Transparency of the cdm communication with project participants and stakeholders
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 12

Transparency of the CDM Communication with Project Participants and Stakeholders PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 45 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Transparency of the CDMCommunication 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

    • Impacts individual projects but also D/S balance

  • For CDM to be successful

    • Environmental integrity

    • Transparency

    • Cost effectiveness


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


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


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”


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


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


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


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


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


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


MERCURIA ENERGY TRADING SA

50 RUE DU RHÔNE, 1204 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

T +41 22 595 8030

[email protected]


  • Login