1 / 12

Transparency of the CDM Communication with Project Participants and Stakeholders

Transparency of the CDM Communication with Project Participants and Stakeholders. Andrei Marcu Head of Policy and Regulatory Affairs. Why Communication is Important. CDM is a successful but complex system Totally regulatory system Impact of regulator and regulatory system magnified

garima
Download Presentation

Transparency of the CDM Communication with Project Participants and Stakeholders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transparency of the CDMCommunication with Project Participants and Stakeholders Andrei Marcu Head of Policy and Regulatory Affairs

  2. Why Communication is Important • CDM is a successful but complex system • Totally regulatory system • Impact of regulator and regulatory system magnified • Impacts individual projects but also D/S balance • For CDM to be successful • Environmental integrity • Transparency • Cost effectiveness

  3. Communication Should be: • Increase efficiency • On the record • Objective • Transparent • Part of the process • A right and an obligation [for the regulator] • Ensure that the regulatory objectives are achieved at a lower cost/effort Should not: • Add new layers of complexity to the CDM process • Provide opportunity to gridlock the system

  4. History • Better communication recognized historically as critical by stakeholders • Project developers • DOEs • DNAs • Environmental community • Etc • Areas of communication identified • Website • Reasons for decision • Status of projects • Project assessment – submission and decision making • Etc

  5. History • Direct communication recognized by the CMP in Copenhagen and Cancun • CMP 5 referred to “ direct communication between PP and EB o project related matters” • CMP 6 broadened and referred to in 3 area • Para 21 “to PP and stakeholders, including…” • Para 18 “Appeals process” • Para 59 – “Completeness check”

  6. Communication with the UNFCCC Process • SBI request for “ways to enhance the engagement with Observer organizations • Article 1.b.vii of Bali Action Plan • ICC submission • Improving engagement with Observer organizations on policy matters • Creation of Business Consultative Mechanism (BCM) • Not an actor in UNFCCC negotiating process – “seat at the table” • Recognized by the UNFCCC process as a chanel for interaction for policy related matters • Organized and funded by business in a transparent way with good governance • Present views and organize input - Clearinghouse • Draw from all business stakeholders • Multiple windows – CDM policy window being one

  7. Direct Communications • Two types of interaction needs to be recognized • Policy/general guidance matters • Project specific, part of the CDM project cycle • Purpose • To identify/draw attention to issues • For decision making/assesment • Group • Open interaction available to all • Pre selection based on submissions • Interaction • EB. Interaction with EB at the request of the EB • UNFCCC Secretariat. Most of the interaction will be UNFCCC staff to clarify matters, get information, etc • Its bodies

  8. Direct Communications • Trigger • Mandatory. There could be places were the regulator has to initiate (e.g. when there is a request for review) • Discretionary. • Where there regulator perceives a net benefit from initiating a direct interaction (e.g. completeness check), or • where is it seen as solving problems (e.g. EB decisions on Issuance where EB can request presence and discussion with PP and/or DOE) • Contribution • In preparation for the meeting – consultation on agenda, speakers, etc • During the meeting

  9. Policy/Guidance Interaction • Policy/Guidance Interaction • Unsolicited communication • Should be used to draw attention to matters of importance • Reply/outcome within max 30 days • Request for written input • Should result in decision/outcome • Reasons for decision to accompany with reference to input provided • Outcome within clear timeline • Could be open or pre selection • Direct interaction such as workshop, hearing • Based on pre-selection • Outcome within clear timeline • Reasons for decision tied to content of workshop/hearing

  10. Project Related Interaction • Should not add new steps in the CDM project cycle • Same interlocutors as in the current project cycle, depending on the step – PP, DOEs • Flexibility on new material to be introduced • Available to the regulator at points of assessment • Registration • Issuance • Renewal of crediting period • Methodology work stream • Must be part of the project record on the UFCCC web site, except commercial confidential information • Requires assignment of UNFCCC staff to projects – “who handles this file”. Why ‘anonymity” in CDM process ? • Digitize the project cycle process

  11. Project Related Interaction • Modalities • Written communication • Email • Letter • Phone call/conference call • Plus: easy, low costs • Minus: more difficult for complex issues that require in depth discussions • In person meeting • Plus: can solve problems that require in depth, very substantive discussions • Minus: more time to schedule, additional costs involved for attendees. Could be offered as an option to PP

  12. MERCURIA ENERGY TRADING SA 50 RUE DU RHÔNE, 1204 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND T +41 22 595 8030 emissions@mercuria.com

More Related