The Future of the Clean Development Mechanism. Note on the report “A Call to Action” of the High-Level Panel on CDM Policy Dialogue. CEPS Special Report No. 71, 20 November 2012

The clean development mechanism (CDM) has been through a long and complex growing process since it was approved as part of the Kyoto Protocol. It was designed within the framework of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and reflected the political and economic realities of that time. To ensure its continued effectiveness in contributing to future global climate action and to reflect on how best to position the CDM to respond to future challenges, a high-level panel (HLP) was formed at the Durban climate change conference in 2011. Following extensive consultations, the panel published its report in September 2012. Through this Special Report, the CEPS Carbon Market Forum offers its reflections on findings and recommendations of the HLP, as well as, by extension, its own views on the future of the CDM. In the context of the latter, it explores the following questions: Is there a need for an instrument such as the CDM in the future? What ‘demand’ can it fill? In the roles identified under the first question, what can be done to adapt it and also continue to increase its efficacy?

Carbon Market Opportunities in Southern Mediterranean Countries. MEDPRO Technical Report No. 8/March 2012

To date, Southern Mediterranean countries have hosted a limited number of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). There are three challenges to the participation of middleincome countries in future carbon markets: the limited size of future demand for offsets or credits; restrictions on the use of CDM credits in Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme; and the lack of prompt preparation for the start of new market-based mechanisms. This study examines existing and emerging activities in Southern Mediterranean countries that could fit into new market based mechanisms. It explores options for the evolution of mechanisms and discusses the merits of post-2012 carbon funds in bridging the gap between the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the entry into force of a new international agreement.

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE WTO: INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND ADAPTATION. CEPS Policy Brief No. 28/December

Overview. Questions about the interface between the multilateral climate regime embodied in the Kyoto Protocol and the multilateral trade regime embodied in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have become especially timely since the fall of 2001. At that time, ministerial-level meetings in Marrakech and Doha agreed to advance the agendas, respectively, for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and for negotiations on further agreements at the WTO. There have been concerns that each of these multilateral arrangements could constrain the effectiveness of the other, and these concerns will become more salient with the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. There are questions about whether and how the rights and obligations of the members of the WTO and the parties to the Protocol may conflict. Of particular concern is whether provisions in the Protocol, as well as government policies and business activities undertaken in keeping with those provisions, may conflict with the WTO non-discrimination principles of national treatment and most-favoured nation treatment. The WTO agreements that are potentially relevant to climate change issues include many of the individual Uruguay Round agreements and subsequent agreements as well. The principal elements of the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly relevant are its provisions concerning emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, enforcement, and parties’ policies and measures. In combination, therefore, there are numerous potential points of intersection between the elements of the Kyoto Protocol and the WTO agreements. Previous studies have clarified many issues, as they have focused on particular aspects of the regimes’ relationships. Yet, some analyses suggest that the two regimes are largely compatible and even mutually reinforcing, while others suggest that there are significant conflicts between them. Those and other studies are referenced in the ‘suggestions for further reading’ section at the end of the paper.1 The present paper seeks to expand on those studies by providing additional breadth and depth to understanding of the issues. The analysis gives special attention to key issues on the agenda – i.e. issues that are particularly problematic because of the likelihood of occurrence of specific conflicts and the significance of their economic and/or political consequences. The paper adopts a modified ‘triage’ approach, which classifies points of intersection as (a) highly problematic and clearly in need of further attention, (b) perhaps problematic but less urgent, and (c) apparently not problematic, at least at this point in time. The principal conclusions are that: · The missions and objectives of the two regimes are largely compatible, and their operations are potentially mutually reinforcing in several respects. · Some provisions of the multilateral agreements that may superficially seem at odds are not likely to become particularly problematic in practice. · ‘Domestic policies and measures’ that governments may undertake in the context of the Protocol could pose difficult issues in the context of WTO dispute cases. · Recent WTO agreements and dispute cases acknowledge the legitimacy of the ‘precautionary principle’ and are thus consistent with the environmental protection objectives of the Protocol. · The relative newness of the climate regime creates opportunities for institutional adaptation, as compared with the constraints of tradition in the trade-investment regime. · The prospect of largely independent evolutionary paths for the two regimes poses a series of issues about future international regime design and management, which may require new institutional arrangements. In sum, the present paper thus finds that although there are some areas of interaction that are problematic, the two regimes may nevertheless co-exist in relative harmony in other respects –more like ‘neighbours’ than either ‘friends’ or ‘foes’, as Krist (2001) has suggested.