CDM Rule-setting and Sustainable Development: An Analysis from Partnerships Approach

Abstract

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has dual objectives-to assist developed countries in achieving compliance with their quantified emission reduction targets, and to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development. CDM has successfully made a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gases (GHG), but most of the current projects are failing to promote local sustainable development at the desired level. The purpose of this article is to point out problems that lie in the decision-making process of CDM rules. It analyses how the notion of “sustainable development” was treated in CDM rule-setting at the international level. In addition, it looks at whether developing countries’ voices were properly reflected in the rules. These aspects are analysed by the partnerships approach, specifically focusing on each actor’s participation and discursive practice.

The analysis shows significant evidence that the notion of sustainability and the voices of developing countries and their local communities were not reflected properly in the CDM rule-making process. First, the COP7 decision allowing every developing country to set up sustainable development criteria based on its own preferences has in practice resulted in the CDM Executive Board (EB) being able to make CDM rules only in terms of GHG mitigation. Thus, the COP decision automatically marginalised the notion of sustainable development from CDM rule-setting discussion at the international level. Second, the rule that the EB members represent the regional groups that they belong to is not put into practice. Members develop rules in such a way as to represent their own countries’ interests. This means that the EB members from countries that have a high potential of implementing CDM projects have a stronger influence over the rule-setting process. In addition, no EB member was elected from environment or development NGOs that consider CDM to be an opportunity for sustainable development; members instead see it as a chance for GHG mitigation. Third, although NGOs succeeded in affecting political agreements, they were unable to make full use of opportunities to criticise technical agreements, which were mainly proposed by the private business sector.