Motoharu Yamazaki

1
Alignment of CDM and JI accreditation processes

• 1st Sustainable Development Mechanisms Joint
  Coordination Workshop
• Bonn, Germany, 24-25 March 2012

2
Background

• CDM accreditation procedure
• Initially adopted in Aug 2002, currently ver.
  10.1
• Major revision took place at ver. 9 revision (Mar
  2009), replacing all witnessing activities with
  performance assessments
• In addition to the accreditation procedure, CDM
  EB introduced DOE performance monitoring
  framework in Nov. 2010, as complementary measure
• JI accreditation process
• Initially adopted in Sep 2006, currently ver. 7
• Major revision took place at ver. 5 revision (Sep
  2009) and ver. 6 revision (Apr 2010), reducing
  the role of witnessing activities, and at ver.
  7 revision (Sep 2011), finally replacing
  witnessing activities with performance
  assessments

3
CDM/JI accreditation process comparison
CDM accreditation process JI accreditation process
Governance CDM EB CDM-AP CDM-AT JISC JI-AP JI-AT
Assessment steps Desk review On-site assessment Performance assessments Regular surveillance Re-accreditation (every 3 years) Desk review On-site assessment Performance assessments Regular surveillance Re-accreditation (every 5 years)
Standard CDM accreditation standard (ver 3) JI accreditation standard (ver 1)
Entities accredited 41 (as of 23 Mar 2012) 11 (as of 23 Mar 2012)
Other DOE performance monitoring framework Annual activity report
4
Mandates

• JISC, when making the latest revision of JI
  accreditation procedure, agreed to
• Align the steps of JI accreditation procedure
  with the steps of CDM accreditation procedure
• Align with the elements of the process
  (procedure, standard and functioning) easily
  implementable
• Seek views of CDM EB on aligning the CDM and JI
  accreditation processes
• Explore the feasibility of full integration of
  CDM and JI accreditation processes including
  accreditation panels
• CDM EB endorsed to
• Collaborate between CDM-AP and JI-AP
• CMP encouraged JISC to
• Continue to streamline JI accreditation process,
  including efforts to align with CDM accreditation
  process

5
Questions

• Which areas of CDM and JI accreditation processes
  can be further improved?
• What are the priority areas for alignment in the
  short term (in the context of Marrakech Accords
  framework)?
• What alignment is preferable in the long-term (in
  the context of future mechanism)?
• Note Under the CDM, in accordance with CDM
  Management Plan 2012, a project to improve the
  performance and role-definition of operational
  entities within the mechanism, including through
  revised standards and procedures will be
  conducted this year.