PCF Validation and Verification Manual - World Bank Internet PCF的验证和验证手册-世界银行网络

Validation

and

VerificationManualPage

1/120Version

2

December

2006The

purpose

of

the

Validation

and

verification

manual

(VVM)

is

to

represent

an

independent

state-of-the-art

manualdescribing

approaches

and

practices

to

be

applied

jointly

by

Designated

Operational

Entities

(DOEs)

and

Independent

Entities

(IEs).

The

VVM

has

developed

into

a

well-established

tool

to

support

the

DOEs’/IE’simportant

role

as

partners

of

the

UNFCCC

and

other

regulatory

bodies

in

ensuring

a

credible

market

for

emissioncredits.

The

new

ISO

14064

Standards

have

been

developed

on

the

basis

of

the

earlier

version

of

this

VVM

and

theprinciples

contained

in

the

World

Business

Council

for

Sustainable

Development’s

GHG

protocol

in

a

processorientedmanner.The

VVM

buildsonexisting

UNFCCC

requirementsandis

not

intended

toaddanynewrequirements

to

the

validation

and

verification

process.TheVVM

must

not

be

used

without

due

consideration

of

its

limitations.

In

particular,

it

is

the

responsibility

of

theindividual

DOE

to

adapt

the

VVM

guidelines,

procedures

and

templates

to

ensure

that

they

fit

perfectly

with:the

policies

and

procedures

for

validation

and

verification

that

the

respective

DOE

is

likely

to

have.

the

specific

circumstances

of

each

project

in

relation

to

the

relevant

CDM

or

JI

requirements

as

providedand

interpreted

by

the

competent

Kyoto

Protocol

bodies.

Such

adaptation

can

include

eliminating

or

addingitems

to

the

VVM

validation

protocolsand

verification

checklistsSpecific

rulings

or

guidance

given

by

the

CDM

executive

Board

or

the

JI

Supervisory

Committee.

.The

VVM

is

expected

to

evolve

and

be

updated

over

time

in

line

with

a

growing

body

of

projectexperience.Det

Norske

Veritas

(DNV)

has

lead

the

development

of

this

Validation

and

Verification

Manual

(VVM),

with

support

ofthe

World

Bank,

IETA

and

the

DOE

Forum.

Input

to

this

revision

is

also

provided

by

IETA,

TÜV

SüdDeutschland,

TÜV

Rheinland,

TÜV

Nord,

SGS,

PwC

South

Africa,

Perry

Johnson,

JQA,

JCI,

JACO,

BVQI

and

AENOR.This

version

replaces

the

previous

version

of

the

manual

issued

in

2004.Page

1/120Validation

and

Verification

Manual:

PrefaceUpdates

of

the

VVMThe

VVM

willneed

further

developmentas

rules

in

the

CDMand

JI

develop.CDM

EB

and

JI

supervisory

committee

decisions

and

guidance

will

likely

have

a

futureimpact

on

the

content

of

the

VVM.

Hence,

any

DOE

seeing

a

need

forupdate/adjustment/addition

of

a

VVM

relevant

issue

should

take

the

lead

in

developingguidance

on

the

issue

with

the

support

of

other

DOEs/AEs

and

IEs.Revisions

to

the

VVM

will

thereafter

be

gathered

and

issued

at

regular

intervals.Aiming

to

have

as

many

DOE’s

utilise

the

VVM

toolbox

as

possible,

The

DOE/AECoordination

Forum

will

take

a

leading

role

in

future

coordination,

further

developmentanddissemination

of

the

VVM.Page

1/120This

Validation

and

Verification

Manual

has

been

developed

for

the

use

of

validation

and

verification

of

greenhousegas

(GHG)

projects

according

to

Art.

6

and

12

of

the

Kyoto

Protocol

(JI

and

CDM).

Its

content

is

drawn

on

experiencesgathered

to

date

by

many

project

developers

and

third

party

validators/

verifiers.

The

purpose

of

the

Validation

andVerification

Manual

is

to

provide

guidelines

for

the

validationandverification

process,

serve

as

a

tool

for

third

partyvalidators/

verifiers,andpresent

templates

for

validation

andverification

reports.

The

ValidationandVerificationManual

shall:•guarantee

the

quality

and

ensure

transparency

of

the

validation

and

verification

process

to

enhance

trustin

the

work

of

third

party

validators/

verifiers,

andallow

third

party

validators/

verifiers

to

work

in

a

consistent

manner,

promoting

fair

and

equal

treatment

ofprojectsThe

manual

is

based

on

the

Kyoto

Protocol,

the

Marrakech

Accords

and

relevant

CDM

Executive

Board

and

JISupervisory

Committee

decisions.

The

Validation

and

Verification

Manual

comprises:a

guideline

for

validationand

verification

activitiesgeneric

protocols/

checklists

for

validation

and

verification

of

CDM/JI

projects,templates

for

validationandverification

reports.The

VVMdoesnot

exempt

third

party

validators

/

verifiersfromfollowing

the

developments

regarding

further

guidance

and

standards

for

validationandverification.The

methodologies

presented

in

this

manual

for

validation

and

verification

of

GHG

emission

reduction

projects

are

intentionally

applicable

for

all

typesof

projects.

However,

necessary

adjustments

and

amendments,

as

applicable,should

be

made

in

order

to

allow

for

the

particularities

of

individual

projects.ReportTemplatesProtocols/ChecklistsGuidelinesValidation

and

Verification

Manual:

IntroductionPage

1/120Differencesbetween

JIDeterminationand

CDM

ValidationJIDetermination

Criteria

Participation

Requirements

Baseline

Setting

ProjectAdditionality

EnvironmentalImpacts

MonitoringJIDetermination

Process

Part

4:

Initial

VerificationInitialVerification

Actors

InitialVerification

Objective

InitialVerification

Scope

InitialVerification

ProcessDesk

ReviewOn-site

AssessmentDraftInitialVerification

Report

InitialVerification

ChecklistFinalInitialVerification

Report

InitialVerification

StatementPart

5:

Periodic

Verification

Periodic

Verification

Objective

Periodic

Verification

Actors

Risk-based

Verification

Approach

Verification

PrinciplesCompliancewith

Monitoring

Plan

MaterialityAccuracy

QualityofEvidencePeriodic

Verification

Process

Desk

ReviewOn-Site

Assessment

Verification

ReportVerification

Findings

Verification

Statement

Example,Verification

StatementCertification

IssuanceProceduresforRequesting

Post-registration

Changestothe

StartDateofthe

Crediting

PeriodMonitoring

Methodology

A/RMonitoring

Methodology

Sustainable

Developmentand

Approvalof

PartiesInvolved

AssessmentofEnvironmentalImpactsDifferencesbetween

Small-ScaleandotherCDM

ProjectsEx-antevsEx-postAssignments

MeansofValidation

Meansofvalidation

A/RThe

Validation

ProcessNew

Baselineand

Monitoring

Methodology

Simple

SubmissionVoluntary

Pre-assessmentby

DOE

MethodologyapprovalflowchartRequestformethodologyguidanceRequestforrevisionofanewmethodology

Overviewofvalidation

Process

StakeholderConsultation

Process

DocumentReviewDocumentReview

A/RProjects

Background

Investigation

Background

Investigation

A/RProjects

Follow-up

InterviewsFollow-up

InterviewsA/R

DraftValidation

Report

DraftValidation

ReportA/RProjects

Clarificationsand

Corrective

Action

Requests

ResolutionofCorrective

Action

Requests

RequestforDeviationtothe

CDMExecutive

Board

Validation

ProtocolValidation

ProtocolLegend

FinalValidation

Report

Validation

Opinion

ExamplesofValidation

Opinions

Unresolved

IssuesRegistration

RequestforReviewPart

3:

JI

Determination

JIDetermination

ActorsPart

1:

Generic

guidelines

Designated

OperationalEntities/Independent

EntitiesGuiding

Principles

Levelofassurance

ConflictofInterest

Codeofconduct

Liabilityand

SuspensionValidatorand

VerifierCriteriaand

Selection

Validationand

Verification

Contract

Team

SelectionCommunication

AbbreviationsPart

2:

CDM

Validation

GeneralCDMValidation

ObjectivePage

1/120Validation

Actors

The

Validation

ContentRisk-Based

Validation

ApproachRisk-Based

Validation

Approach-Examples

1.Accuracyofbaselineemissions

2.Uncertaintyofexternaldatasourcesused

3.Coverageofleakageinthebaselinescenario4.Baselineemissionassumptions

5.Accuracyofemissioncalculationsinthemonitoringplan

CDMValidation

CriteriaParticipation

Requirements

ProjectDesign

Document

Baseline

Methodology

Baseline

MethodologyforA/Rprojects

TreatmentofNationaland/orSectoralPoliciesand

Circumstancesinthe

Baseline

ScenarioTreatmentofNationaland/orSectoral

Policiesand

Circumstancesinthe

Baseline

ScenarioforA/RProjectsAdditionalityofa

ProjectActivity

Additionalityofa

A/RProjectActivityOverviewStructure

of

the

Validation

and

Verification

ManualPart

Two:CDMValidationPartThree:JIDeterminationPart

Four:Initial

VerificationPart

Five:Periodic

VerificationThe

Generic

Guidelines

are

divided

into

four

parts,

with

related

protocols

and

report

templates

as

illustrated

in

the

figurebelow:PartOne:GenericGuidelinesGuidelineReportTemplateProtocolCDM

ValidationReport

TemplateCDM

Validation

ProtocolSSCValidation

ProtocolA/R

Validation

ProtocolSSC

A/R

Validation

ProtocolJIDeterminationReport

TemplateJI

Determination

ProtocolInitial

VerificationReport

TemplateInitial

VerificationChecklistVerificationReport

TemplateVerificationChecklistOverviewLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesPage

1/120Part

One:

Generic

GuidelinesGuiding

PrinciplesLevel

of

assuranceConflict

of

InterestCode

of

conductLiability

and

SuspensionValidator

and

Verifier

Criteria

and

SelectionValidation

and

Verification

ContractTeam

SelectionCommunication❏

Designated

Operational

Entities

/

Independent

Entities❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏AbbreviationsOverviewLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesPage

1/120Content:Designated

Operational

Entities

/

Independent

EntitiesA

Designated

Operational

Entity

(CDM)

/

Independent

Entity

(JI)

validaties

proposed

CDM/JIprojects

and

verifies

and

certifies

Greenhouse

gas

(GHG).

In

addition

the

Entity

shall:Be

accredited

(or

have

applied

for

accreditation)

by

the

CDM

Executive

Board

(EB)

/

JISupervisory

Committee

(JISC)Comply

with

the

Marrakech

Accords

and

CDM

EB/

JI-SC

DecisionsComply

with

applicable

laws

and

requirements

of

the

Parties

(countries)

hosting

CDM/JIproject

activities

when

carrying

out

its

functionsDemonstrate

that

it

has

no

real

or

potential

conflict

of

interest

related

to

the

projectPerform

only

one

of

either

validation

or

verification

and

certification

related

to

the

sameCDM

project

(Upon

request

to

the

CDM

Executive

Board,

exceptions

to

this

may

beallowed).

For

small-scale

CDM

project

activities

the

same

operational

entity

may

undertakevalidation,

and

verification

and

certification.Maintain

a

publicly

available

list

of

all

CDM

project

activities

it

has

been

involved

inSubmit

annual

activity

reports

on

CDM

project

activities

to

the

CDM

Executive

BoardMake

the

Project

Design

Document

(PDD)

and

the

monitoring

report

obtained

from

theproject

as

well

as

the

validation

report

and

verification

report

publicly

available,

as

required.Further

requirements

and

information

related

to

Designated

Operational

Entities:/DOE/.OverviewLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesPage

1/120Guiding

Principles

(1)The

following

principles

apply

for

both

parties

in

a

validation

and

verification

process

and

shall

be

used

as

guidancewhen

documents

related

to

validation

and

verification

are

prepared:AccuracyThe

relative

measure

of

the

exactness

of

relevant

performance

indicators.

This

should

enable

performanceindicators

and

emission

reduction

estimates

to

be

calculated

as

accurately

as

possible,

i.e.

by

use

of

statisticaltechniques

in

order

to

reduce

uncertainties

and

arrive

at

confident

numbers

for

emission

reductions.CompletenessThe

project

documentation

and

the

scope

of

validation/

verification

should

cover

all

relevant

greenhouse

gases,sources

and

sinks,

–

if

affected

by

the

project

activities.

It

should

also

include

other

indicators,

e.g.

leakageeffects

or

project

effects

beyond

the

chosenproject

boundaries,

as

appropriate.ComparabilityMethods

for

estimationof

emissions

[and

removals]

should

be

comparable

between

theproject

baseline(s)

andthe

project.

This

should

enable

comparison

of

the

project

with

the

relevant

baseline

scenario(s)

andsubsequent

determination

of

the

selected

baseline"s

applicability.ConservativenessConservative

values

and

assumptions

arethose

that

aremore

likely

to

underestimate

baseline

emissions

andoverestimate

project

emissions.

Where

data

and

assumptions

are

uncertain

and

where

the

cost

of

measures

toreduce

uncertainty

is

not

worth

the

increase

in

accuracy,

conservativevaluesand

assumptions

should

be

used.ConsistencyThe

project

documents

should

address

comparable

key

indicators

that

enable

consistent

review

of

projectperformance

over

time.

To

the

extent

possible,

the

methodologies

and

measurements

identified

in

the

baselinemethodology

should

also

be

addressed

and

made

verifiable

via

the

Monitoring

Plan.OverviewLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesPage

1/120Guiding

Principles

(2)The

following

principles

apply

for

both

parties

in

a

validation

and

verification

process

and

shall

be

used

as

guidancewhen

documents

related

to

validation

and

verification

are

prepared:Cost-effectivenessThe

amount

of

costsandeffort

necessary

to

document,validate,

monitor,

reportand

verify

a

GHG

projectshould

be

made

dependent

on

the

attained

uncertainties

and

the

amount

of

predicted

emission

reductions,

i.e.by

use

of

a

risk-based

assessment

approach.RelevanceThe

quantification

and

reporting

of

GHG

emission

reductions

should

include

onlyinformation

that

users

needfor

their

assessment

and

decision-making.

Data,

methods,

criteria

and

assumptions

that

are

misleading

orunnecessary,

shouldnotbe

included.ReliabilityFor

the

estimation

of

emission

reductions

from

the

project

the

most

realistic

and

likely

operationalcharacteristics

and

most

likely

development

relevant

to

the

project

shall

be

chosen

as

reference

for

projectedemissions

and

baseline.TransparencyTransparency

is

crucial

to

ensure

credible

emission

reductions.

Transparency

implies

that:All

assumptions,

formulas

and

calculations

are

clearly

stated

and

referencedThereis

a

clear

conclusion

or

decision

from

all

presented

discussionsChanges

in

documentation

as

a

result

of

validation/

verification

are

clearly

identified

in

revised

documentsConfidential

information

is

clearly

identified.ValidityFor

the

estimation

of

emission

reductions

from

the

project

it

is

crucial

that

factors

or

indicators

used

forbaseline

determination

and

the

use

of

operational

characteristics

give

opportunity

for

real

measurements

ofachieved

emission

reductions.

The

baseline

and

operational

characteristics

used

in

the

project

documentationshall

therefore

be

based

on

factors

or

indicators

that

provide

a

plausible

picture

of

what

would

otherwise

occur.OverviewLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesPage

1/120Level

of

Assurance

(1)Level

of

assurance:

Degree

to

which

the

validator

or

verifier

is

confident

that

the

validation

or

verificationconclusions

prove

or

disprove

the

fact

that

GHG

assertions

taken

as

a

whole

are

free

from

material

misstatement.(ISO

14064-3

)The

verifier

or

validator

shall

establish

a

process

for

providing

assurance

to

all

stakeholders

that

the

project’sGHG

assertions

are

complete,

accurate,

consistent,

transparent

andfree

fromany

material

misstatements.

Ingeneral,

there

are

three

levels

of

assurance

normally

used

for

assurance

engagements

with

regards

to

GHG

accounting:

reasonable,

medium

and

limited.Neither

a

validation

opinion

nor

a

verification

statement

can

give

an

absolute

level

of

assurance.The

level

of

assurance

is

dependent

on

several

factors,

qualitative

and

quantitative.

For

a

validation,

most

ofthese

factors

are

related

to

uncertainties

of

future

events

taking

place.

For

a

verification,

the

factors

causinguncertainty

is

the

inherent

uncertainty

of

emission

measurements,

calculations

or

estimations.

Each

OperatingEntity

performing

validation

or

verification

should

use

its

own

procedures,

necessaryexpertise

and

expertjudgement

as

well

as

applicable

international

standards

and

UNFCCC

methodologies

to

arrive

at

a

desired

levelof

assurance.Level

of

assurance

-

Validation:The

CDM

Executive

Board

has

agreed

that

in

issuing

a

validation

opinion

in

the

validation

report,

the

DOE

shallinclude

a

statement

of

the

likelihood

of

the

project

activity

to

achieve

the

anticipated

emission

reductions

stated

in

theCDM-PDD.

A

medium

level

of

assurance

is

hence

appropriate

for

emission

reductions

estimates.

However,

it

shouldbe

aimed

for

a

reasonable

level

of

assurance

with

regard

to

the

project’s

eligibility

to

be

registered

under

the

CDM.Level

of

assurance

–

Verification:As

a

verification

opinion

will

result

in

certification

of

emission

reductions

and

thereby

generate

the

value

of

this

asset,a

verification

opinion

must

have

a

reasonable

level

of

assurance.

This

must

be

reached

by

rigorously

testing

the

uncertainty

related

to

quantification

of

emission

reductions.Location:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesOverviewPage

1/120Level

of

Assurance

(2)Location:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesOverviewPage

1/120Level

of

assurance

–

Validation/determination:The

level

of

assurance

for

a

validation

is

limited

by

the

fact

that

no

one

is

able

to

predict

the

future

exactly.However,

these

circumstances

will

have

avaryingdegree

of

certainty

themselves.

The

level

of

assurancefora

baseline

should

for

example

be

reached

by

rigorously

testing

critical

assertions

in

the

PDD

that

have

impacton

the

baseline

determination.

The

selection

of

the

project

baselineand

the

quantification

andprojection

ofemission

reductions

may

nevertheless

depend

on

factors

that

have

high

uncertainty

or

low

predictability.Hence,

only

conservative

assumptions

should

be

accepted

by

thevalidator.Level

of

assurance

–

Verification:In

order

to

reach

a

reasonable

level

of

assurance

through

the

verification,

it

must

be

recognised

that

several

factsand

factors

for

the

determination

of

emission

reductions

need

be

seen

as

fixed

factors

and

not

as

variables.This

comprises

validated

baseline

methodology

factors

(e.g.

baseline

emission

factors),

validated

publiclyaccessible

and

recognised

factors

such

as

national

or

IPCC

emission

factors

and

coefficients

and

otherfactors

that

are

available

in

the

public

domain

and

are

used

for

calculation

input.

These

should

be

accepteddespite

their

inherent

uncertainties

and

not

to

be

pursued

for

further

verification.

The

level

of

assurancethrough

verification

should

be

reached

by

rigorouslytesting

the

uncertainties

related

to

the

remaining

variablefactors

such

as

fuel

consumption,

activity

levels

etc.

in

the

quantification

of

emission

reductions.Emissions

have

a

decreasing

level

of

accuracy,

dependent

on

whether

these

are

monitored,

calculated,

estimatedor

projected.

For

emissions

factors

it

is

the

same,

the

more

specific

an

emissions

factor

is,

the

higher

level

ofassurance

it

provides.

It

is

expected

that

a

verifier

discounts

verified

emission

reductions

or

requests

adiscount

of

these

byusing

conservative

assumptions

for

uncertainties

in

emission

estimates

that

cannot

be

fully

quantified

or

that

cannot

give

a

desired

level

of

assurance.Conflict

of

InterestThe

DOE

shall

work

in

acredible,independent,

non-discriminatory

and

transparent

manner.

The

structure

of

the

DOE

shall

safeguard

impartiality

of

its

operations.

If

the

DOE

is

part

of

a

larger

operation,

the

DOE

shall

clearlydefine

the

links

with

other

parts

to

demonstrate

that

no

conflicts

of

interest

exists.

The

DOE

shall

demonstratethat

it

is

not

involved

in

any

commercial,

financial

or

other

processes

which

might

influence

its

judgement

orendanger

trust

in

its

independence

and

integrity.CDM

modalities

&

procedures,

Appendix

A,

paragraph

2Cautiousoperations

and

conflict

of

interestStakeholders

depend

on

3rd

Party

assurance

of

GHG

emission

reductions

through

CDM

and

JI

projects

as

a

vehicleto

ensure

real

andlong-term

environmental

gains.

As

the

CDM/JI

are

emerging

mechanisms

and

their

successrelyonthe

credibility

of

CDM/JI

projects,

provisions

for

cautious

operationsmustbe

made.ForDOEs/Independent

Entities,

this

relates

to

e.g.:Ensuring

transparency

of

methodology,

processes

and

resultsBeing

conservative

in

estimates

andconclusionsEnsuring

verifiability

of

conclusionsAvoiding

conflict

of

interest

situationsSources

of

potential

and

perceived

conflict

of

interests

should

be

identified

and

the

necessary

structure

andprovisions

should

be

put

in

place

to

ensure

and

demonstrate

that

no

conflict

of

interest

exists.

Conflict

of

interestscould

arise

within

the

DOE/Independent

Entity

organisation

or

from

the

activities

of

related

organisations,

e.g.

ifparts

of

the

organisation

or

its

personnel

are

involved

in

consulting

activities

for

CDM/JI

projectsLocation:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesOverviewPage

1/120Code

of

ConductDOE’s

conduct

business

within

the

framework

of

the

Kyoto

Protocol,

UNFCCC

requirements,

applicableprofessional

standards,

laws,

regulations

and

internal

policies,

howeverwe

acknowledge

that

these

do

notgovern

all

types

of

behavior,

as

a

result

we

have

a

Code

of

Conduct

for

all

DOE’s.

This

code

is

based

on

whatis

considered

professional

behavior

in

performing

validations,

verification

and

the

associated

business

around

it.As

DOE’s

we

have

an

obligation

to

comply

with

the

letter

and

spirit

of

this

Code

and

to

help

others

do

the

same.

Asindividual

entities

we

are

encouraged

to

raise

any

issues

and

concerns

through

the

CDM

secretariat.While

the

Code

provides

a

broad

range

of

guidance

about

the

standard

of

integrity

and

business

conduct,

no

codecan

address

every

situation

that

individuals

are

likely

to

encounter.

As

a

result

this

Code

is

not

a

substitute

forour

responsibility

and

accountability

to

exercise

good

judgment

proper

business

conduct

but

provides

anoverarching

set

of

guiding

principles.Upholding

the

integrity

of

the

Kyoto

Protocoland

the

flexible

mechanisms

described

therein.Location:Part

1:

Generic

GuidelinesOverviewPage

1/120••••••

The

portfolio

of

work

and

corresponding

marketing

material

will

reflect

the

sectoral

scopes

that

a

DOE

havereceived

accreditation

for.We

respect

the

confidentiality

and

privacy

of

our

clients,

our

people

and

others

with

whom

we

do

business.We

aim

to

avoid

conflict

of

interest.

Where

potential

conflict

are

identified

and

we

be