RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4. STRATEGY AND PRIORITY
The participants of the latest NSS workshop on June 19, 2001 prioritized strategic issues as shown in the following table. The workshop participants were asked to scores issues between 1 and 3, with 1 indicating the least important and 3 indicating the most important. The average score for each strategy recommendation is used to shed light on the collective opinion regarding strategy considerations. Although the workshop participants represented a range of key govern- ment officials, and not the full range of stakehold- ers, the priorities reflect a range of opinions on setting strategies.
Fast tracking small-scale projects was the most important strategic issue according to most participants. Small-scale projects are expected to have significant sustainability value. They tend to have larger positive impacts on local develop- ment, and tend to involve simple and appropriate technologies that can be used by local communi- ties.
A comprehensive study on baselines is consid- ered to be one of the most important technical issues that must be addressed. Ensuring capacity to allow for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the CDM is also considered as very impor- tant.
Furthermore, the participants agreed on the need to maximize the potential for no-regrets and low- cost projects. This priority is in line with the recommendation to fast track small-scale projects.
To ensure the above-mentioned priorities are met, an effective and appropriate institutional setting is a high priority, and was listed as such by the workshop participants. Establishment of the national CDM Board and Clearinghouse also
Technical Institutional Negotiations
Fast Track for Small-scale Projects (2.89) Levy on all mechanisms,
but flexible on the outcome (2.67).
National CDM Manual and Establishment of the CDM Guidelines (2.78) Board and Clearinghouse (2.80).
Comprehensive baseline Ensuring Public study (2.67) Participation (2.60).
Benefit Sharing Contractual Foster investment relations
Capacity (2.56) (2.56)
Maximize potential for no-regrets Open Architecture Cooperative Arrangement (2.44) and low-cost projects (2.33)
Sustainable Development Criteria (2.30) Voluntary Trading Restrictions (2.38)
Marketing Strategy (2.30) Inclusion of sinks (2.22)
Limiting AAU Surplus from crowding-out (2.00) Table 6.1. Priority ranking of the strategic issues
gained significant support as one of the most important strategic issues. As a logical corollary, development of a national CDM manual and guidelines was listed next in importance, after establishing an appropriate institutional setting.
Included in an effective and appropriate institu- tional setting is the opportunity for public partici- pation at all steps in the CDM project cycle.
While, at the negotiating table, Indonesia pro- motes adaptation and administrative levies on all mechanisms, it is flexible in respect of this issue, as the impact of the levy on the competitiveness of the CDM is not significant. Indonesia, however, promotes voluntary restrictions on the selling of CERs among developing countries. This will increase price and, in turn, the volume of the market in financial terms. The inclusion of sinks
may be beneficial, thus Indonesia has no objec- tion to inclusion of sink projects in the CDM.
However, the associated issues related to inclu- sion of sinks, such as sustainability and leakage, should be adequately addressed. Finally, Indone- sia promotes limiting the sale of surplus AAUs from certain Annex B Parties (mainly Russia and the countries with economies in transition) during the first commitment period, in order to prevent them crowding-out the CDM market.
AIJ project documents.
Andrasko, K., Carter, L., van der Gaast, W. 1996.
Technical issues in JI projects, Background paper for the UNEP AIJ Conference,
Washington.
Aslam, Malik A., 1999. Regional AIJ/CDM Coordina- tion for Central Asia: Prospects, opportuni- ties, and implementation. A study carried out for UNDP. Envork. Pakistan.
Austin, D. and Faeth, P. 1999. How much sustain- able development can we expect from the Clean Development Mechanism, WRI Climate Note, World Resources Institute.
ALGAS 1998. Final Report of the Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy Project, Asian Development Bank, Global Environment Facility-UNDP, Manila, The Philippines, October 1998
API 2000. The Clean Development Mechanism – Threats and Opportunities for Geothermal Energy. Jakarta
Atwood Theodore 1998. The Role of Advanced Coal Technologies in Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Financing its Development and Uptake, Coal in Asia-Pacific, Vol. 9 No.
1, pp. 93-107, NEDO; Feb. 1998
Babiker, M., Reilly, J.M. and Jacoby, H.D. 1999. The Kyoto Protocol and Developing Countries, Report no. 56, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Baumert, K., and E. Petkova. 2000. How Will the Clean Development Mechanism Ensure Transparency, Public Engagement, and
Accountability?; A WRI Climate Note.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute
Bernow, S., Kartha, S., Lazarus, M. and Page, T.
2000. Cleaner generation, free riders, and environmental integrity: Clean Develop- ment Mechanism and the power sector, Tellus Institute/Stockholm Environment Institute/Boston Center for the World Wildlife Fund (www.tellus.org).
Bouille, D.H, Girardin L.O, Sbroiavacca, N., 2000, Argentina, in Biagini, B. (ed.). Confronting Climate Change – Economic Priorities and Climate Protection in Developing Nations, National Environment Trust, Washington DC.
BPPT-GTZ 1995. Technology Assessment for Energy Related CO2 Reduction Strategies for Indonesia, Badan Pengkajian Penerapan Teknologi kerjasama dengan GTZ Ger- many, July 1995
BPPT-KFA 1993. Environmental Impacts of Energy Strategies for Indonesia, Final Summary Report, Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi and Forchung Zentrum (KFA) Juelich joint research, May 1993
BPS, Industrial Statistic 1990 – 1995, Survey of Manufacturing Industries, Large and Medium, Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) Chomitz, K. 1998. Baselines for GHG reductions:
problems, precedents, solutions. Develop- ment Research Group. World Bank.
Chomitz, K. Mar 2000. Evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: how do they compare? Development Research