1 / 8

Enhanced Communication for Calibration Accreditation Assessment

Guidelines for effective communication with stakeholders in the accreditation assessment process. Includes methodologies expert insights and recommendations for addressing non-conformities at systemic levels. Emphasizes clarity in decision rationale for faster processing. Encourages direct interaction with the assessment panel for clarification.

chin
Download Presentation

Enhanced Communication for Calibration Accreditation Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Module 2.2 - Calibration regarding accreditation assessment requirementsCalibration through enhanced CDM-AP direct communication with stakeholders (DOEs/ATs)A. Ricardo J. EspartaAccreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert7th CDM Joint Coordination WorkshopBonn, 12-13 March 2011

  2. Methodologies related requirements • VVM - chapter V, section E (baseline and monitoring methodology, p. 65 to 93; additionality of a project activity, p. 94 to 121; monitoring plan, p. 122 to 133), but not limited to it. • AT - always indicate the related VVM requirement for every single non-conformity

  3. Systemic versus project specific • Everybody knows but it doesn't hurt to repeat: both sides should concentrate on addressing the issues at the systemic level instead of on specific project solutions • Examples • Emission factor change from the GSP to the validated PDD • Others?

  4. Avoid personal interpretations, but… • Methodologies are not perfect • Reality rarely corresponds 100% to the methodology scenario • Use of your common sense is very welcome but do not forget to disclose the rationale behind the decision • Upside: if you trust your judgment and the rationale is clearly unveiled  faster process

  5. Avoid personal interpretations, but… • Nobody is forced to blindly accept the “other side” interpretation/assessment • In case of doubt/disagreement, request clarification • Clarification is not consulting, interact with the Panel (Assessment team, Secretariat, Panel) • Downside: longer assessment

  6. CMP.6 - Further Guidance to the CDM §22. Requests the Executive Board to develop and implement modalities and procedures with a view to enhancing direct communication with stakeholders and project proponents in relation to issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams; these modalities and procedures should provide for: • Direct communication that can be initiated by the secretariat, as needed, with project proponents, on issues related to registration, issuance and methodologies work streams; • Stakeholder consultations on general issues, and the publication of the outputs thereof; • Intensified use of public calls for input in relation to major regulatory decisions, including the possibility to make submissions;

  7. EB 59th Meeting Report, § 22 • The Board requested the CDM-AP to consider the appropriateness and, if applicable, modalities of its direct interaction with the DOE/AE Coordination Forum, to be considered by the Board at a future meeting.

  8. Thank you very much and do not hesitate to interact with the Panel (Secretariat, Assessment Teams, Accreditation Panel…) at any assessment stage. A. Ricardo J. EspartaAccreditation Panel - Methodologies Expert

More Related