Tag: Legal Issues

Right to appeal not a game of two halves

Submitted by rvoorhaar on November 27, 2012 - 12:32am

Here in Doha, Parties will decide on an appeals procedure that would consider decisions made by the CDM Executive Board. It is crucial that civil society representatives are eligible to launch an appeal. But wait, ECO heard that some Parties would like to grant the right to appeal to one side (investors) only? Dear delegates, this is not a game of two halves but two sides of the same coin. Indeed, we would like to remind you that any appeals procedure must serve the interests of all affected stakeholders.

Granting the right to appeal to investors only prioritises corporate profit over the public interest, especially given the wider impacts that flawed CDM projects can have on global climate change and sustainable development. ECO urges delegates to take this opportunity to adopt a fair and balanced means to provide a public check during the CDM project approval process, and promote transparency, accountability and integrity in the decision-making process.

Take this critical opportunity to introduce much needed quality control in the CDM decision-making process and adopt a robust appeals procedure!

Tags:

Legal Issues

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

low carbon development

Topics:

Flexible Mechanisms

Related Event:

COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference

rvoorhaar's blog

The Mandate

Submitted by Anonymous on October 3, 2011 - 9:31am

Yesterday, ECO noted that there are three groups of countries in the legal form negotiations that each need to bring proposals to the table at Durban: the KP developed countries, the non-KP Annex I Parties and the developing countries.

ALL the developed countries that have ratified their Annex B targets for the first commitment period should have their targets ready to plug and play for CP2. The non-KP Annex I Party[s] need to increase their ambition, be part of a common accounting system and MRV to bring forward the established KP systems - how else would the Bali Action Plan’s agreed ‘comparability’ be achieved?

Many are suggesting that we are facing a transitional period, where the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol keeps alive an architecture that, through Article 3.1 and other elements, keeps a science-based approach at the core of the global response to the climate threat. Through this post-2012 period, the elements of a new comprehensive legally-binding agreement[s] needs to be developed. In ECO’s view, this agreement needs to be in the form of a Protocol[s], or other such appropriate legal instrument, that respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

However, we will not attain comprehensive legally-binding agreement[s] equal to the challenge we face unless Parties find common cause that such an agreement is needed. In ECO’s view, in addition to KP Parties agreeing a second commitment period in Durban, all Parties must agree on a mandate to negotiate a legally binding instrument covering all Bali building blocks under the LCA. This mandate needs, at a minimum, to agree:

- what the result of the negotiations will be, specifying that Parties are working towards a legally binding instrument with legally binding commitments

- the end date (ECO would suggest 2015 would allow time for institution building and for experience of MRV to bze enhanced)

- the scope

- the process, including forum

- principles to guide the negotiations

Without a mandate for the third period of the climate regime, we will again face a gap – between commitments, but also in ambition, and the resulting sense of the world moving forward together to avoid the worst that an human-altered atmosphere can throw at us.

Tags: