Recommendations for the review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) requires fundamental reform to address systemic failures in human rights, additionality, and sustainable development. The organization recommends establishing a formal grievance mechanism, strengthening civil society participation, and introducing a 'negative list' of ineligible technologies to prevent the issuance of non-additional credits. It further proposes shortening crediting periods, reforming the CDM Executive Board's composition to prevent conflicts of interest, and introducing liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to ensure auditor independence.

• The CDM lacks a formal accountability or grievance mechanism, leaving civil society with no means to raise concerns after a project is registered. Carbon Market Watch recommends establishing a robust public participation process and a grievance mechanism to address adverse impacts during project implementation, aligning with the 2010 Cancun agreement's call to respect human rights.
• Current stakeholder consultation processes are insufficient, often disregarding local opposition and failing to provide project documents in host country languages. The document suggests defining the scope of consultations to include both positive and negative impacts and establishing a formal communications channel for case-specific matters both before and after registration.
• The CDM's contribution to sustainable development is hindered by a lack of transparency regarding the criteria used by Designated National Authorities (DNAs). The author recommends that DNAs make their sustainable development benefit indicators public and that the CDM's voluntary SD Tool be upgraded to include mandatory monitoring, reporting, and verification.
• The CDM is described as a 'pure offsetting mechanism' that may actually increase global emissions due to non-additional credits, with estimates of non-additional offsets ranging from 0.7 to over 3 Gt by 2020. To achieve 'net atmospheric benefits,' the document argues for a shift away from large-scale power supply and methane projects.
• Additionality testing is criticized as ineffective, particularly for large-scale power and methane projects. The document proposes a 'negative list' to exclude technology types with low likelihood of additionality, specifically naming industrial gas projects (HFC-23), nitrous oxide reduction from adipic acid production, and large power projects including coal and hydro.
• The CDM Executive Board's nomination process is opaque and prone to conflicts of interest. Recommendations include a strengthened code of conduct and eligibility criteria that bar individuals from Designated National Authorities (DNAs), Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), or institutions that trade CERs from serving on the Board.
• Current crediting periods (10 years or three times 7 years) are often too long for the actual lifetime of the technologies used. The document recommends shortening these periods and defining them individually per project type to avoid issuing credits to projects that are no longer additional.
• The independence of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) is compromised because they are paid directly by project developers. The document proposes that DOEs be assigned and paid by a UNFCCC body to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that excess CERs resulting from deficiencies are compensated.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2016). Recommendations for the review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-CMW_Position_CDM-review_SBI44.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Recommendations for the review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism. 2016. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-CMW_Position_CDM-review_SBI44.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Recommendations for the review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism |date=May 2016 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-CMW_Position_CDM-review_SBI44.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2016recommendations, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Recommendations for the review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2016}, month = may, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FINAL-CMW_Position_CDM-review_SBI44.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }