Dear friends,

This 3^rd meeting in 2010 will finally be held with a full Board that now includes a nominee from the Asian Group. The tenth member, Mr Duan Maosheng from China, will assume his seat at the Board this week. He has extensive experience in CDM related matters including in HFC-23 destruction baseline methodologies.

Since the 44 methodology panel meeting was postponed from April to June 2010, the agenda item on methodologies during this week’s meeting will be lighter than usual. However, there are plenty of contentious issues on the agenda that will keep Board members busy during this week.

If you have followed CDM Watch’s recommendations for the last 53^rd Board meeting, you will also be curious to see how the Board will react to our serious concerns about the revised methodology for supercritical coal projects. Moreover, the Board will take a first step towards the decision of Project 3020 that would be the third largest non-HFC-23 CDM project, generating 2.65 Mio non-additional CERs, if registered. Tackling the problem at hand, the Board has the chance to eliminate a serious flaw in the CDM procedures by removing the in-appropriate grace period when discussing revised procedure about the revision of approved methodologies during this meeting.

Another serious criticism against CDM methodologies should be addressed by Board members when discussing to include elements from the large scale biodiesel methodology to a small scale methodology which supports production of vegetable oil for transport applications.

Also discussions about the inherently impossible challenge to improve project-by-project additionality testing will be on the agenda. Somehow related, the Board will probably link the discussions on the barrier test “first-of-its-kind” and “common practice” with contentious discussions on guidelines on the treatment of national and sectoral policies in the additionality assessment (so called E+/E- policies).

In the context of the Board’s discussion on inputs received to a future appeals procedure to challenge decisions by the CDM Executive Board and DOE performance, CDM Watch recommends key safeguards that must be taken into account.

Finally, CDM Watch urges the Board to take a bottom-up approach when discussing how to enhance the interaction and communication between the Board and stakeholders, to take the necessary steps to initiate essential improvements in public participation and to establish a legitimate, transparent process to communicate with stakeholders.

Table of contents

1. New Executive Board member savvy on HFC-23
2. Few CVs of Board members outstanding
3. Supercritical: Third largest non-HFC-23 CDM project up for review
4. No grace periods for flawed methodologies
5. Biodiesel in the CDM: handle with care
6. Fresh food for thought needed to control additionality related to national policies (E+/E-)
7. Key safeguards in the future CDM appeals procedure
8. Bottom-up approach to enhance communication with stakeholders

Happy reading!