Day 2 CDM Plenary

The second plenary session on the CDM made interesting watching with developing nations nations lining up to argue that the CDM is great but that it can only exist with a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol.  These nations included Congo (on behalf of the African Group), Venezuela, Ecuador, Jamacia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Peru, Benin, Ghana, Algeria and Kenya all arguing such.

I don’t know if this is anything other than a case of “no, you do it, but we still want the money” by the developing world.  I’m not saying that’s a problem.  The principle of common but differentiated responsibility is absolutely central to this process. 

The biggest applause of the session was for the final speaker – from an NGO whose name I didn’t catch who said:

• ·         CDM projects causing human rights violations in many poor nations.

• ·         Especially against indigenous people.

• ·         There are projects that have been found to be using illegal seized land.

• ·         In both these cases the CDM board says it has no mandate to address human rights, the responsibility lies with the host country.

• ·         Human rights are important in all climate change action though.

• ·         When confronted with these reports, the CDM board stated that its mandate did not allow it to decertify projects based on these reports.  As such the mandate of the CDM board must be reassessed to include this in its assessment of projects.

• ·         Regardless of the KP2 or CDM negotiations, the CDM must remedy its technology bias and protect the rights of affected communities.

That was a fascinating and cutting rebuke of the CDM.  I would dearly like to know who it was applauding - if it was the developing nations I mentioned above it suggests they are aware of these issues and want action on them but are more concerned with receiving the funding from the CDM.