Views on suggested changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

The statement argues that the CDM currently functions as a zero-sum offsetting mechanism that may increase global emissions due to non-additional credits. It recommends a shift toward achieving 'net atmospheric benefits' and proposes rigorous reforms to additionality assessments, the exclusion of high-emission technologies like coal, and the establishment of formal grievance mechanisms and enhanced civil society participation. The author also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs) and a restructured CDM Executive Board to prevent conflicts of interest.

• The CDM is characterized as a "pure offsetting mechanism" that is "zero-sum" and does not reduce emissions beyond the cap, meaning non-additional credits can lead to a "de-facto increase in global emissions."
• Current stakeholder consultation requirements are deemed "insufficient" and "poorly defined," leading to projects being registered despite "strong local opposition" and evidence of harm to local populations or ecosystems.
• There is a lack of a formal grievance mechanism for civil society to raise concerns after a project is registered, which is critical given that over 7,000 CDM project activities and PoAs are currently registered.
• The document recommends that the CDM exclude project types with a low likelihood of additionality or high environmental/social costs, specifically naming industrial gas projects (HFC-23), nitrous oxide reduction from adipic acid production, and large power projects including coal and hydro.
• The author argues that the current crediting periods (10 years or three times 7 years) are often inappropriate because technology lifetimes are shorter or the CDM merely advances an investment that would have happened later.
• To prevent conflicts of interest, the document proposes that the CDM Executive Board's eligibility criteria should exclude individuals from Designated National Authorities (DNAs), Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), or institutions that develop CDM projects or trade CERs.
• The independence of auditors is questioned because Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) are currently "chosen and paid by a projects developer," which may pressure them to approve projects to preserve business relationships.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2014). Views on suggested changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CMW_Submission_CDMMPs_April2014_FINAL.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Views on suggested changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). 2014. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CMW_Submission_CDMMPs_April2014_FINAL.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Views on suggested changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) |date=30 April 2014 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CMW_Submission_CDMMPs_April2014_FINAL.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2014views, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Views on suggested changes to the Modalities and Procedures (M\&Ps) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2014}, month = apr, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CMW_Submission_CDMMPs_April2014_FINAL.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }