VALIDATION REPORT

Document Sample
VALIDATION REPORT Powered By Docstoc
					 SMALL-SCALE A/R
VALIDATION REPORT


Project Name in Country

  REPORT NO. YYYY-XXXX
              REVISION NO. XX




    A/R CDM Validation Report Template
         Version 1.0, February 2007
                                                                                                                      Project Name



Date of first issue:                                           Project No.:

Approved by:                                                   Organisational unit:


Client:                                                        Client ref.:


                                               Free space – depending on DOE
Project Name: Project Name
Country: Country
Methodology:
Version:
GHG Project Type: Afforestation/reforestation
Net anthropogenic removal estimate:

Size
 Large Scale
 Small Scale

Validation Phases:
 Desk Review
 Follow up interviews
 Resolution of outstanding issues

Validation Status
 Corrective Actions Requested
 Clarifications Requested
 Full Approval and submission for registration
 Rejected
In summary, it is “DOE”’s opinion that the “project name” in “Country”, as described in the
PDD of “date”, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for small-scale A/R project
activities under the CDM and all relevant host country criteria and correctly applies the
baseline and monitoring methodology “AR-AMXXXX”. “DOE” thus requests the registration
of the project as a CDM project activity.
          Report No.:         Date of this revision:        Rev. No.
YYYY-XXXX                                              XX                       Indexing terms
Report title:
Project Name in Country

Work carried out by:
                                                                                      No distribution without permission from
                                                                                      the Client or responsible organisational unit
Work verified by:
                                                                                      Limited distribution



                                                                                      Unrestricted distribution


CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                              2
                                                                    Project Name



Abbreviations
Explain any abbreviations that have been used in the report here.




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                         3
                                                                                                                     Project Name


TABLE OF CONTENTS


1            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION ........................................... 5

2            INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 6
2.1          Objective                                                                                                            6
2.2          Scope                                                                                                                6

3            METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 7
3.1          Desk review of the project design documentation                                                                     7
3.2          Follow-up interviews with project stakeholders                                                                      7
3.3          Resolution of outstanding issues                                                                                    8
3.4          Internal Quality Control                                                                                          10
3.5          Validation Team                                                                                                   10

4            VALIDATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 11
4.1          Participation Requirements                                                                                  11
4.2          Project Design                                                                                              11
4.3          Application of Baseline and Monotoring Methodologies                                                        11
4.4          Estimate of removals                                                                                        12
4.5          Environmental Impacts                                                                                       12
4.6          Socio-economic Impacts                                                                                      12
4.7          Comments by Local Stakeholders                                                                              12
4.8          Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs                                                                  13

Appendix A: Validation Protocol
Appendix B: Certificates of Competence




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                              4
                                                                                      Project Name



1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – VALIDATION OPINION
The validation opinion should include a summary of:
- the validation methodology and process,
- the validation criteria, and
- the validation conclusion.

The validation opinion should also include:
- a statement on issues not covered in the validation engagement, and
- a liability statement on the accuracy of the validation engagement.

The validation opinion should clearly state whether the project meets the relevant criteria for A/R
CDM project activities and whether the project is likely to achieve estimated net anthropogenic
removals.

The validation opinion may have the following outcome:
A. Unqualified validation opinion
B. Qualified validation opinion
C. Denial of validation
Examples of Validation Opinions:
Unqualified validation opinion
[DOE Name] has performed a validation of the “project name” in Country X. The validation was
performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for small-scale A/R project activities under the
Clean Development Mechanism and host country criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for
consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.
The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have
provided DNV with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria.
The host country is Country X and the Annex I country is Country Y. Both countries fulfil the
participation criteria and have approved the project and authorized the project participants. The
DNA from Country X confirmed that the project assists in achieving sustainable development.
The project correctly applies AR-AMXXXX “name of methodology”.
Carbon dioxide will be sequestered from the atmosphere and stored in biomass following the
reforestation of agricultural/abandoned land through tree planting…., the project results in net
anthropogenic removals of CO2 that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the
mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario.
Net anthropogenic removals attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would
occur in the absence of the project activity.
The total net anthropogenic removals from the project are estimated to be on average XXX XXX
tCO2e per year over the selected 20 year / 30 year crediting period. The net anthropogenic
removal forecast has been checked and is deemed likely that the state amount is achieved given
that the underlying assumptions do not change.
Adequate training and monitoring procedures have been implemented.
In summary, it is [DOE Name]’s opinion that the “project name” in Country X, as described in
the PDD of date, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for A/R project activities under the


CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                            5
                                                                                      Project Name

CDM and all relevant host country criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring
methodology AR-AMXXXX. [DOE Name] thus requests the registration of the project as an A/R
CDM project activity.

Qualified validation opinion
“…The validation has revealed that the procedures for monitoring and reporting are not yet
sufficiently developed. The lack of such procedures may represent a risk for net anthropogenic
removals not being verified and certified. Satisfactory procedures should hence be developed
prior to project implementation. …”


2 INTRODUCTION
The Client has commissioned “DOE” to perform a validation of the “project name” project in
“Country” (hereafter called “the project”). This report summarises the findings of the validation
of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for A/R project activities under the
CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and
reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, sections A to F of the
CDM modalities and procedures, the modalities and procedures for A/R project activities under
the CDM, the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale A/R project activities under
the CDM and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board.

2.1 Objective
The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In
particular, the project's baseline, monitoring plan, and the project’s compliance with relevant
UNFCCC and host Party criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design, as
documented, is sound and reasonable and meets the identified criteria. Validation is a requirement
for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality
of the project and its intended generation of temporary or long-term certified emission reductions
(tCERs/lCERs).

2.2 Scope
The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design
document (PDD). The PDD is reviewed against the criteria stated in Article 12 of the Kyoto
Protocol, sections A to F of the CDM modalities and procedures as agreed in the Marrakech
Accords, the modalities and procedures for A/R project activities under CDM as agreed at COP 9,
the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale A/R project activities under the CDM as
agreed at COP 10 and the relevant decisions by the CDM Executive Board, including the
approved baseline and monitoring methodology. The validation team has, based on the
recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual employed a risk-based approach,
focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of
t/lCERs.
The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the project participants. However,
stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided input for
improvement of the project design.



CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                            6
                                                                                      Project Name




3 METHODOLOGY
The validation consists of the following three phases:
I      a desk review of the project design documents
II     follow-up interviews with project stakeholders
III    the resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validation report and
opinion.
The following sections outline each step in more detail.

3.1 Desk review of the project design documentation
The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the validation:
/1/     Author, Title, Version, Date
/2/         Author, Title, Version, Date
            …
Examples of Documents to Review as Part of Scope:
- Terms of Reference
- Project Design Document
- Baseline Study
- Monitoring Plan
- Memorandum of Understanding
- Environmental and/or Socio-economic Impact Assessments
- Summary of Comments by Local Stakeholders

Main changes between the versions published for the 30 days stakeholder commenting period and
the final version submitted for registration:
- XXX
- XXX


3.2 Follow-up interviews with project stakeholders
Identify any personnel who have been interviewed and/or provided additional information to the
presented documentation.


          Date                      Name         Organization         Topic
/3/       YYYY-MM-DD
/4/




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                             7
                                                                                     Project Name


3.3 Resolution of outstanding issues
The objective of this phase of the validation is to resolve any outstanding issues that need to be
clarified prior to the DOE’s positive conclusion on the project design. In order to ensure
transparency a validation protocol is customised for the project. The protocol shows in a
transparent manner the criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from
validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes:
 It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet;
 It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a particular
    requirement has been validated and the result of the validation.

The validation protocol consists of two tables. The different columns in these tables are described
in the figure below. The completed validation protocol for the “Project Name” is enclosed in
Appendix A to this report.

Findings established during the validation could either be seen as a non-fulfilment of CDM
criteria or where a risk to the fulfilment of project objectives is identified. Corrective action
requests (CAR) are issued, where:
i)       mistakes have been made with a direct influence on project results;
ii)      CDM and/or methodology specific requirements have not been met; or
iii)     there is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a CDM project or that net
         anthropogenic removals will not be certified.

A request for clarification (CL) may be used where additional information is needed to fully
clarify an issue.




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                            8
                                                                                                           Project Name



 Validation Protocol Table 1: Requirement checklist
 Checklist Question                 Reference       Means of              Comment               Draft and/or Final
                                                    verification (MoV)                          Conclusion
 The various                        Gives           Explains how          The section is        This is either acceptable
 requirements in Table 1            reference to    conformance with      used to elaborate     based on evidence
 are linked to checklist            documents       the checklist         and discuss the       provided (OK), or a
 questions the project              where the       question is           checklist question    corrective action request
 should meet. The                   answer to       investigated.         and/or the            (CAR) due to non-
 checklist is organised in          the checklist   Examples of means     conformance to        compliance with the
 seven different sections.          question or     of verification are   the question. It is   checklist question (See
 Each section is then               item is         document review       further used to       below). A request for
 further sub-divided. The           found.          (DR) or interview     explain the           clarification (CL) is used
 lowest level constitutes a                         (I). N/A means not    conclusions           when the validation team
 checklist question.                                applicable.           reached.              has identified a need for
                                                                                                further clarification.

 Validation Protocol Table 2: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests
 Draft report clarifications         Ref. to checklist          Summary of project          Validation conclusion
 and corrective action               question in table 2        owner response
 requests
 If the conclusions from the         Reference to the           The responses given by      This section should summarise
 draft Validation are either         checklist question         the project participants    the validation team’s
 a CAR or a CL, these                number in Table 2          during the                  responses and final
 should be listed in this            where the CAR or CL is     communications with the     conclusions. The conclusions
 section.                            explained.                 validation team should      should also be included in
                                                                be summarised in this       Table 2, under “Final
                                                                section.                    Conclusion”.

Figure 1 Validation protocol tables




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                    9
                                                                                      Project Name


3.4 Internal Quality Control
The draft validation report including the initial validation findings underwent a technical review
before being submitted to the project participants. The final validation report underwent another
technical review before requesting registration of the project activity. The technical review was
performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with DNV’s qualification scheme for
CDM validation and verification.

3.5 Validation Team
 Role/Qualification                 Last Name             First Name                  City

The qualification of each individual validation team member is detailed in Appendix B to this
report.




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                            10
                                                                                       Project Name



4 VALIDATION FINDINGS
The findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The validation criteria
(requirements), the means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria are
documented in more detail in the validation protocol in Appendix A.
The final validation findings relate to the project design as documented and described in the
revised and resubmitted project design documentation.

4.1 Participation Requirements
Referring to Part A, Annex 1 and 2 of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- the Parties and project participants participating in the project,
- the participating Parties’ fulfilment of the participation requirements (e.g. ratified Kyoto
   Protocol, reporting of forest definition values, etc.),
- the diversion of official development aid, and
- the endorsement by host Party and Annex I Party DNA, including confirmation by the host
   Party of the project’s contribution to the country’s sustainable development
- a written declaration that the proposed small-scale A/R project activity is developed or
   implemented by low income communities and individuals as determined by the host Party
should be summarised in this section.

4.2 Project Design
Referring to Part A of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- the project purpose
- the location and geographic delineation of the project area
- the environmental conditions of the project area
- the GHGs to be covered
- the assessment of eligibility of land as afforestation/reforestation
- the legal, tenure and sequestration rights to the land
- the type of small-scale A/R project
- the technology being used including transfer of knowledge
- project duration, crediting period and non-permanence approach
- the description of how removals are achieved
- the estimates of net anthropogenic removals
should be summarised in this section.

4.3 Application of Baseline and Monotoring Methodologies
Referring to Part B of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- applicability of the previously approved baseline methodology,
- the appropriateness of the baseline scenario selection methodology, and
- the additionality of the project



CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                              11
                                                                                Project Name

- baseline information and study
- application of the monitoring methodology
- the treatment of leakage
- the QA/QC procedures
- the monitoring arrangements
should be summarised in this section

4.4 Estimate of removals
Referring to part C of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- the formulae used to estimate removals
- the estimation of the actual net removals
- the estimation of baseline net removals
- the estimation of leakage
- the estimation of net anthropogenic removals
should be summarised in this section.

4.5 Environmental Impacts
Referring to Part D of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- requirements for and approval of an EIA and
- the sufficient documentation of environmental impacts
- the remedial measures to address environmental impacts
should be summarised in this section.

4.6 Socio-economic Impacts
Referring to Part E of the PDD. The conclusions regarding:
- requirements for and approval of a socio-economic assessment and
- the sufficient documentation of socio-economic impacts
- the remedial measures to address socio-economic impacts
should be summarised in this section.

4.7 Comments by Local Stakeholders
Referring to Part F of the PDD. The conclusion regarding:
- the invitation of comments from relevant local stakeholders and its timing,
- the summary of comments provided, and
- how due account was taken of the comments received
should be summarised in this section.




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                     12
                                                                                 Project Name


4.8 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs
The PDD of date was made publicly available on DOE’s climate change website (www. ) and
Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were through the CDM website invited to provide comments
during a 30 day period from date to date.
One comment was received on date. The comment received (in unedited form) is given in the
below text box.
Comment by:
    Accredited NGO                          Party                            Stakeholder
Inserted on:
Subject:
Comment:



How DOE has considered the comment received in its validation:
A description of how the DOE has taken due account of the comment received




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                          13
                                                              Project Name




                                         APPENDIX A
                                    CDM VALIDATION PROTOCOL




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                      14
                                                                                                                                Project Name




Table 1                Mandatory Requirements for A/R Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Activities
                                      Requirement                                                      Reference                 Conclusion
About Parties
1. The project shall assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with   Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2
   part of their quantified commitment under Art. 3
2. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in contributing to the ultimate        Kyoto Protocol Art.12.2.
   objective of the UNFCCC
3. Parties participating in the CDM shall designate a national authority for the CDM   CDM Modalities and Procedures §29
4. The host Party and the participating Annex I Party shall be a Party to the Kyoto    CDM Modalities §30/31a
   Protocol
5. The participating Annex I Party’s assigned amount shall have been calculated        CDM Modalities and Procedures §31b
   and recorded
6. The participating Annex I Party shall have in place a national system for           CDM Modalities and Procedures §31c,d
   estimating GHG emissions and removals and a national registry in accordance
   with Kyoto Protocol Article 5 and 7
7. The project shall have the written approval of voluntary participation from the     Kyoto Protocol
   designated national authority of each Party involved                                Art. 12.5a, SSC A/R Modalities and
                                                                                       Procedures §15a
8. The project shall assist non-Annex I Parties in achieving sustainable               Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.2,
   development and shall have obtained confirmation by the host country thereof        SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §15a
9. In case public funding from Parties included in Annex I is used for the project     SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures
   activity, these Parties shall provide an affirmation that such funding does not     Appendix A (n)
   result in a diversion of official development assistance and is separate from and
   is not counted towards the financial obligations of these Parties.
10. The host Party shall have selected and reported to the Executive Board through     A/R Modalities and Procedures §8
    its designated national authority the minimum values for defining a forest.
About additionality




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                                        15
                                                                                                                                      Project Name



                                      Requirement                                                           Reference                  Conclusion
11. An A/R project activity is additional if the actual net greenhouse gas removals         Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5c,
    by sinks are increased above the sum of the changes in carbon stocks in the             SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures
    carbon pools within the project boundary that would have occurred in the                §14d,18,19,Appendix B
    absence of the registered CDM A/R project activity
About forecast net anthropogenic removals and socio-economic and
environmental impacts
12. The net anthropogenic removals shall be real, measurable and give long-term             Kyoto Protocol Art. 12.5b                      CL 1
    benefits related to the mitigation of climate change
13. Documentation on the analysis of the socio-economic and environmental                   SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14c
    impacts, including impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and impacts
    outside the project boundary of the A/R project activity. If any negative impact is
    considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, project
    participants have undertaken a socio-economic impact assessment and/or an
    environmental impact assessment in accordance with the procedures required
    by the host Party. This includes a statement that confirms this and a description
    of the planned monitoring and remedial measures to address them
About small-scale A/R project activities
14. The proposed project activity shall meet the eligibility criteria for small-scale A/R   SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §4a,c
    project activities under the CDM set out in § 1 (i) of the Modalities and
    procedures for A/R project activities under the CDM and shall not be a
    debundled component of a larger project activity
15. The proposed small-scale A/R project activity conforms to one of the types in           SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14f
    appendix B of the Modalities and procedures for small-scale A/R project
    activities under the CDM and uses one of the simplified baseline and monitoring
    methodologies specified in appendix B, and the estimate of the existing carbon
    stocks is conducted in an appropriate manner
16. A bundle of small-scale A/R project activities satisfies the conditions of bundling     SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14g
   and the overall monitoring plan is appropriate




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                                              16
                                                                                                                                 Project Name



                                 Requirement                                                          Reference                   Conclusion
17. Information has been provided regarding leakage                                     SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14h
18. Have a written declaration that the proposed small-scale A/R project activity is    SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §15b
    developed or implemented by low income communities and individuals as
    determined by the host Party
About stakeholder involvement
19. Comments by local stakeholders have been invited, a summary of these                SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14b
    provided and how due account was taken of any comments received
20. Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited NGOs shall have been invited to         SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §15d
    comment on the validation requirements for minimum 30 days, and the project
    design document and comments have been made publicly available
Other
21. Project participants have specified the approach proposed to address non-           SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14e
    permanence in accordance with paragraph 38 of the Modalities and procedures
    for A/R project activities under the CDM
22. Baseline and monitoring methodology shall be previously approved by the CDM         A/R Modalities and Procedures §12g
    Executive Board
23. The project design document shall be in conformance with the UNFCCC CDM-            SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures
    AR-PDD format (CDM-SSC-AR-PDD for small-scale)                                      Appendix A
24. Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting shall be in accordance with   SSC A/R Modalities and Procedures §14i
    the modalities described in decision 19/CP.9 that are not replaced by the
    simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale A/R activities and relevant
    decisions of the COP/MOP




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                                         17
                                                                                       Project Name




Table 2                   Requirements Checklist
                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                                  Draft
                                                                                                              Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=              Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                              Concl
                         Interview
    A. General Description of the Project Activity
       The project design is assessed.
             A.1 Title of the project activity
Has the project an appropriate title, and does it contain a version
number and date?

             A.2 Description of the project activity
Has the project been described in terms of purpose and the
project proponent’s view of the project’s contribution to
sustainable development?

             A.3 Project participants
Have the Parties and project participants participating in the
project been listed in the table as required?


Have all involved Parties provided a valid and complete letter of
approval and have all private/public project participants been
authorized by an involved Party?


Do all participating Parties fulfil the participation requirements
as follows:
- Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol



* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                              18
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=           Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                           Interview
- Designated a National Authority
- Host Party DNA communicated minimum values for forest
definition

             A.4 Technical description of the project
Has the location of the project including host Party, region and
town/community been defined?


Has an appropriately detailed geographic delineation of the
project boundary including a unique identifier been included?


Has a description of items on the present environmental
conditions of the project area including climate, soils, main
watersheds, ecosystems, and the presence of any rare or
endangered species and their habitats been included?


Have the species and varieties to be grown been adequately
described?


Have the GHGs whose emissions will be part of the project
activity been specified?


Have the selected carbon pools been specified?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           19
                                                                                      Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                                 Draft
                                                                                                             Final
 * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=              Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                             Concl
                             Interview
Has the latest version of the ‘Procedure to define the eligibility
of lands for A/R project activities’ been properly applied?


Have details of the legal title to the land, land tenure and
sequestration rights been described adequately?


Has the type of small-scale project activity been adequately
defined?
Has the technology to be employed (including environmentally
safe technologies and know-how with specifications of whether
they will be transferred to host Parties) been adequately
described?


Has the approach to address non-permanence been specified in
accordance with paragraph 38 of decision 19/CP.9 and
paragraph 21 and section C of decision 14/CP.10?


Does the starting date reflect the date of implementation (or
when real action began that resulted in changes to the actual net
removals) and has it been adequately justified?


Has the expected operational lifetime been defined?


Is the project fixed or renewable and does it have an appropriate


* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                             20
                                                                                           Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                                      Draft
                                                                                                                  Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=                  Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                                  Concl
                            Interview
crediting period length defined?


Has an explanation of how the net anthropogenic removals are
achieved from the project including why they would not occur in
its absence and taking into account national and/or sectoral
polices been adequately defined?


Has the table on estimated net anthropogenic removals over the
chosen crediting period been completed?


Has information been provided from Parties listed in Annex 1 on
sources of public funding for the project which affirms that
funding does not result in a diversion of official development
assistance and is separate from and not counted towards the
financial obligations of those Parties?
Has confirmation been provided that the project is not a
debundled component of a larger project activity?

      B. Application of Baseline and Monitoring Methodology
       The applicability of the baseline and monitoring methodology are
       assessed.
             B.1 Title and reference
Has the approved methodology been adequately referenced?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                  21
                                                                                      Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                                 Draft
                                                                                                             Final
 * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=              Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                             Concl
                           Interview
       B.2 Justification of applicability of project to
methodology
Does the project meet the applicability conditions of the selected
methodology and has this been adequately justified?

             B.3 Application of baseline methodology
Has key information and an adequate justification been
described in regards to the applicability of the baseline
methodology to the project?


Has an explanation of how and why the project is additional
been adequately defined?


Has detailed baseline information been provided including the
date of completion and the name of the person (or entity)
determining the baseline?

             B.4 Application of monitoring methodology and plan
Has a detailed description of the monitoring plan been provided?


Has the table on data to be collected to monitor actual net
removals been adequately completed?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                             22
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
 * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=            Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                           Interview
Has monitoring of leakage been indicated and adequately
explained?


If applicable has the table on monitoring of leakage been
adequately completed?


Have QA/QC procedures been adequately defined?


Has the operational and management structure that the project
operator will implement in order to monitor actual removals and
leakage by the project been adequately defined?


Has the person or entity determining the monitoring plan been
named, are they listed as a project participant and has contact
information been provided?

      C. Estimation of Net Anthropogenic Removals
       The estimation of net anthropogenic removals is assessed
             C.1 Formulae used
Have the formulae used to calculate removals been adequately
defined?
Has the formulae used to estimate actual net removals been
adequately defined?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           23
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=           Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                         Interview

If applicable, has the formulae used to estimate leakage been
adequately defined?


Has the formulae used to estimate net anthropogenic removals
been adequately defined?

             C.2 Estimation of actual net removals
Has the estimate of actual net removals been adequately
defined?

             C.3 Estimation of baseline net removals
Has the estimate of baseline net removals been adequately
defined?

             C.4 Estimation of leakage
If applicable, has the estimate of leakage been adequately
defined?

             C.5 Estimation of net anthropogenic removals
Has the estimate of net anthropogenic removals been adequately
defined?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           24
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=           Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                         Interview
      C.6 Estimation values
Has the table defining annual and total GHG removals been
adequately completed?

      D. Environmental Impacts of the Project
       The environmental impacts are assessed
             D.1 Significant negative impacts
If any negative impact is considered significant by the project
participants or the host Party, has a statement that the project
participants have undertaken an environmental impact
assessment in accordance with the procedures required by the
host Party (including conclusions and references to supporting
information) been provided?
    E. Socio-economic Impacts of the Project
       The socio-economic impacts are assessed
             E.1 Significant negative impacts
If any negative impact is considered significant by the project
participants or the host Party, has a statement that the project
participants have undertaken a socio-economic impact
assessment in accordance with the procedures required by the
host Party (including conclusions and references to supporting
information) been provided?
    F. Stakeholder Comments
       Stakeholder comments are assessed
             F.1 Description of how stakeholder comments have



* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           25
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=           Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                            Interview
been invited and compiled
Has a description of how stakeholder comments have been
invited and compiled been provided and has it been undertaken
in an open and transparent manner that facilitates comments
being received and has the project been described in a manner
that allows local stakeholders to understand the project?
         F.2 Comments received
Have stakeholders who made comments been identified and has
a summary of the comments been provided?

             F.3 Report on due account
Has an explanation on how due account has been taken
regarding the received comments from stakeholders been
provided?
    Annexes

             Annex 1 Contact information on project participants
Is contact information on participants of the project complete?

             Annex 2 Public funding
Has information been provided from Parties listed in Annex 1 on
sources of public funding for the project which affirms that
funding does not result in a diversion of official development
assistance and is separate from and not counted towards the



* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           26
                                                                                    Project Name



                                  CHECKLIST QUESTION                                               Draft
                                                                                                           Final
  * MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I=           Ref.   MoV*   COMMENTS          Concl
                                                                                                           Concl
                             Interview
financial obligations of those Parties?




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                           27
                                                                   Project Name




* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview

CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                 28
                                                                                                                                 Project Name

Table 2                Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests
Draft report clarifications and corrective            Ref. to       Summary of project owner response   Validation team conclusion
action requests by validation team                    checklist
                                                      question in
                                                      table 2
CAR.1

CL 1.




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                                                                                         29
DET NORSKE VERITAS




                                           APPENDIX B
                                    CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCE




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                                30
                               CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE




CDM Validation YYYY-XXXX, rev. XX                          31

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:31
posted:7/30/2012
language:Latin
pages:31