CDM-EB-49

UNITED NATIONS 

NATIONS UNIES 

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE - Secretariat 

CONVENTION - CADRE SUR LES CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES - 

Secrétariat 

Date: 11 September 2009 

Ref: CDM-EB-49 

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM 

FORTY-NINTH MEETING 

Report 

Date of meeting: 8 -11 September 2009 

Location: Bonn, Germany 

Attendance: The names of members and alternate members present at the forty-ninth meeting are 

in bold print below. Where only the name of an alternate member is in bold print, the alternate 

participated as a member. 

Members 

Alternates 

Mr. Lex de Jonge 2 Mr. Pedro Martins Barata 2 

Mr. Kamel Djemouai 1 Mr. Samuel Adeoye Adejuwon 1 

Mr. Philip M. Gwage 2 Mr. Xuedu Lu 2 

Mr. Martin Hession 1 Mr. Thomas Bernheim 1 

Mr. Shafqat Kakakhel 1 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sethi 1 

Mr. Clifford Mahlung 2 Mr. Noah Idechong 2 

Mr. Paulo Manso 2 Mr. Hussein Badarin 2 

Mr. Victor Nicolae 2 Ms. Diana Harutyunyan 2 

Mr. Hugh Sealy 1 Mr. Josè Domingos Miguez 1 

Mr. Peer Stiansen 1 Mr. Akihiro Kuroki 1 

1 Term: Two years (term of service ends immediately before the first meeting in 2011) 

2 Term: Two years (term of service ends immediately before the first meeting in 2010) 

NB: The term of service of a member, or an alternate member, starts at the first meeting of the 

Executive Board in the calendar year following his/her election and ends immediately before the 

first meeting of the Executive Board in the calendar year in which the term ends (see Rules of 

procedure of the Executive Board). 

Quorum (in parenthesis required numbers): 10 (7) members or alternate members acting as 

members present of which 4 (3) from Annex I Parties and 6 (4) from non-Annex I Parties. 

WWW broadcasting : < http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/Meetings >.

UNFCCC/CCNUCC Page 2 

CDM - Executive Board 

Forty-ninth meeting 

Agenda item 1. Membership issues (including disclosure of possible conflict of interest) 

1. Mr. Lex de Jonge, Chair of the Executive Board of the clean development mechanism (CDM) 

(hereinafter referred to as the Board) opened the meeting and asserted that the quorum requirement was 

met. Members and alternate members made declarations as to whether they had a conflict of interest as to 

any items on the meeting agenda. Specifically, Mr. Pedro Martins Barata, Mr. Lex de Jonge, 

Mr. Martin Hession, Mr. Hugh Sealy and Mr. Peer Stiansen also requested that their signed statements 

regarding conflict of interest be attached to this report, as contained in annex 1 to this report. 

2. The Board noted that the secretariat was informed that Mr. Thomas Bernheim and Mr. Noah 

Idechong were unable to attend the meeting and had provided proper justification for their absence. 

Agenda item 2. Adoption of the agenda 

3. The Board agreed to not consider the agenda item "Relations with Designated Operational and 

Applicant Entities" and adopted the revised agenda of the meeting. 

Agenda item 3. Work plan 

Agenda sub-item 3 (a): Accreditation of operational entities 

4. The Board took note of the thirty-third progress report on the work of the CDM Accreditation 

Panel (CDM-AP), and an oral report by the Chair, Mr. Martin Hession. The report summarized 

information relating to the work of the panel including the status of applications and developments with 

respect to desk reviews, on-site assessments, performance assessments and other accreditation related 

issues. The Board requested the CDM-AP to provide more information for consideration at its fiftieth 

meeting on the volume of planned assessments, on the level of assessment resources and on the training 

interventions planned for the assessors. 

Case specific 

5. The Board, taking into consideration the recommendation of the CDM-AP, the response of the 

DOE including the proposed corrective actions and the oral presentation at the hearing, decided to 

recommend to CMP to suspend the accreditation and designation of the designated operational entity SGS 

United Kingdom Ltd (Er-0010). In accordance with paragraph 103 of the Accreditation Procedure this 

suspension is with immediate effect. 

6. The Board agreed that 'SGS United Kingdom Ltd' could continue to process existing activities in 

relation to requests for registration and issuance which have been submitted to the Board prior to this 

suspension. 'SGS United Kingdom Ltd' may therefore: 

(a) Respond to issues related to completeness checks of requests for registration and 

issuance; 

(b) Respond to issues raised in reviews and requests for reviews of requests for registration 

and issuance; and 

(c) Submit documentation requested by the Board as part of the outcome of a previous 

request for review or review. 

7. Until the termination of the suspension, and in accordance with paragraph 109 of the CDM 

Accreditation Procedure, 'SGS United Kingdom Ltd' may continue to undertake activities related to 

validation and verification under existing contracts, with the exception of the following: 

(a) 

Upload PDDs for public comments as part of the validation process;




(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

Upload monitoring reports as part of the verification process; 

Submit new requests for registration for CDM project activities; 

Submit new requests for issuance of certified emission reductions; 

Submit new requests for renewal of crediting periods; 

Submit new requests for revision of monitoring plan; 

Submit new request for deviation; and 

Submit new request for changes from the PDD. 

The Board further agreed that the DOE shall undertake corrective actions to address the 

non-conformities listed in annex 2 within a period of 6 months. On the request of the DOE and in 

accordance with paragraph 104 of the Accreditation Procedure the CDM-AT shall undertake a further 

on-site assessment to verify the implementation of the corrective actions. 

8. The Board considered an appeal submitted by a DOE against recommendation of the CDM-AP. 

The Board, in accordance with the CDM Accreditation Procedure, decided to establish a three member 

appeal panel and requested it to prepare a report for the consideration of the Board at its fiftieth meeting. 

The Board also agreed that the appeal panel members shall be compensated for three (3) days of work in 

accordance with United Nations rules and regulations. 

9. The Board considered a recommendation of the CDM-AP and agreed to re-accredit the entity 

'JACO CDM Ltd' for three (3) years for validation and verification/certification functions for sectoral 

scopes 1 to 15. 

General guidance 

10. The Board agreed on the policy framework to monitor performance and address non-compliance 

by DOEs in a systematic manner, as contained in annex 3 to this report. The Board requested the 

secretariat to prepare a proposal for implementation of the policy framework, including the categorization 

of non-compliance, proposed thresholds and applicable sanctions, for the consideration of the Board at its 

fifty-first meeting. 

11. The Board took note of an oral report by the secretariat, including timelines, on a workplan for 

updating of the Validation and Verification Manual (CDM-VVM). The Board agreed to the proposed 

timelines and to the following approach to update the CDM-VVM: 

(a) A review of the document on a six month basis would be undertaken in the future. The 

scope of such a review would include the appropriate incorporation of evolving decisions of the 

Board and also allow minor editorial consistency checks; 

(b) A more comprehensive revision of the document would take place every two (2) years. 

The scope of this type of revision would allow the incorporation of all relevant decisions of the 

Board, undertake comprehensive editorial, technical and legal consistency check as well as any 

other relevant changes to improve the user-friendliness of the document. 

The Board further agreed that in exceptional cases further unscheduled revisions of the document 

can be undertaken and requested the secretariat to prepare a review of the VVM in accordance with this 

paragraph 11 (a) above for its consideration at its fifty-first meeting.




12. Due to lack of time, the Board could not consider the introductory presentation on the concept of 

materiality and requested the secretariat to do some further work on the concepts of materiality/level of 

assurance and also prepare some examples of the impact of applying these concepts in CDM project 

activities for consideration of the Board at its fiftieth meeting. 

13. The Board agreed to launch a call for experts starting on 14 September 2009 and ending on 

13 October 2009 in order to replace one outgoing member of the CDM-AP with methodological expertise. 

The Board requested the secretariat to prepare a short-list of the candidates for the consideration of the 

Board at its fifty-first meeting. The Board further agreed to extend the term of the outgoing member until 

the appointment of new panel member. 

14. The Board requested the secretariat to prepare a proposal for establishing an appeal process 

against Designated Operational Entities by the Project Participants for the consideration of the Board at its 

fifty-first meeting. The proposal shall address possible policy options and the associated implications. 

15. The Board noted that the forty-fourth meeting of the CDM-AP is scheduled for 

21 - 23 September 2009. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (b): Methodologies for baselines and monitoring plans 

Case specific 

16. The Board considered one request for deviation from the approved methodology ACM0006 

related to a project activity undergoing validation, in view of response provided by the Meth Panel (MP37, 

paragraph 34) to the request of forty-fifth meeting of the Board. The Board agreed to respond to it and 

requested the secretariat to inform the DOE accordingly. 


17. The Board considered the guidance on the barrier "first-of-its-kind" and requested a group of 

members to further discuss the issue in order to finalize a new proposal. The Board agreed to consider this 

issue again once an agreed proposal by the group is submitted to the Board. 

18. The Board considered the guidance on the common practice analysis and requested a group of 

members to further discuss the issue in order to finalize a new proposal. The Board agreed to consider this 

issue again once an agreed proposal by the group is submitted to the Board. 

19. The Board agreed to the "Procedures for requests to the Executive Board for deviation from an 

approved methodology" and its related form "Form for submission of requests for deviation from 

methodology (F-CDM-DEV-METH)", as contained in annex 4 and annex 5 to this report. This procedure 

and its related form, along with the "Procedures for requests to the Executive Board for deviation prior to 

submitting request for issuance" (EB 49, annex 26), replaces the Procedures for requests for deviation to 

the Executive Board (version 02, EB 24, Annex 30) and its related form and includes revisions in the 

procedures with respect to requesting deviation from an approved methodology. 

20. The Board considered a detailed analysis prepared by the secretariat 1 including: the performance 

of the process of considering methodologies related submissions such as new methodologies, requests for 

revision and request for clarification; reasons for delay in consideration; synthesis of public inputs on the 

call to invite comments on reasons for no / low use of methodologies in project activities; specific 

improvements required to be achieved in methodologies and the process of consideration of 

methodologies; and several proposals to bring the improvements. The Board agreed to request the 

secretariat to (a) prepare a synthesis summary of this analysis including a work programme of specific 

actions to be taken based on this analysis; (b) revise the procedures for consideration of new 

methodologies, request for revision and request for clarification, based upon their specific improvement




proposals presented in the analysis. Both requests are to be considered by the Board at a future meeting. 

21. In view of the analysis presented by the secretariat, the Board also requested the Meth Panel to 

revise approved methodologies to further improve their objectivity, applicability, usability and 

consistency. For carrying out this task, the Board also requested the Meth Panel to communicate with the 

project proponents and the developers of respective methodologies, if required. The Board requested the 

secretariat to report on the progress of this work, for the consideration at a future meeting. 

22. The Board considered the document 2 concerning the implications of the possible inclusion of 

carbon capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations as CDM project activities, prepared by 

external consultants selected by the Board, according to EB47 paragraph 36. The Board agreed that 

further substantial work on the report is required before it can be considered by the Board again. Although 

the report provided a broad review of carbon capture and storage in geological formation as mitigation 

option based on guidelines and reports of international institutions, it has not addressed the core element 

of the terms of reference, about a detailed assessment of the implications of possible inclusion of carbon 

capture and storage in geological formation as CDM project activities. Therefore, the Board requested the 

secretariat to provide feedback to the consultants based upon the issues discussed by the Board 

and requested the consultants to review the report for the consideration of the Board at its fiftieth meeting. 

Further schedule 

23. The Board took note that the fortieth meeting of the panel will be held from 

14 - 18 September 2009 and the forty-first meeting of the panel will be held from 19 - 23 October 2009. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (c): Issues relating to CDM afforestation and reforestation project 

activities 


24. The Board considered the first draft of the experts' report on the assessment of the implications of 

the possible inclusion of lands with forests in exhaustion as A/R CDM project activities 3 and agreed to 

continue its work with a view to prepare a recommendation to the Conference of the Parties serving as the 

meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its fifth session as requested in paragraph 42 of the 

Decision 2/CMP.4. 

25. The Board further requested the A/R WG to consider, at the highest priority, the above mentioned 

experts' report at its twenty-fifth meeting and provide the Board with its input on options for definition of 

forest in exhaustion. The Board requested a small group of members to consider this input and to provide 

the Board with a recommendation to be considered at its fiftieth meeting. 


26. The Board noted with appreciation an invitation by the Chair of the A/R WG 

Mr. José Domingos Miguez to hold one of the meetings of the group planned for year 2010 in Brazil and 

requested the secretariat to proceed with legal and logistical matters. 

27. The Board took note that the twenty-fifth meeting of the A/R WG will be held from 

21 - 23 September 2009 and the twenty-sixth meeting of the A/R WG will be held from 

28 - 30 October 2009. 

28. The Board reminded project participants that the deadline for consideration of requests for 

revision and requests for clarification of A/R methodologies at the twenty-sixth meeting is 

16 September 2009.




29. The Board reminded project participants that the deadline for the twenty-fourth round of 

submissions of proposed new A/R methodologies is 26 October 2009. The Board also reminded project 

participants that new baseline and monitoring methodologies could be submitted at any time prior to this 

deadline. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (d): Issues relating to small-scale CDM project activities 


30. The Board considered the request from the SSC WG, as detailed in paragraph 14 of the twentieth 

meeting report of the SSC WG, to provide guidance with regard to further work in defining the 

consideration of baseline penetration (BP) of project technology in small scale methodologies. The Board 

agreed that there are cross cutting issues between baseline penetration and other issues related to 

demonstration of additionality under the consideration of the Board such as 'common practice' and 'first of 

its kind' while there may be some issues unique to consideration of baseline penetration. The Board agreed 

to continue to consider the issue together with consideration of common practice and first of its 

kind, in the mean time it requested the SSC WG to address the issue as indicated in paragraph 21 of 

twenty-eighth meeting report of the Board i.e. on case to case basis in the proposed new methodologies. 

31. The Board requested the secretariat to revise the procedures for submission and consideration of 

proposed new simplified methodologies and procedures for revision of simplified approved methodolgies 

to adjust the fees provided to the SSC WG members with the ones provided to the members of the Meth 

Panel. The draft revision of these procedures should be provided to the Board along with the changes 

requested in paragraph 20 above. 


32. The Board took note that the twenty-second meeting of the SSC WG will be held from 

21 to 24 September 2009 and the twenty-third meeting of the SSC WG will be held from 

27 to 30 October 2009. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (e): Matters relating to programme of activities 

33. The Board took note with appreciation the first registration of a programme of activities as a 

single CDM project activity. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (f): Matters relating to the registration of CDM project activities 

34. The Board took note that 1,809 CDM project activities have been registered by 

11 September 2009. The status of requests for registration of project activities can be viewed on the 

UNFCCC CDM website at . 

Case specific 

35. In accordance with the procedures for review as referred to in paragraph 41 of the CDM 

modalities and procedures, the Board considered a request for review of thirty-two (32) requests for 

registration.




36. The Board agreed to register with corrections the project activities: 

(a) “Jiangsu Longyuan Donghai Biomass Power Project” (1892) if the project participant and 

DOE (DNV) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report, which include the 

information submitted in the response to the request for review, regarding the validation of the 

input values to the investment analysis, justification for elimination of baseline alternatives (P5 

and P6) and the justification that biomass residues will carry a price despite being dumped. The 

DOE shall document the response in the validation report regarding the documentation and 

independent crosschecking of input values applied (including the number itself), particularly for 

investment cost and O&M cost. 

(b) “CECIC Zhangbei Gaojialiang Wind farm Project” (1895) if the project participant and 

DOE (BVC) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised validation report, which 

indicate the correct value of project IRR and include the information submitted in response to the 

request for review regarding the appropriateness of the electricity tariff. While the concern of the 

Board on the trend of tariff for similar projects exporting electricity to the same grid has not been 

fully substantiated, the Board considers that the project activity is additional as, with the 

application of highest reported tariff in the province, the project IRR does not cross the 

benchmark. 

(c) “Tal Dman Landfill Gas Capture Project in Aleppo” (2453) if the project participant and 

DOE (JQA) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report, which: 

(i) Incorporate the information submitted in the response to the request for review, 

regarding the validation of input values in the investment analysis and the fact that the 

project is first-of-its kind; and 

(ii) 

Apply the correct versions of methodological tools in the PDD. 

(d) “NISCO Converter Gas Recovery and Utilization for Power Generation Project” (2469) if 

the project participant and DOE (JQA) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised 

validation report, which: 

(i) Incorporate the information submitted in response to the request for review 

regarding the barrier analysis; 

(ii) 

Validate the PDD as per version 3 of the methodology; and 

(iii) Include the BFG and COG units as part of the project boundary to avoid any 

miscalculations of the energy generated from the project activity. 

(e) “Reduction of Methane Emissions from Ruseifeh Landfill” (2487) if the project 

participant and DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised validation 

report, which incorporate the additional information provided in response to the request for review 

regarding the project start date and actions taken to secure CDM status for the project activity in 

parallel with its implementation. 

(f) “Bayi Steel CDQ (1#, 2#) and Waste Heat Utilization Project” (2506) if the DOE 

(TÜV-SÜD): 

(i) Validate the proposed project activity using the methodology ACM0012 

version 3;




(ii) 

Further substantiate: 

- The suitability of the input values to the investment analysis in line with the 

guidance of EB38 paragraph 54 (c), in particular concerning O&M cost and total 

investment; and 

- Why the O & M expenditure of CWQ system, and the capacity/demand charge 

if same was paid to grid in pre-project scenario, are not considered as revenue in the 

investment analysis; and 

(iii) Submit the revised PDD and corresponding validation report which include the 

information submitted in response to the request for review regarding the suitability of 

input values to the investment analysis, sensitivity analysis, and elimination of 

alternatives. 

(g) “El Panul – EcoMethane Landfill Gas Project” (2512) if the project participant and DOE 

(DNV) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which incorporates the 

responses given to this request for review regarding the host party Letter of Approval, the prior 

consideration of the CDM, the validation of the cost analysis and the validation of the MCF value. 

(h) “Shanxi Changyuan 24 MW waste heat recovery and utilization for electricity generation 

project” (2515) if the project participant and DOE (TÜV-NORD) submit a revised PDD and the 

corresponding validation report which: 


regarding validation of “other cost” in the investment analysis; and 

(ii) Revalidates the PDD fully with the provisions of version 3 of the methodology. 

While the concern of the Board on the suitability of “other cost” has not been fully 

substantiated, the Board considers the project activity additional as with the removal of 

the “other cost”, the project IRR does not cross the benchmark. 

(i) “Zibo Hongda Coking Co. Ltd. Coke Dry Quenching and Waste Heat Utilization for 

Power Generation Project” (2516) if the DOE (TÜV-SÜD): 

(i) 

3; 

(ii) 

Validates the proposed project activity using the methodology ACM0012 version 

Further substantiates: 

- The suitability of the input values to the investment analysis inline with the 

EB38 paragraph 54 (c), in particular, O & M cost and the O & M expenditure of CWQ 

system; and 

- Why the capacity/demand charge if same was paid to grid in pre-project 

scenario, is not considered as revenue in the investment analysis; and 

(iii) Submits a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which include the 

information submitted in response to the request for review regarding the use of 

electricity generated, suitability of input values to the investment analysis, waste heat in 

the pre-project scenario, and unreadable appendix.




(j) “Wuxue Huaxin Cement 18 MW Waste Heat Recovery as Power Project” (2521) if the 

project participant and DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised 

validation report which: 


regarding: 

- The validation of “other cost” in the investment analysis; 

- The clarification provided on the issue of baseline selection; and 

and 

- The clarification on the non-venting of waste heat prior to the project activity; 

(ii) Validate the PDD as per version 3 of the methodology. While the concern of the 

Board on the suitability of “other cost” has not been fully substantiated, the Board 

considers the project activity additional as with the removal of the “other cost”, the 

project IRR does not cross the benchmark. 

(k) “Dalian Maoyingzi Landfill Gas Recovery for Power Generation Project” (2523) if the 

project participant and DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation 

report which include the information submitted in response to the request for review regarding the 

occurrence of landfill gas flaring in the baseline scenario and clearly demonstrate compliance with 

the methodology regarding the determination of the quantity of methane destroyed by generation 

of electricity. 

(l) “The Bogeda 40.5 MW Wind-Farm Project in Urumqi, Xinjiang, China” (2537) if the 

project participants and DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised 

validation report which incorporate the information submitted in response to the request for 

review regarding the tariff, the input values, the IRR and sensitivity analysis, and the grid 

emission factor. 

(m) “Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company (GNFC) Nitrous Oxide Abatement Project” 

(2550) if the project participant and DOE (SGS) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding 

revised validation report which include the information submitted in response to the request for 

review regarding : 

(i) The reason for excluding the fourth historical campaign from the determination of 

the normal campaign length; and 

(ii) 

The validation of the overall uncertainty of the monitoring system. 

(n) “Zhongliangshan Coal Mine Methane Project” (2558) if the project participant and DOE 

(TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised validation report which 

incorporate the information provided for this request for review regarding the project start date, 

the benchmark, the O&M costs, and the validation of the baseline alternatives. 

(o) “Wastewater treatment with Anaerobic Digester at Truong Thinh starch processing plant 

in Tay Ninh, Vietnam” (2571) if the project participant and DOE (JQA) submit a revised PDD 

and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted to this 

request for review, regarding the validation of the investment analysis as per paragraphs 109, 111 

and 112 of the VVM.




(p) “Wastewater treatment with Anaerobic Digester at Viet Ma starch processing plant in Tay 

Ninh, Vietnam” (2572) if the project participant and DOE (JQA) submit a revised PDD and the 

corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted to this request for 

review, regarding the validation of the investment analysis as per paragraphs 109, 111 and 112 of 

the VVM. 

(q) “Guizhou Kaiyang Zijiang Hydropower Station Project” (2574) if the project participant 

and DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which 

incorporate the additional information submitted in response to the request for review regarding 

the suitability of the electricity tariff, total investment cost, plant load factor, and electricity output 

applied to the investment analysis. 

37. After the submission of the specified documentation, the secretariat, in consultation with the Chair 

of the Board, will check the revised documentation before the activity is displayed as registered. 

38. The Board agreed to undertake a review of the project activity: 

(a) "Nanchang Maiyuan Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilisation Project" (1745) submitted for 

registration by the DOE (DNV) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated 

with validation requirements, as contained in annex 6 to this report; 4 

(b) "Heilongjiang Huanan Hengdaishan East (II) Wind Power Project" (2124) submitted for 

registration by the DOE (DNV) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated 

with validation requirements, as contained in annex 7 to this report; 

(c) "Waste Gas based Power Generation Project at Ankit Metal & Power Limited" (2127) 

submitted for registration by the DOE (DNV) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues 

associated with validation requirements, as contained in annex 8 to this report; 

(d) "Heilongjiang Wuerguli Wind Power Project" (2152) submitted for registration by the 

DOE (BVC) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with validation 

requirements, as contained in annex 9 to this report; 5 

(e) "Inner Mongolia Meiyaoshan Wind Farm Project" (2381) submitted for registration by the 


requirements, as contained in annex 10 to this report; 

(f) "Inno-Kwantas Mewah- Palm Oil Mill Waste Recycle Scheme, Malaysia" (2427) 

submitted for registration by the DOE (SGS) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues 

associated with validation requirements, as contained in annex 11 to this report; 6 

(g) "Pure-low Temperature Waste Heat Recovery for Power Generation (2×7MW) in 

Guangdong Tapai Cement Co., Ltd." (2445) submitted for registration by the DOE (JQA) and that 

the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with validation requirements, as contained 

in annex 12 to this report; 7 

(h) "BFG-fired Power Generation Project in Baosteel Co Ltd., Shanghai, P. R. China" (2461) 


associated with validation requirements, as contained in annex 13 to this report; 8 

(i) "Sintex 7.5 MW Natural gas based package cogeneration project, Gujarat – India" (2471) 


associated with validation requirements, as contained in annex 14 to this report; 9




(j) "Utilization of waste gas heat for power generation" (2504) submitted for registration by 

the DOE (TÜV-NORD) and that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with 

validation requirements, as contained in annex 15 to this report; 10 

(k) "Waste Heat Recovery based Captive Power Project of Adhunik Metaliks Limited" 

(2507) submitted for registration by the DOE (SGS) and that the scope of this review is relating to 

issues associated with validation requirements, as contained in annex 16 to this report; 11 

(l) "Hebei Wasted Gas based Captive Power Plant Project in Longgang Group" (2508) 

submitted for registration by the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) and that the scope of this review is relating to 


(m) "The Waste Heat Recovery Based Coke Dry Quenching Power Generation Project of 

Xingang Company" (2511) submitted for registration by the DOE ( TÜV-SÜD ) and that the 

scope of this review is relating to issues associated with validation requirements, as contained in 

annex 18 to this report; 13 

(n) "Bhushan Power and Steel Limited–Waste Heat Recovery based Captive Power Project" 

(2519) submitted for registration by the DOE (SGS) and that the scope of this review is relating to 


(o) "Shandong Laizhou phase I Wind Power Project" (2530) submitted for registration by the 


requirements, as contained in annex 20 to this report; 

39. The Board agreed on the nomination of the members of the review teams for the above. The 

review teams may call on outside expertise in consultation with the Chair of the Board, as appropriate. 


modalities and procedures, the Board considered the recommendations of the review teams for thirty-one 

(31) of the project activities which were placed "Under review" at the forty-eighth meeting of the Board. 

41. In accordance with paragraphs 17 and 18 (a) of the procedures mentioned in paragraph 40, the 

Board agreed to register the project activities: 

(a) “Jilin Xijingou Hydropower Project” (2435) submitted for registration by the DOE 

(DNV). The Board noted that it had not been fully demonstrated that the method of “adjusted 

income tax” applied in the investment analysis was appropriate in the context of the CDM, 

however the Board did consider that the additionality had been demonstrated as the application of 

the actual projected income tax, a more conservative treatment, would not result in the IRR 

crossing the applied benchmark. 

(b) “Zhangjiagang Nature Gas Power Generation Project” (2439) submitted for registration 

by the DOE (DNV). The Board noted that it had not been fully demonstrated that the method of 

“adjusted income tax” applied in the investment analysis was appropriate in the context of the 

CDM, however the Board did consider that the additionality had been demonstrated as the 

application of the actual projected income tax, a more conservative treatment, would not result in 

the IRR crossing the applied benchmark. 

(c) “Zhejiang Wenling Donghaitang Wind Power Project” (2449) submitted for registration 

by the DOE (TÜV-SÜD). The Board noted that it had not been fully demonstrated that the 

method of “adjusted income tax” applied in the investment analysis was appropriate in the context 

of the CDM, however the Board did consider that the additionality had been demonstrated as the 

application of the actual projected income tax, a more conservative treatment, would not result in




the IRR crossing the applied benchmark. 

42. In accordance with paragraphs 17 and 18 (b) of the procedures mentioned in paragraph 40, the 

Board agreed to register, subject to satisfactory corrections, the project activities: 

(a) "CGN Inner Mongolia Zhurihe Phase I Wind Farm Project" (1577) if the PP and the DOE 

(DNV) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which further substantiate the 

suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the additionality of the project activity. In 

undertaking these corrections the project participant and DOE should note the Board’s concerns 

regarding the suitability of the tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 below. 

(b) “Inner Mongolia Huitengliang Phase II Wind Power Project” (1815) if the PP and the 

DOE (BVC) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which incorporate the 

additional information submitted in response to the review. Although the concern of the Board on 

the trend of the tariffs for similar projects exporting electricity to the same grid has not been fully 

substantiated, the Board considers the project activity additional as with the application of the 

highest reported tariff in the region the project IRR does not cross the benchmark. 

(c) “Phuoc Hiep I sanitary Landfill gas CDM project in Ho Chi Minh City” (1913) if the 

PP/DOE (DNV) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which incorporate: 

(i) The information provided earlier about the power purchase agreement and the 

validation of the electricity tariff; and 

(ii) The information provided in response to the request for review regarding the 

common practice analysis. 

(d) “Yunnan Yingjiang Wakuhe Hydropower Station” (2052) if the PP/DOE (TÜV NORD) 

submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which incorporate the information 

submitted in response to the review regarding on the validation of the transmission line 

construction costs. 

(e) “Henan Nanyang Zhenping Cement Waste Heat Recovery and Utilization for Power 

Generation Project” (2095) if the PP and DOE (BVC) submit a revised PDD and the 

corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted in the response to 

the review regarding the calculation of tariff, and proceed to fully validate the project activity 

against the requirements of methodology ACM0012 version 3, as three years production data is 

not available for the line with 6,000t/day production capacity. 

(f) "Huadian Kulun 201 MW Wind Farm Project" (2100) if the PP and the DOE (DNV) 

submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which further substantiate the 

suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the additionality of the project activity. In 

undertaking these corrections the project participant and the DOE should note the Board’s 

concerns regarding the suitability of the tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 below. The Board 

noted that it had not been fully demonstrated that the method of “adjusted income tax” applied in 

the investment analysis was appropriate in the context of the CDM, however the Board did 

consider that the additionality had been demonstrated as the application of the actual projected 

income tax, a more conservative treatment, would not result in the IRR crossing the applied 

benchmark. 

(g) "Heilongjiang Yilan Hezuolinchang Phase II Wind Power Project" (2117) if the PP and 

the DOE (DNV) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which further




substantiate the suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the additionality of the project 

activity. In undertaking these corrections the project participant and DOE should note the Board’s 

concerns regarding the suitability of the tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 below. 

(h) “Guohua Hebei Huanghua 49.5 MW Wind Farm Project (Phase I)” (2125) if the PP and 

the DOE (DNV) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised validation report which 

include the information submitted in response to the review team’s questions regarding the 

suitability of input values to the investment analysis and appropriateness of the electricity tariff. 

While the concern of the Board on the trend of tariff for similar projects exporting electricity to 

the same grid has not been fully substantiated, the Board considers the project activity additional 

as with the application of highest reported tariff in the province, the project IRR does not cross the 

benchmark. 

(i) “V.P. Farms Pig Manure Methanisation, Methane Recovery and Energy Production 

Project” (2218) if the PP and the DOE (TÜV-SUD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding 

validation report that: 

(i) Incorporate the additional information submitted in response to the review team’s 

question regarding the investment and technological barriers. 

(ii) Provide further validation on the suitability of the input values to the investment 

analysis, in particular: the annual operating hours, electricity price, and fertilizer price 

assumed; and on the sensitivity analysis, including why the variations in the parameters 

that would make the payback time reach the 5-years payback time benchmark are not 

likely to occur. 

(iii) Correct the discrepancies in the input values and calculation between the 

spreadsheets submitted and the information referred in the PDD and validation report 

related to the capacity installed for the V.P.F. Farm and the payback time of the project 

activity. 

(iv) Further substantiate the technological barrier in line with the requirements of 

paragraphs 115 & 116 of the VVM (EB44, Annex 3). 

(j) "Heilongjiang Yilan Jiguanlazishan Wind Farm Project" (2360) if the PP and the DOE 

(BVC) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which: 


question regarding the ex-ante emission factor; and 

(ii) Further substantiate the suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the 

additionality of the project activity. In undertaking these corrections the project 

participant and DOE should note the Board’s concerns regarding the suitability of the 

tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 below. 

(k) "Heilongjiang Dongning Dajiazishan and Xidagang Wind Farm Project" (2361) if the PP 

and the DOE (BVC) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report which: 


question regarding the ex-ante emission factor; and 

(ii) Further substantiate the suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the 

additionality of the project activity. In undertaking these corrections the project 

participant and DOE should note the Board’s concerns regarding the suitability of the




tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 below. 

(l) “GHG emission reductions through waste gas based power generation at Visa Steel 

Limited” (2369) if the DOE (SGS) submits a revised validation report which: 

(i) Includes the information submitted in response to the review team's questions 

regarding the suitability of input values to the investment analysis and suitability of the 

baseline selection, and 

(ii) Provides further clarification on how it has validated the estimates used to 

calculate the new baseline alternatives (#4). 

(m) “Jiangsu Qishuyan Natural Gas Based Power Generation Project” (2382) if the PP and 

DOE (TÜV SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which 

incorporates the information submitted in the response to the review, regarding validation of input 

values to the investment analysis, and provide further information on the actions undertaken by 

the CDM Consultant (Jiangsu Provincial Energy Saving Technology Service Center) to secure the 

CDM status after signing of the consultancy agreement on 5 September 2005. 

(n) “Jiangsu Wangting Natural Gas Based Power Generation Project” (2383) if the PP and 

DOE (TÜV SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which 

incorporate the information submitted in the response to the review, regarding validation of input 

values to the investment analysis, and provide further information on the actions undertaken by 

the CDM Consultant (Jiangsu Provincial Energy Saving Technology Service Center) to secure the 

CDM status after signing of the consultancy agreement on 19 August 2005. 

(o) “Leak Reduction in Above Ground Gas Distribution Equipment in the 

KazTransgaz-Tbilisi Gas Distribution System- Tbilisi, Georgia” (2404) if the PP and the DOE 

(SGS) submit the clean version of the revised PDD and the corresponding validation report that 

have been submitted in response to the review team’s questions. 

(p) “Santa Cruz I Hydroelectric Power Plant” (2405) if the PP and the DOE (DNV) submit a 

revised PDD and the corresponding validation report which include the information submitted in 

the response to the request for review, regarding the suitability of the benchmark applied in the 

investment analysis. 

(q) “Xinjiang Huadian Xiaocaohu the 2nd phase of No.1 Wind Farm project” (2413) if the 

DOE (DNV) submits a revised validation report which: 

(i) Include the information submitted in response to the review team’s questions 

regarding the appropriateness of the electricity tariff; and 

(ii) Provides further validation opinion on the choice of the region selected for 

comparison of tariffs and the break up of “other fees” assumed in the investment analysis. 

(r) “Hubei Yihua Fertilizers Company Waste Heat Recovery and Utilization Project” (2416) 

if the PP and the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding validation report 

which incorporate the information submitted in response to the review questions and proceeds to 

fully validate the entire proposed project activity against the requirements of methodology 

ACM0012, version 3.




(s) “Tianfu Coalmine Methane Project” (2418) if the PP and the DOE (DNV) submit a 

revised PDD and the corresponding validation report that: 

(i) Provide further substantiation on how the identified criteria (similar technology, 

similar scale, and comp arable environment) have been deployed in identifying similar 

projects, in particular, further substantiation on range of production capacity of the coal 

mines considered and avoidance of the privately owned similar scale coal mines in 

identifying the similar projects; and 

(ii) Include the information submitted in response to the review team’s questions 

regarding the suitability of input values to the investment analysis, limiting the common 

practice analysis to the Chongqing Municipality, and grid emission factor. 

(t) "Inner Mongolia Keshiketeng County Wutaohai South Wind Farm 49.5 MW Project" 

(2420) if the PP and the DOE (JQA) submit a revised PDD and corresponding validation report 

which further substantiate the suitability of the tariff as a means of demonstrating the additionality 

of the project activity. In undertaking these corrections the project participant and DOE should 

note the Board’s concerns regarding the suitability of the tariff as indicated in paragraph 48 

below. 

(u) “El Platanal Hydropower Plant” (2426) if the PP and the DOE (DNV) submit a revised 

PDD and the corresponding validation report , which incorporates the additional information 

provided in the responses to the review questions regarding the suitability of the benchmark 

applied in the investment analysis. 

(v) “Jiangxi Gongge 15MW Hydropower Project, China” (2433), if the PP/DOE (TECO) 

submit a revised PDD and corresponding revised validation report which incorporate the 

information provided in response to the review questions regarding the meetings held between the 

PP and the consultants in 2005, 2006 and 2007 as evidence of real and continuing actions taken to 

secure CDM status for the project activity in parallel with its implementation. The revised 

validation report must further substantiate how the authenticity of the Letter of Intent dated 

December 2006 has been validated. 

(w) “Skopje Cogeneration Project” (2437) if the PP and the DOE (SGS) submit a revised 

documentation, which incorporates the additional information provided in the responses to the 

review questions regarding: 

(i) 

The project activity not being a real cogeneration plant; and 

(ii) The revised calculations to confirm the baseline selection and additionality of the 

project activity without including the costs for heat products and income from the sale of 

heat. 

(x) “Shanxi Wulushan 1st phase Wind Power Project” (2441) if the DOE (DNV) submits a 

revised validation report which provides further validation opinion on how it has validated the 

suitability of the plant load factor for the project activity and break down of the “other fees” to 

justify its assumed value. 

(y) “Xilinguole Huitengliang Wind Power Project Guotai Phase I” (2450) if the PP and the 

DOE (TÚV-SÚD) submit a revised PDD and the corresponding revised validation report which 

include the information submitted in response to the review team’s questions regarding the 

appropriateness of the electricity tariff. While the concern of the Board on the trend of tariff for 

similar projects exporting electricity to the same grid has not been fully substantiated, the Board




considers the project activity additional as with the application of highest reported tariff in the 

province, the project IRR does not cross the benchmark. 

43. In accordance with paragraphs 17 and 18 (c) of the procedures mentioned in paragraph 40, the 

Board could not register the following project activities: 

(a) "73 MW Tonghua Iron & Steel Waste Gas and Heat Power Generation Project" (2304) 

submitted for registration by the DOE (JCI) because the DOE and project participant have failed 

to substantiate: 

(i) The additionality of the project activity, in particular, the identified technological 

barriers due to prevailing practice; and 

(ii) The baseline methodology, in particular, the identified baseline (waste gas is 

released to the atmosphere after incineration and waste heat is released to the atmosphere 

(W2), and captive consumption of the steel plant is sourced by power plants connected to 

the North East China Power Grid (P6)), is not suitable as the captive electricity had been 

generated fully or partially using the surplus waste gas, except during the cessation of the 

Gas Turbine from 02/2006. 

(b) "Sichuan Liangtan Hydropower Station Second Phase Project" (2410) submitted for 

registration by the DOE (DNV) because the DOE has failed to adequately validate the input 

values to the investment analysis, in particular, the values used to calculate the theoretical annual 

gross power generation of the original power station and the project activity, the operating hours, 

the coefficient of effective electricity and the 0% salvage value used and therefore the 

additionality of the project activity is not established. 

(c) "Controlled combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) and energy generation in Linyi 

City, Shandong, China" (2419) submitted for registration by the DOE (JQA) because the DOE 

and the project participant have failed to substantiate the additionality of the project activity, in 

particular, the suitability of the MSW disposal price as no adequate justification is provided on the 

suitability of the MSW disposal price assumed to the investment analysis. 

44. In accordance with the clarifications to paragraph 18 (b) of the above-mentioned procedures the 

Board considered three (3) project activities for which corrections had been submitted in response to the 

outcome of a previous review. 

45. The Board could not register the project activities: 

(a) "Electrotherm 30 MW combined waste heat recovery and coal based captive power plant 

at Kutch" (1903) submitted for registration by the DOE (SGS) as the DOE failed to submit the 

corrections requested by the Board at its forty-fifth meeting within the 12 weeks deadline required 

by the “Clarifications to facilitate the implementation of the Procedures for review” (EB38 Annex 

20). The Board also noted that some of the parameters used in the revised investment analysis 

differ from those assumed at the time of investment decision without adequate explanations. 

(b) “Yixing Shuanglong Cement Plant's Low Temperature Waste Heat Power Generation” 

(1914) submitted for registration by the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) as the DOE has failed to provide the 

further validation, requested by the Board at its forty-sixth meeting, to confirm that the electricity 

tariff used in the PDD is appropriate to account for the savings from avoided purchases of 

electricity from the grid, and therefore the additionality of the project activity has not been 

established.




(c) “Jiangsu Jiaoqiao Cement Plant’s Low Temperature Waste Heat Power Generation 

Project ” (1916) submitted for registration by the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) as the DOE has failed to 

provide the further validation, requested by the Board at its forty-sixth meeting, to confirm that 

the electricity tariff used in the PDD is appropriate to account for the savings from avoided 

purchases of electricity from the grid, and therefore the additionality of the project activity has not 

been established. The DOE also has failed to demonstrate how the sensitivity analysis presented 

in the PDD was done in line with EB41, annex 45. 


46. The Board agreed to adopt the "Guidelines for the consideration of request for review and review 

cases" (version 01), as contained in annex 21 to this report. These guidelines compiles the major criteria 

for decision-making during the review process as requested by paragraph 13 of decision 2/CMP.4 

47. The Board agreed to adopt the revised "Guidelines on demonstration and assessment of the prior 

consideration of the CDM" (version 03), as contained in annex 22 to this report, in order to clarify the 

Board's expectations with regard to the validation of real and continuing actions to secure CDM status. 

48. With regard to certain project activities referenced in paragraph 42 the Board has remaining 

concerns related to the suitability of the applied tariff as a means of assessing additionality. These 

concerns are: 

(a) Whether the higher tariff previously available could be considered an E- policy as it has 

not been demonstrated to be the result of a national or sectoral policy implemented after 

11 November 2001; and 

(b) That the tariff is lower than tariffs previously issued for similar projects in the same 

region, and this lower tariff may result in the reduction in the incentives for investment in 

renewable energy which may create a comparative advantage for more emissions intensive 

technology. It should be noted that the Board did not consider that it had been proven that the 

reduction in tariff was solely related to the reduction in investment costs. 

49. The Board requested the secretariat, based on inputs from an independent consultant, to prepare a 

background document on the development of wind power globally, in particular in developing countries. 

This document should include information on the historical trends related to investment and operating 

costs and policy supports, including inter alia feed-in tariffs and renewable portfolio standards. 

50. The Board considered issues regarding the validation of grid emission factors calculated by 

national authorities and requested the secretariat to prepare an information note containing options for 

ensuring that such factors comply with the requirements of the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for 

an electricity system" for consideration at a future meeting. 

51. The Board noted with concern that in cases where further validation is requested following a 

review DOEs often submit documentation which merely repeats previously supplied responses to requests 

for clarification. The Board does not consider this to be satisfactory and requests DOEs to further 

substantiate validation opinions when provided with such an opportunity by the Board. The Board further 

requested the secretariat to prepare a proposal for "Guidelines for DOEs in addressing requests for review, 

reviews and requests for corrections from the Executive Board" for consideration at a future meeting. 

52. The Board considered the draft revision of the "Procedures for Modalities of Communication 

between Project Participants and the Executive Board" and its related form F-CDM-MOC and decided to 

further discuss this draft documents at a future meeting.




53. The Board took note of concerns with regard to the application of its decision as contained in 

paragraph 41 of the report of its thirtieth meeting, regarding the withdrawal of participants during 

validation, and requested the secretariat to prepare a revision to the "Procedures for processing and 

reporting on validation of CDM project activities" to address these issues for its consideration at its fiftieth 

meeting. 

Agenda sub-item 3 (g): Matters relating to the issuance of CERs and the CDM registry 

54. The Board took note that 328,487,858 CERs have been issued as of 11 September 2009 and that 

the secretariat, in its capacity as the CDM registry administrator, continues to process requests for opening 

of holding accounts and for forwarding of CERs. The status of requests for issuance of CERs can be 

viewed on the UNFCCC CDM website at . 

Case specific 


modalities and procedures, the Board considered a request for review of 12 requests for issuance. 

56. In accordance with paragraph 10 of these procedures the Board agreed to instruct the CDM 

registry administrator to issue 21,253 CERs for "6 MW Rice Husk based cogeneration plant at 

Bhageshwari Papers Private Limited" (1379), taking note of the initial comments from the DOE (SGS) 

and project participant in response to the request for review. 

57. In accordance with paragraph 10 of these procedures, the Board agreed, subject to a check by the 

secretariat of the revised documentation and in consultation with the Chair of the Board, to instruct the 

CDM registry administrator to issue CERs for: 

(a) "La Esperanza Hydroelectric Project" (0009), if the DOE (RWTÜV) submits a revised 

verification report which corrects the statement on implementation and operation of the project 

activity in the verification report (p 19). 

(b) "Landfill Gas to Energy Project at Lara Landfill, Mauá, Brazil" (0091), if the DOE (SGS) 

submits a revised verification report which includes the clarification regarding the automatic 

measurement and recording of parameters in PLC and calculation of emission reduction every 

minute as provided in response to the request for review and the correct request for issuance form. 

(c) "Pronaca: Afortunados Swine Waste Management" (0459), if the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) 

submits a revised verification report which corrects the verification statement on treatment of 

solid waste and the monitoring of swine herd inventories. 

(d) "Pronaca: Tropicales-Plata Swine Waste Management" (460), if the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) 

submits a revised verification report that incorporates: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Corrected verification statement on the treatment of solid manure; 

Correct dates of the monitoring period; and 

Description on how it verified the monitoring of swine herd inventories.




(e) "Quimvale and Gas Natural Fuel Switch Project" (0828), if the DOE (TÜV-SÜD) submits 

a revised verification report which incorporates: 

(i) Clarification on the inconsistency of precision between reported data (16,073.43 

tones in 2007and 23,027.54 tones in 2008) and measurements (each pallet of 1 ton should 

result in no decimal point after the one level), which should refer the inconsistency of 

precision to the exclusion of precision to the exclusion of CaCO3 rejected and calcium 

phosphate additions; and 

(ii) Clarification on how it verified the monitoring and exclusion of CaCO3 rejected 

and calcium phosphate additions. 

(f) "Liaoning Changtu Wind Farm Project" (0883), if the project participant and DOE (SGS) 

submit: 

(i) A revised monitoring report which contains the information on the calibration of 

the meter for C14; and 

(ii) 

The revised verification report submitted in response to the request for review. 

(g) "EnviroServ Chloorkop Landfill Gas Recovery Project" (0925), if the DOE (SGS) 

submits a revised verification report which includes a Forward Action Request to revise the 

monitoring plan to exclude: 

(i) Temperature and pressure of landfill gas, as submitted in response to the request 

for review; and 

(ii) Total amount of landfill gas destroyed in application (e.g. boilers and engine) 

which is not applicable under the applied methodology. 

(h) "Qinghai Jinshaxia 70MW Hydropower Project " (1467), if the DOE (SGS) submits a 

revised verification report confirming the information provided by the project participant 

regarding over generation of emission reductions as compared to PDD as submitted in response to 

the request for review. 

58. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of these procedures, referred in paragraph 55, 

the Board agreed to undertake a review of the request for issuance of CERs and to appoint members of the 

review team for: 

(a) "RIO BLANCO Small Hydroelectric Project " (0028), submitted by the DOE (SGS), and 

that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with verification requirements, as 

contained in annex 23 to this report; 

(b) "El Molle - Landfill gas (LFG) capture project" (0170), submitted by the DOE (SGS) and 

that the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with verification requirements, as 

contained in annex 24 to this report. 

(c) "Mondi Richards Bay Biomass Project" (0966), submitted by the DOE (DNV) and that 

the scope of this review is relating to issues associated with verification requirements, as 

contained in annex 25 to this report. 

59. The Board agreed on the nomination of the members of the review teams for the above. The 

review teams may call on outside expertise in consultation with the Chair of the Board, as appropriate.





modalities and procedures, the Board considered the recommendation of the review team for two project 

activities which were placed "Under review" at the forty-eighth meeting of the Board. 

61. The Board agreed to instruct the CDM registry administrator to issue CERs, subject to satisfactory 

corrections, for: 

(a) "Energy efficiency through steam optimization projects at RIL, Hazira," (0261) for the 

monitoring period 1 August 2006 - 30 April 2008 if the project participant and the DOE (DNV) 

submit a revised monitoring report and a corresponding revised verification report which 

incorporate: 

(i) 

Clarificiation on the use of C09; and 

(ii) Clarification on the calculation of the emission reduction when the production is 

less than 95% submitted to the response to the under review and the new request for 

issuance form which includes corrected number of emission reduction. 

The Board further noted that a revision of the monitoring plan should be submitted to 

reflect the monitoring of C09, prior to the next request for issuance 

(b) "Tianji Group Line 3 N2O Abatement Project", (1441) for the monitoring period 5 

March 2008 - 2 September 2008 if the project participant and the DOE (DNV) submit a revised 

monitoring report and a corresponding revised verification report, a revised CER calculation 

spreadsheet, and a new request for issuance form which 

include: 

(i) Clarification provided in response to the under review questions and 

corresponding changes in CERs, considering the re calculation of operating conditions 

and normal campaign length; 

(ii) Clarification provided in response to the request for review regarding the time 

lag between baseline and the project campaign; and 

(iii) A revised calculation of the baseline emission factor by applying hours 

corresponding to the normal campaign length instead of the total operating hours of the 

campaign. 

62. The Board considered seven requests for deviation related to monitoring reports undergoing 

verification, agreed to answer them and requested the secretariat to inform the DOEs accordingly. 


63. The Board considered the draft "Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration 

frequency requirements" 15 and requested the Meth Panel to work on the part related to the proposed 

conservative approach in the case of delayed calibration (paragraph 4(a) and 4(b) of the draft document) 

for consideration of the Board at its fifty-first meeting. 

64. The Board agreed to the "Procedures for requests for deviation prior to submitting request for 

issuance" and its related form "Form for submission of requests for deviation prior to submitting request 

for issuance", as contained in annex 26 and annex 27 to this report, respectively. This procedure and its 

related form, along with the "Procedures for requests to the Executive Board for deviation from an 

approved methodology" (EB49, annex 4), replaces the Procedures for requests for deviation to the 

Executive Board (version 02, EB24, annex 30) and its related form and includes revisions in the 

procedures with respect to requesting deviation prior to submitting the request for issuance.




65. The Board agreed to the revision of the "Procedures for revising monitoring plans in accordance 

with paragraph 57 of the Modalities and Procedures of the CDM" (version 02) and its related form "Form 

to submit request for revision of monitoring plan", as contained in annex 28 and annex 29 to this report, 

respectively. The revision was made to streamline the process and further clarify how the DOE should 

conduct the validation of revision of monitoring plan. The Board noted that the revised procedure does not 

provide indicative timelines for completeness check by the secretariat, as the secretariat is still dealing 

with pending submissions. The Board further requested the secretariat to report to the Board on the 

progress on this issue and propose to the Board a revision to the procedure which includes timeline for this 

step in the future. 

Agenda item 4. CDM management plan and resources for the work on the CDM 

Resources 

66. The Board took note of the report by the secretariat on the status of implementation of activities in 

the 2009 CDM-MAP including the status of recruitment of positions approved. The Board further urged 

the secretariat to continue in its effort to fill vacant positions taking into account the proposals made by 

the Board, including the provision of training opportunities to complement the skills of staff and the 

review of requirements for vacant positions in order to broaden the pool of suitable candidates. The Board 

further requested the secretariat to provide an update on the status of the CDM-MAP at its fifty-first 

meeting. 

67. The Board also considered the initial assessment of compliance with indicative timelines set by 

the Board in different processes and requested the secretariat to update the Board at every meeting on 

these timelines, including the rationale if these timelines could not be met. 

68. The Board took note of information provided by the secretariat on the status of resources received 

as reflected in annex 30. It was noted that since the forty-eighth meeting of the Board, the income 

generated by registration fees, share of proceeds and methodology fees has grown by an additional 

USD 5 million as a result of the payment of USD 3.2 million in registration fees, USD 2.8 million in share 

of proceeds and USD 7,984 in methodologies fees. 

Agenda item 5. Other matters 

Agenda sub-item 5 (a): Requests by CMP to the Board 

69. In response to the request of the CMP at its fourth session, the Board considered the possible 

measures to improve the efficiency in the operation of the CDM identified during its policy retreat held 

back-to-back with this meeting. The Board requested the secretariat to prepare draft recommendations to 

the CMP based on the agreed elements identified at the two retreats for consideration at its next meeting. 

70. The Board took note of the status of the requests made by the CMP (Decision 2/CMP.4) to the 

Board through a workplan prepared by the secretariat which structures the guidance, mandates, activities 

and timelines. The Board further agreed to the main elements to be included in its annual report and to 

consider the draft annual report to the CMP for adoption at is next meeting. 

Agenda sub-item 5 (b): Transparency matters 

71. The Board took note of the update by the secretariat in relation to the workplan responding to the 

request made by the CMP to the Board through the decision 2/CMP4 paragraph 12 and agreed to the 

revision to the "Definitions and preliminary classification of document types of the Board", as contained 

in annex 31 to this report.




Agenda sub-item 5 (c): Relationship with stakeholders, intergovernmental and 

non-governmental organizations (registered accredited observers) 

72. The Board discussed ways and means to enhance the communication with project participants 

without going through the DOEs and a proposed approach presented by the secretariat. The Board further 

requested the secretariat to initiate activities in this area and to report to the Board on progress at a future 

meeting. 

73. The Board met with registered observers for an informal interaction on the last day of the meeting 

and agreed to continue with such meetings in the afternoon of the last day of its future meetings, unless 

otherwise indicated. These meetings are available on webcast. 

74. The Board further agreed to continue to meet with the same type of arrangement, with space being 

made available for 70 observers, and to reconsider the issue when necessary. Observers to the fiftieth 

meeting of the Executive Board shall have registered with the secretariat by 23 September 2009. In order 

to ensure proper security and logistical arrangements, the Board emphasized that this deadline will be 

strictly enforced by the secretariat. 

Agenda sub-item 5 (d): Other business 

75. The Board agreed on the provisional agenda for its fiftieth meeting (13 - 16 October 2009) as 

contained in annex 32 to this report, with an open session on the 14 - 16 October 2009. 

Agenda item 6. Conclusion of the meeting 

76. The Chair summarized the main conclusions. 

Agenda sub-item 6 (a): Summary of decisions 

77. Any decisions taken by the Board shall be made publicly available in accordance with paragraph 

17 of the CDM modalities and procedures and with rule 31 of the rules of procedure of the Executive 

Board. 

Agenda sub-item 6 (b): Closure 

78. The Chair closed the meeting. 

- - - - - 

Annexes to the report 

Membership issues 

Accreditation 

Annex 1 - Documents related to conflict of interest 

Annex 2 - SGS United Kingdom Ltd. - Details of non-conformities and identified corrective 

actions 

Annex 3 - Policy framework to address non-compliance by DOEs (version 01) 

Methodologies 

Annex 4 - Procedures for requests to the Executive Board for deviation from an approved 

methodology (version 01)




Annex 5 - Form for submission of requests for deviation from methodology 

(F-CDM-DEV-METH) (version 01) 

Matters relating to the registration of CDM project activities 

Annex 6 -Scope of review (registration) - Project 1745 















Annex 21 -Guidelines for the consideration of request for review and review cases (version 01) 

Annex 22 - Revision to "Guidelines for the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration 

of the CDM' (version 03) 

Matters relating to the issuance of CERs and the CDM registry 

Annex 23 - Scope of review (issuance) - Project 0028 



Annex 26 - Procedures for requests for deviation prior to submitting request for issuance (version 

01) 

Annex 27 - Form for submission of requests for deviation prior to submitting request for issuance 

F-CDM-DEV-ISS (version 01) 

Annex 28 - Procedures for revising monitoring plans in accordance with paragraph 57 of the 

Modalities and Procedures of the CDM (version 02) 

Annex 29 - Form to submit request for revision of monitoring plan F-CDM- REVMP (version 01)




Management plan and resources for the work on the CDM 

Annex 30 - Status of resources 

Other matters 

Annex 31 - Definitions of document types issued by the Board (version 02) 

Annex 32 - Provisional agenda for EB50 

- - - - -




Endnotes 

1. Annex 2 and 3 to the annotated agenda 

2. Annex 4 to the annotated agenda 

3. Annex 6 to the annotated agenda 

4. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the PP/DOE shall submit a revised PDD 

and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted in the response 

to the request for review regarding: (i) the project start date; (ii) the suitability of the investment cost 

and the electricity tariff applied in the investment analysis; and (iii) the monitoring of the methane 

fraction of the LFG. 

5. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the PPP/DOE shall submit a revised 

PDD and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted for the 

response to the request for review regarding the validation of key input values, except electricity tariff. 

6. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the DOE shall submit a revised 

validation report which incorporate the information submitted in the response to the request for review 

regarding the amount of compost generated per tone of EFB, the amount of EFB generated per tone of 

FFB, the value used for the Methane Correction Factor (MCF) and the monitoring of the parameter 

Aj,x. In addition, the DOE is requested to submit the laboratory analysis regarding the percentage of 

compost generated per ton of EFB. 

7. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the DOE shall: (i) submit a revised 

PDD and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted in response 

to the request for review regarding the common practice analysis; and (ii) validate the proposed 

project activity using the methodology ACM0012, version 3. 

8. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the DOE shall: (i) validate the proposed 

project activity using the methodology ACM0012, version 3; and (ii) submit a revised PDD and the 

corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted in response to the 

request for review regarding the suitability of assumed natural gas price, impact on TRT by the project 

activity, and monitoring plan. 

9. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the PP/DOE shall submit a revised PDD 

and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted for the response 

to the request for review regarding the boiler efficiency. 

10. If the Board ultimately decides to register the project activity, the PP/DOE shall submit a revised 

PDD and the corresponding validation report which incorporate the information submitted in response 

to the request for review regarding the baseline alternatives and the calculation of levelized cost per 

unit of generation. 


project activity using the methodology ACM0012, version 3; and (ii) submit a revised PDD and the 


request for review regarding the suitability of total investment and interest rate applied in the 

economic comparison analysis, availability of waste gas, and exclusion of monitoring the rate of other 

fuels used by each boilers. 


project activity using the methodology ACM0012, version 3; and (ii) submit a revised PDD and the





request for review regarding the waste BFG/pressure availability, electricity imports from the grid, 

and monitoring plan. 


PDD and the corresponding validation report which: (i) incorporate the information submitted in 

response to the request for review regarding non-venting of waste heat prior to the project activity; 

and (ii) validate the proposed project activity using the methodology ACM0012, version 3. 


PDD and the corresponding validation report which: (i) incorporate the information submitted in 

response to the request for review regarding the suitability of input values to the investment cost 

comparison; and (ii) further conducts a sensitivity analysis on the investment cost comparison. 

15. Annex 9 to the annotated agenda of 49th meeting of the Board

CDM-EB-49

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?