PDF File - GEC

(g) The step by step calculation
(h) A check against the baseline requirements
(i) Quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures
(j) Calibration / maintenance of measurement and analytical instruments
(k) Environmental Impacts
(l) An appendix of spreadsheet including parameters, calculations, variations of reduction and its
reasons/ justifications
(3) Pitfalls of monitoring reports
There are difficulties not easily recognized in preparing a monitoring report and having it verified.
Several pitfalls are explained based on experience with verification of monitoring reports. Good
practices are also presented as appropriate.
Pitfall 1: What is indicated in the registered PDD is ideal and hence not reflected in practice.
Good Practice: It must be ensured that what is committed in the monitoring plan of the registered
PDD is actually adhered-to and demonstrated through appropriate evidences. It is advisable to do
the following:
(a) Ensure that the commitments are practicable for implementation by the project participant
and initiate appropriate steps to facilitate implementation of the same. The DOE at the time of
validation should also ensure to verify that systems are in place for such implementation.
(b) An initial verification of the CDM project activity also ensures to dissolve all such
discrepancies.
(c) The process also requires that periodic internal audits be done by the project participant and
corrective actions effected.
Pitfall 2: Systems are not in place. Based on experience, the most common lack of system relates to
the calibration procedures and evidence thereof.
Good Practice: It must be ensured that all relevant procedures – for calibration, maintenance,
internal audits, emergency preparedness, corrective actions and performance reviews must be in
place either at the time of validation stage or during the initial verification. The procedures must
clearly address roles, responsibilities and authorities of all personnel involved.
Pitfall 3: Vast difference in the estimates of the PDD and actual monitoring report, leading to a higher
claim on the CER’s than the estimates in the PDD. It is acceptable only when the CDM project activity
involves an ex-post monitoring of the baseline emissions.
Good Practice: A critical analysis of the gap between ex ante estimated CERs detailed in the PDD,
and the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring report, should be provided in the monitoring
report by the project participants. Such analysis should also be provided in the verification report
by the DOE. In case higher CERs are being claimed due to increased production levels beyond
rated capacities, then this shall also be justified together with technical specifications that support
increased loads beyond the rated capacities.
Pitfall 4: Ex-post monitoring not evident. It is sometimes seen that the monitoring report adopts a
baseline value that has been determined ex-ante.
Good Practice: It is advisable that the PDD, the validation report and the applied approved
methodology are reviewed and understood before embarking on the preparation of the
monitoring report. Internal audit and/or an initial verification of the project activity by the DOE are
also recommended.
17