Uncertainties in methodology interpretations for project developers based on an example Roundtable on Validation and Verification Washington,

Kai M. Windhorst, UNIQUE forestry consultants Folie 2Roundtable on Validation, Washington, Overview Methodology interpretation case Terminology and its interpretation by project developers Timeframes of interpretations/communications Conclusion

Kai M. Windhorst, UNIQUE forestry consultants Folie 3Roundtable on Validation, Washington, Example: Starting Date EB clarification ( Starting date of an SSC A/R CDM project activity (SSC A/R) The starting date of an SSC A/R CDM project activity is the date at which the implementation or real action of an SSC A/R CDM project activity begins, resulting in actual net GHG removals by sinks. A CDM afforestation and reforestation project activity starting after 1 January 2000 can also be validated and registered after 31 December 2005 as long as the first verification of the project activity occurs after the date of registration of this project activity. Given that the crediting period starts at the same date as the starting date of the project activity, the projects starting 2000 onwards can accrue tCERs/lCERs as of the starting date. This clarification was provided by the Board in paragraph 64, of its twenty-first meeting report and stipulates that provisions of paragraphs 12 and 13 of decision 17/CP.7 do not apply to CDM afforestation and reforestation project activities.

Kai M. Windhorst, UNIQUE forestry consultants Folie 4Roundtable on Validation, Washington, Different perception of starting date When does implementation or real action start? Contact with communities, legal arrangements finalized, raising of seedlings… Which activity is resulting in actual GHG removals? Planting (area fully planted - verification, projected planting start date - PDD) Validation issue: Evidence for start date, what is realistic evidence for PDD validation? Consequences for BioCF Project in Uganda: Retrofit of start date because different interpretations by involved project proponents subsequent retrofit because of validation prolonged into actual implementation (two reviews of PDD and GHG removal calculations)

Kai M. Windhorst, UNIQUE forestry consultants Folie 5Roundtable on Validation, Washington, Timeline PDD development highlighting different potential starting date Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 EB decisionsMethodology revised PDD format revised PDD templatev1 versionsv2 v3 v4 v5 v6 ValidationOn site assessment Draft validation report Accreditation ClarificationLow income group requestsEligibility (Satellite) Boundaries of project Project participants Additionality (investment) Starting Date ImplementationPlanting Community Training

Kai M. Windhorst, UNIQUE forestry consultants Folie 6Roundtable on Validation, Washington, Conclusion In the past 2 years steep joint learning curve for project developers and validators Regulations continue to evolve – project developers can not follow up latest EB decisions and its interpretation, validators are „on-top“ of new developments due to their constant exposure to the „rules“ Capacity development and knowledge management required to ensure that new project developers will not face the same barriers (specialized guidance) and that project participants are aware of relevant new rules.