Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

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