Tag: Flexible Mechanisms

Cancun Building Blocks - Oct 2010


A fair, ambitious and binding deal is needed more urgently than ever. Climate science is more compelling by the day. Impacts are coming harder and faster. Disastrous flooding in Pakistan, heat waves and forest fires in Russia and hottest recorded temperatures around the globe, amongst other devastating climate-related events, all point to the need for urgent action. Levels of warming once thought to be safe, may well not be, 1.5˚C is the new 2˚C

Negotiations Post-Copenhagen
Copenhagen was a watershed moment for public interest and support for climate action – and people have not lost interest. More people in more countries than ever have put their governments on notice that they expect a fair,
ambitious and binding global deal to be agreed urgently. Trust-building is essential after the disappointment of Copenhagen. Developed country leadership must be at the core of trust building efforts. Countries must show
their commitment to the UNFCCC process by driving it forward with political will and flexible positions, rather than endless rounds of repetitive negotiations. Many countries are troublingly pessimistic for Cancun, and are working to lower expectations. While others, including countries most vulnerable to climate change, maintain high expectations.

Challenges ahead of Cancun
There are many challenges to getting a full fair, ambitious and binding deal at Cancun, including:

  • Lack of a shared vision for the ultimate objective of the agreement, and the equitable allocation of the remaining carbon budget and emissions reduction/limitation commitments;
  • Sharp divisions on the legal form of an eventual outcome;
  • Failure of the US Senate to pass comprehensive legislation this year; and
  • Current economic difficulties facing many countries, which make it difficult to mobilize the substantial commitments to long-term climate finance needed as part of any ambitious agreement. 

Positive moves afoot
However, more and more countries, both developing and developed, are stepping up their efforts to pursue low-carbon development and adaptation, despite the absence of an international agreement. This can be seen in a variety of ways:

  • Investments in renewable energies have continued their exponential growth, increasing to 19% of global energy consumed;
  • Progressive countries are working to move the negotiations forward;
  • There is a growing perception that low-carbon and climate-resilient development is the only option to sustainably ensure the right to development and progress in poverty reduction. 

So, what does a pathway forward look like?

Firstly we must learn the lessons of Copenhagen. The “nothing’s agreed until everything’s agreed” dynamic from Copenhagen could mean that nothing would be agreed in Cancun. An agreement in Cancun should instead be a balanced and significant step toward reaching a full fair, ambitious & binding deal at COP 17 in South Africa. This will require parties to work together in good faith to create sufficient gains at Cancun, and a clear roadmap to South Africa. This paper outlines how that could be achieved. 

Submission on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC)

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. 


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, 2 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. 



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

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.  



CAN Intervention on CDM and JI in the COP19 SBI Closing Plenary by Juliane Voigt, 16 November, 2013

Thank you Chair, 

I am Juliane Voigt speaking as a member of the Climate Action Network.

When discussing matters relating to the Kyoto Mechanisms, delegates must remember that the recent IPCC report highlights that the remaining global carbon budget is very small and shrinking fast.

The need to reduce emissions immediately and permanently has never been more vital and urgent. This imperative is in stark contrast with the performance of the CDM and JI to date.

Over two billion offsets have been issued by these Kyoto mechanisms to date. This is a lot. But research shows than only half or fewer of the offsets have resulted in actual emissions reductions. This means that global emissions may have increased by 1 billion tons or more due to these mechanisms.

Given the severe carbon budget restraints we are facing, this is deeply worrying. Both mechanisms need to be fundamentally reformed. We urgently call you to:

·         Reform additionality requirements, including shorten the length of crediting periods and

·         Require net atmospheric benefit in both mechanisms

·         Improve transparency and governance, especially under JI.

·         Last but not least, there should be no issuance of JI offsets during the interim period given that it is still unclear if the second Kyoto commitment period will be ratified by Parties.

Thank you. 

CAN Intervention in the COP19 CMP Plenary on CDM, Agenda Item 4, 13 November, 2013

Thank you Mr. President,

I am Falguni Joshi speaking as a member of the Climate Action Network.

When discussing the matters relating to the Clean Development Mechanism, delegates must remember that the recent IPCC report highlights that the remaining global carbon budget is very small and shrinking fast.

Impacts of climate change are worsening rapidly and the need to reduce emissions immediately and permanently has never been more vital and urgent.

This reality is in stark contrast with the performance of the CDM to date. Recent research shows that it is likely that on the whole, the CDM delivered only 40% of the emission reductions it sold. The CDM has also not delivered on its second goal: to bring sustainable development benefits. During this session, we urgently call to:

  • Fundamentally reform additionality requirements, including shorten the length of crediting periods
  • Exclude large scale power projects and clearly climate damaging technologies such as coal power
  • Establish a grievance mechanism for local stakeholders and ensure that all CDM projects uphold human rights
  • Improve the CDM’s contribution to sustainable development by establishing a monitoring mechanism

Thank you. 


CAN Intervention in the COP19 Workshop under the SBI work programme to further the understanding of the diversity of NAMAs, by Anja Kollmuss, 11 November, 2013

I am Anja Kollmuss speaking as a member of the Climate Action Network.

The recent IPCC report highlights that the remaining global carbon budget is very small and shrinking fast.

Impacts of climate change are worsening rapidly. The need to reduce emissions immediately has never been more vital and urgent.

At the outset CAN stresses that developed countries must lead efforts and raise their mitigation and finance commitments dramatically.

Given the severe carbon budget restraints we are facing, developing countries too must contribute to global mitigation efforts.

17 developing countries have taken on economy-wide targets or committed to NAMAs with specific quantified GHG reduction targets.

We call on other developing countries to follow suit.

34 countries have not yet come forth with any pledges or NAMAs.

32 countries have NAMAs that are not yet specific enough to allow for the quantification of GHG impacts or their implementation.

Together these 66 countries make up a fifth of global CO2 emissions.

We are calling on all developing countries to, inter alia, clearly identify assumptions, and agree to common rules for establishing business as usual baselines and for MRV of mitigation actions.  Developing countries should also articulate how much their mitigation effort could increase with financial and technological support.

The sum of national actions must match the ambition needed, both in the short and in the long‐term.



Subscribe to Tag: Flexible Mechanisms