F-CDM-WRval_A/R REPORT ON WITNESSING ACTIVITY VALIDATION - AFFORESTATION & REFORESTATION Complete one form for each witnessing activity (Based on documentary evidence of the function performed by the AE/DOE
AE’s/DOE’s name: Address of AE/DOE: UNFCCC ref no. Group of scope(s) covered (refer to WP grouping) and particular scope(s) of accreditation of the activity witnessed. Approved methodology used : Name, AM No. and version No. Witnessed activity (describe in brief the project activity - name, location and duration of the project; validation team members, name of team leader, dates of validation) CDM-AT leader CDM-AT Member / Meth expert(s) involved in the witnessing activity Evaluation : (Key : S = Satisfactory, NS = Not satisfactory , NA = Not Applicable CL =Clarification is sort for ) Rating Comments (Substantiate your observations) Criteria (fill as applicable to the activity witnessed) Project assessment details for Validation (Para 12 of M & P) (If AT identifies any NC and/or observation regarding following bullets of this column during the witnessing activities, AT is required to indicate accordingly) 1. Has the AE/DOE reviewed that: a) Requirements for the project participants have been met as in Para 28 – 30 of M&P (Decision 3/CMP.1) and Paragraphs 8 & 9 of M&P for Afforestation and Reforestation (Decision 5/CMP.1): ► Participation is voluntary ► National Authority for the CDM has been designated before the validation date ► The Host Party is a party to the Kyoto Protocol ► The Host Party has selected and reported to the Executive Board through its designated national authority for the CDM: (a) A single minimum tree crown cover value between 10 and 30 per cent; and (b) A single minimum land area value between 0.05 and 1 hectare; and (c) A single minimum tree height value between 2 and 5 metres. ► It was done before the validation date b) The Project Participants have invited comments from the local stakeholders and a summary of the comments has been provided to AE/DOE and a report has been provided
Version 01
Page 1 of 4
F-CDM-WRval_A/R of how due account was taken of any comments so received. c) (i) Project Participants have submitted to the AE/DOE documentation on analysis of the socio-economic & environmental impacts, impacts on biodiversity & natural ecosystems, and impacts outside the project boundary of the project activity; and have undertaken socio-economic and/or environmental impact assessment in accordance with the procedures of the Host Party on impacts that are considered significant. c) (ii) Project Participants have submitted statement that confirms that such an assessment is carried out in accordance with the procedures required by the Host Party and includes a description of the planned monitoring & remedial measures thereon d) The baseline and monitoring methodologies are previously approved by the Executive Board e) Conditions for applicability of baseline and monitoring methodologies used by the Project Participants are met over the project area f) (i)The project activity meets the additionality requirements in accordance with paragraphs 18 to 24 of M&P ► The project boundary geographically delineates the afforestation or reforestation project activity under the control of the project participants ► Baseline is derived using a baseline methodology f) (ii) Baseline net greenhouse gas removals by sinks are established: ► By project participants in accordance with provisions for the use of approved baseline methodology ► In a transparent and conservative manner regarding the choice of approaches, assumptions, methodologies, parameters, data sources, key factors and additionality, and taking into account uncertainty ► On a project-specific basis ► Taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances g) If Project Participants have chosen not to account for one or more carbon pools, and/or emissions of the GHGs in calculating the baseline net greenhouse gas removals by sinks and/or actual net greenhouse gas removals by sinks: ► Double counting was avoided ► Transparent and verifiable information was provided that the choice will not increase the expected net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks h) Monitoring plan for a proposed afforestation or reforestation project activity is based on a previously approved monitoring methodology appropriate to the afforestation or reforestation project activity, and: ► Is appropriate to the circumstances of the proposed afforestation or reforestation project activity ► Reflects good monitoring practice appropriate to the type of afforestation or reforestation project activity ► Takes into account uncertainties by appropriate choice of monitoring methods, such as number of samples, to achieve reliable estimates of net
Version 01
Page 2 of 4
F-CDM-WRval_A/R anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks i) Management activities, harvesting cycles and verifications are such that coincidence of verification and peaks in carbon stocks are avoided j) Project Participants have specified the approach to address non-permanence in accordance with paragraph 38 of M&P.
k) Provisions of monitoring, verification and reporting are in accordance with the decision 19/CP.9, e.g. paragraphs 25 & 26 for monitoring and 34 & 3for verification and reporting l) The project activity conforms to all other requirements for afforestation and reforestation CDM project activities in decision 19/CP.9, the annex and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the EB. (Does the AE/DOE have procedures to keep up to date with the decisions of the EB related to validation?)
2. Has the AE/DOE checked whether a valid Project Design Document was filled by project participants in accordance with applicable guidance by the Executive Board? 3. Does the AE/DOE follow the procedure for submission of Validation Report for the project. Has the AE/DOE followed the steps (a) to (g) of Para 15 of M & P and relevant procedures (Refer guidance on validation by the EB) Assessment of effective planning by the AE/DOE (AT should consider the items below in the context of any NC and/or observation identified during witnessing activities reported above, since it is possible that these have originated from non-effective planning.) Does the AE/DOE apply effectively its procedures to keep up to date with the decisions of the EB related to Methodologies on baselines and monitoring and have the latest decisions been applied during this validation? Is the allocation of the resources(s) (human resources, assessment time, etc.) appropriate to the scope of this assessment by the AE/DOE Have all the pertinent documentation been identified prior to starting assessment (Describe the list of documents referred by the validation team) Does the AE/DOE use checklists for performing validation activities (general or specific)? Are the Checklists or other means used comprehensive? Are the steps adequate for validation and reflect the intent of CDM?
-
-
-
Version 01
Page 3 of 4
F-CDM-WRval_A/R Witnessing the validation activity on-site (For witnessing done on site, if and when approved) - Was work systematically approached and implemented? - Did the AE / DOE Team provide the impression that results would be provided with the same quality at all times? - In case the AE/DOE established a team and did the leader of the AE /DOE Team control the validation activity? - Did the AE / DOE Team show the capacity to adapt to circumstances as necessary? General comments on AE’s/DOE’s management system (based on witnessing activity): - Does the AE/DOE have a management structure that has overall responsibility for performance of the AE’s functions, including quality assurance procedures, and all relevant decisions relating to validation [1(g) (i)~(vi) of Standards for the accreditation of operational entities]? - If AT considers that any NC identified during witnessing are caused by any other reason, please describe AT’s comments: General comments and recommendations:
CDM-AT team member witnessing: Leader of the Assessment Team: (Signature)
Date: Date:
Version 01
Page 4 of 4