While eyes are set on the design of a flexible mechanism post-2012 during the upcoming COP-15, the Board could already give a spin to the upcoming discussions by eliminating technologies where additionality is highly unlikely from the CDM. In addition to Chinese wind power
download pdf file New Delhi, India. NGOs, activists and citizens are very concerned about the development of the CDM over the past years and condemn its current design. On 16 November 2009, more than 80 representatives of NGOs, activists and citizens of Armenia, Bangladesh,
download pdf file In a collective effort by several Indian NGOs, another important issue of Mausam – meaning ‘climate’ in Hindi – was published in September 2009. With the aim to initiate persistent and critical dialogues in ‘public space’ on the capitalism-induced climate change
Again on CDM Watch’s agenda for the fourth consecutive Newsletter is the issue of HFC-23 methodology AM0001. The Swiss non-governmental organization Noe21 submitted a request for revision of the methodology AM0001 for HFC-23 destruction to the Board in December 2007. The revision request aims
One fundamental flaw with the CDM is the need to prove the additionality of each project. A project is additional if it was built only because of the extra income from selling CERs – meaning that the project would not have happened if there
The Board will decide upon revised methodology AM0023 concerning leak reduction from natural gas pipeline compressor or gate stations. The revision would expand the permitted techniques to measure the flow of gas leaks in natural gas transmission and distribution systems to two more techniques:
The EB will again tackle the assessment of additionality at its next meeting and will in particular discuss draft guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers. A barrier analysis requires demonstrating that barriers exist that would prevent the proposed project from being carried
A project activity is assumed to be additional if no similar project has been implemented previously in a certain geographical area. If a project activity is “first-of-its- kind”, no additional assessment steps are undertaken to confirm additionality.
During the next meeting, the Board will consider the “concept of materiality”, which would limit the liability of DOEs for errors in checking data in PDDs and accompanying documents. In theory, DOEs are held responsible for any CER which may be inappropriately issued. In
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
