Burton, A. (2007) Ensuring Sustainability of Clean Development Mechanism Projects for Global Sustainable Development. Presented at the IEMA Environmental Knowledge Exchange, Manchester. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iema.net%2Fstream.php%2Fdownload%2Fevents%2Fnorthwest%2F20071107%2FA.Burton.pdf&rct=j&q=aaron%20burton%20iema&ei=eJC9TeG_OIKLhQfUtqnPBQ&usg=AFQjCNFoh1EEmzEks-iMv3gZbtSV6NlmGw

1. Ensuring Sustainability of Clean
Development Mechanism Projects for
Global Sustainable Development
Aaron Burton

2. Outline
• Introduction
• CDM Beginnings and Definition
• Sustainability of the CDM process –
framework issues
• Evaluation of CDM Decision-Making
methods
• Conclusions and further research

3. Introduction
• Climate change is a large multi-actor problem
• Kyoto protocol represents cooperation between
these levels
• Intrinsic links between climate change and
sustainable development
• Research undertaken in 2006 with Murdoch
University ISTP combined with a World Bank
consultancy project in Bangladesh
– Can a CDM project in poultry waste management
achieve sustainability outcomes in practice?

4. Climate Impacts
- Developing Countries

5. CDM Beginnings
• UNFCCC negotiations recognised cost-
effective mitigation strategies for reducing
GHG
– Legally non binding pledge to reduce
emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 (Rio 1992)
• Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997 to achieve
a stabilisation and begin to address global
climate change
– Reduction by 5% compared to 1990 levels by
2008-12 for Annex-1 countries

6. CDM Beginnings 2
• Kyoto Protocol ratified 16/02/2005
• Several flexible market based mechanism
introduced in recognition of enormous cost
of emission reductions
• Common Targets (“Bubbles”)
• Emission Trade
• Joint Implementation
• Clean Development Mechanism

7. Clean Development
Mechanism - Defined
• Dual objectives
– assisting developing countries to achieve
sustainable development
– provide cost-effective emission reduction for
industrialised countries
The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to
assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable
development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the
Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving
compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitments under Article 3.

8. CDM
vs Typical Investment

9. CDM Projects

10. CDM Issues
• Not setting criteria – no limits to achievement
• However, lack of a minimal standard
– High SD value projects being priced out by more cost-
effective projects with lower SD benefits
• Competition between non Annex-1 countries
resulting in setting low sustainable development
standards
• Sovereignty issues
“it is the host Party’s prerogative to confirm whether a clean
development mechanism project assists it in achieving sustainable
development but it is the host country prerogative to decide the
sustainable issue”.

11. Impacts
• Governments knowingly/ unknowingly accepting
projects with negative effects due to no
assessment
• Lack of institutional capacity and little guidance
• Missing EIA legislation and weak practice EIA in
developing countries
• Direct impacts
– Intergenerational equity of selling cheap GHG control
options leaving only the more expensive options for
future generations

12. Sustainability Assessment
Balancing the dual objectives
Therefore,
Sustainability assessment is required to
ensure sustainability outcomes for the host
country and to further global sustainable
development

13. CDM Process

14. Best Practice SA
• Best practice sustainability assessment is
required to ensure the dual objectives are
met
• Sustainability decision making methods
were evaluated according to best practice
– Methods described
– Evaluated according to 3 criteria
– Findings summarised

15. Methods Reviewed
MCA Ranking Other
Stakeholder analysis and World Bank PCF Method (Huq Multidimensional qualitative
MCA (Brown et al. 2004) 2002) analysis in Brazil (Motta,
MATA-CDM/ Sustainability Synergy Method (SYNERGY Srivastava, and Markandya
Check-up (Sutter and 2004) 2002)
Parreno 2005; Burian SouthSouthNorth Matrix Checks as part of validation.
2006) Approach (Thorne and
MCA Egypt (Olhoff et al. 2004) Raubenheimer 2002;
Burian 2006)
WWF Gold Standard (Burian
2006)
Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in India (Motta,
Srivastava, and Markandya
2002)
Matrix and Screens by
Bangladesh DNA (Waste
Concern 2005)

16. Evaluation
Dimensions
Best
Practice
Assessment
Efficiency
Process
Indicators

17. Evaluation
- Assessment Process
Criteria Importance/ Relevance
Does the assessment guarantee Important to ensure the quality of the
valid results? decision making method. Important for
validity, verification and withstanding third-
party scrutiny.
Is there adequate scoping Assessment of alternatives for similar
(assessment of reasonable purposes and their relative outcomes
alternatives and possible enables choice of the best option.
cumulative effects)? Cumulative effects of proposed or
operating projects must be accounted for in
assessment.
Is this scoping transparent and Scoping needs to be based on stakeholder
inclusive of stakeholder views? views to meet local concerns or
requirements.
Is there attention paid to long-term Project construction, operation and
whole of project life factors? decommissioning needs to be considered
for all social, economic and environmental
impacts.
Does the method provide for a This is essential in providing information to
systematic ranking or scoring of the decision maker for evaluation. The
projects? transparency of the methods as shown in
these results is also important.

18. Evaluation
- Indicators
• Examples
– Have indicators been developed with public
participation?
– Are indicators useful for a broader sustainability
agenda (information for regional, national and
international frameworks)?
– Are technological indicators included separately?
– Is data available and for what cost?
– Are indicators applicable only to specific sectors?
– Do indicators ensure positive outcome rather than
focussing on prevention of negative outcomes

19. Evaluation
- Efficiency
Criteria Importance/ Relevance
Does the assessment CDM rules cover areas
cover area already part of additionality, project
of the CDM rules and areas and other factors.
assessment process?

20. Best Practice
Decision Making
• MCA most appropriate for formal
assessment of CDM
• Ranking methods suitable for initial
assessment at PIN/PCN level
• Indicators too sector specific
• Public participation is essential
• Need linkages beyond assessment

21. Conclusions
• CDM has the potential to be a powerful tool for
sustainable development and emissions
reductions
• Potential issues with cost-effective favoured over
highly sustainable projects
• Many SA methods applied but no standard or
best practice
• MCA identified as best for formal assessment
• Subsequent best practice method developed
and applied to a Bangladesh poultry waste case
study

22. Thank You
Questions….
For more information:
Email: aaronhburton@yahoo.co.uk
Mob: 07704351399