Tag: Flexible Mechanisms

CAN Annual Policy Document: "Lima: Raising the Curtain on Paris", Executive Summary, Spanish, November 2014

En septiembre, se hizo historia cuando más de 400,000 personas de diversos trasfondos tomaron las calles de la ciudad de Nueva York para decirle al mundo, “Más Acción Climática, Ahora”. La COP 20 que se llevará a cabo en Lima debe ser un momento de pronunciación de voluntad política para que los gobiernos reflexionen en el llamado ambicioso de la gente a través del planeta.

En la COP 17, los gobiernos acordaron la Plataforma de Durban para una Acción Reforzada(ADP).  Las negociaciones dentro de la  plataforma de Durban culminarán en 2015 en la COP 21 en París, en donde las Partes van a ratificar la próxima fase de un acuerdo global climático.

La COP 20 en Lima es clave para esta próxima fase ya que definirá los parámetros del acuerdo global del 2015. La COP de Lima, guiada por el fuerte impulso para una mayor acción climática y por el reciente informe científico del IPCC, tiene que dirigir la voluntad política para lograr tomar decisiones sobre la forma, la composición y la ambición del acuerdo del 2015.

Dado que en Lima asentarán las bases para lograr obtener resultados en París, Climate Action Network presenta su visión sobre los temas que serán discutidos en la COP 20 de manera que se establezcan las bases correctas para el acuerdo del 2015.

 

DECISIONES CLAVES A TOMARSE DURANTE LA COP 20

PARA AUMENTAR LA AMBICION EN MITIGACION Y FINANCIAMIENTO PRE 2020

  • La COP 20 debe instar a todos los países a revisar sus compromisos  y acciones de mitigación pre 2020.
  • La COP 20 debe dar el mandato al ADP para desarrollar un plan de trabajo de 2 años del 2015 – 2017 con pasos concretos sobre cómo el trabajo para cerrar la brecha se llevará a cabo y cómo las discusiones van a ser traducidas en acciones reales.
  • La COP 20 debe mejorar los TEMs con un nuevo y acentuado mandato para que no sólo se enfoque en acciones de mitigación de alto potencial, sino que también incluya los medios de ejecución para llevar a cabo estas acciones.
  • La COP 20 debe captar los aportes realizados, evaluar la suficiencia de los compromisos existentes y discutir un futuro objetivo de contribuciones anuales al GCF a ser alcanzado, como por ejemplo, para el 2020.
  • La COP 20 debe decidir que los países desarrollados y otros en posición de hacerlo, deben aumentar constantemente sus contribuciones al GCF para lograr alcanzar el objetivo establecido.
  • Los Ministros en Lima deben ponerse de acuerdo para elaborar colectivamente una hoja de ruta de financiamiento climático global hacia el 2020 que incluya información sobre: (a) la ampliación de las finanzas públicas hacia el 2020, (b) los tipos e instrumentos de financiación a ser utilizados, y (c) los canales, recursos y distribución sectorial entre adaptación y mitigación, con el fin de garantizar el financiamiento ampliado y predecible y los hitos intermedios.
  • Los Ministros en Lima deben reflexionar sobre las fuentes de financiamiento más sostenibles para el fondo de adaptación.  Los países desarrollados deben utilizar Lima para comprometerse por lo menos con $80 millones para el fondo de adaptación.
  • El Diálogo Estructurado de Expertos (SED) debe discutir el Informe de Síntesis del IPCC teniendo en cuenta ‘el progreso logrado para alcanzar el objetivo final de la convención’.
  • El Grupo de Contacto Conjunto (JCG) para la revisión del 2013-2015 debería concluir que en base a la evidencia científica, las acciones pre 2020 que actualmente han sido prometidas por los gobiernos son inadecuadas y deben  ser revisadas.

DEFINIENDO EL ALCANCE Y EL CONTENIDO DEL ACUERDO DEL 2015

El texto de decisión de las “Contribuciones Nacionalmente Determinadas Previstas” (INDCs) debe incluir:

  • Un proceso para evaluar la suficiencia y la equidad de las INDCs propuestas basado en una revisión de la evaluación ex-ante de la ambición y la equidad antes de la COP 21.
  • Las finanzas dentro del alcance de las INDCs
  • La adaptación dentro de las INDCs, que podrían ser voluntaria, aunque los países deberían ser alentados a presentar su contribución a la adaptación. Los países en desarrollo vulnerables deberían ser apoyados en su preparación hacia el desarrollo de sus contribuciones.
  • Se debe estimular y motivar una mayor participación de la sociedad civil, la sociedad civil local y otros grupos de interés para que contribuyan en el desarrollo de las INDCs de las naciones. A su vez los países a las naciones deben ser motivados a celebrar consultas nacionales, mientras preparen sus INDCs.
  • Una cláusula en la que los países expliquen por qué las contribuciones que presentan son suficientes y equitativas, por lo tanto, todos los países deberían incluir información sobre los indicadores de equidad (suficiencia, responsabilidad, capacidad, necesidad de desarrollo, necesidad de adaptación).

El texto de decisión sobre los elementos del acuerdo del 2015 debe incluir:

  • Metas globales a largo plazo para lograr la eliminación gradual de todas las emisiones de combustibles fósiles y la introducción progresiva hacia un futuro basado en 100% energía renovable con acceso a energía sostenible para todos, lo más pronto posible, pero no más tarde del 2050.
  • Un compromiso colectivo para cambiar el apoyo del público (financiera y políticamente) de los combustibles fósiles hacia la resiliencia climática y un acceso universal y justo de la energía sostenible.
  • El establecimiento de objetivos globales para el financiamiento público.
  • Un acuerdo para considerar y establecer/desplegar nuevos instrumentos y canales para movilizar más financiamiento climático internacional de nuevas fuentes.
  • Un acuerdo para adoptar un sistema de Medición, Reporte y Verificación (MRV) para el financiamiento climático.
  • La decisión de tener un objetivo global de adaptación que sea ambicioso dentro del acuerdo del 2015. La COP también debe fomentar y promover la planificación de adaptación nacional y de acción en los países en desarrollo.
  • La COP debe adoptar un plan de trabajo fuerte de 2 años para el mecanismo de pérdidas y daños.
  • Una decisión de establecer un Grupo Coordinador de Capacitación (CBCB) en la COP 21 en París.
  • Un mayor rol para la sociedad civil en todos los mecanismos establecidos en la convención así como también en la implementación y el cumplimiento de los acuerdos. La sociedad civil local y otros grupos de interés deben participar activamente en el cumplimiento y los procesos de MRV en el nuevo acuerdo.
  • Tecnología - La COP debería recomendar al Consejo Asesor del Centro de Tecnología del Clima y Redes el tener en cuenta las siguientes actividades: proveer asesoramiento, apoyo y fortalecimiento de capacidades para los países en desarrollo, llevando a cabo evaluaciones de tecnologías nuevas y emergentes.

<more>

Region: 

CAN Annual Policy Document: "Lima: Raising the Curtain on Paris", Executive Summary, English, November 2014

History was created when more than 400,000 people from all walks of life took to the streets of New York City in September to tell the world, ‘More Climate Action, Now’.  COP 20 in Lima must be the turning point for political will from governments to reflect these ambitious calls by people from across the world.

At COP 17, Governments agreed to the Durban platform for enhanced action.  Negotiations under the Durban platform will culminate in 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, where Parties are to agree to the next stage of a global climate agreement.

COP 20 in Lima holds the key to this next stage as it is set to define the parameters of this 2015 global agreement.  The Lima COP, guided by the strong momentum for greater climate action and the recent IPCC scientific assessment, needs to steer political will to deliver decisions on the shape, composition and ambition of the 2015 agreement.

As Lima will set the foundations for the outcomes in Paris, Climate Action Network presents its views on issues that need to be addressed at COP 20 in order to set the right foundation for the 2015 agreement.

<more>

KEY DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT COP 20 -

FOR INCREASING PRE 2020 AMBITION ON MITIGATION AND FINANCE

  • COP 20 should urge all countries to revise their pre 2020 mitigation commitments and actions.
  • COP 20 should mandate ADP to develop a 2-year work plan from 2015-2017 with concrete steps on how the work to close the gap would be undertaken and how discussions would be translated into real actions.
  • COP 20 should enhance the TEMs with a new and increased mandate to focus not just on high potential mitigation actions but also on means of implementation for realizing these actions.
  •  COP 20 should capture contributions made, assess the adequacy of existing pledges, and discuss a future target level of annual contributions to the GCF to be reached, for example, by 2020.
  • COP 20 should decide that developed countries, and other countries in a position to do so, should continuously increase annual contributions to the GCF to reach the desired target level.
  • Ministers in Lima should agree to collectively draw up a global climate finance roadmap towards 2020 that will include information on (a) the scaling up of public finance through to 2020, (b) types and instruments of finance to be deployed, and (c) channels, sources and sectoral distribution between adaptation and mitigation, with a view to help ensure predictable and scaled up finance and intermediate milestones.
  • Ministers in Lima should reflect on more sustainable funding sources for the adaptation fund. Developed countries should use Lima to pledge at least $80 million to the adaptation fund.
  • The Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) should discuss the IPCC Synthesis report in light of ‘progress made towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention’.
  • The Joint Contact Group (JCG) for the 2013-2015 Review should conclude that based on scientific evidence, pre 2020 actions as currently committed by governments are inadequate and should be revised.

DEFINING THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT

Decision text on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) should include:

  • process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.
  • Finance within the scope of INDCs.
  • Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.
  • A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.
  • A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include: 

  • Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.
  • A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.
  • Establishment of global goals for public finance.
  • An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilise additional international climate finance from new sources.
  • An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.
  • decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planning and action in developing countries.
  • COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for the Loss and Damage mechanism.
  • A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.
  • An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanisms established under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.
  • Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

<MORE>

CAN Annual Policy Document: "Lima: Raising the Curtain on Paris", November 2014

 

Executive Summaries: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese 

History was created when more than 400,000 people from all walks of life took to the streets of New York City in September to tell the world, ‘More Climate Action, Now’.  COP 20 in Lima must be the turning point for political will from governments to reflect these ambitious calls by people from across the world.

At COP 17, Governments agreed to the Durban platform for enhanced action.  Negotiations under the Durban platform will culminate in 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, where Parties are to agree to the next stage of a global climate agreement.

COP 20 in Lima holds the key to this next stage as it is set to define the parameters of this 2015 global agreement.  The Lima COP, guided by the strong momentum for greater climate action and the recent IPCC scientific assessment, needs to steer political will to deliver decisions on the shape, composition and ambition of the 2015 agreement.

As Lima will set the foundations for the outcomes in Paris, Climate Action Network presents its views on issues that need to be addressed at COP 20 in order to set the right foundation for the 2015 agreement.

 

KEY DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT COP 20 -

FOR INCREASING PRE 2020 AMBITION ON MITIGATION AND FINANCE

  • COP 20 should urge all countries to revise their pre 2020 mitigation commitments and actions.
  • COP 20 should mandate ADP to develop a 2-year work plan from 2015-2017 with concrete steps on how the work to close the gap would be undertaken and how discussions would be translated into real actions.
  • COP 20 should enhance the TEMs with a new and increased mandate to focus not just on high potential mitigation actions but also on means of implementation for realizing these actions.
  •  COP 20 should capture contributions made, assess the adequacy of existing pledges, and discuss a future target level of annual contributions to the GCF to be reached, for example, by 2020.
  • COP 20 should decide that developed countries, and other countries in a position to do so, should continuously increase annual contributions to the GCF to reach the desired target level.
  • Ministers in Lima should agree to collectively draw up a global climate finance roadmap towards 2020 that will include information on (a) the scaling up of public finance through to 2020, (b) types and instruments of finance to be deployed, and (c) channels, sources and sectoral distribution between adaptation and mitigation, with a view to help ensure predictable and scaled up finance and intermediate milestones.
  • Ministers in Lima should reflect on more sustainable funding sources for the adaptation fund. Developed countries should use Lima to pledge at least $80 million to the adaptation fund.
  • The Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) should discuss the IPCC Synthesis report in light of ‘progress made towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention’.
  • The Joint Contact Group (JCG) for the 2013-2015 Review should conclude that based on scientific evidence, pre 2020 actions as currently committed by governments are inadequate and should be revised.

DEFINING THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT

Decision text on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) should include:

  • A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.
  • Finance within the scope of INDCs.
  • Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.
  • A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.
  • A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include: 

  • Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.
  • A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.
  • Establishment of global goals for public finance.
  • An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilise additional international climate finance from new sources.
  • An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.
  • A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planning and action in developing countries.
  • COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for the Loss and Damage mechanism.
  • A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.
  • An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanisms established under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.
  • Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

<MORE>

CAN Submission: 2015 Agreement and Post-2020 Actions, November 2014

 

While pre-2020 actions will determine a strong platform and foundation for the 2015 agreement, Governments are also deliberating on the shape, composition and ambition of the new agreement under work stream 1 of the ADP to come into action in 2020. Below are some of the issues CAN would like to see resolved by Governments at COP 20, in Lima.

KEY DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT COP 20 DEFINING THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT

Decision text on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) should include:

  • A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.
  • Finance within the scope of INDCs.
  • Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.
  • A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.
  • A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include: 

  • Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.
  • A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.
  • Establishment of global goals for public finance.
  • An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilize additional international climate finance from new sources.
  • An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.
  • A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planning and action in developing countries.
  • COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for the Loss and Damage mechanism.
  • A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.
  • An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanisms established under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.
  • Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.

<more>

A parable for our time

Far back in the mists of time, Parties agreed on a Durban Platform. Concerned that the train of negotiations might leave the station and quickly gather speed, Parties proceeded to have a two-year “contemplation phase” in an effort to stay on track.

They then decided to go into a “workshop phase” where they were expected to express their basic desires to their benign and all-knowing spiritual guides. These guides would then translate these desires into suitable language for polite company before presenting them to the outside world. But some of the travellers began to complain that they preferred their own words, however unrefined and divergent.

The language of the much-anticipated central covenant of all the peoples was given special treatment, since agreement was not needed immediately. It was particularly elevated and deliberately vague, so that the travellers would not begin to bicker over the details. But some began to rebel against the ritualistic debates and increasingly frustrating attempts to discover exactly what others were talking about, and what they might be able to agree on once they had to make decisions.

More of them started putting forward their own versions of the covenant. Though the guides paid little attention to their crude efforts, they did generously offer the possibility of going into a side carriage on their own and return with more worthy offerings. But they never said what fate would await these offerings.

Meanwhile in the main carriage, the travellers continued to offer up their modest ideas, in the hope the guides would find some of them worthy to put into their non-covenant. But most of them looked in vain for a true representation.

However, the words of one wise traveler resonated from beyond the dawn of time: “Discussions in the absence of negotiations cannot prosper.”

Then began a clamour for true negotiations –to engage with the actual words of their fellow travellers, and not the words of the guides. More and more of them made this demand, but fearful of the consequences if the travellers became too aware of the real divisions among them, the guides preferred to hold to their more refined version as long as possible…

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

CAN Intervention: ADP Technical Expert Meeting on Non-CO2 GHGs at ADP2-6, 23 October, 2014

My name is Natasha Hurley and I'm speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network. 

We welcome the organization of today's Technical Expert Meeting on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, which has certainly been a timely and useful opportunity to take stock of the mulitple initiatives on HFCs and other gases that are already being rolled out in many countries and regions around the world. 

However, we need to be reassured that all the good talk and presentation of real-world evidence will result in a global scaling up of climate action in the very near term. 

We think these Technical Expert Meetings should be seen as a final springboard towards action to plub the growing mitigation gap and that they should make a sustained and lasting impact. In short, these discussions should not just be a one-off talking shop. 

We heard a lot in teh previous session about the host of initiatives aimed at curbing the use of HFCs worldwide, and the growing market in climate-friendly energy-efficient alternatives. This is one example where global action could be taken immediately, in fact as soon as next month at the 26th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Paris. 

So we urge Parties here to take full advantage of today's discussion and use the existing institutional framework under the Montreal Protocol to implement a global phase-down of HFCs. 

From our perspective, this would be convincing proof that the TEMs are able to help deliver wha they were set up to do, which is to provide concrete results in the very near future. 

Thank you Chair. 

Related Event: 

CAN Submission: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), October 2014

Governments at COP19 in Warsaw agreed to “initiate or intensify preparations of their intended nationally determined contributions” (INDC) to meet the ultimate objective of the convention. It was also agreed that governments in ‘a position to do so’ would submit their INDCs by March 2015. At the Climate Summit in New York, the commitment to come forward with INDCs was further reiterated. Even though there is broad agreement on the need to submit INDCs much ahead of COP 21 in Paris, there is still not enough agreement on the shape of these INDCs.

Climate Action Network (CAN) with this submission intends to elaborate its thinking around the INDCs as well as provide solutions towards the continuing disagreements between governments as well as clear the ambiguity around the concept of INDCs. 

<more>

Related Event: 

EU’s Kyoto ratification and Poland – the sequel

Dear Reader, do you remember when ECO wrote, a few nights ago, about Poland being a total bully, again, and trying to use the EU’s KP ratification as a bargaining chip for the upcoming 2030 discussions in the EU?

Here comes the sequel: yep, you heard it right — this is what is happening. Two days ago, at the EU environment ministers meeting, Poland refused to agree to let the EU’s ratification process move forward. Instead, Poland is planning to table a new proposal which includes... wait for it... hot air for Poland! Never mind the rest.

As it seems that Poland is not hearing ECO’s “stop the madness” calls — could you help us out, Dear Reader? Whenever you see a Polish delegate, please tell them to stop. 

Related Newsletter : 

CAN Recommendations: Issues relating to Joint Implementation (JI) at SBI 40, June 2014

The revision JI Guidelines: draft text of Modalities and procedures for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol Joint Implementation

A decision to initiate the first review of the JI guidelines was taken by Decision 4/CMP.6. At CMP.8 in Doha, Parties agreed on key attributes that would characterize the future operation of JI and requested the SBI to draft revised JI Modalities and Procedures (M&P). These new M&P will replace the existing JI Guidelines which were adopted by Decision 9/CMP.1. At CMP 9 in Warsaw Parties discussed the draft but did not finalize it. Negotiations on the draft will continue at SBI 40. In our view, the draft text contains several critical points that need to be addressed before it should be adopted. 

<more>

Organization: 

CAN Submission: Views on Suggested Changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), May 2014

Civil Society Participation in the CDM process (TP Section F2)

Although stakeholder consultation is a key requirement in the CDM registration process, project developers and Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) lack clear criteria or guidance on how to conduct and validate stakeholder consultations. In many cases, peoples and communities that are directly affected are not adequately informed about CDM project activities or programme of activities (PoA) and their potential on-the-ground impacts.

Current CDM stakeholder consultation requirements are insufficient as they are poorly defined, regulated and documented. There are dozens of instances where projects were registered despite insufficient stakeholder participation, strong local opposition and clear evidence that the projects cause harm to the local populations and/or ecosystem.  

As a step to address this shortcoming, Parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in Warsaw decision 3/CMP.9 para 20 which requests “the CDM Executive Board, with the support of the secretariat, to collaborate with the Designated National Authorities Forum on collecting and making available, on the UNFCCC clean development mechanism website, information on practices conducted for local stakeholder consultations, and to provide technical assistance to designated national authorities, upon their request, for the development of guidelines for local stakeholder consultation in their countries.”

Despite this decision by the CMP, and earlier decisions to “develop and implement modalities and procedures with a view to enhancing direct communication with stakeholders and project proponents” (Decision 2/CMP.5), the CDM Board has not taken sufficient action to address the shortcomings of the current stakeholder consultation rules. For example, at the 77th CDM Executive Board meeting, the Board decided that the Secretariat shall “inform” DNAs about decision 3/CMP.9 but did not take action to collaborate with DNAs as required per the CMP decision.

This lack of action risks that DNAs may not act upon this important CMP decision. The revised CDM M&Ps should therefore recognize the need for improved guidance and incorporate best practice guidelines for local stakeholder consultation developed by the CDM Board as part of this process in the revised M&Ps.   

In addition to shortcomings in the notice and comment processes, there is no means for stakeholders to raise concerns once a project is registered even if adverse impacts occur during project implementation. The current rules do not provide a formal opportunity to provide comments after the global stakeholder consultation. This means that it is currently impossible to submit comments about a specific project, e.g. if comments submitted during the local or global stakeholder consultation process have not been validated adequately or if concerns appear after the global stakeholder consultation. This is not only relevant for projects during the validation stage but also for projects during their implementation. A formal communications channel for project specific matters would allow reviewing and addressing concerns efficiently and by doing so avoiding escalation of issues. Allowing comments at an early stage in the process, when they can still be taken into account for decisions related to registration or issuance of credits could help avoid potential future appeals. We welcome the proposed change of the technical report section F 2(d) (i), that the CDM modalities and procedures shall introduce a provision allowing the Board and the secretariat to receive information on complaints regarding issues that are not related to the emission reductions or removal enhancements of a registered CDM project activity or PoA. Such a communications channel for project specific comments should be modeled after the already successfully implemented communications channel for policy matters. In addition, a global stakeholder consultation process at the verification stage after the registration period as proposed in the technical paper section F 2(d) (ii)) would be a positive additional improvement as it would allow comments from stakeholder to follow up on earlier comments made through the local and global stakeholder consultations, it would also provide a crucial opportunity for DNAs to receive additional information about the implementation of CDM project or PoA. However, both improvements are necessary because a global stakeholder consultation during the verification period is only a punctual opportunity which does not replace a more flexible communications channel for case specific matters.

It is also worth mentioning that under the current public participation rules for the CDM, no formal channels between local stakeholders and the Designated National Authorities (DNAs) exist. Prior to registration, comments from the local stakeholder consultation are received by the project proponent, and comments through the global stakeholder consultation are received by the Designated Operational Entity (DOE). Given that it is up to the DNA to maintain the approval of CDM projecs and PoAs, and the confirmation that they contribute to sustainable development, comments received through the project specific communications channel should be forwarded to the relevant DNA.

The SD Tool enables changes to be made to the sustainable development co-benefit (SDC) report throughout project implementation including after registration. Stakeholder comments are a key source of information to know about potential negative impacts of CDM projects as reflected in the draft voluntary tool for highlighting the co-benefits of CDM projects at EB68, Annex 22. To strengthen civil society participation in the CDM process local stakeholders should have a formal communication channel to DNAs. DNAs may request project proponents to update the SDC report at any time during project implementation, should the SD benefits or negative impacts have changed since registration of the project.  

<more>

Organization: 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Flexible Mechanisms