While walking the corridors of the Bula and Bonn zones, ECO is hearing an old tune – but it’s not a lieder by Beethoven, it’s the siren song for the continuation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) after 2020. This is very disappointing and ECO is confused as to why this is still being presented as an open issue. In the interests of protecting environmental integrity, a key principle of the Paris Agreement, it is essential to start with a clean slate and make its Article 6 fit for purpose.
The CDM provides a wealth of experience, both positive and negative, which should not be forgotten. At the same time, it should not be allowed to undermine the ambition of the Paris Agreement. Here are a couple of points to respond to discussions on the CDM:
First and foremost, the Paris Agreement calls for more ambition. The recent UN Environment Emissions Gap report highlighted the necessity for more and faster action in all sectors. The zero-sum exercise of pure offsetting such as in the CDM – shifting emissions from one place to another – is simply passé. If markets are still to play a role they have to go beyond this framework.
Second, the CDM has no reason to exist anymore. The Kyoto Protocol explicitly says that the purpose of the CDM is to assist Annex I Parties in achieving compliance with their Kyoto commitments under Article 3. These commitments were for the period of 2008 to 2012. Despite efforts made to revise and extend these commitments in Doha, that amendment never took effect. The CDM has therefore outlived its purpose. Investor due diligence would require reading the Kyoto Protocol and understanding what these commitment periods mean. The Kyoto Protocol has no direct relation to the Paris Agreement and there is no mention of the CDM in the Paris Agreement. ECO wonders why some are still talking about it.
Furthermore, it is essential to safeguard the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement. Experts have found that 85% of CDM projects are highly questionable: they don’t reduce emissions because the would probably have happened anyway and or overestimate emission reductions.Plus, even if these projects really did reduce emissions, the CDM has proven incapable of avoiding double counting with Cancun Pledges let alone NDCs. We really need to have an accurate idea of total global reductions.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Paris Agreement also calls for sustainable development and highlights the protection of human rights. Here, however, the CDM has a mixed record at best. Allowing the CDM to continue would undermine the Paris Agreement’s fresh start and the urgent need for social and environmental safeguards to address climate change.
