Process ;
Project participants shall provide an explanation to show that the project activity would not have occurred anyway due to at least one of the following barriers:
(a) Investment barrier: a financially more viable alternative to the project activity would have led to higher emissions;
(b) Technological barrier: a less technologically advanced alternative to the project activity involves lower risks due to the performance uncertainty or low market share of the new technology adopted for the project activity and so would have led to higher emissions;
(c) Barrier due to prevailing practice: prevailing practice or existing regulatory or policy requirements would have led to implementation of a technology with higher emissions;
(d) Other barriers: without the project activity, for another specific reason identified by the project participant, such as institutional barriers or limited information, managerial resources, organizational capacity, financial resources, or capacity to absorb new technologies, emissions would have been higher.
Documentation of barriers, as above, is not required for the positive list of technologies and project activity types that are defined as automatically additional2 for project sizes up to and including the small-scale CDM thresholds (e.g. installed capacity up to 15 MW). For the positive list of technologies, the project proponent shall refer to methodological tool “TOOL32: Positive lists of technologies”
Want to print your doc? This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
Additionality : Tool21