1 / 15

Difficulties in Verification of a PoA : DOEs Perspective

Difficulties in Verification of a PoA : DOEs Perspective. Workshop on Programme of Activities ( PoA ) under the CDM: Challenges and Road Ahead 07 th - 8 th , May 2011, Bonn. Organised by UNFCCC Secretariat. by Dr. Kaviraj Singh. Content.

peony
Download Presentation

Difficulties in Verification of a PoA : DOEs Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Difficulties in Verification of a PoA: DOEs Perspective Workshop on Programme of Activities (PoA) under the CDM: Challenges and Road Ahead 07th - 8th, May 2011, Bonn Organised by UNFCCC Secretariat by Dr. Kaviraj Singh

  2. Content • Current status of PoAs: validation/verification • Procedures: CDM PA vis-à-vis PoA • Template availability • Complexities in verification • Further guidance from UNFCCC • Questions

  3. Current status of PoAs: • Total PoAs registered: 08 • Under verification: 01 (or more) • Under validation : 164 (Webhosted for ISHC)

  4. Verification Procedures: CDM PA vis-à-vis PoA

  5. Change in project design? • Change in the number of PA equipment installation • Given the number in millions • Robust monitoring of implementation • Change in the rated capacity • Minor & Major • Implementation in different geographical areas than the ones mentioned in the registered PoA • Municipalities • Region within a country & Across the countries • The impact of these changes: • Additionality/Scale/Applicability

  6. Revision in monitoring plan? • PoA-DD not inline to applied methodology • If PoA DD is reivsed, does it require to change in all CPAs? • CPA-DD doesn’t follow the applied methodology • Is revision in affected CPA DD is acceptable? • Only implemented CPA-DD doesn’t follow the PoA-DD • EB55 Annex 38, para 19 & 20: • Once changes have been approved inline to the revised/replaced meth, does it require the existing CPAs (as default) to follow the new PoA?

  7. Deviation from the registered PoA-DD & CPA-DD • PoA-DD • CPA-DD only • Deviation from PoA as well as CPA-DD

  8. Templates: PoA vis-à-vis CDM

  9. Complexities in verification of PoAs • Data Sampling • Huge sets of data to be verified • Assurance on information provided by third parties (for PP) • Extra time and efforts (on site) required by DOE • More clarity on issues (discussed later)

  10. Data Sampling for monitored parameters • Appropriateness of the sample size in the registered PoA DD • Identification of the representative sample size for the monitored data • More clarity required, within the PoA section in methodologies, on appropriate sampling plan requirements

  11. Huge sets of data to deal with • Number of project devices may be thousands/millions • Significant time and efforts required • Need of statistical expert in team • Robust data processing systems for PPs • Technical difficulties (size) in uploading the files

  12. Assurance on hired third party • No defined criteria (competency/accreditation) about the selection of third party • Protocols to be used by third party for data collection and analysis should be made available in the PoA-DD • Involved parties should have the accreditation from the government bodies or other authorized entities

  13. Extra efforts of DOEs may require on site • Requires more time and efforts (as compared to CDM projects) on site • Complete assessment team shall visit the site • Geographical and sociological constrains on site • Need to increase the sample size if variations in collected data • Economical constrains, on the required efforts, for DOEs

  14. Further guidance from UN • Response from UN on some project specific clarifications as exceptional case • More clarity on procedures for change in project design/RMP/deviations cases • Specific guidance for sampling of CPAs and data collection • Availability of PoA specific templates and forms

  15. Employed 59,000 people and operate a network of more than 1,000 offices and laboratories around the world • Verification of 27.4% of the total projects got CER issued (still stands on top)* • Validation of 10.9% of the total registered projects* Questions? Dr. Kaviraj Singh Regional Operation Manager (ME & SEAP)Phone: +91 1246776360 Mobile: +91 9871712968 Email: kaviraj.singh@sgs.com Web:        www.climatechange.sgs.com Thanks You *UNEP RISO (http://cdmpipeline.org/) March, 2011

More Related