This session was moderated by Malin Ahlberg, German Emissions Trading Authority. Panelists discussed the design of emissions trading systems in Australia, California, Japan and South Korea, paying particular attention to their interactions and learning from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) process.

Aki Kachi, Adelphi, highlighted the political context in each of the emissions trading jurisdictions to assess the extent to which they serve as critiques of the CDM and, in turn, how these findings could be used to inform the CDM reform process.

Wolfgang Sterk, Wuppertal Institute, noted: a common shift away from the CDM approach of determining additionality rules; attempts to develop standardized baselines including monitoring and issuance; and differences in determination of eligibility of emissions reductions units.

Responding to a question regarding the development of Japan’s Joint Crediting Mechanism as a single national offset standard, discussant Naoyuki Yamagishi, WWF Japan, expressed support for making additionality testing more objective.

Pedro Martins Barata, Get2C, identified credibility of the system and stability of rules as areas where CDM governance could be improved. He said a common standard in the future would be useful but not necessary.

Stephan Hoch, Perspectives, noted the static nature of the CDM and underscored the safety role played by the CDM Executive Board (EB) to ensure environmental integrity.

Participants discussed challenges of: multiple standards in a single jurisdiction; calculation and communication of net mitigation as a sign of environmental effectiveness; and developments in the Chinese emissions trading pilot programmes.

This side event, moderated by Werner Betzenbichler, DOE/AIE Forum, brought together speakers associated with various institutions of the CDM system. Panelists discussed the roles existing CDM-related institutions could play in the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and the New Market Mechanisms (NMMs), which are currently being discussed in the negotiations.

Massamba Thioye, UNFCCC Secretariat, foresaw the Secretariat’s role changing from that of verifying compliance of project level actions to that of mitigation actions, more broadly.

Rainer Winter, TÜV Nord, proposed one centralized accreditation system or an approach similar to the International Standards Organization (ISO) rules on validation and verification to ensure equal treatment under common rules for actions that can be undertaken under FVA or NMMs.

Noting possibility of using the CDM as a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) mechanism, Sven Kolmetz, PD Forum, stressed the need for ambitious targets to create demand that can use the existing infrastructure.

Recalling experience from Joint Implementation (JI), Eva Filzmoser, Carbon Market Watch, called for greater checks and balances to ensure both environmental integrity and economic efficiency of market mechanisms.

Nick Campbell, BUSINESSEUROPE, suggested focusing the discussion on fitting the CDM in the FVA as a pilot. He noted the lack of enthusiasm for a pilot phase of NMMs.

Participants discussed: the need to bring the private sector into the discussion; the importance of forming a centralized agency to ensure environmental integrity; and how a review of the CDM Modalities and Procedures could inform the general discussion. They agreed that despite the CDM’s many imperfections, it could still be improved upon for the new mechanisms.

This side event, moderated by Ania Grobicki, GWP Executive Secretary, presented innovative approaches to water management that help countries adapt to climate change through increased investments in water security.

In her opening remarks, Ursula Schaefer-Preuss, GWP Chair, stressed the opportunity offered by water to enhance coherence on adaptation under the UNFCCC, saying that water is to adaptation what energy is for mitigation efforts.

Fred Kossam, Malawi, outlined the evolution of adaptation issues in the UNFCCC process up through the establishment of the Adaptation Committee. He highlighted five clusters of issues under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, including: implementation; support; institutions; principles; and stakeholder engagement.

Richard Sherman, South Africa, provided an overview of the perspectives of the Africa Climate Finance Group on adaptation issues and identified ways to make progress on adaptation finance. Stressing the need to elevate adaptation finance, he emphasized the importance of maximizing complementarity of existing funds and the need for capacity building and institutional support.

Alex Simalabwi, GWP, presented GWP’s response to the challenge of adaptation through their Water and Climate Programme. He indicated that the low absorption capacity affects progress due to inefficiencies in national planning systems and delays in disbursements, and that there is an inadequate institutional capacity and lack of coherence across sectoral ministries on adaptation in many developing countries. He concluded by stressing the need to: link adaptation efforts to investment planning towards climate resilient development; adopt bottom-up and top-down approaches for promoting coherence on adaptation; and capitalize on National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) opportunities to promote coherence at all levels.

Robert Van Lierop, SBI Vice Chair, noted lack of attention to water and energy, saying they are missing from the UNFCCC formula. He said water should be a part of discussions on adaptation, and included in NAPs.

During discussions, participants assessed: the challenge of political turnover, which reduces institutional memory; elements that will allow river basin organizations (RBOs) to qualify as implementing entities under the Green Climate Fund (GCF); climate resilient infrastructure; and the impact of population on water demand.

The session discussed concerns raised about human rights abuses associated with CDM projects, and addressed the establishment of institutional safeguards for the CDM to protect the rights of affected communities, effectively prevent social and environmental harms, and promote sustainable development. This event was moderated by Eva Filzmoser, Carbon Market Watch.

Wolfgang Sterk, Wuppertal Institute, noted that human rights are not currently mentioned in the CDM documents, and that the only human rights anchor under the CDM is the obligation to consult stakeholders. He concluded that the criteria for this obligation is set by individual States and that in most cases it remains weak. He highlighted cases of human rights violations at the biogas plant in Bajo Aguan, Honduras, and how safeguards put in place by international donors have prevented human rights violations in Olkaria, Kenya.

Speaking of her personal experience as a member of the Ngäbe Indigenous Peoples community, Weni Bagama, Panama, presented the case of Barro Blanco, a CDM hydroelectric dam project in Panama, and the struggle of her organization, the M-10 Movement of the Tabasara River, to fight against this project.

Oscar Sogandares, Environmental Association of Chiriquí, Panama, explained his grassroots organization’s involvement in the fight against the Barro Blanco project. Stressing the social aspect and the lack of consultation, he said the project required free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by the Ngäbe community, according to the international conventions signed by Panama.

Recalling that the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will decide on revised CDM Modalities and Procedures at COP 19 in Warsaw, Alyssa Johl, CIEL, presented views and recommendations by Parties and observer organizations resulting from an in-session workshop conducted to inform that decision, held on 8-9 June 2013, in Bonn, such as: establishing international safeguards to protect human rights; strengthening stakeholder consultation requirements; and establishing a grievance process that allows affected peoples and communities to raise concerns about harms associated with CDM projects.

In the ensuing discussions, participants questioned, among others: the UNFCCC Secretariat’s role and capacity in promoting human rights; the need to balance overburdening CDM projects and human rights protection; potential of incorporation of human rights in the CDM appeals process; and examples from the Californian offset mechanism.