Search Climate Insights Directory

CDM Watch asserts that the CDM Executive Board must integrate human rights considerations into its project selection and review processes, citing the UN Charter and the Cancun Agreements. The organization criticizes the Board for registering projects in 2011 despite evidence of human rights abuses and advocates for the creation of a grievance mechanism to provide remedies for affected people.

CDM Watch supports the existence of materiality standards to avoid excessive auditing costs and protect small, truly additional projects. However, it contends that the thresholds established at COP17 in December 2011 are too lenient and risk compromising environmental integrity. These thresholds range from 0.5% for projects exceeding 500,000 offsets per year to 10% for micro-scale project activities.

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has failed its dual goals of reducing emissions and promoting sustainable development. It highlights that 40-70% of projects are non-additional, meaning they would have occurred without CDM registration, and that many projects cause social and environmental harm. The signatories call for the exclusion of fossil fuel and large hydro projects, the implementation of 'do no harm' assessments, and the creation of meaningful public participation and grievance mechanisms.

The document expresses concerns that carbon credit offsets within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) and the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) undermine domestic emission reductions. It specifically calls for Portugal to prohibit offsets from industrial HFC-23 and N2O emissions, coal-fired power plants in developing countries, large-scale hydropower projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Phase I Joint Implementation (JI) projects due to lack of environmental integrity and transparency.

The letter expresses concern that carbon offsets are undermining EU climate goals by stifling domestic emission reductions and supporting projects that lack environmental integrity. It specifically highlights the negative impacts of coal-fired power plants and large hydro projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as the lack of transparency in Track 1 Joint Implementation (JI).

The letter expresses concern that 555 million carbon offset credits were surrendered into the EU ETS between 2008 and 2011, costing an estimated €5.9bn. The signatories argue that offsets stifle domestic reductions, support business-as-usual coal and large hydro projects in the CDM, and allow for 'hot-air laundering' through Track 1 Joint Implementation.

Carbon Market Watch outlines its priorities for the high-level panel reviewing the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), emphasizing the need for the panel to assess the mechanism's impact on mitigation and sustainable development, ensure environmental integrity among co-existing market mechanisms, and improve stakeholder involvement.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the proposed revisions to the CDM coal crediting methodology (ACM0013), stating that they do not sufficiently address technical flaws such as data quality and project emissions. The organization warns that 45 coal projects in the pipeline, primarily in India and China, risk locking in over 400 million tCO2 in annual emissions, which contradicts the 2°C warming objective. It specifically highlights that six already registered projects will bypass the new rules and could generate 89 million credits based on a flawed methodology.

The document contends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) fails to ensure environmental integrity in the waste sector, creating perverse incentives that prioritize waste disposal over recycling and composting. It highlights the displacement of informal waste pickers, the issuance of carbon credits for 'business-as-usual' projects that lack additionality, and the failure of landfill gas capture systems to prevent significant methane leakage. Specific examples include the Timarpur-Okhla plant in Delhi, the Bisasar landfill in Durban, and incinerators in China.

The statement details the social, environmental, and human rights conflicts surrounding the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama. It highlights the resistance of the Ngäbe Bugle indigenous people, the failure of stakeholder consultations, and the ecological risks to the Tabasará River, while criticizing the project's approval under the UN's CDM offsetting scheme.

The document examines the 2011 Indonesian forest moratorium, highlighting its role in improving data transparency through the Indicative Moratorium Map and the necessity of private sector buy-in. It identifies critical challenges in monitoring, enforcement, and vertical coordination between national and local governments, while suggesting that the moratorium period be used to reform licensing and spatial planning to balance economic growth with climate goals.

The policy paper advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance, emphasizing that mitigation and adaptation measures must not violate human rights. It evaluates existing mechanisms—the Global Environment Facility (GEF), REDD+, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)—finding that while some integrate social safeguards, others lack transparency and accountability. The authors propose a comprehensive institutional safeguard system for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), including mandatory social and environmental policies, independent monitoring, and a robust grievance mechanism based on international standards.

A joint submission by the Human Rights & Climate Change Working Group and various NGOs calling for the CDM to establish institutional safeguards, strengthen civil society participation, and create grievance mechanisms to address human rights violations associated with carbon offset projects.

The 66th CDM Executive Board meeting established the 2012-2013 business plan and the 2012 Management Plan, which includes a commitment to assess improvements for demonstrating additionality in large-scale projects. The Board is transitioning to a risk-based approach for project registration to handle an expected surge in applications before 2012 year-end EU restrictions. Other key developments include the creation of a permanent working group for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and ongoing debates regarding perverse incentives in nitric acid N2O abatement methodologies. Carbon Market Watch expressed concern over the risk-based approach and the lack of Board discussion regarding the price collapse of EU-ETS allowances and CDM credits.

The document asserts that market-based mechanisms are insufficient on their own to finance necessary emission reductions and must be supported by public finance to build capacity and governance. It argues that international credits should not compete with domestic mitigation efforts in developing countries, nor should they replace domestic action in developed countries. Finally, it suggests that any new framework should be informed by the experiences of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS).

The document analyzes the results of the COP17 Durban Platform, highlighting the role of Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries in bridging gaps between developed and developing nations. It argues that LAC countries should leverage their 'creative diversity' and track record of voluntary emission reductions to lead a high-ambition coalition with Africa and Asia. Key recommendations include strengthening a political narrative that decouples development from emissions growth, improving communication of domestic low-carbon successes, and scaling up adaptation and resilience planning to protect vulnerable infrastructure and food security.

The document critiques the application of carbon trading in Africa, asserting that the continent remains marginal to the global market. It highlights how the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) creates perverse incentives, such as rewarding illegal gas flaring in Nigeria or subsidising fossil fuel dependence, while providing minimal financial benefit to local communities. The author argues that carbon offsets act as an 'avoided responsibility mechanism' for the global North and recommends shifting toward more just forms of climate finance.

The briefing examines the funding gap for climate change in the global South, specifically Africa, where adaptation costs are projected to reach $30 to $60 billion annually by 2030. It evaluates several funding mechanisms—including direct budgetary contributions, shipping and aviation levies, financial transaction taxes, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies, and carbon taxes—against criteria for fairness, such as adequacy, predictability, and transparency. The document argues that public funding must be prioritized over private finance and carbon markets, which it claims are often biased toward profitable mitigation projects in middle-income countries and fail to provide meaningful support to the poorest African regions.

Carbon Market Watch urges the CDM Executive Board to reform additionality requirements, shorten crediting periods, and mandate human rights compliance. The organization recommends establishing global sustainability standards, improving civil society participation through grievance mechanisms, reforming the appointment and payment of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), and implementing a strict code of conduct for the Executive Board to prevent conflicts of interest.

The document advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance to prevent social and environmental harm and promote sustainable development. It evaluates the Global Environment Facility (GEF), REDD+ initiatives, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), finding that while some have integrated safeguards, others lack transparency and accountability. The report concludes with detailed recommendations for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), emphasizing the need for international safeguard policies, robust monitoring systems, a formal grievance mechanism, and meaningful civil society participation.