Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA
Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA
Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
EB Decision<br />
Making and the<br />
Role of COP/MOP<br />
Between the COPs<br />
the Board has a<br />
broad Decision<br />
Making Power<br />
and Discretion<br />
Panels set Basis<br />
for many EB<br />
Decisions<br />
Sometimes, EB<br />
does not follow<br />
Panels<br />
Controversial<br />
Issues referred to<br />
COP<br />
Policies excluded<br />
but Programmes<br />
allowed<br />
2.2 COP/MOP Rules and Guidance and the <strong>CDM</strong> Executive<br />
Board’s Decision Making Power and Discretion<br />
On the basis of COP/MOP decisions the EB has developed detailed rules<br />
and guidance. Frequently, these have been subject to specific guidance of<br />
the COP/MOP. However, COP/MOP only meets once per year and has a full<br />
agenda covering all aspects of the climate policy regime. Therefore, it will not<br />
be able to take many decisions on <strong>CDM</strong> matters. The scarce time requires<br />
concentration on important issues, which will only be reopened by countries<br />
in very important cases. Generally, COP rubber-stamps technical items<br />
submitted by the EB such as the rules of procedure of the EB and small scale<br />
project rules 130 and rules for review of registration and issuance 131 , all three<br />
confirmed by COP 11 132 . This shows a tendency that the COP/MOP is formally<br />
responsible for decisions but decisions are taken by the EB. Some COP/MOP<br />
decisions also take the form of lists of tasks for the EB 133 .<br />
The EB takes discretionary decisions in several formats. The largest share of<br />
decisions is reflected in the EB meeting reports and their annexes. Decisions<br />
that in the past were Appendices to the EB report have been put in the body<br />
of the report (e.g. reasons for reviews and rejections of projects). Moreover,<br />
there exist occasional documents entitled “guidance“.<br />
Generally the EB is reluctant to give extensive and detailed reasons for its<br />
decisions – and does not have a clear doctrine of precedent it is not strictly<br />
bound by previous decisions. There are different views within the board<br />
regarding the relative importance of predictability and certainty, over<br />
discretion and ability to rectify mistakes. Over time, the EB has changed the<br />
formats of decisions.<br />
Changes and reinterpretation of rules have been most frequent where pillars<br />
are ambiguous or outright controversial. This is due to the interaction of<br />
interest groups with the institutions. Moreover, accumulation of practical<br />
experience generates new need for discretion, especially regarding baseline<br />
and monitoring methodologies).<br />
On most issues consensus can be reached fairly fast and within the Panels<br />
and Working Groups, i.e. on lower tiers of institutions. In these cases, the EB<br />
rubber-stamps the panel/working group recommendations.<br />
In a minority of issues, the EB does not agree to the recommendation of the<br />
Panels/Working Groups. Sometimes, they refer the issue back to the Panel,<br />
which had made the recommendation and sometimes the EB takes a decision<br />
without consulting the Panel again.<br />
On some controversial issues, the decision was referred to COP/MOP as the<br />
EB did not reach consensus and did not want to vote. Sometimes even COP/<br />
MOP was not able to take a decision and thus postponed the topic. Such<br />
currently stalled topics are the eligibility of carbon capture and sequestration,<br />
new capacity of HCFC-22 production and of projects reducing the use of<br />
non-renewable biomass in the <strong>CDM</strong>; between 2001 and 2003 it was the<br />
case for afforestation and reforestation.<br />
130<br />
Decision 21/CP.8<br />
131<br />
Decision 18/CP.9<br />
132<br />
Decision 4/CMP.1. A unique exception is the definition of eligibility of land for afforestation and reforestation<br />
which had been decided by EB 22 and EB 26 and where COP/MOP 2 did not support these decisions (1/CMP.2,<br />
para 25).<br />
133<br />
See e.g. decision 1/CMP.2<br />
19