Day Two - CDM Discussions

Please read Andrew's pre-CDM DOE meeting post here

Today, the 10th DOE/AIE Forum took place in Copenhagen and, as expected, there was much debate and discussion on a number of key issues affecting the DOE community.

Siddharth Yadav (SGS), Chair of the DOE Forum, reminded those gathered of the issues which the Forum had discussed with the EB over the last year, including validation and verification timelines, post registration changes to project design, retroactive application of guidance, materiality, Programme of Activities liability, the definition of a ‘technical area’, and the implications of recent rules relating to conflict of interest.

The first key issue to be discussed was that of conflict of interest and a recent EB decision (EB50) which sought to preclude any part of an organisation of which an accredited DOE is a part from undertaking any work with project participants. It was agreed that this approach presented a serious challenge to those DOEs which, although separate legal entities, may be part of a much larger group which itself has divisions delivering a diverse range of services.
It was agreed that the Forum would look for clarification on this issue.
The second key issue related to timelines. It is understood that the Executive Board is concerned about the number of project validations which have been going on for several years and wishes to address this issue, both now and in the future. A proposed figure of 180 days for the duration of a validation has been talked about.
The Forum members recognised that there are many validations which have been ongoing for an unreasonable amount of time and that efforts should be made to address this, perhaps through the cancellation of contracts or through the issuing of negative (or alternatively qualified) opinions.
The Forum also debated the reasonableness of the 180 day target for validations and there was general agreement that such a timescale allowed little, if any, margin for dealing with unforeseen problems, either on the part of the DOE or on the part of the project participant.
The Forum agreed that it would go back to the EB with proposals for timescales both for future validations, but also for addressing those validations which are ongoing and have been ongoing for some time.
The final major topic of debate was the definition of a ‘technical area’, as per the CDM Accreditation Standard. The lack of a clear definition of what a technical area is has been recognised as a possible area for inconsistency when it comes to the expectations of the accreditation teams, and it was proposed that the Forum attempt to define what is meant by a technical area in order to promote consistency, both across the DOEs and across the accreditation teams.
The Forum agreed to look at this issue in more detail, but it is evident that a consensus in this area may be difficult as each DOE already has their own concept of what is meant by a technical area, and has developed a system to ensure they achieve competence on that basis.
A number of other issues, not least the identity of the next Chair of the DOE Forum were also discussed.
As is often the case, the meeting over-ran its allotted time and still did not cover all the issues which attendees wished to discuss!