ieta sbi submission on cdm appeals

8/7/2019 IETA SBI Submission on CDM Appeals

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ieta-sbi-submission-on-cdm-appeals 1/10

Page |1 IETA–CLIMATECHALLENGES,MARKETSOLUTIONS www.ieta.org

Geneva24rueMerled’Aubigné

1207Geneva,Switzerland

Tel:+41.22.737.05.00

Washington1730RhodeIslandAve.NW

Washington,DC20036,USA

Tel:+1.202.629.5980

BrusselsBoite27,RuedelaLoi235

1040Brussels,Belgium

Tel:+32(0)22.30.11.60

Toronto100KingSt.West,Suite5700

Toronto,OntarioM5X1C7,Canada

Tel:+1.416.913.0135

Subject:IETASubmissiontoSBIontheDevelopmentofanAppealsMechanismfortheCDM

28March2011

UNFCCCSecretariat

Martin-Luther-King-Strasse8D53153Bonn

Germany

DearMr.Owen-Jones,

IETA is writing to you in response to the call for input in Guidancerelating to theClean Development

MechanismfromCMP6requestingviewsonprocedures,mechanismsandinstitutionalarrangementsunder

theCOPtoallowforappealsagainstExecutiveBoarddecisionsbasedondecision2/CMP.5,para42,taking

intoaccounttherecommendationsoftheEBcontainedinannex2toitsannualreport.Youwillfindbelow

IETA’sviewsontwomajorelementsofanappealsmechanism:(1)themake-upoftheappellatebodyand

(2)rulesofprocedurefortheappealsmechanism.

TheAppellateBody

Identity,sourceandcompositionoftheAppellateBody(AB)

o The appellate body should be a newly established roster of at least 30 and no more than 40

members who meet the terms of reference established by the CMP (see below). The

appropriatenessofthese numbers should bereviewed a year aftertheABis created and ona

regularbasisthereafter.o ItshouldbeestablishedbyadecisionoftheCMP.

o TheCDMExecutiveBoardshouldmanagetheselectionprocessformembersoftheappellatebody,

basedontheTermsofReferenceestablishedbytheCMP.

o AgeneralcallforapplicantsshouldbeissuedbytheCDMExecutiveBoardtowhichanyindividual

whomeetstherequiredprofessionalcriteriashouldbeeligibletoapply.

o Thecallforapplicantsshouldremainopenuntilapanelof30membershasbeenfilled.Thereview

of the applications should bemade on a first-come-first-reviewed basis until the maximum is

reached.

o Ifatanypointtheappellatebodyfallsbelow30members,duetotermcompletionorvoluntary

withdrawal,anewcallforapplicantsshouldbeissuedbytheCDMExecutiveBoard.

ReportingandGovernanceo TheABshouldreporttotheCMPonayearlybasis.

o TheABshouldmeettwiceayear(atSBI/SBSTAandCOP/MOP)asagrouptoreviewexperience

andtodeveloptheyearlygeneralreporttotheCMP,whichshouldaddress,interalia,theneedto

adjusttheproceduresoftheappellatebody,thenumberofappellatebodymembersandappellate

panelmembers,andtheappropriatenessofthefilingfee.



28March2011

IETAresponsetoCallforInputonAppealsMechanismforCDM

Page |2 IETA–MAKINGMARKETSWORKFORTHEENVIRONMENT

Geneva–Washington–Brussels–Ottawa

www.ieta.org

o Atitsfirstmeeting,theABshouldself-selectCo-ChairstoserveasCMPrapporteur,workwiththe

UNFCCCSecretariattocoordinatethecaseassignmentsofABmembers,andgenerallycoordinate

theworkingsoftheAB.

o ThemeetingsandtheongoingoperationoftheABshouldbefacilitatedbytheUNFCCCsecretariat.

TheRosterofMembers

o Appellatebodymembersshouldserveforatermof4years.Halfoftheinitialmembersshouldservefor6yearsinordertostaggertheendoftermdatesforthefirstroundofmembers.

o ABmembersshouldnotbeabletobere-nominated.

o The authority to dismiss ABmembers should remain with the CMP. The CDM Executive Board

shouldhavenoauthoritytodismissABmembers.

o Groundsfordismissal:ABmembersshouldonlybedismissedforgrossdisregardoftheirdutiesas

set out in the terms of reference; on grounds of personal misconduct, including bias, fraud,

undeclaredconflictofinterests,ormisappropriationoffunds.(WesuggestreferencingChapter10

oftheUNStaffRulesonmisconductandseriousmisconduct).

o Temporarysuspension:Intheeventthata2/3majorityofEBmembersrequestsuspensionofan

ABmemberfortheabove-notedreasons,themembershouldbetemporarilysuspendedandthe

issueshouldbeplacedontheagendaofthenextCMPmeeting.Ahearingshouldbescheduledat

that meeting of the CMP to determine whether or not the member should be dismissed.

(Proceduresforthishearingwillneedtobedeveloped.)

Selectionforspecificcases

o A groupof 3members from the appellatebody roster shall be chosen at random to sit as the

appellatepanelforeachappeal.TheselectionshouldbemanagedbytheABCo-Chairs,withthe

assistanceoftheUNFCCCSecretariat.Theappropriatenessofthesizeoftheappellatepanelsshould

bereviewedayearaftertheABiscreatedandonaregularbasisthereafter.

o NeithertheCDMExecutiveBoardnortheSecretariatshouldhavetheabilitytodeterminewhich

membershearwhichappeal.

o The eligibilityof appellate bodymembers tohear each appeal shall not bedeterminedby their

particularqualifications.Eachmemberoftherostershallbedeemedequallyfittoheareachappeal. o ABmembersshouldberequiredtorecusethemselvesfromanycaseforwhichtheyhaveaconflict

ofinterest.Inthisevent,anewABmembershouldbeselectedatrandomtoreplacethatmember.

Costs

o ThecostsforthefirstyearassociatedwiththeAB,includingsecretariatcosts,shouldbetakenfrom

thegeneralCDMbudget.

o TheABshouldaimtobeself-financingfromitssecondyearofoperationandshouldadjustitsfiling

feestoensureitsself-sufficiency.

Termsofreference

*Themaingoalofthetermsofreferenceshouldbetoensurethattheappellatebody,initscase-by-case

decision-making,isentirelyindependentfromtheCDMExecutiveBoardandSecretariat.

Appellatebodymembersshouldmeetthefollowingcriteria:

1. Appellatebodymembersmaynothaveservedinanyofthefollowingcapacitiesfor18monthspriorto

applyingforapositionasanappellatebodymember:

• AsaCDMExecutiveBoardmember



28March2011




www.ieta.org

• AsaUNFCCCemployeeorcontractor• AsamemberofagovernmentdelegationtotheUNFCCCnegotiations

2. Appellatebodymembersmaynotserveinanyofthefollowingcapacitiesfor12monthsafterservingasanappellatebodymember:

§ AsaCDMExecutiveBoardmember§ AsaUNFCCCemployeeorcontractor

3. Appellatebodymembersshouldmeetthefollowingqualifications:• Membersshouldhaveatleast10yearsofpostqualificationlegaland/orregulatoryexperienceat

theinternational,national,and/orlocallevels.

• Members should be selectedon the basisof theirability todeal thoroughly and fairly with the

requests brought to them; their integrity and their independence from the CDM governance

structure;andtheirlackofanyfiduciarybenefitfromcasesoverwhichtheypreside.

• Membersshouldmaintainahighreputationduringtheirserviceandbehaveinawaythatwillnot

impairtheirindependenceortheindependenceoftheAB.

• CandidateswithgeneralknowledgeoftheCDManditsprocessesshouldbepreferred.

RulesofProcedurefortheAppellateBody

Thefollowingcommentsreferto thedraftrulesofprocedurefoundinAnnexIItotheCDMEBReportto

CMP 16 and follow the pattern of numbering utilized in that document. Each section contains IETA’s

suggestedchanges,ifany.

III.Stakeholdersallowedtoappeal

IV.Groundforfilinganappeal

Para 6 of the draftproceduresprovides for anappeal against an EBdecision rejecting or requiring an

alterationofarequestforregistrationorissuance.

Para7ofthedraftprocedureprovidesforappealinthefollowingcases:

A. Foranappealbasedonfactualgrounds,allofthefollowingelementsmustbepresentandargued:a. Thattherulingcontainedaclearlyerroneousfindingoffactorsetoffact,and/ordidnot

IETAagreeswiththelimitationscurrentplacedonstakeholdersallowedtoappealanddoesnot

suggestanychanges.

WhileIETArecognizesthattheCMPGuidancerelatingtotheCDMfromCMP5inCopenhagenlimits

theEBtothesenarrowparameters,IETAwouldliketoflagthat,inthefuture,itmaybeusefulto

widenthe scopeof appealsto include appeals against otherformsof decisions takenby the EB,

includingbutnotlimitedtorejectionsorrevisionsofmethodologiesandclarificationsissuedbytheEB.



28March2011




www.ieta.org

considerafact,orsetoffacts;

b. Thatthefact,orsetoffacts,wassufficientlyvalidatedorverifiedaspartoftheRecordofthe

requestforregistration/issuance;

c. Thatthefact,orsetoffacts,ifcorrectedorconsidered,wouldnothaveresultedintheruling

thatrejectedorrequiredanalterationtotherequestforregistrationorissuance.

Para8oftheofthedraftprocedurestipulatesthefollowing:

8. ForanappealgroundedontheinterpretationorapplicationofoneormoreoftheCDMrules

andrequirements,allofthefollowingelementsmustbepresentandargued:a. EB decision contained unreasonable interpretation or application of CDMRule(s) or

requirementsinlightoftextofCDMrulesandrequirementsandpastjudgmentsofthe

appellatebody;

b. ThattheCDMrulesandrequirements,if interpretedor applieddifferently,wouldnot

have resulted inthe ruling that rejectedor requiredanalterationto the request for

registrationorissuance.

Para9oftheofthedraftprocedurestipulatesthefollowing:

9. For anappeal basedon the grounds that the reconsidered ruling of the Executive Board is

IETAproposesmakingthefollowingchangestothissection:

• Altering(c)abovetothefollowing:“Thatitwouldbereasonabletoassumethatthefact,orsetoffacts,ifcorrectedorconsidered,wouldnothaveresultedintherulingthatrejectedorrequired

analterationtotherequestforregistrationorissuance.”

• Definingtheterm“reasonable”asmeaningthat“asimilardecision-maker,facedwithasimilarsetofinformationandfacts,wouldbeexpectedtomakethesamedecision.”


• Expanding 8(a) to include “Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and the Modalities and Procedures of

the Clean Development Mechanism as laid out in the Marrakech Accords, and any further decisions

or clarification made to them by the CMP or by the EB under the direction of the CMP.” • Alsoexpanding8(a)toinclude“pastjudgmentsoftheCDMExecutiveBoard.”

• Defining the term “unreasonable” as meaning that “a similar decision-maker, faced with a similar set

of information and facts, would not be expected to make the same decision.”

• Defining“rulesandrequirements”as“rulesandrequirementsatthetimetherequestfor

registrationorissuancewassubmittedandtakingintoaccountpreviousjudgmentsofthe

appellatebody.”Rewritinginthiswaywouldbothclarifywhichrequirementsaretobeapplied

andprovidetheABtheflexibilitytodevelopthejurisprudenceof“CDMRule”astheyseefit

overtime.

• Altering 8(b) above to the following: “That it would be reasonable to assume that the CDM rules and

requirements, if interpreted or applied differently, would not have resulted in the ruling that rejected

or required an alteration to the request for registration or issuance.”

• Add a new section (b bis) stating “or EB, when applying discretion in interpreting or applying CDMrule(s), exercised its discretion unreasonably or not at all”.



28March2011




www.ieta.org

inconsistent with the previous judgment of the appellate body on the same request for

registrationorissuance,allofthefollowingelementsmustbepresentandargued:

a. Thatthereconsideredrulingisinconsistentwiththejudgmentoftheappellatebody;b. Thatthereconsideredruling,ifconsistentwiththejudgmentoftheappellatebody,would

nothaverejectedorrequiredanalterationtotherequestforregistrationorissuance.

V.FilinganAppeal

A. ActionRequiredbytheAppellants

B. ConsiderationbytheAppellateBody

Para21ofthedraftproceduresstipulatethefollowing:

21.Atanytimeduringitsconsiderationoftheappeal,theappellatebodymayrequesttheDOEthat

validatedorverifiedtherequestforregistrationorissuanceunderappealtoclarifyanyinformation

containedinitsvalidationorverificationreportorsubmittedtotheExecutiveBoardinresponseto

arequestforreview.The[appellatebody]shallnotconsideranyfurthervalidationorverification

ofinformationintheclarificationoftheDOE.Theclarificationshallprovidereferencestowhere

eachfact,orsetoffacts,canbelocatedintheRecordbythe[appellatebody].TheDOEshallfileitsclarificationwithin14daysofreceiptoftheorderforsuchclarification.

VI.TheresponseoftheExecutiveBoard

A. ActionRequiredbytheExecutiveBoard

B. ConsiderationbytheAppellateBody


• Clarifyingthemeaningofinconsistentinthiscontextinordertoensurethattheappellantisnot

undulyaggrievedbytheEBnotimplementinganAB’sdecision.

• Altering9(b)tobeginwith:“Thatitwouldbereasonabletoassume….”

IETAhasnocommentsinthissection.

IETAproposesthefollowingchangesinrelationtothispara21:

• Addinganew21bis:“Atanytimeduringitsconsiderationoftheappeal,anypartytotheappeal

maynominateexpertstoprovideinformationand/oranswerquestionsofatechnical,legalor

regulatorynature.Theappellatebodyshallhavetheauthoritytodecidetohearfromthose

expertsand/oriftheywouldliketocalladditionalexpertstorespondtoquestionsofatechnical,

legal,orregulatorynature.”

• IETAnotesthatthereisatimelineestablishedinpara21,butthatsuchreferencesaremissingin

severalotherplacesthroughoutthedocument.IETAsuggeststhattheproceduresberedrafted

toensurethateachstepintheprocesshasacleartimelineassociatedwithit.



28March2011




www.ieta.org

VI.bis.Thehearing

VII.TheRecord

A. Appealsinrelationtorequestsforregistration:

Para31ofthedraftproceduresstipulatesthattheRecordfallsintotwocategories:

a. Informationthatshallbeautomaticallydeemedtobeintroducedintotherecordand

b. InformationthatmaybeintroducedintotheRecord,butonlyforthepurposesof:i. Asserting, in the Executive Board’s ruling or response, that the previously submitted

information is inconsistent with, or contrary to, the information submitted as part of the

requestforregistrationunderappeal,withoutsufficientexplanation;

ii. Rebutting, in the appellant’s appeal, an assertion by the Executive Board in its ruling or

response that thepreviously submitted information is inconsistentwith,or contrary to,the

informationsubmittedaspartoftherequestforregistrationunderappeal,withoutsufficient

explanation.

IETAhasnocommentsinthissection.

IETAproposesaddinganewVIbisfollowingthecurrent“VI,TheresponseoftheExecutiveBoard”.

VIbisshouldoutlinethefollowing:

“A.Schedulingandattendingthehearing

30bis.IftheAppellantBodydeterminesthattheappellantandtheExecutiveBoardhavecomplied

withallrequirements,itwill[within14days]contacttheappellant,theDOE,andtheChairofthe

ExecutiveBoardtoscheduleahearing.

31bis.IfboththeChairoftheCDMExecutiveBoardandtheappellantwavetheirrespectiverightstoa

hearing,thenthehearingwillbecanceled.

32bis.Videoortele-conferencefacilitiesmaybeusedtofacilitatethehearingintheeventthateither

theChairoftheCDMExecutiveBoardortheappellantareunabletoattendthehearing.

33bis.Attendanceatthehearing,inanyform,isnotobligatory.

B.Hearingprocedures

34bis.(Acompletesetofprocedureswillneedtobedraftedandconsiderationgiventohowparties

canpresentexpertevidence,crossexamineevidenceandpresentoralsubmissions.IETAwillbe

happytocontributemoreatalatertime.Thereareexperiencesworldwidethatcaninformthe

developmentoftheseprocedures.)

35bis…”



28March2011




www.ieta.org

Para32stipulatesthefollowing:

32.ThefollowinginformationshallautomaticallybedeemedtobeintroducedintotheRecord:

a. Any previous judgments by the [appellatebody]on the same request for registration

underappeal;

b. TheExecutiveBoard’srulingandanypreviousrulingoftheExecutiveBoardonthesame

requestforregistrationunderappeal;

c. Anyappealorresponsethatwaspreviouslyfiledwiththe[appellatebody]by thesame

appellant as part of a previous appeal in relation to the same request for registration

currentlyunderappeal;

d. AllwritteninformationsubmittedtotheExecutiveBoardaspartofthecurrentrequest

forregistrationunderappeal.

Para33stipulatesthefollowing:

33.ThefollowinginformationmaybeintroducedintotheRecord,butonlyforthepurposesspecifiedin

paragraph31(b)above:

(a) AllwritteninformationsubmittedtotheExecutiveBoardaspartofanypreviousrequestfor

registrationforthesameproposedprojectactivity;

(b)Theprojectdesigndocumentsubmittedandpublishedforglobalstakeholderconsultation;

(c) AnyotherwritteninformationsubmittedtotheExecutiveBoardbyaprojectparticipantor

DOEregardingtherequestforregistrationunderappeal,asrequiredorallowedbytheCDM

rulesandrequirements.

Paras 36-37 stipulate that the Appellant and the EB, respectively, must introduce all of the required

informationintotheRecord.

IETAproposesthatthefollowingchangesbemadetothissection:

• Change to “without sufficient explanation as to why it is not consistent with the information submitted

in the request for registration.” This wording would clarify the intention of these provisions.


• Altering33(c)tostate:“…therequestforregistrationunderappeal,unlessexplicitlyprohibited.”

• Addinganew“33(d)AnywritteninformationrelatingtopreviousExecutiveBoardorAppellate

Bodyrulingsfromarequestforregistrationfromanotherproposedprojectactivityutilizingthe

sameorasimilarmethodology,whichtheappellantreasonablyconsiderstoberelevanttotheir

appeal.”



28March2011




www.ieta.org

Paras38-40stipulatecoverthesameissuesforissuanceas31-33abovedoforregistration.

VIII.Considerationbyandjudgmentoftheappellatebody

Para45ofthedraftprocedurestatesthefollowing:

33. In considering the merits of the matter and formulating its judgment, the [appellate

body]shalltakeintoconsiderationonly:

a. TheRecord;

b. Theappellant’sappeal;

c. TheExecutiveBoard’sresponse;

d. Any requested clarification filed by the DOE, in accordance with paragraph 21

above;

e. Anyfactualinformationfromasource,theaccuracyofwhichcannotbequestioned

(e.g.thedayoftheweekonacertaindate).

Paras46-47ofthedraftprocedurestatesthat:

46.Inconsideringthemeritsofthematterandformulatingitsjudgment,the[appellatebody]

shall:

a.DefertotheExecutiveBoard’sfindingoffact,unlesstheyareclearlyerroneous;

b.Deferto theExecutiveBoard’sinterpretationandapplicationoftheCDMrulesand

requirements,unlesstheyareunreasonableinthelightofthetextoftheCDMrules

andrequirementsandpastjudgmentsofthe[appellatebody].

47. Thejudgmentofthe[appellatebody]shallconcludeinoneofthefollowingways:

a. ByaffirmingtherulingoftheExecutiveBoard;

IETAisconcernedaboutthelackofexplicitprovisionbywhichtheRecordisprovidedtotheappellant

andEB.Therefore,IETAwouldliketoseelanguageintroducedclarifyingthatallrecords,including

recordsaccumulatedinclosedsessionsthatwereusedbytheEBinmakingitsinitialdecisionshallbe

availabletotheABandthepartiestotheappeal.Wherenecessary,suchinformationmayberestricted

totheABandthepartiesoftheappealonlybutinordertoallowforafairprocesstheaggrievedparty

musthaveaccesstothecompleterecords.

IETAproposesmakingthefollowingchangestothissection,whichmirrorthechangessuggestedin

33(d):

• Addinganew“40(e)AnywritteninformationrelatingtopreviousExecutiveBoardorAppelate

Bodyrulingsfromanotherrequestforissuanceforaprojectactivityutilizingthesameora

similarmethodology,whichtheappellantreasonablyconsiderstoberelevanttotheirappeal.”

IETAproposesthefollowingchanges:

• Addinganew33(f)“Anyrequestedclarificationfiledbyanexpert,inaccordancewithsuggested

new21bisabove.

• Addinganew33(g)“Thehearing”basedonthesuggestednew“VI.bis”above.



28March2011




www.ieta.org

b. ByremandingtherequestforregistrationorissuancetotheExecutiveBoardfor

furtherconsideration.

IX.ReconsiderationbytheExecutiveBoarduponremand

A.Reconsidereddecisionsonrequestsforregistrationorissuance

B.Reconsideredrulingsupondecisionstoreject

X.FilingFee

Para61regardsthefilingfee.

Para65saysthattheappellatewhoseappealsledtotheremandshallbereimbursedthefilingfee.

IETAproposesthefollowingchanges:

• Change46(a)aboveto“DefertotheExecutiveBoard’sfindingoffacts,unlesstheappellatepanel

determinesthatthefactswerenotcorrectlyvisitedduringtheExecutiveBoard’sdeliberation;”• Addinganew47(c),“ByinstructingtheSecretariattoregistertheprojectorissueCERs,inthe

eventthatadecisionthathaspreviouslybeenremandedtotheExecutiveBoard,deniedagainby

theExecutiveBoard,andsuccessfullyappealedasecondtime.

IETAhasnocommentsonthesesections.

IETAproposesthefollowingchangestothissection:

• Theincorporationofamandatoryreviewofthefeesonaspecificdateinthefutureinsteadof

leavingitopen-ended.

IETAsuggeststhefollowingchangestothissection:

• Thatallappellantsrelatedtothatproject/requestforissuanceshallbereimbursedtheirfiling

ratherthanonlytheappellantswhoseappealledtotheremand,inthecasethatother

appeallantscasehadnotyetbeenheardbuttheyhadalreadypaidthefilingfee.

• Thatprojectparticipantswhoserequestsforregistrationwereremandedandeventuallyregisteredshouldhavetheoptionofbackdatingtheirdateofregistrationtothedateonwhich

their“complete”requestforregistrationwasbeensubmitted.



28March2011




www.ieta.org

XII.Otherproceduralmatters

IETAgreatly appreciates the opportunity toprovide our input on this issue. Please donot hesitateto

contactmyselforKimCarnahan,[email protected],ifyouhavequestionsregardingthissubmission.

Sincerely,

HenryDerwent

PresidentandCEO,IETA

IETAhasnosuggestedchangestothissection.

ieta sbi submission on cdm appeals

Documents