Again on CDM Watch’s agenda for the fourth consecutive Newsletter is the issue of HFC-23 methodology AM0001. The Swiss non-governmental organization Noe21 submitted a request for revision of the methodology AM0001 for HFC-23 destruction to the Board in December 2007. The revision request aims

One fundamental flaw with the CDM is the need to prove the additionality of each project. A project is additional if it was built only because of the extra income from selling CERs – meaning that the project would not have happened if there

The EB will again tackle the assessment of additionality at its next meeting and will in particular discuss draft guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers. A barrier analysis requires demonstrating that barriers exist that would prevent the proposed project from being carried

A project activity is assumed to be additional if no similar project has been implemented previously in a certain geographical area. If a project activity is “first-of-its- kind”, no additional assessment steps are undertaken to confirm additionality.

During the next meeting, the Board will consider the “concept of materiality”, which would limit the liability of DOEs for errors in checking data in PDDs and accompanying documents. In theory, DOEs are held responsible for any CER which may be inappropriately issued. In

The inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage in geological formations (CCS) in the CDM is currently being discussed in the framework of the UNFCCC. In preparation for the 5th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP5) to take place in Copenhagen, in

Currently there are 31 projects under review at the CDM Executive Board. During this meeting the members will decide upon the registration or rejection of these projects. Another 41 projects will be discussed for which request of review has been submitted by eitherone of