1 / 9

The CDM Policy Dialogue

The CDM Policy Dialogue. Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe Member, High-level Panel on the CDM Policy Dialogue FIRST SDM JOINT COORDINATION WORKSHOP Bonn, Germany, 24-25 March 2012. Objective. The CDM Executive Board decided in late

dennishammond
Download Presentation

The CDM Policy Dialogue

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. The CDM Policy Dialogue Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe Member, High-level Panel on the CDM Policy Dialogue FIRST SDM JOINT COORDINATION WORKSHOP Bonn, Germany, 24-25 March 2012

  2. Objective • The CDM Executive Board decided in late • 2011 to launch an independent high-level Panel to conduct a CDM Policy Dialogue The objective of the policy dialogue is to make recommendations regarding how to best position the CDM to respond to future challenges and opportunities and ensure the effectiveness of the mechanism in contributing to future global climate action, based on a wide-ranging assessment of experience, benefits and shortcomings of the CDM and engagement with civil society, policymakers and market participants.

  3. Output The main output of the dialogue is to be the publication of a report addressing the objective of the Policy Dialogue. It is expected that the report’s recommendations will be of particular relevance to the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations on the future international climate regime, the revision by the CMP of the modalities and procedures of the CDM, and the work of the Board and the secretariat. The final report is to be available by September 2012.

  4. Process • 58 submissions from CDM stakeholders provided input to the first meeting of the Panel (Bonn, 14-15 Feb 2012) • The Panel adopted a work program, focussing on three areas: • Governance of the CDM • Impact of the CDM • Future context of the CDM • In each area the Panel will conduct data collection, analysis, and stakeholder discussions.

  5. Stakeholder interactions • On-line call for inputs • Panel meetings • Visits • Observers to other events • The panel recognizes the JWS as an excellent venue for interaction with CDM stakeholder groups, and the sessions have provided the Panel a lot of insights on the issues facing the CDM and also the proposed solutions. • The Panel is addressing itself to some specific issues and questions and would propose these to be the focus of discussions in the breakout sessions. • We wish to hear your views!

  6. Format and topics for breakout sessions • Two sessions: • Module 5.1 – Context • CDM impact under the current framework • Policy and market context in which CDM is likely to operate in the future • Module 5.2 – Governance • How the current governance structure has performed, including approaches to achieving sustainable development • Possible areas for improvement

  7. Proposed focus of breakout sessions • Future context of CDM • What should be the role of the CDM under plausible future scenarios for the international carbon market? • What should be the relation between CDM and other new market based mechanisms (under UNFCCC or bottom-up)? • How do you consider the potential to include REDD+ in CDM? • Should CDM move towards sectoral approaches? In that case, is there a need for continued project-by-project offsetting? • Should the CDM remain embedded in the United Nations / UNFCCC? If not, who should operate it?

  8. Proposed focus of breakout sessions • Governance • Can the project cycle be further streamlined to improve efficiency and reduce costs? How can it be done? • Should the current validation/verification model be reformed? If so, how? • Should the methods for determining additionality be changed? If so, How? • How should the major points of dispute regarding the registration/issuance appeals process be resolved? • Should the current requirements for stakeholder consultation be strengthened? If so, how?

  9. Many thanks for your input and time! • Keep talking with us at • www.cdmpolicydialogue.org

More Related