Designated Operational Entities

This article is part of the Climate project of Spinwatch.

Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) are companies who assess and certify claims to Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) (i.e carbon credits) generated by initiatives under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). CERs are generated when carbon emissions are deemed to have been avoided, and then traded with companies who have exceeded their allowance of emissions under the Kyoto protocol. The idea of the CDM is that we should cut emissions where it is cheapest first. I.e: its easier for industrialised countries to pay for industry in the developing world to cut emissions, than to cut their own carbon footprint.

Three companies entirely dominate the certification process and all of them have been heavily critiqued for failing to demonstrate that the projects they certify wouldn't have happened anyway without the extra finance (ie the carbon savings were not 'additional'), rendering the scheme ineffective in these cases.

DOEs

The full list of DOE's as of March 2010 is below, though the market is dominated by the three companies:

• TÜV SÜD, suspended in March 2010 for approving projects with serious doubts over their additionality.
• Det Norske Veritas
• SGS UK, suspended in September 2009 for inadequately vetting projects.

Other DOE's:

• Japan Quality Assurance Organisation (JQA)
• JACO CDM., LTD (JACO)
• Deloitte Tohmatsu Evaluation and Certification Organization Co., Ltd. (TECO (Deloitte-TECO)
• Japan Consulting Institute (JCI)
• Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS (BVCH)
• Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) Partially suspended March 2010
• TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. (Formerly TUV Industrie Service GmbH - TUV Rheinland Group) (TUEV Rheinland)
• ERM Certification and Verification Services Ltd. (ERM CVS)
• Spanish Association for Standardisation and Certification (AENOR)
• TÜV NORD CERT GmbH (Former RWTÜV Systems GmbH) (TÜV Nord)
• Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (LRQA)
• Colombian Institute for Technical Standards and Certification (ICONTEC)
• Korean Foundation for Quality (KFQ)
• Swiss Association for Quality and Management Systems (SQS)
• China Environmental United Certification Center Co., Ltd. (CEC)
• RINA S.p.A. (RINA)
• SIRIM QAS INTERNATIONAL SDN.BHD (SIRIM)
• Korean Standards Association (KSA)
• Environmental Management Corp. (EMC )
• Japan Management Association (JMA)
• Germanischer Lloyd Certification GmbH (GLC)
• China Quality Certification Center (CQC)
• Ernst & Young Associés (France) (EYG)

Critique

The International Rivers' 2008 publication 'Bad Deal for the Planet: Why carbon offsets aren't working and how to create a fair global climate accord' gives a good synopsis of critiques on the ineffectiveness of DOEs in evaluating emissions cutting projects. Some of the main issues raised are:

• That the concept of 'additionality' is intrinsically flawed and impossible to prove and DOE's are rewarding 'good storytellers over good projects'.
• That the volatile nature of CER markets and the uncertain certification process means that DOEs often only recommend that companies claim CERs for existing projects (not projects that really require the funding to go forward) and let them make up additionality stories later. This has resulted in some projects being awarded CERs for projects launched and even completed many years before.
• That validators are chosen and paid by the project developers requiring certification, who will select for cheap cost and likelihood of being certified. The authors suggest validators should be appointed by the UNFCCC instead.