information used to cross-check
the information contained in the PDD.
7.13.6.3. Monitoring plan

180. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe the process undertaken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the
monitoring plan for the proposed small-scale CDM project activity;
(b) State its opinion on the accuracy and completeness of the monitoring plan for the
proposed small-scale CDM project activity.
7.13.7. Environmental impacts

181. The following applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity instead of paragraphs
126 and 127 above: The DOE shall determine whether the project participants conducted
an analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed small-scale CDM project activity,
if required by the host Party.
182. The following applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity instead of paragraph
129 above: The DOE shall state whether the project participants have undertaken an
analysis of environmental impacts if required by the host Party.
7.14. Specific validation requirements for afforestation and reforestation project

activities

183. The DOE shall assess the eligibility of the land and the approach to address non-
permanence described by the project participants in accordance with applicable specific
requirements for A/R CDM project activities in the “CDM project standard for project
activities”.
7.14.2. Project boundary

184. Paragraphs 185–188 below apply to a proposed A/R CDM project activity instead of
paragraphs 69–74 above.
35 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
185. The DOE shall confirm whether the PDD contains a description of the project boundary
that delineates discrete areas of land planned for the proposed A/R CDM project activity
under the control of the project participants.19
186. The DOE shall, through document review and/or interviews, determine whether the project
participants for all areas of land planned for the proposed A/R CDM project activity:
(a) Have already established control over afforestation or reforestation activities; or
(b) Have control over afforestation or reforestation.
187. The DOE shall confirm that the control has included at minimum the exclusive right,
defined in a way acceptable under the legal system of the host Party, to perform the A/R
activity with the aim of achieving net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks. If the total
number of documents to be reviewed and persons/entities to be interviewed is not less
than 10, then the DOE may apply a sampling approach.
188. The DOE shall describe the documentation assessed and/or oral statements made by
persons interviewed (if any) and determine their acceptability under the legal system of
the host Party. If the DOE has applied a sampling approach, it shall also describe how
many sites have been assessed and how these sites were selected.
7.14.3. Eligibility of land

189. The DOE shall confirm that the land within the planned project boundary is eligible for a
proposed A/R CDM project activity.
190. The DOE shall validate the above requirement based on a review of information that
reliably discriminates between forest and non-forest land according to the particular
thresholds adopted by the host Party 20 and, where conducted in accordance with
paragraph 30 or 31 above, an on-site inspection.
191. The DOE shall describe how the validation of the eligibility of the land has been performed,
by detailing the data sources assessed and, where conducted in accordance with
paragraph 30 or 31 above, by describing its observations during the on-site inspection.
The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the entire land within the project boundary is
eligible for the proposed A/R CDM project activity.
7.14.4. Addressing non-permanence

192. The DOE shall determine which approach to address non-permanence (i.e. tCERs or
lCERs) is selected in accordance with the relevant provisions in the “CDM project standard
for project activities”.
193. The DOE shall confirm whether the approach selected by the project participants to
address non-permanence has been specified in the PDD.
19 The proposed A/R CDM project activity may contain more than one discrete area of land.
20 Exemplary sources are listed in the “A/R Methodological tool: Demonstration of eligibility of lands for A/R
CDM project activities”.
36 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
7.14.5. Application of methodologies and standardized baselines
7.14.5.1. Carbon pools and greenhouse gases

194. The DOE shall determine whether the carbon pools to be considered in the proposed A/R
CDM project activity were selected in accordance with the requirements of the applied
methodologies.
195. The DOE shall confirm that information has been provided to justify the exclusion of certain
carbon pools if the applied methodologies allow for such an option. In doing so, the DOE
shall confirm that all documents referred to in the PDD are correctly quoted and
interpreted. If relevant, the DOE shall cross-check the information provided in the PDD
with other available information from public sources or local experts.
196. If the applied methodologies allow for the option to exclude certain pools and this option
is selected by project participants, the DOE shall state its opinion on whether the selection
of carbon pools complies with the applied methodologies, and whether the exclusion is
justified.
7.14.5.2. Baseline scenario

197. The following applies to a proposed A/R CDM project activity instead of paragraphs 75
and 80 above: The DOE shall determine whether the baseline identified for the proposed
A/R CDM project activity is the scenario for each stratum of the proposed A/R CDM project
activity, including the land use that would occur in the absence of the proposed A/R CDM
project activity.
198. The following applies to a proposed A/R CDM project activity instead of paragraph 81
above: The DOE shall determine whether, drawing on its knowledge of the sector and/or
advice from local experts, all applicable CDM rules and requirements have been taken
into account in the identification of the baseline scenario for the proposed A/R CDM project
activity, as well as relevant national and/or sectoral policies, regulations and
circumstances, such as historical land use practices, without creating perverse incentives
that may impact host Parties’ contributions to the ultimate objective of the Convention in
the following manner: national and/or sectoral land-use policies or regulations, which give
comparative advantages to A/R activities and have been implemented since the adoption
by the COP of the modalities and procedures for the CDM, 21 need not be taken into
account in the baseline scenario (i.e. the baseline scenario could refer to a hypothetical
situation without the national and/or sectoral policies or regulations being in place).
7.14.5.3. Estimation of net anthropogenic removals

199. The following applies to a proposed A/R CDM project activity instead of paragraph 110
above: The DOE shall determine whether the steps taken and the equations and
parameters applied in the PDD to calculate baseline net GHG removals by sinks, actual
net GHG removals by sinks, leakage, and net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks
comply with the requirements of the applied methodologies including applicable tools and,
where applicable, the applied standardized baselines.
21 Decision 17/CP.7.
37 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
200. The following applies to a proposed A/R CDM project activity instead of paragraph 113 (f)
above: The DOE shall determine whether sampling efforts were undertaken in accordance
with the applied methodologies including applicable tools if the project participants applied
the sampling approach to determine data and parameters in accordance with the applied
methodologies including applicable tools.
7.14.5.4. Demonstration of additionality

201. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed A/R CDM project activity is additional as
demonstrated in the PDD.22
7.14.5.5. Monitoring
202. The DOE shall determine whether the PDD describes the planned management activities,
including harvesting cycles, and verifications such that a systematic coincidence of
verification and peaks in carbon stocks would be avoided.
203. The DOE shall review the forest management plan and the monitoring plan for the
proposed A/R CDM project activity to confirm that a systematic coincidence of verification
and peaks in carbon stocks is avoided.
204. The DOE shall describe how the project participants have ensured that a systematic
coincidence of verification and peaks in carbon stocks would be avoided.
7.14.6. Crediting period type and duration

205. The DOE shall describe how it assesses the compliance on the crediting period type and
duration in accordance with A/R project specific requirements related to the crediting
period type and duration in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
7.14.7. Environmental impacts

206. The DOE shall validate the documentation received from the project participants on the
analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed A/R CDM project activity, including
impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and impacts outside the project boundary
of the proposed A/R CDM project activity.
207. The DOE shall confirm the above requirement by means of a document review and/or
208. If the above-mentioned analysis leads to the conclusion that a negative impact that may
be considered significant by the project participants or the host Party has been detected,
then the DOE shall determine whether an environmental impact assessment has been
undertaken in accordance with relevant host Party regulations, and the outcome of such
impact assessment is summarized in the PDD.
22 For proposed A/R CDM project activities, “An afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM
is additional if the actual net greenhouse gas removals by sinks are increased above the sum of the
changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary that would have occurred in
the absence of the registered CDM afforestation or reforestation project activity” (see decision 5/CMP.1,
annex, paragraph 18).
38 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
209. The DOE shall state whether the project participants have undertaken an analysis of
environmental impacts and, if considered significant by the project participants or the host
Party, a socio-economic impact assessment and/or an environmental impact assessment
in accordance with relevant host Party regulations.
210. The DOE shall also state whether the outcome of such impact assessment has been
summarized in the PDD and whether a description of the planned monitoring and remedial
measures to address the negative impacts has been included in the PDD.
7.14.8. Socio-economic impacts

211. The DOE shall validate the documentation received from the project participants on the
analysis of the major socio-economic impacts of the proposed A/R CDM project activity,
including impacts outside the project boundary of the proposed A/R CDM project activity.
212. The DOE shall confirm the above requirement by means of a document review and/or
213. If the above-mentioned analysis leads to the conclusion that a negative impact that may
be considered significant by the project participants or the host Party has been detected,
then the DOE shall determine whether a socio-economic impact assessment has been
undertaken in accordance with relevant host Party regulations, and the outcome of such
impact assessment is summarized in the PDD.
214. The DOE shall state whether the project participants have undertaken an analysis of the
socio-economic impacts and, if considered significant by the project participants or the
host Party, a socio-economic impact assessment in accordance with relevant host Party
regulations.
215. The DOE shall also state whether the outcome of such impact assessment has been
summarized in the PDD and whether a description of the planned monitoring and remedial
measures to address the negative impacts has been included in the PDD.
7.15. Specific validation requirements for small-scale afforestation and

reforestation project activities
216. The DOE shall determine whether the proposed small-scale A/R CDM project activity:
(a) Complies with the definition and limit for the small-scale A/R project activities;23
(b) Complies with one of the types of small-scale A/R project activities defined in
appendix B of the CDM SSC A/R M&Ps and qualifies to apply one of the approved
simplified methodologies for small-scale A/R project activities;
(c) Is not a debundled component of a large-scale A/R CDM project activity in
accordance with the rules defined in appendix C of the CDM SSC A/R M&Ps;
(d) Has been developed or implemented by low-income communities and individuals
as confirmed by the host Party.24
23 See decision 9/CMP.3, which revised decision 5/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 1 (i).
24 See decision 5/CMP.1, annex paragraph 1 (i).
39 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
project activities
7.16.1. General
217. The DOE shall determine whether specific requirements as defined in the CDM CCS
M&Ps have been followed for the proposed CCS CDM project activity.25

218. The DOE shall assess the description of the proposed CCS CDM project activity described
by the project participants in accordance with applicable specific requirements for CCS
CDM project activities in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
7.16.3. Host Party participation requirements

219. The DOE shall determine whether the participation requirements as set out in the section
“Participation requirements of host Party for CCS project activities” of the “CDM project
cycle procedure for project activities” are satisfied.
220. The DOE shall determine whether the host Party has:
(a) Submitted the expression of its agreement to the UNFCCC secretariat to allow the
implementation of CCS project activities on its territory;
(b) Established laws and/or regulations which meet the requirements set out in the
section “Host Party participation requirements of host Party for CCS project
activities” of the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
221. The DOE shall describe how the host Party’s laws and/or regulations meet the
requirements set out in the section “Laws and regulations of host Party for CCS project
activities” of the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
222. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants have received written
confirmation by the DNA of the host Party of the following:
(a) That the right to store carbon dioxide in, and gain access to, the proposed
geological storage site has been conferred to the relevant project participants;
(b) That the host Party agrees to the financial provision, in accordance with the section
“Requirements for financial provision” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”, described in the project design document;
(c) That the host Party accepts the allocation of liability as proposed in the project
design document and the transfer of liability referred to in the section “Liability” of
the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(d) Whether the host Party accepts the obligation to address a net reversal of storage
in the situation referred to in the section “Addressing non-permanence in CCS
project activities” of the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
25 See annex to decision 10/CMP.7.
40 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
223. The DOE shall confirm that the approval of participation has been issued from the relevant
DNA and covers all the points mentioned in paragraph 220 above. If the DOE is in doubt,
it shall verify with the DNA that the approval is valid for the proposed CDM project
participants.
224. The DOE shall, for each participant:
(a) Indicate whether the participation has been authorized by a host Party mentioning
all the conditions as specified in the paragraph 220 above;
(b) Describe the means of validation employed to support the conclusions.
7.16.4. Selection and characterization of the geological storage site

(a) The geological storage site has been characterized and selected in accordance
with the section “Selection and characterization of the geological storage site” of
(b) The conditions set out in the section “Selection and characterization of the
geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project activities” have
been fulfilled.
(a) The selection and characterization of the geological storage site fulfils the
requirements set out in the section “Selection and characterization of the
geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(b) All the steps mentioned in the section “Selection and characterization of the
geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project activities” have
been performed for the project activity;
(c) Relevant information is used for the selection and characterization of the geological
storage site, in accordance with the section “Selection and characterization of the
geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
227. The DOE shall describe all the steps taken and sources of information used to validate
the PDD. The DOE shall describe how it has determined that the evidence assessed is
credible, where appropriate.
228. The DOE shall also describe how the requirements set out in the section “Selection and
characterization of the geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities” have been fulfilled.
7.16.5. Project boundary

229. The DOE shall confirm that the PDD description of the project boundary of a proposed
CCS CDM project activity includes all above-ground components, including, where
applicable, the following:
(a) The installation where the carbon dioxide is captured;
(b) Any treatment facilities;
41 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Transportation equipment, including pipelines and booster stations along a

pipeline, or offloading facilities in the case of transportation by ship, rail or road
tanker;
(d) Any reception facilities or holding tanks at the injection site;
(e) The injection facility;
(f) Subsurface components, including the geological storage site and all potential
sources of seepage, as determined during the characterization and selection of the
geological storage site.
230. The DOE shall also confirm that the project boundary of a proposed CCS CDM project
activity also encompasses the vertical and lateral limits of the carbon dioxide geological
storage site that are expected when the carbon dioxide plume stabilizes over the long term
during the closure phase and the post-closure phase.
231. The DOE shall confirm the project boundary based on the documented evidence and,
where conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, shall corroborate it by an
on-site inspection.
232. The DOE shall confirm that the project boundary covers all the relevant elements in
accordance with the section “Project boundary” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”.
233. The DOE shall describe how the validation of the project boundary has been performed
by detailing the documentation assessed (e.g. an engineering design report) and, where
conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, by describing its observations
during the on-site inspection undertaken (i.e. observations of the physical site or
equipment used in the process).
7.16.6. Risk and safety assessment

234. The DOE shall determine whether the risk and safety assessment has been carried out in
accordance with:
(a) The laws and regulations of the host Party, as applicable;
(b) The provisions set out in the section “Risk and safety assessment” of the “CDM
project standard for project activities”.
(a) The risk and safety assessment has been carried out in accordance with the laws
and regulations of the host Party;
(b) All the requirements set out in the section “Risk and safety assessment” of the
“CDM project standard for project activities” have been met for the proposed CCS
CDM project activity;
(c) The five steps for assessing the potential risk of the proposed CCS CDM project
activity, as set out in the section “Risk and safety assessment” of the “CDM project
standard for project activities”, have been followed.
42 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
236. The DOE shall indicate whether the project participants have undertaken a risk and safety
assessment in accordance with the laws and regulations as required by the host Party.
237. The DOE shall describe how the requirements set out in the section “Risk and safety
assessment” of the “CDM project standard for project activities” have been fulfilled.
7.16.7. Monitoring
238. The following applies instead of paragraphs on general requirements (i.e. not related to
data and parameters monitored and other elements of monitoring plan) in sub-section
“Monitoring plan” in the section “Design of project activity” of the “CDM project standard
for project activities”:
239. The DOE shall confirm that the provisions in the PDD for monitoring, including the
monitoring plan, are in accordance with the selected methodologies, the requirements set
out in the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project activities” and all
other applicable CDM rules and requirements.
240. The DOE shall apply a two-step process to meet the requirement mentioned in paragraph
239 above:
(a) In order to assess the compliance of the monitoring plan with the CDM CCS M&Ps,
the DOE shall:
(i) Identify the list of parameters, information, provisions for history matching
and numerical models used to characterize the geological storage site
required as set out in the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard
for project activities” by means of a document review;
(ii) Confirm that the description of the monitoring plan contains all necessary
parameters, information, provisions for history matching and numerical
models used to characterize the geological storage site, and that the means
of monitoring described in the plan complies with the requirements of the
section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(b) In order to assess the implementation of the plan the DOE shall, by means of
reviewing the documented procedure, interviewing relevant personnel, reviewing
project plans and, where conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above,
any on-site inspection of the proposed project activity site, determine whether:
(i) The monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible
within the project design;
(ii) The means of implementation of the monitoring plan, including the data
management and quality assurance and quality control procedures, are
sufficient to ensure that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the section
“Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project activities” and in all
other CDM rules and requirements and the parameters can be reported ex
post and verified.
241. The DOE shall use official sources and its local and sectoral expertise to confirm that the
project participants have provided the description and analysis of the environmental
conditions in the area of geological storage site prior to any storage of carbon dioxide in
accordance with paragraph 240 above.
43 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
242. The DOE shall:

(a) State its opinion on the compliance of the described monitoring plan with the
requirements of the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”;
(b) Describe the steps taken to assess whether the monitoring arrangements
described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the project design;
(c) State its opinion on the project participants’ ability to implement the described
monitoring plan;
(d) State its opinion on the description and analysis of environmental conditions in the
area of the geological storage site prior to any storage of carbon dioxide.
7.16.8. Requirements for financial provision

243. The DOE shall determine whether financial provisions have been put in place by the
project participants in accordance with the requirements set out in the section
“Requirements for financial provision” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
244. The DOE shall confirm that:
(a) The project participants have established financial provisions in accordance with
the requirements mentioned above;
(b) The financial provision is sufficient to cover all aspects defined in the section
“Requirements for financial provision” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”;
(c) The type and amount of financial provision is described in the PDD;
(d) The financial provision shall, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the
host Party, be transferable to the host Party upon fulfilment of all obligations of the
project participants in accordance with the CCS-related requirements in the “CDM
project standard for project activities” and the laws and regulations of the host
Party, or upon insolvency of the project participants.
245. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe the steps taken to assess the relevant information contained in the PDD
against the criteria set out in the section “Requirements for financial provision” of
(b) Describe how the financial provision is sufficient to cover all aspects defined in the
section “Requirements for financial provision” of the “CDM project standard for
(c) Describe the type and amount of the financial provision;
(d) Describe the sources of information used to confirm how the financial provision
shall be transferred to the host Party, upon fulfilment of all obligations of the project
participants in accordance with CCS-related requirements in the “CDM project
standard for project activities” and the laws and regulations of the host Party, or
upon insolvency of the project participants;
44 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(e) Confirm that the financial provision is guaranteed to be transferable to the host
Party upon insolvency of the project participant(s).
7.16.9. Liability
246. The DOE shall determine whether the allocation and transfer of liability have been agreed
in accordance with:
(a) The laws and regulations of the host Party, as applicable; and
(b) The requirements set out in the section “Liability” of the “CDM project standard for
247. The DOE shall determine whether, in accordance with the requirements mentioned above:
(a) The allocation and transfer of liability has been agreed;
(b) The proposed allocation and transfer of liability is feasible and implementable.
248. The DOE shall:
(a) Describe how the proposed allocation and transfer of liability complies with the
requirements mentioned in the section “Liability” in the “CDM project standard for
(b) Describe how it assessed whether the allocation and transfer of liability is feasible
and implementable;
(c) Confirm that the obligation of liability shall reside with the project participant(s)
during the operational phase and any time thereafter until a transfer of liability to
the host Party has been effected.
7.16.10. Environmental and socio-economic impact assessments

249. The DOE shall confirm that the environmental and socio-economic impact assessments
have been carried out in accordance with:
(a) The laws and regulations of the host Party, as applicable;
(b) The provisions set out in the section “Environmental and socio-economic impact
assessments” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
250. The DOE shall determine whether the results of the assessments referred to in paragraphs
234 and 249 above confirm the technical and environmental viability of the proposed CCS
(a) The environmental and socio-economic impact assessments have been carried
out as per the requirements mentioned in the paragraphs above;
(b) The results of the risk and safety assessment and environmental and socio-
economic impact assessments confirm the technical and environmental viability of
the proposed CCS CDM project activity.
45 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
252. The DOE shall:

(a) Describe how the environmental and socio-economic impact assessments comply
with the laws and regulations of the host Party;
(b) Describe how it has assessed that the requirements set out in the section
“Environmental and socio-economic impact assessments” of the “CDM project
standard for project activities” are met for the proposed CCS CDM project activity;
(c) Describe how it has validated the compliance of the detailed description of the
planned monitoring and remedial measures to address any environmental and
socio-economic impacts identified in accordance with the procedures as required
by the host Party;
(d) State whether the results of the assessments confirm the technical and
environmental viability of the proposed CCS CDM project activity.
7.16.11. Verification and certification

253. The initial verification and certification of a CCS CDM project activity may be undertaken
at a time selected by the project participants. The DOE shall submit subsequent
verification and certification reports to the Board not later than five years after the end of
the previous verification period.
7.17. Global stakeholder consultation

254. The DOE shall determine whether authentic and relevant comments in the global
stakeholder consultation were taken into due account in the PDD of the proposed CDM
project activity.
255. The DOE shall acknowledge receipt of all submitted comments on the PDD of the
proposed CDM project activity.
256. In case of doubt, the DOE shall determine the authenticity of the name and contact details
of the individual or organization on whose behalf the comments have been submitted.
257. Once the DOE has determined which submitted comments are authentic, it shall contact
the secretariat to make them publicly available.
258. The DOE shall determine whether the authentic comments are relevant to the following
defined scope of comments:
(a) The comment discusses issues specific to the proposed CDM project activity;
(b) The comment discusses issues related to the compliance with the relevant CDM
rules and regulations.
259. The DOE shall request the project participants to address all the comments that it
determined to be authentic and relevant in accordance with paragraphs 256 and 258
above.
260. If a comment indicates that the proposed CDM project activity does not comply with the
CDM rules and requirements but are not substantiated, the DOE shall request a
clarification from the entity that provided the comment. Upon receiving the clarification, the
46 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
DOE shall determine whether a further clarification request is required. If no additional

information or substantiation is provided within 14 days of the request for clarification being
made, the DOE shall request the project participants to address the comments as
originally provided.
261. The DOE shall determine whether changes to the PDD have been made after the
publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation.
262. A DOE shall make the revised PDD publicly available for global stakeholder consultation
in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities” if it determines
that:
(a) The project participants that have a contractual relationship with the DOE have
been replaced;
(b) Significant changes have been made to the project design; or
(c) The approved methodologies, the approved standardized baselines and/or the
combination thereof applied in the PDD has been changed by the project
participants.
263. If the DOE determines that significant changes have been made to the project design, the
DOE may seek guidance from the Board on whether the revised PDD shall be published
for global stakeholder consultation in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure
264. The DOE shall report the details of the actions taken to:
(a) Authenticate the information on the submitters of the comments in case of doubt;
(b) Determine the relevance of the authentic comments to the defined scope of
comments;
(c) Take due account of the authentic and relevant comments, including dates of
receipt, responses by the project participants and responses by the DOE.
265. If the DOE identifies changes to the PDD after the publication of them for global
stakeholder consultation, the DOE shall state its opinion on whether the publication of the
revised PDD for global stakeholder consultation was necessary in accordance with
paragraph 262 above.
7.18. Validation status and outcomes, opinion and report
7.18.1. Validation status and outcomes

266. The DOE shall provide an update of the status of its validation activity in accordance with
the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
7.18.2. Validation opinion

267. The DOE shall include a statement on the likelihood of the proposed CDM project activity
achieving the anticipated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals
stated in the PDD.
47 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
268. The DOE shall notify the project participants of the validation outcome. The notification to
the project participants shall include:
(a) A confirmation of validation and date of submission of the validation report as part
of the request for registration of the proposed CDM project activity to the Board; or
(b) An explanation of reasons for non-acceptance if the proposed CDM project activity,
as documented, is determined not to fulfil the requirements for validation.
269. The DOE shall provide either:
(a) A positive validation opinion in its validation report if the DOE determines that the
proposed CDM project activity complies with the applicable CDM rules and
requirements; or
(b) A negative validation opinion in its validation report explaining the reason for its
opinion if the DOE determines that the proposed CDM project activity does not fulfil
the applicable CDM rules and requirements.26
270. The DOE shall include the following in its opinion:
(a) A summary of the validation method and process used and the validation criteria
applied;
(b) A description of project components or issues not covered by the validation
process;
(c) A summary of the validation conclusions;
(d) A statement on the validation of the expected GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals;
(e) A statement on whether the proposed CDM project activity meets the applicable
CDM rules and requirements.
7.18.3. Validation report

271. The DOE shall report the results of its assessment in the validation report.
272. In its validation report, the DOE shall provide the following:
(a) A summary of the validation process and its conclusions;
(b) Results of the dialogue between the DOE and the project participants, as well as
any adjustments made to the project design following the stakeholder consultation.
It shall reflect the responses to CARs and CLs, the identification of FARs, and
discussions on and revisions to the project documentation;
(c) All its applied approaches, findings and conclusions on the requirements set out in
sections 7.2−7.17 above;
26 This does not cover the case in which the project participants failed to inform the secretariat, or informed
it but not within the required time frame, of the progress of the proposed CDM project activity every
subsequent two years after the initial notification of prior consideration of the CDM in accordance with
the “CDM project cycle procedure”.
48 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(d) A validation opinion;

(e) A list of interviewees, documents reviewed, sampling approaches used by the DOE
and, where conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, on-site
inspections. Where the DOE applied a sampling approach to the on-site inspection,
the DOE shall include a description of how the sample size was determined and
how the field check was carried out;
(f) Details of the validation team, technical experts and internal technical reviewers
involved, together with their roles in the validation activity and, where conducted in
accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above, details of who conducted the on-site
inspection;
(g) Information on quality control within the team and in the validation process;
(h) Appointment certificates or curricula vitae of the DOE’s validation team members,
technical experts and internal technical reviewers for the proposed CDM project
activity.
273. The DOE shall submit the validation report, along with the supporting documents, to the
Board as part of the request for registration of a proposed CDM project activity in
274. If the DNA has forwarded complaints from local stakeholders to the DOE during the
validation in accordance with paragraph 134 above, the DOE shall, once the request for
registration is published on the UNFCCC CDM website, inform the DNA and the
complainants of the publication of the validation report.
8. Validation of post-registration changes

8.1. General validation requirements
275. The DOE contracted by the project participants to validate the post-registration changes
referred to in sections 8.2–8.4 below shall be accredited for the validation function and in
the sectoral scope(s) relevant to the CDM project activity.
276. The DOE shall apply the requirements in section 7.1.3 above mutatis mutandis to validate
the information provided by the project participants.
277. If the DOE determines that the proposed or actual post-registration changes to the
registered CDM project activity comply with the relevant CDM rules and requirements, the
DOE shall issue a positive validation opinion and submit a request for approval of changes
either prior to or together with the submission of the request for issuance of CERs in
accordance with relevant requirements in the “CDM project cycle procedure for project
activities”.
278. If the DOE determines that the proposed or actual post-registration changes to the
registered CDM project activity do not comply with the relevant CDM rules and
requirements, the DOE shall issue a negative validation opinion.
279. The DOE shall determine whether the revised PDD reflecting the post-registration
changes were prepared in both track-change and clean versions, and were completed
using the valid version of the applicable PDD form.
49 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
280. If the project participants used a later valid version of the PDD form for preparing the
revised PDD than the version used for the registered PDD, the DOE shall determine
whether the information transferred to the later valid version of the form is materially the
same as that in the registered PDD.
281. In its validation report for the post-registration changes, the DOE shall:
(a) Provide all its applied approaches, findings and conclusion on:
(i) The compliance of the revised PDD with the valid version of the applicable
form(s) and instructions therein, as applicable;
(ii) Whether the information transferred to the later valid version of the PDD is
materially the same as that in the registered PDD;
(iii) The requirements relevant to the proposed or actual post-registration
changes in sections 8.2–8.4 below;
(b) Report on all items listed in paragraph 272 above except paragraph 272(c) above.
8.2. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied

methodologies or applied standardized baselines
282. The DOE shall determine whether there are deviations from the monitoring plan in the
registered PDD, or the monitoring plan in an approved revised PDD (hereinafter referred
to as the registered monitoring plan), the applied methodologies and/or the applied
standardized baselines, and, if there are, determine whether the deviations comply with
the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
283. If the DOE identifies that the project participants have deviated from the registered
monitoring plan, the applied methodologies, and/or the applied standardized baselines,
the DOE shall, at the direction of the project participants, seek approval from the Board
with respect to the acceptability of the deviations in accordance with the “CDM project
cycle procedure for project activities”.
284. The DOE shall determine whether the deviation is likely to lead to a reduction in the
accuracy of the calculation of emission reductions. If the DOE considers that the deviation
will lead to a reduction in the accuracy of the calculation of emission reductions, the DOE
shall request the project participants to apply conservative assumptions or discount factors
to the calculations to the extent required to ensure that emission reductions will not be
overestimated as a result of the deviation.
285. For cases where a deviation from the registered monitoring plan may be applicable to the
monitoring period under verification, and part of the subsequent monitoring period, the
DOE shall determine the exact period to which the deviation applies.
286. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the deviation complies with the relevant
requirements related to the temporary deviation from the registered monitoring plan,
methodologies or standardized baselines in the “CDM project standard for project
activities”.
50 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
8.3. Permanent changes
8.3.1. Corrections
287. The DOE shall determine that any corrections to project information or parameters fixed
at validation, as described in the registered PDD, made by project participants in a revised
PDD comply with the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project
activities”.
288. If the DOE identifies that the project participants have made corrections to project
information or parameters fixed at validation, the DOE shall determine whether:
(a) The corrected information is an accurate reflection of actual project information;
and/or
(b) The corrected parameters are in accordance with the applied methodologies, the
registered monitoring plan and/or the applied standardized baselines.
289. The DOE shall state how the corrected information accurately reflects the actual project
information and/or how the corrected parameters reflect the application of the applied
methodologies, the registered monitoring plan and/or the applied standardized baselines.
8.3.2. Changes to the start date of the crediting period

290. If the project participants wish to change the start date of the crediting period of the
registered CDM project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the proposed change
complies with the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
291. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the change complies with the relevant
requirements related to the changes to the start date of the crediting period in the “CDM
project standard for project activities”.
8.3.3. Inclusion of monitoring plan

292. The DOE shall determine whether there is a monitoring plan that has been proposed to
be included to the registered PDD for which the delayed submission of the monitoring plan
was chosen by the project participants at the time of the registration of the CDM project
activity, and, if there is, determine whether the monitoring plan complies with the relevant
requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
293. The DOE shall confirm that the registered PDD does not contain the information related
to the monitoring plan and states the decision of the project participants to delay the
submission of the monitoring plan.
294. The DOE shall follow the relevant requirements related to validation of the monitoring plan
in section 7.6.6.2 above to validate the monitoring plan in the revised PDD.
295. The DOE shall follow the relevant requirements related to validation of the monitoring plan
in section 7.6.6.2 above to report on the validation of the monitoring plan in the revised
PDD.
51 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
8.3.4. Permanent changes to the registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of

monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines, or other
applied standards or tools
296. The DOE shall determine whether there are permanent changes to the registered
monitoring plan, or whether the monitoring permanently deviates from the applied
methodologies, standardized baselines, or other applied standards or tools, and, if there
are, determine whether the permanent changes or the deviation comply with the relevant
requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
297. The DOE shall determine whether the changes to the registered monitoring plan described
in the revised PDD are in compliance with the applied methodologies, standardized
baselines and other applied standards or tools, and do not reduce the level of accuracy of
the monitoring compared with the requirements contained in the registered monitoring
plan.
298. The DOE shall determine whether the permanent changes to the registered monitoring
plan or the permanent deviation of the monitoring from the applied methodologies,
standardized baselines, or other applied standards or tools are likely to lead to a reduction
in the accuracy of the calculation of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG
removals. If the DOE considers that the permanent changes will lead to a reduction in the
accuracy of the calculation, the DOE shall request the project participants to apply
conservative assumptions or discount factors to the calculations to the extent required to
ensure that GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals will not be
overestimated as a result of the permanent change or deviation.
299. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the permanent changes or deviation comply
with the relevant requirements related to the permanent changes to the registered
monitoring plan, or to the permanent deviation from the applied methodologies,
standardized baselines or other applied standards or tools in the “CDM project standard
8.3.5. Changes to the project design

300. The DOE shall determine whether there are proposed or actual changes to the project
design of a registered CDM project activity, and, if there are, determine whether the
changes comply with the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project
activities”.
301. In case of actual changes, the DOE shall, by means of an on-site inspection (where
conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above) and review of the submitted
revised PDD by the project participants that describes the nature and extent of the actual
changes, determine whether this description accurately reflects the implementation,
operation and monitoring of the modified CDM project activity.
302. By means of an on-site inspection or other means of validation in accordance with
paragraph 30 or 31 above, the DOE shall assess the impacts of the actual changes in the
monitoring plan, the level of accuracy of the monitoring activity, the applied methodologies
including applicable tools and/or, where applicable, the applied standardized baselines.
303. The DOE shall, by means of reviewing the revised PDD against applicable additionality
and methodological requirements, determine whether the proposed or actual changes
52 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
would adversely affect the conclusions of the validation report of the registered PDD with
regard to:
(a) Additionality of the registered CDM project activity;
(b) Scale of the registered CDM project activity;
(c) Applicability and application of the approved methodologies and, where applicable,
the approved standardized baselines under which the CDM project activity has
been registered;
(d) The compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodologies and, where
applicable, the applied standardized baselines.
304. If the proposed or actual changes affect the additionality of the registered CDM project
activity, the DOE shall confirm that:
(a) If investment analysis has been used to demonstrate additionality, the project
participants have only modified the key parameters in the original spreadsheet
calculations affected by the proposed or actual changes to the project activity;
(b) If only barriers have been claimed to demonstrate additionality, the project
participants have demonstrated that the barriers are still valid under the new
circumstances.
305. The following applies to a registered CDM project activity using an approved standardized
baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraph 304 above: If the proposed
or actual changes affect the additionality of the project activity, the DOE shall confirm that
the project activity complies with the positive list of the applied standardized baseline in
the registered PDD.
306. The DOE shall assess whether the revised PDD complies with all the requirements in the
applied methodologies, tools and standardized baselines.
307. If the applied methodologies and/or standardized baselines have been updated to a later
valid version of the same methodologies or standardized baselines, or changed to another
methodology or standardized baseline, the DOE shall confirm that the CDM project activity
meets all requirements in the updated/changed methodologies, including applicable tools
and/or the updated/changed standardized baselines.
308. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the proposed or actual changes comply with
the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities” related to
changes to the project design of a registered CDM project activity.
309. The DOE shall state its opinion on:
(a) A description of the proposed or actual changes as compared to the description in
the registered PDD;
(b) An assessment on when the changes occurred, reasons for these changes taking
place, whether the changes would have been known prior to the registration of the
CDM project activity, and how the changes would impact on the overall
operation/ability of the CDM project activity to deliver emission reductions as stated
in the PDD;
53 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) An assessment regarding whether the changes would adversely affect the
conclusions of the validation report of the registered PDD with regard to:
(i) The additionality of the registered CDM project activity;
(ii) The scale of the registered CDM project activity;
(iii) The applicability and application of (1) the applied methodologies and, where
applicable, the applied standardized baselines with which the project activity
has been registered; (2) the later valid version of the applied methodologies
and/or the applied standardized baselines; or (3) another methodology
and/or standardized baseline that the registered CDM project activity has
updated/switched to;
(iv) The compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodologies and,
where applicable, the applied standardized baselines;
(v) The level of accuracy of the monitoring compared with the requirements
contained in the registered monitoring plan.
310. In validating the revised PDD containing the proposed or actual changes, and in preparing
the opinion, the DOE shall include information on how:
(a) The proposed revisions ensure that the level of accuracy and completeness27 in
the monitoring and verification process is not reduced as a result of the revision.
The DOE shall, using objective evidence, assess the accuracy and completeness
of each proposed revision to the registered monitoring plan, including the
frequency of measurements, the quality of monitoring equipment (e.g. calibration
requirements, the quality assurance and quality control procedures);
(b) The proposed revisions comply with all requirements in:
(i) The applied methodologies and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baselines; or
(ii) The updated/changed methodologies including applicable tools and/or the
updated/changed standardized baselines if the applied methodologies
and/or standardized baselines have been updated to a later valid version of
the same methodologies or standardized baselines or changed to another
methodology or standardized baseline in accordance with paragraph 307
above;
(c) The findings of previous verification and certification reports, if any, have been
taken into account.
27 Completeness refers to inclusion of all relevant information for assessment of GHG emissions reductions
and the information supporting the methods applied as required. For example, if the DOE identifies an
on-site generator for emergency use which was not included in the registered monitoring plan during the
verification process, the monitoring of fuel consumption of this generator should be included in the
monitoring plan via this procedure.
54 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
8.4. Specific validation requirements for afforestation and reforestation project

activities
311. The DOE shall determine whether there are types of changes specific to registered A/R
CDM project activity, and, if there are, determine whether the changes comply with the
relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
312. In case of actual changes, the DOE shall, by means of an on-site inspection(s) (where
conducted in accordance with paragraph 30 or 31 above), interviews with relevant
personnel and/or desk review of the revised PDD submitted by the project participants that
describes the nature and extent of the actual changes, determine whether this description
accurately reflects the implementation, operation or monitoring of the modified registered
313. In case of actual changes, the DOE shall determine whether the changes in the revised
PDD are a complete and accurate reflection of the actual project information.
9. Verification of implementation and monitoring

9.1. General verification requirements
9.1.1. Objective of verification

314. The DOE shall conduct a thorough and independent assessment of the implementation
and the reported GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by a
registered CDM project activity against the applicable CDM rules and requirements.
9.1.2. Approach of verification
9.1.2.1. General
315. In carrying out its verification work, the DOE shall determine whether the registered CDM
project activity complies with the requirements of paragraph 62 of the CDM M&Ps.
316. If the DOE has performed a validation activity (including the renewal of crediting period)
for the registered CDM project activity and wishes to perform verification for the same
project activity, it shall obtain authorization to do so from the Board in accordance with the
“CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”. However, the same DOE may perform
verification without obtaining authorization from the Board to do so for:
(a) A registered small-scale CDM project activity and a registered small-scale A/R
CDM project activity for which it has performed the validation activity;
(b) Any registered CDM project activity for which it has performed the validation of
post-registration changes.
317. The DOE shall make publicly available the monitoring report received from the project
participants in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”
except when the host Party’s DNA withdraws its approval of the registered CDM project
activities and/or its authorization of project participants in accordance with the “Procedure:
Process for dealing with letters from DNAs that withdraw approval/authorization”.
55 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
318. The DOE shall ensure that only verification activities undertaken after the publication of
the monitoring report on the UNFCCC CDM website shall be used as a basis for the DOE
to conclude its verification and submit a request for issuance of CERs to the Board.28
319. The DOE shall assess both quantitative and qualitative information on GHG emission
reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals provided in the project documentation.29
320. The DOE shall assess and determine whether the implementation and operation of the
registered CDM project activity, and the steps taken to report GHG emission reductions
or net anthropogenic GHG removals comply with the relevant modalities and procedure
for the CDM and the relevant guidance provided by the Board. This assessment shall
involve a review of relevant documentation as well as, where conducted in accordance
with paragraph 342 or 343 below, an on-site inspection(s). For an on-site inspection(s),
the DOE may apply a sampling approach in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and
surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities”.
321. The DOE shall assess whether the data collection system meets the requirements of the
registered monitoring plan as per the applied methodologies including applicable tools
and, where applicable, the applied standardized baselines.
322. In addition to the monitoring documentation the DOE shall review:
(a) The registered PDD, including the registered monitoring plan and/or the changes
from the registered PDD, and the corresponding validation opinion;
(b) The validation report;
(c) Previous verification and certification reports, if any;
(d) The applied methodologies and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baselines;
(e) The monitoring results of sustainable development co-benefits of the registered
CDM project activity, if requested to verify this by the project participants;
(f) Any other information and references relevant to the GHG emission reductions or
net anthropogenic GHG removals by the registered CDM project activity (e.g. IPCC
reports, data on electricity generation in the national grid or laboratory analysis and
national regulations).
323. In addition to reviewing the monitoring documentation, the DOE shall determine whether
the project participants have addressed the FARs identified during validation or previous
verification(s).
9.1.2.2. Quality of evidence

324. When verifying the reported GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG
removals, the DOE shall confirm that there is an audit trail that contains the evidence and
28 See EB 60 report, paragraph 101.

29 Quantitative information comprises the reported numbers in the monitoring report. Qualitative information
comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, procedures for transfer
of data, frequency of the monitoring reports, and review and internal audit of calculations.
56 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
records that validate or invalidate the stated figures. It shall include the source documents
that form the basis for assumptions and other information underlying the GHG data.
325. When assessing the audit trail, the DOE shall:
(a) Address whether there is sufficient evidence available, both in terms of frequency
(time period between evidence) and coverage (in covering the full monitoring
period);
(b) Address the source and nature of the evidence (external or internal, oral or
documented);
(c) Cross-check the monitoring report against other sources such as comparable
information, where available, from sources other than those used in the monitoring
report to determine whether the stated figures are correct.
326. The DOE shall only certify GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals
that are based on verifiable evidence.
9.1.2.3. Application of materiality
9.1.2.3.1. General
327. The concept of materiality is applicable to the verification of all types of registered CDM
project activities. It is not applicable to:
(a) Uncertainties related to measurement;
(b) Addressing temporary deviations and permanent changes to the registered
monitoring plan, applied methodologies or applied standardized baselines,
regardless of whether corresponding GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals are above or below materiality thresholds.
328. A DOE planning and conducting verification using the concept of materiality shall achieve
a reasonable level of assurance that the reported GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals are free from material errors, omissions or misstatements
in accordance with paragraphs 329− 339 below.30
329. An omission, misstatement, or erroneous reporting of information is material if it might
lead, at an aggregated level, to an overestimation of the total GHG emission reductions or
net anthropogenic GHG removals achieved by a registered CDM project activity equal to
or higher than the following thresholds:
(a) 0.5 per cent of the emission reductions or removals for project activities achieving
a total emission reduction or removal equal to or more than 500,000 tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year;31
30 For additional guidance and examples of the application of materiality in the verification, refer to the
“Guideline: Application of materiality in verifications”.
31 A year refers to a period of 12 consecutive months.
57 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(b) 1 per cent of the emission reductions or removals for project activities achieving a
total emission reduction or removal of between 300,000 and 500,000 tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year;
(c) 2 per cent of the emission reductions or removals for large-scale project activities
achieving a total emission reduction or removal of 300,000 tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent per year or less;
(d) 5 per cent of the emission reductions or removals for small-scale project activities
other than registered CDM project activities covered under subparagraph (e)
below;
(e) 10 per cent of the emission reductions or removals for the type of project activities
referred to in decision 3/CMP.6, paragraph 38 (referred to as microscale project
activities).
330. Recognizing that circumstances may exist that could cause the information reported by
project participants to be materially misstated, the DOE should plan and perform
verifications with an attitude of professional scepticism and rely on its professional
judgement when applying the concept of materiality.
331. The application of the concept of materiality and reasonable level of assurance imply that
some data or information may not be checked. However, the DOE should design its
verification and sampling plans to detect all material errors, omissions or misstatements,
and any unchecked data or information should not contain any material errors, omissions
or misstatements. A DOE’s verification opinion applies to 100 per cent of the data and
information, even if the DOE may not have checked the entire data set and information.
332. Applying the concept of materiality does not mean that identified errors are not corrected;
if an error, omission or misstatement is identified by the DOE, regardless of whether it is
material or not, the DOE shall request project participants to address it.
9.1.2.3.2. Consideration of materiality in planning verification

333. The DOE should:
(a) Identify the materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 329 above that
corresponds to the amount of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG
removals that the specific registered CDM project activity will achieve;
(b) Understand the environment in which the registered CDM project activity operates,
the sources of project emissions within the project boundary and the leakage, the
monitoring activities, the equipment used to monitor or measure activity data, the
origin and application of data used to calculate or measure the emissions, data
flow, the internal quality control system, and the overall organization with respect
to monitoring and reporting;32
32 Adapted from European Union. 2007. Commission Decision of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for
the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council.
58 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Conduct a risk assessment to identify and assess the risks of individual or
aggregated material errors, omissions or misstatements that may occur within the
threshold based on elements in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;
(d) Design verification plans, audit procedures 33 and sampling plans whose type,
timing 34 and extent are based on and are responsive to the assessed risks of
material errors, omissions or misstatements.
334. The materiality thresholds apply to the total GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals actually achieved. When planning a verification, the DOE
should apply the applicable materiality threshold to the reported total emission reductions
or removals. If, as a result of the verification, the initial reported total emission reductions
or removals is revised, the DOE should reapply the materiality threshold to the revised
total emission reductions or removals and, if needed, make adjustments to its verification
plans and sampling plans.
9.1.2.3.3. Consideration of materiality in conducting verification

335. The DOE should:
(a) Apply verification plans, audit procedures and sampling plans;
(b) Assess potential errors, omissions and misstatements against the materiality
threshold to determine whether they are material individually or in aggregate and
whether further audit procedures are needed.
336. If an error, omission or misstatement is detected, the DOE should be aware that it may
not be an isolated occurrence and may be a systemic reoccurring error. For example,
other errors may exist if the DOE identifies that the error, omission or misstatement arose
from a breakdown in the project participants’ internal quality control and quality assurance
system.
337. If an immaterial error, omission or misstatement is detected, the DOE shall request the
project participants to address it and should determine whether additional audit
procedures should be conducted in order to reach a reasonable level of assurance that
the claimed GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals are free from
material error, omission or misstatement.
338. If a material error, omission or misstatement is detected, the DOE may, depending on the
circumstances of the error, immediately request project participants to address it or
conduct additional audit procedures to confirm or determine the context and magnitude of
the error, omission or misstatement and then shall request project participants to address
it.
339. If further audit procedures are necessary, the DOE may consider whether the overall
verification plans and sampling plans need to be revised.
33 In accordance with paragraphs 340–345 below.

34 For example, timing may refer to the specific time intervals for which the DOE may draw its samples.
59 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
9.1.3. Means of verification
9.1.3.1. Standard auditing techniques

340. The DOE shall assess the information provided by the project participants.
341. In assessing the information, the DOE shall apply the means of verification specified
throughout this standard and, where appropriate, standard auditing techniques to assess
the quality of the information, including but not limited to:
(a) Document review, involving:
(i) A review of the data and information presented to verify their completeness;
(ii) A review of the registered monitoring plan, the applied methodologies
including applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the applied standardized
baseline, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements, the
quality of metering equipment including calibration requirements, and the
quality assurance and quality control procedures;
(iii) An evaluation of data management and the quality assurance and quality
control system in the context of their influence on the generation and
reporting of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals;
(b) On-site inspection taking into account paragraphs 342−344 below, involving:
(i) An assessment of the implementation and operation of the registered CDM
project activity as per the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD;
(ii) A review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the
monitoring parameters;
(iii) Interviews with relevant personnel to determine whether the operational and
data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the
registered monitoring plan;
(iv) Cross checks between information provided in the monitoring report and data
from other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or
similar data sources;
(v) A check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance and
observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PDD,
the applied methodologies including applicable tool(s), and, where
applicable, the applied standardized baselines;
(vi) A review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data
and GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals;
(vii) An identification of quality control and quality assurance procedures in place
to prevent, or identify and correct, any errors or omissions in the reported
monitoring parameters;
60 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Sampling approach in accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for
CDM project activities and programme of activities”, including:
(i) A random sampling for cases where the project participants did not apply a
sampling approach for monitoring;
(ii) An acceptance sampling or another sampling approach for cases where the
project participants applied a sampling approach for monitoring.
342. It is mandatory for the DOE to conduct an on-site inspection at verification for the
registered CDM project activity if:
(a) It is the first verification for the DOE with regard to this project activity;
(b) More than three years have elapsed since the last on-site inspection conducted for
verification for the project activity; or
(c) The project activity has achieved more than 300,000 t CO2 eq of GHG emission
reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals since the last verification when an
on-site inspection was conducted.
343. For cases that are not referred to in paragraph 342 above, it is optional for the DOE to
conduct an on-site inspection at verification. If the DOE does not conduct an on-site
inspection as a means of verification, it shall describe the alternative means used and
justify that they are sufficient for the purpose of verification.
344. If any issue related to the project design, including those attributable to the lack of on-site
inspection at previous verification, is identified at the verification, the DOE that detected
the issue shall rectify it through the post-registration change process in accordance with
the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”.
345. Where no specific means of verification is specified, the DOE should apply the standard
auditing techniques described in paragraph 341 above.
9.1.3.2. Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forward action

requests
346. If the DOE identifies issues related to the monitoring, implementation and operations of
the registered CDM project activity that could impair the capacity of the project activity to
achieve GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals, or influence the
monitoring and reporting of emission reductions or removals, the DOE shall ensure that
these issues are accurately identified, formulated, discussed and concluded in the
verification and certification report.
347. The DOE shall raise a CAR if one of the following situations occur:
(a) Non-compliance with the registered monitoring plan, the applied methodologies or
the applied standardized baselines is found in monitoring and reporting and has
not been sufficiently documented by the project participants, or if the evidence
provided to prove conformity is insufficient;
(b) Modifications to the implementation, operation and monitoring of the registered
CDM project activity has not been sufficiently documented by the project
participants;
61 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of GHG
emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals that will impact the
quantity of emission reductions or removals;
(d) Issues identified in a FAR during the validation to be verified during the verification
or the previous verification(s) have not been resolved by the project participants.
348. The DOE shall raise a CL if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine
whether the applicable CDM rules and requirements have been met.
349. The DOE shall raise a FAR during verification for actions if the monitoring and reporting
require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period.
350. The DOE shall resolve or “close out” CARs and CLs only if the project participants rectify
the monitoring report, or provides additional explanations or evidence that satisfy the
DOE’s concerns. If this is not done, the DOE shall not submit a request for issuance of
CERs.
351. The DOE shall report on all CARs, CLs and FARs in its verification and certification report.
This reporting shall explain the issue raised, the responses provided by the project
participants, the means of verification of such responses and references to any resulting
changes in the monitoring report or supporting annexes.
9.2. Verification of compliance
9.2.1. General
352. The DOE shall include in its verification and certification report a description of how it
applied the methods/procedures for the purpose of verification specified in the registered
PDD. The DOE shall include in its verification and certification report a description of the
on-site inspection(s), where conducted in accordance with paragraph 342 or 343 above.
353. The DOE shall confirm that monitoring periods have been consecutive. Further, the DOE
shall confirm that monitoring reports have been published on the UNFCCC CDM website
in a consecutive manner, that is, when a monitoring report has been published for a
monitoring period, the DOE shall confirm that monitoring reports for the previous
monitoring periods have been published.
354. A request for issuance of CERs shall relate to the CERs certified.
9.2.2. Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form
355. The DOE shall determine whether the monitoring report was completed using the valid
version of the applicable monitoring report form.
356. The DOE shall state its opinion on the compliance of the monitoring report with the relevant
form and instructions therein.
62 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
9.2.3. Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design
document
357. The DOE shall identify any concerns related to the conformity of the actual CDM project
activity and its operation with the registered project design document and determine
whether:35
(a) The implementation and operation of the project activity has been conducted in
accordance with the description contained in the registered PDD; or
(b) Any deviation or the proposed or actual changes in the implementation or operation
of the project activity comply with the relevant requirements of the “CDM project
358. By means of an on-site inspection or other means of verification in accordance with
paragraph 342 or 343 above, the DOE shall assess that all physical features (technology,
project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the registered CDM project
activity specified in the registered PDD are in place and that the project participants have
operated the project activity as per the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD.
359. For each monitoring period, the DOE shall report:
(a) The implementation status of the registered CDM project activity. For a project
activity that consists of more than one site, the DOE shall describe the status of
implementation and the starting date of operation for each site. For a project activity
with phased implementation, the DOE shall state the progress of the project activity
achieved in each phase under verification. If the phased implementation is
delayed, the DOE shall describe the reasons and present the expected
implementation dates;
(b) The actual operation of the registered CDM project activity;
(c) The information (data and variables) provided in the monitoring report that is
different from that stated in the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD, and
has caused an increase in the estimates of GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to
increase the estimates in the future monitoring periods;36
(d) An opinion on the cause of any increase in the actual GHG emission reductions
achieved by the registered non-A/R CDM project activity in the current monitoring
period that was reported in monitoring report.
9.2.4. Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with methodologies including

applicable tools and standardized baselines
360. The DOE shall determine whether the registered monitoring plan is in accordance with the
applied methodologies including applicable tools and, where applicable, the applied
standardized baselines.
35 See decision 3/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 62(g).

36 Discrepancies may include higher water availability than expected in the PDD, which may increase the
electricity output from a hydropower plant, or a higher plant load factor owing to higher bagasse
availability during the crushing season, which increases the production of steam and electricity.
63 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
361. For monitoring aspects that are not specified in the applied methodologies and, where
applicable, the applied standardized baselines, particularly in the case of small-scale
methodologies (e.g. additional monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency and
calibration frequency), the DOE should bring to the attention of the Board issues which
may enhance the level of accuracy and completeness of the registered monitoring plan.
362. The DOE shall state its opinion on whether the registered monitoring plan is in accordance
with the applied methodologies and, where applicable, the applied standardized baselines.
9.2.5. Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

363. The DOE shall determine whether the monitoring of parameters related to GHG emission
reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in the registered PDD has been
implemented in accordance with the registered monitoring plan.37
(a) The registered monitoring plan has been properly implemented and followed by
the project participants;
(b) All parameters stated in the registered monitoring plan and relevant Board
decisions38 have been monitored and updated as applicable, including:
(i) Project emission or net removal parameters;
(ii) Baseline emission or net removal parameters;
(iii) Leakage parameters;
(iv) Management and operational system: the responsibilities and authorities for
monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and
authorities stated in the registered monitoring plan;
(c) The equipment used for monitoring is in accordance with section 9.2.6 below and
is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the
applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines, Board guidance,
local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer’s specification;
(d) Monitoring results are consistently recorded as per the approved frequency;
(e) Quality assurance and quality control procedures have been applied in accordance
with the registered monitoring plan.
365. For a non-A/R registered CDM project activity, if the project participants applied a sampling
approach to determine data and parameters monitored, the DOE shall assess the
compliance of the sampling efforts and surveys with the validated sampling plan in
37 In accordance with decision 3/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 56: “Project participants shall implement the
monitoring plan contained in the registered project design document”.
38 For example, a decision at the thirty-fifth meeting of the Board provides clarification for the registered
CDM project activities that apply the approved methodology AM0001. The decision asked the DOE to
check the value of “w” based on the past one-year period during verification, which was not clearly stated
in the approved methodology.
64 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
accordance with the “Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and
programme of activities”.
366. The DOE shall state whether the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the
registered monitoring plan.
367. The DOE shall list each parameter required by the registered monitoring plan and state
how it verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording,
calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring
report.
9.2.6. Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments
368. The DOE shall determine whether the calibration of the measuring equipment that has an
impact on the claimed GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals is
conducted by the project participants at a frequency specified in the applied
methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and/or the registered monitoring plan.
369. If, during the verification of a certain monitoring period, the DOE identifies that the
calibration has been delayed and the calibration has been implemented after the
monitoring period in consideration (i.e. the results of delayed calibration are available),
referring to the illustrative examples in the appendix below, the DOE may conclude its
verification, provided the following conservative approach is adopted in the calculation of
GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals:
(a) Applying the maximum permissible error 39 of the instrument to the measured
values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the
actual date of calibration, if the results of the delayed calibration do not show any
errors in the measuring equipment, or if the error is smaller than the maximum
permissible error; or
(b) Applying the error identified in the delayed calibration test, if the error is beyond
the maximum permissible error of the measuring equipment.
370. The DOE shall confirm that the error has been applied:
(a) In a conservative manner, such that the adjusted measured values of the delayed
calibration shall result in fewer claimed GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals;
(b) For all measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of
calibration and the actual date of calibration.
371. If the results of the delayed calibration are not available, or the calibration has not been
conducted at the time of the verification, the DOE, prior to finalizing the verification, shall
request the project participants to conduct the required calibration and shall determine
whether the project participants have calculated GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals conservatively using the approach mentioned in paragraph
369 above.
39 The maximum permissible errors of all the measuring instruments are specified by the respective
manufacturers as part of their technical specifications.
65 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
372. If the DOE determines that it is not possible for the project participants to conduct the
calibration at a frequency specified by either the applied methodologies, the applied
standardized baselines, guidance provided by the Board, or the registered monitoring plan
due to reasons beyond the control of the project participants,40 the DOE shall follow the
applicable requirements related to post-registration changes in section 8 above.
373. If neither the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines (where
applicable), nor the registered monitoring plan specify any requirements for calibration
frequency for the measuring equipment, the DOE shall determine whether the equipment
is calibrated either in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or
as per the manufacturer’s specification. If neither local/national standards nor the
manufacturer’s specification are available, the DOE shall determine whether the
equipment is calibrated in accordance with the specifications of the international
standards. Refer to the appendix below for an illustrative example to apply the above
requirements.
374. The DOE shall report whether the calibration of the measuring equipment that has an
impact on the claimed GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals is
conducted at the frequency specified by the applied methodologies, the applied
standardized baselines and/or the registered monitoring plan.
9.2.7. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals

375. The DOE shall assess the data and calculations of GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals achieved by from the registered CDM project activity.
(a) A complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available. If only partial
data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been
monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the DOE shall assess
whether:
(i) The most conservative values approach is applied to the parameters for the
entire non-monitoring period in accordance with the provisions relating to the
temporary deviation from the registered monitoring plan, the applied
methodologies or the applied standardized baselines in the “CDM project
standard for project activities”; or
(ii) Alternative monitoring arrangements for the non-monitoring period are
described, whether they apply conservative assumptions or discount factors
to the calculations, and whether the alterative monitoring arrangements have
been approved by the Board under the prior-approval track or to be approved
by the Board under the issuance track in accordance with the provisions
relating to temporary deviation from the registered monitoring plan, the
applied methodologies or the applied standardized baselines in the “CDM
project standard for project activities”;
40 For example, due to the contractual terms between the project participant and purchasing/selling entities.
66 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(b) The information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with
other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records and
laboratory analysis;
(c) The calculations of baseline GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals,
project GHG emissions or actual net GHG removals, and leakage GHG emissions
have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in
the registered monitoring plan, the applied methodologies and, where applicable,
the applied standardized baselines;
(d) Any assumptions used in emission or removal calculations have been justified;
(e) Appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values, GWPs41 and other reference
values have been correctly applied;
(f) For a registered CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that
standardizes baseline emissions, the standardized values of the parameters were
applied using the correct version of the applied standardized baseline in
accordance with the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(g) The pro-rata approach or the specific approach for A/R project activities was
correctly applied to the calculations of GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals in accordance with the “CDM project standard for
project activities”, if the monitoring period starts before 31 December 2012 and
ends anytime thereafter;
(h) The first day when CERs are being claimed is correctly specified in accordance
with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”, if the current
monitoring period covers the first day of the renewed crediting period.
377. The DOE shall provide:
(a) An indication of whether a complete set of data for the monitoring period was not
available because activity levels or non-activity parameters were not monitored in
accordance with the registered monitoring plan, and if so, whether the most
conservative values approach was applied or alternative monitoring arrangements
were proposed or have been approved by the Board;
(b) A description of how the DOE cross-checked reported data;
(c) A confirmation that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline
GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals, project GHG emissions or actual
net GHG removals and leakage GHG emissions have been followed;
(d) An opinion on whether assumptions, emission factors and default values that were
applied in the calculations have been justified;
(e) A confirmation that the pro-rata approach or the specific approach for A/R project
activities was correctly applied to the calculations of GHG emission reductions or
net anthropogenic GHG removals, where applicable;
41 See decision 4/CMP.7 for GWPs for the calculation of emission reductions and removal enhancements
achieved by the registered CDM project activities in the second commitment period (from 1 January
2013).
67 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(f) A confirmation that the first day in which CERs are being claimed has been
correctly specified, where applicable.
9.2.8. Assessment of reported sustainable development co-benefits

378. If the project participants have monitored the sustainable development co-benefits of the
registered CDM project activity, and requested the DOE to verify them, it shall assess
whether:
(a) The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the document for
monitoring sustainable development co-benefits, if such document was developed
and published on the UNFCCC CDM website in accordance with the “CDM project
(b) The reported monitoring results correspond to the sustainable development co-
benefits of the project activity as observed by the DOE.
379. The DOE shall provide:
(a) A description of how the DOE has conducted the assessment referred to in
paragraph 378 above;
(b) Findings from the assessment.
380. The findings from the assessment shall have no bearing on the final verification opinion of
the DOE.
9.3. Specific verification requirements for small-scale project activities

381. The DOE shall determine whether the registered small-scale CDM project activity remains
within the limit of the type of small-scale project activities defined in the “CDM project
standard for project activities”. If the project activity exceeds the limit of its type in any year
of the crediting period, the DOE shall assess whether this was caused by the post-
registration changes validated in accordance with relevant requirements in section 8
above. If the DOE determines that there are no such post-registration changes to the
project activity, and therefore the scale of the project activity does not change, for a Type II
or Type III small-scale CDM project activity, it shall assess whether the calculated GHG
emission reductions during this particular year were capped at the amount calculated with
the limit of its type.
382. For the bundled registered small-scale CDM project activities, the DOE shall:
(a) Determine whether the bundle of registered small-scale CDM project activities was
implemented and monitored;
(b) Determine whether no project activities in the bundle have been taken out of or
added to the bundle since the registration;
(c) The DOE shall determine whether each sub-bundle of the registered bundle of
small-scale CDM project activity remains within the limit of the type of small-scale
project activities defined in the relevant requirements in the “CDM project standard
for project activities”. If the DOE determines that the sub-bundle goes beyond its
type, it shall assess whether the calculated emission reductions during this
particular year were capped at the amount calculated with the limit of its type;
68 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(d) Prepare a single verification and certification report for a registered bundle of small-
scale CDM project activities if a single PDD was prepared for the registration. If
separate PDDs were prepared for each project activity in the bundle for the
registration, the DOE may choose to prepare a single verification and certification
report, addressing each project activity in the bundle separately but with the same
monitoring period in the report, or separate verification and certification reports,
each corresponding to each PDD.
9.4. Specific verification requirements for afforestation and reforestation project

activities
383. At the first verification for an A/R CDM project activity, the DOE shall, in accordance with
paragraph 34 (d) of the CDM A/R M&Ps, confirm those areas of land for which the control
over the project activity has been established by the project participants since validation.
384. As a part of the first verification and certification report for an A/R CDM project activity, the
DOE shall confirm that the boundary of the project activity geographically delineates
exclusively the A/R project activity under the control of the project participants.
385. If temporary CERs (tCERs) were issued based on the previous verification and
certification, the DOE shall confirm that the current verification and certification is for the
first time in the current commitment period. If long-term CERs (lCERs) were issued based
on the previous verification and certification, the DOE shall confirm that the current
verification and certification is within eight years of the date when the previous certification
report was submitted until the end of the current crediting period.42
386. For lCERs, if the monitoring period falls partly in the first commitment period and partly in
the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the DOE shall confirm that all net
anthropogenic GHG removals achieved since the last verification are allocated to the
second commitment period. For tCERs, for any issuance, the DOE shall confirm that all
net anthropogenic GHG removals achieved since the start of the project activity are
allocated to the commitment period in which the monitoring period ends.
9.5. Specific verification requirements for carbon dioxide capture and storage
project activities
9.5.1. General
387. In accordance with the section “Verification and certification” of the “CDM project standard
for project activities”, the DOE contracted by the project participants to perform the
verification shall:
(a) Determine whether monitoring was conducted in accordance with the registered
monitoring plan and the provisions for monitoring set out in the section “Monitoring”
of the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(b) Determine whether the site development and management plan is being adhered
to;
42 Decision 4/CMP.10 revised the timing of verification for A/R CDM project activities defined in the annex
to decision 5/CMP.1.
69 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Determine whether any significant deviations were observed during history
matching and whether, in such a case, a recharacterization of the geological
storage site, an update of the risk and safety assessment, an update of the
environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments, a revision to the project
boundary, and a revision to the monitoring plan have been conducted, as
necessary, in accordance with the CCS-related provisions set out in the “CDM
project standard for project activities”;
(d) Determine whether seepage occurred from the geological storage site of the
registered CCS CDM project activity during the verification period;
(e) In the case that such seepage occurred:
(i) Determine whether the remedial measures and plans described in the risk
and safety assessment were implemented and effective;
(ii) Determine whether a net reversal of storage occurred as a result of the
seepage;
(f) In the case that a net reversal of storage occurred, quantify the amount of the net
reversal of storage that occurred as a result of the seepage;
(g) Determine whether there have been any unintentional transboundary effects;
(h) Where applicable, determine whether the geological storage site has been
successfully closed.
388. The DOE shall check, for each verification period, whether the project participants have
carried out history matching and, where necessary, updated the numerical models used
to characterize the geological storage site by conducting new simulations using the
monitored data and information. The numerical models shall be adjusted in the event of
significant deviations between observed and predicted behaviour.
389. Where the information prepared in accordance with the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM
project standard for project activities” indicates that the geological storage site no longer
meets the requirements set out in the section “Selection and characterization of the
geological storage site” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”, the DOE shall
provide a negative opinion on validation and/or verification.
390. The initial verification and certification of a registered CCS CDM project activity may be
undertaken at a time selected by the project participants. Subsequent verification and
certification reports shall be submitted to the Board not later than five years after the end
of the previous verification period. Verification and certification shall continue beyond the
end of the last crediting period of the registered CCS CDM project activity and shall only
cease after the monitoring of the geological storage site has been terminated in
accordance with the conditions for the termination of monitoring, as set out in the section
“Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”.
9.5.2. Request for issuance of certified emission reductions

391. A verification and certification report submitted for a verification period during the crediting
period shall constitute a request to the Board for issuance of CERs equal to the verified
reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs that have occurred as a result
of the registered CCS CDM project activity.
70 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
392. A verification and certification report submitted for a verification period after the end of the
last crediting period shall not constitute a request for issuance of CERs but shall provide,
where applicable, information on the amount of any net reversal of storage that occurred
during the verification period as a result of seepage from the geological storage site of a
registered CCS CDM project activity, in accordance with the “CDM project standard for
project activities” and the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities” and any
decisions of the Board.
393. The last verification and certification report, submitted after the monitoring of the geological
storage site has been terminated in accordance with the conditions for the termination of
monitoring, as set out in the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”, may constitute a request to forward any CERs remaining in the reserve account
established for the purpose of accounting for any net reversal of storage to the registry
accounts of the Parties and project participants involved.
9.6. Global stakeholder consultation

394. For the stakeholder consultation conducted after the publication of the first monitoring
report in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”, the
requirements for and means of validation in paragraphs 254−260 above shall apply
mutatis mutandis with the following adjustments:
(a) The DOE may request further information from the submitters of the comments.
The DOE shall also inform the project participants of the comments received, and
request their feedback within a specified timeframe. The DOE shall consider the
input received and assess whether such comments are relevant to the CDM project
activity;
(b) If the DOE concludes that the comments are related to the CDM rules and
requirements, it may raise a CAR and submit a positive verification opinion only
when the CAR is resolved by the project participants;
(c) If the DOE concludes that comments are related to issues outside the CDM rules
and requirements, it shall annex the comments and information gathered, as well
as any feedback from the project participants, to its verification and certification
report (the “comments annex”).
395. The DOE shall take due account of all authentic and relevant comments in the verification
for the first request for issuance of CERs.
9.7. Verification status and verification and certification report
9.7.1. Verification status

396. The DOE shall provide an update of the status of its verification activity as applicable in
9.7.2. Verification and certification report

397. The verification and certification report shall give an overview of the verification process
used by the DOE in order to arrive at its verification conclusions. All verification findings
shall be identified and justified.
71 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
398. The DOE shall report the following:

(a) A summary of the verification process, the scope of verification and the conclusion;
(b) Details of the verification team, technical experts, internal reviewers involved,
together with their roles in the verification activity and, where conducted in
accordance with paragraph 342 or 343 above, details of who conducted the on-
site inspection;
(c) Findings of the desk review and, where conducted in accordance with paragraph
342 or 343 above, on-site inspection and sampling approach used by the DOE.
Where the DOE applied a sampling approach to the on-site inspection, the DOE
shall include a description of how the sample size was determined and how the
field check was carried out;
(d) All its applied approaches, findings and conclusions on requirements set out in
section 9.2 above;
(e) A list of each parameter specified by the registered monitoring plan and a
statement on how the values in the monitoring report have been verified;
(f) A statement on whether any post-registration changes to the registered PDD have
been approved by the Board or will be submitted together with the request for
issuance of CERs;
(g) An assessment and close-out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued to the project
participants;
(h) An assessment of remaining issues from the previous verification period, if
appropriate;
(i) Information on quality control within the team and in the verification process;
(j) A conclusion on the verified amount of GHG emission reductions or net
anthropogenic GHG removals achieved.
399. Where the DOE applied the concept of materiality in planning and conducting verification
for the registered CDM project activity in accordance with section 9.1.2.3 above, it shall
report:
(a) The risks, the risk assessment undertaken and how the verification plans and
sampling plans were designed to respond to these risks and ensure that all material
errors, omissions or misstatements were detected;
(b) Whether and how the verification plans and sampling plans were revised to take
into account the need for further audit procedures due to the nature/type of errors,
omissions or misstatements detected;
(c) How the concept of materiality was applied in determining whether a detected
error, omission or misstatement was material or immaterial either individually or in
aggregate.
400. The DOE shall describe all documentation supporting the verification and make it available
on request.
72 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
401. The DOE shall, based on its verification, certify in writing that, during the specified
monitoring period, the registered CDM project activity achieved the verified amount of
GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals that would not have
occurred in the absence of the project activity.43
402. The DOE shall inform the project participants, the Parties involved and the Board of its
certification decision in writing immediately upon completion of the certification process
and shall make the verification and certification report publicly available as part of the
request for issuance of CERs in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for
10. Validation for renewal of crediting period

10.1. General
403. The DOE shall determine whether the project participants have updated sections of the
PDD relating to the baseline, estimated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic
GHG removals, the monitoring plan and the crediting period using the valid version(s) of
the approved methodologies and, where applicable, the approved standardized baselines
that are applicable to the project activity.
404. To renew the crediting period for a registered CDM project activity that has not been
implemented in the first crediting period, the DOE shall obtain an approval of the Board to
proceed with a request for renewal of crediting period prior to the submission of such
request in accordance with the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”. For a
registered CDM project activity that will not have income other than that from CERs to be
issued for the project activity, this prior approval of the Board is not required, therefore the
DOE may directly proceed with a request for renewal of crediting period.
405. The DOE shall apply the requirements in section 7.1.3 above mutatis mutandis to validate
the information provided by the project participants.
406. If the project participants used a later valid version of the PDD form for the updated PDD
than the version of the form of the registered PDD, the DOE shall determine whether the
information transferred to the later valid version of the PDD form is materially the same as
that in the registered PDD.
407. The DOE shall assess the validity of the original baseline or its update through an
assessment of the following issues:
(a) The impact of new relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances on
the baseline taking into account relevant guidance from the Board with regard to
renewal of the crediting period of the registered CDM project activity at the time of
requesting renewal of crediting period of the project activity;
(b) The correctness of the application of the approved methodologies and, where
applicable, the approved standardized baselines for the determination of the
continued validity of the baseline or its update, and the estimation of GHG emission
43 In accordance with paragraph 64 of the CDM M&Ps, the certification report constitutes a request to the
Board for issuance of CERs equal to the verified amount of reductions of anthropogenic emissions by
sources of greenhouse gases.
73 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for the applicable crediting period
of the registered CDM project activity.
408. The requirements contained in paragraph 407 (a) above shall not apply to a registered
CDM project activity using the valid version of an applicable approved standardized
baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario.
409. The DOE shall check that the names of the project participants included in the updated
PDD are consistent with the names of the project participants in the latest version of the
MoC statement.
410. If the project participants selected another methodology, methodological tool and/or
standardized baseline for the purpose of renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM
project activity due to the inapplicability of the valid version of the methodology (including
a consolidated methodology thereof), methodological tool and/or standardized baseline
applied to the original PDD, the DOE shall assess whether the updated PDD complies
with all the requirements in the selected methodology, methodological tool and/or
standardized baseline except for additionality demonstration.
411. If the project participants requested a deviation from the valid version of the methodology
(including a consolidated methodology thereof) and/or methodological tool applied in the
registered PDD, or from any other selected methodology and/or methodological tool for
the purpose of renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project activity, or if the
DOE finds at validation that the updated PDD deviated from the valid version of the
methodology and/or methodological tool applied in the registered PDD or from any other
selected methodology and/or methodological tool, paragraphs 58 and 59 above shall
apply mutatis mutandis.
412. If the project participants requested post-registration changes together with the request
for renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project activity, the DOE shall also
validate the post-registration changes in accordance with the relevant requirements in
section 8 above and the “CDM project cycle procedure for project activities”, and shall
submit a request for approval of changes together with the request for renewal of crediting
period of the project activity in accordance with the relevant requirements in the “CDM
project cycle procedure for project activities”.
413. The DOE shall request the project participants to provide a revised updated PDD, applying
the valid version of an applicable approved standardized baseline whose selection is
mandatory, if:
(a) The updated PDD has been submitted for the notification of the intention to request
a renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project activity when no
applicable approved standardized baseline was valid;
(b) An applicable approved standardized baseline whose selection is mandatory has
become valid after the submission of the updated PDD for the notification of the
intention to request a renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project
activity but before the submission of a request for renewal of crediting period of the
project activity;
(c) The request for renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project activity
has not been submitted within 240 days after the standardized baseline became
valid.
74 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
414. The DOE shall prepare a validation report for renewal of crediting period of the registered
CDM project activity using the valid version of the applicable validation report form for
renewal of crediting period of the project activity.
415. In its validation report for renewal of crediting period of the registered CDM project activity,
the DOE shall:
(a) Provide all its applied approaches, findings and conclusions on whether:
(i) The updated PDD has been completed using the valid version of the
applicable PDD form, following the instructions therein;
(ii) The information transferred to the later valid version of the PDD form is
materially the same as that in the registered PDD, where applicable;
(iii) The methodologies and, where applicable, the standardized baselines were
applied in accordance with the applicable requirements in the “CDM project
(iv) The baseline, the estimated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic
GHG removals, and the monitoring plan in the updated PDD comply with the
applicable requirements in the “CDM project standard for project activities”,
and the valid version of the methodologies and, where applicable, the
standardized baselines that are applicable to the project activity;
(v) The next crediting period of the project activity commences on the day
immediately after the expiration of the current crediting period;
(vi) The names of the project participants in the updated PDD are consistent with
the names of the project participants in the latest version of the MoC
statement;
(b) Report on all items listed in paragraph 272 above except paragraph 272(c) above;
(c) Follow paragraphs 267–270 above mutatis mutandis on its validation opinion;
(d) Provide a statement on whether any proposed post-registration changes for the
next crediting period will be submitted together with the request for renewal of
crediting period of the project activity.
project activities
416. In accordance with the section “Monitoring” of the “CDM project standard for project
activities”, the DOE shall determine whether the project participants have carried out the
following updates to ensure that they meet the requirements related to CCS project
activities:
(a) Recharacterize the geological storage site in accordance with the section
“Selection and characterization of the geological storage site” of the “CDM project
(b) Revise the project boundary;
75 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
(c) Update the risk and safety assessment, in accordance with the section “Risk and
safety assessment” of the “CDM project standard for project activities”;
(d) Update the environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments;
(e) Revise the monitoring plan in order to improve the accuracy and/or completeness
of data and information, taking into account observed deviations determined during
history matching, changes to the project boundary, changes to the risk and safety
assessment, changes to the environmental and socioeconomic impact
assessments, new scientific knowledge and improvements in the best available
technology;
(f) Update the site development and management plan, taking account of the results
of the activities described in subparagraphs (a)–(e) above, where appropriate.
417. Where the information prepared in accordance with paragraph 416 above indicates that
the geological storage site no longer meets the requirements set out in the section
“Selection and characterization of the geological storage site” of the “CDM project
standard for project activities”, the issuance of CERs shall cease and the DOE shall issue
a negative validation opinion.
76 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
Appendix. Calibration
1. The following provides an illustrative example for applying the provisions in paragraph 369
(a) and (b) of this standard.
2. An electricity energy meter with a maximum permissible error (±5%), which may be used
for measuring the electricity export for baseline emissions and electricity import for project
emission calculations, is required to be calibrated every year. If the calibration is delayed
and instead of after one year it is conducted after one and a half years, and the result of
the delayed calibration is available at the time of verification, to account for the delayed
calibration the measured values shall be corrected as demonstrated in the following
Table 1 and Table 2 for situations stipulated in paragraph 369 (a) and (b) of this standard.
Table 1. Sample calculation for the cases where the error identified in the delayed
calibration is smaller than the maximum permissible error
Error identified
Measured value Parameter during delayed Corrected values
calibration
100 MWh Electricity export ±2% 100 (1-Max.
permissible
error%/100) = 95
MWh
100 MWh Electricity import ±2% 100 (1+Max.
permissible
error%/100) = 105
MWh
Table 2. Sample calculation for the cases where the error identified in the delayed
calibration is larger than the maximum permissible error
Error identified
Measured value Parameter during delayed Corrected values
calibration
100 MWh Electricity export ±7% 100 (1-error%/100)
= 93 MWh
100 MWh Electricity import ±7% 100 (1+error%/100)
=107 MWh
-----
77 of 78
CDM-EB93-A05-STAN
Version 01.0
Document information
Version Date Description
01.0 3 March 2017 EB 93, Annex 5

Initial adoption.
This document, together with the “CDM validation and verification
standard for programmes of activities (CDM-EB93-A08-STAN),
was part of a single document titled “CDM validation and
verification standard (CDM-EB65-A04-STAN) until version 09.0.
This document, together with the “CDM project standard for project
activities” (CDM-EB93-A04-STAN), “CDM project cycle procedure
for project activities (CDM-EB93-A06-PROC), “CDM project
standard for programmes of activities” (CDM-EB93-A07-STAN)
“CDM validation and verification standard for programmes of
activities” (CDM-EB93-A08-STAN) and “CDM project cycle
procedure for programmes of activities (CDM-EB93-A09-PROC),
supersedes and replaces the following documents on the date
when these six documents enter into force:
• “Standard: Demonstration of additionality, development of
eligibility criteria and application of multiple methodologies for
programme of activities” (CDM-EB65-A03-STAN) (version
04.0);
• “Standard: General principles for bundling” (CDM-EB21-A21-
STAN) (version 03.0);
• “Amendment to version 09.0 of the CDM project standard”
(CDM-EB86-A05-AMEN) (version 01.0);
• “Amendment to version 09.0 of the CDM project cycle
procedure” (CDM-EB86-A06-AMEN) (issued at EB 86);
• “Clarification: Renewal of crediting period of registered CDM
project activity that has not been implemented in the first
crediting period” (CDM-EB82-A16-CLAR) (version 01.0);
• “Clarification: New project activity in the same physical or
geographical location at which a project activity whose
crediting period has expired existed” (CDM-EB83-A01-CLAR)
(version 02.0).
This document also reflects various changes for simplifying and
streamlining the CDM as agreed by the Board during EB 86−EB
93.
Decision Class: Regulatory

Document Type: Standard
Business Function: Issuance, Registration
Keywords: DOE, project activities, validation, verification
78 of 78

Metodologia 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metodologia 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metodologia 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................... PAGE

1.1. Background .................................................................................................... 5

2. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY AND ENTRY INTO FORCE ............................................ 6

2.2. Application ...................................................................................................... 6

4. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 6

5.1. General ........................................................................................................... 7

5.4. Fair presentation ............................................................................................ 7

6.1. General validation and verification approach................................................. 7

6.3. Use of applicable forms.................................................................................. 8

6.4. Use of applicable global warming potentials.................................................. 9

7.1. General validation requirements .................................................................... 9

7.2. Demonstration of prior consideration of the clean development

7.3. Identification of project type ........................................................................... 13

7.5. Selection of methodologies and standardized baselines............................... 15

7.6. Application of methodologies and standardized baselines ............................ 16

7.8. Environmental impacts ................................................................................... 28

7.10. Sustainable development co-benefits ............................................................ 30

7.12. Modalities of communication .......................................................................... 31

7.14. Specific validation requirements for afforestation and reforestation

8. VALIDATION OF POST-REGISTRATION CHANGES ............................................. 49

8.1. General validation requirements .................................................................... 49

9.1. General verification requirements .................................................................. 55

9.2. Verification of compliance .............................................................................. 62

9.4. Specific verification requirements for afforestation and reforestation

9.5. Specific verification requirements for carbon dioxide capture and

9.7. Verification status and verification and certification report ............................ 71

APPENDIX. CALIBRATION .......................................................................................... 77

2. Scope, applicability and entry into force

2.3. Entry into force

4. Terms and definitions

(c) “May” is used to indicate what is permitted.

5.3. Ethical conduct

5.4. Fair presentation

5.5. Due professional care

6. General validation and verification requirements

6.2. Use of and compliance with applicable standards

6.3. Use of applicable forms

6.4. Use of applicable global warming potentials

7. Validation for registration of project activities

7.1.1. Objectives of validation

7.1.2. Validation approach

7.1.3. Means of validation

7.1.3.1. Standard auditing techniques

7.1.3.2. Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forward action

7.2. Demonstration of prior consideration of the clean development mechanism

7.3. Identification of project type

7.4. General description of project activity

7.5. Selection of methodologies and standardized baselines

7.5.2. Deviation from methodology and/or methodological tool

7.5.3. Clarification on applicability of methodology, tool and/or standardized baseline

7.6. Application of methodologies and standardized baselines

7.6.2. Project boundary, sources and greenhouse gases

7.6.3. Baseline scenario

7.6.4. Demonstration of additionality

7.6.4.2. Identification of alternatives

7.6.4.3. Investment analysis

102. The DOE shall:

7.6.4.4. Barrier analysis