Emissions auditors get poor grades for second year

LONDON | Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:34am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Firms that audit greenhouse gas-cutting projects approved under a Kyoto Protocol carbon offset scheme received poor grades from green groups for a second year, a report said on Monday.

Unqualified and insufficiently trained personnel was cited by WWF and Germany's Oeko-Institute as a problem plaguing emissions auditors, accompanied by ambiguous scheme rules and a general failure to show that the clean energy projects they approved would not be feasible without getting carbon offsets.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a $2.7 billion scheme under Kyoto, lets companies invest in emissions cuts in emerging nations and in return get offsets once the projects are verified by auditors called Designated Operational Entities (DOEs).

The report found that the CDM's executive board demanded more corrections in documents submitted by auditors this year than in 2009, a sign that could indicate DOEs are making more mistakes or that the board has increased scrutiny over projects.

It analyzed decisions made by the board between April 2008 and March 2010 on projects validated by five major emissions auditors, and assigned each a grade between A and F.

Germany's TUEV-Nord scored the highest grade with a D, while Bureau Veritas Certification received an F and DNV, SGS-UK and Tuev-Sued, all of which were suspended by the U.N. in the past two years, got E+ ratings.

The auditors received similar ratings in 2009.

An English language version of the report can be downloaded here

Tuev-Sued was suspended in March, and remains suspended, following spot checks made at their offices. SGS-UK were temporarily suspended in 2009 and DNV in late 2008.

Tuev-Nord passed spot checks made in March.

U.N. data shows these five DOEs account for 80 percent of the over 6,200 projects validated by auditors so far, and have verified 95 percent of those that have received offsets to date.

The five firms have also audited 132 of the 150 projects rejected by the board.

The report comes days before the U.N. will publish findings from a panel meeting which could spark major changes to the CDM.

The most profitable projects registered under the scheme have been accused by green groups including WWF of claiming excessive emissions cuts, leading to windfall profits and a rise in greenhouse gases in developed countries.

Projects that destroy a potent greenhouse gas called hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23) may need to be reviewed and have the amount of offsets issued to them adjusted, the head of the CDM's executive board told Reuters last week.

HFC-23 projects account for around half of the 420 million offsets issued to date.

The CDM's methodology panel, which advises the executive board on what types of carbon-cutting technologies they should consider, met last week and are expected to publish their meeting findings in the next few days.

"It was a good meeting, quite balanced with good discussion, but the meth panel cannot make decisions themselves, and will only provide advice to the CDM executive board," said Lex de Jonge, the meth panel's chair and former CDM-EB chair. (Editing by William Hardy)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Ian_Thailand wrote:
After reading this report, as a CDM auditor I would reject it. The report only covers DOEs with 40 projects or more. The report authors do not state their justification for this limitation which consequently only looks at about 25% of all DOEs.

The results of this report are about as relevant to 75% of the DOEs as would be a report sampling the food in New York city by only going to McDonald’s and Burger King and then using that to rate the food at the Four Seasons.

Jun 29, 2010 4:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Thermoguy wrote:
Emissions sure aren’t a good thing, it is like being in the garage with the car running. Death is the reality.

In order to manage emissions, it helps to see energy use. What does all of the academia in the world have in common? They are blind to temperature and energy, professionals use calculators for energy consumption.

Blind science means blind policy and here is an example of what we missed in the calculator. Urban Heat Islands cost the City of Los Angeles alone over 100 million dollars a year in energy costs. We couldn’t see that the 100 million in energy produced is a waste reacting to symptoms of solar radiation impact on buildings.

The same sun that burns our skin is doing the same things to buildings except buildings aren’t insulated for buildings close to boiling temperature. The building and energy codes are in place, we couldn’t see that a coat of paint could make a building illegal. Here is a link to time-lapsed infrared videos. http://www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html

Paint and shade can eliminate the emissions as well as the urban heat. It is the builder’s responsibility.

Jun 29, 2010 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.