WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

1 of 18

CDM Watch News for Civil Society and Policy Makers #2 April 2011

As the CDM Executive Board is meeting in Bangkok from 11-15 April 2011 for their second meeting this year, we are taking the opportunity to bring another per-spective into the discussions: the views of civil society on specific CDM projects and wider policy developments.

This edition of the CDM Watch Newsletter contains three eye witness reports. All three of them reveal shocking shortcomings of the CDM which need to be addressed on the very project level but also on a much more generic policy level in order to avoid that any of the problems replicate in the future.

The first project we are looking at is a biogas project in Honduras that is linked to seri-ous human rights violations. If registered under the CDM, EDF trading would receive carbon credits with the authorization of the UK government for emission reductions obtained despite killings related to land disputes over the project site and closely linked to the project developers.

The second project we are examining is a large hydro power project in Western Panama. The validation has recommended registration despite massive local resistance against the project. A dedicated Panamanian human rights activist gives a firsthand account of his experience with how the application of the Barro Blanco is handled in reality.

Thirdly, we look again at a biogas project, the first registered project in Tanzania. So far, CDM biogas projects have been praised as the most sustainable projects im-plemented under the CDM. But both the Aguan as well as the Mtoni project tell a different story.

On the basis of the input we receive from our CDM Watch Network from the ground, we have formulated input to international policy developments. In this newsletter you will also find a brief summary of our submissions responding to the following calls for public input 1) means for direct communication between the CDM Executive Board and relevant stakeholder groups; 2) CDM appeals procedure; 3) the issue of materiality in the CDM; and 4) the inclusion of reforestation of lands with forest in exhaustion as A/R CDM project activities.

Finally we are giving some insight into lessons learnt in two fruitful workshops which we organized in Mesoamerica in February 2011 to empower local communities.

Happy reading.

PS: please note that we are recruiting!

Newsletter #2 / April 2011

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

2 of 18

Table of contents

1. Human Rights Violations in Honduras linked to Aguan Biogas Project continue

2. Massive Protests against Barro Blanco Hydropower Project in Panama

3. Mtoni Dumpside CDM Project in Tanzania putting livelihoods of farmers and wastepickers at risk

4. CDM Watch UNFCCC submissions

a. Areas and means for direct communication between the CDM EB and relevant stakeholder groups

b. CDM appeals procedure

c. The issue of materiality in the CDM

d. Inclusion of reforestation of lands with forest in exhaustion as A/R CDM project activities

5. Civil society’s view on the CDM in Mesoamerica

6. CDM Watch is recruiting

1. Human Rights Violations in Honduras linked to Aguan Biogas Project continue

Two months on from our first report1 about the Aguan biogas project2 in Honduras which is currently seeking registration under the CDM, human rights violations continue.

See a video documentary (9.45 minutes) of March 2011 giving a good but shocking overview about how the current situation in Honduras is linked to the protests in the Aguan valley and the CDM project in question – please note that the video contains disturbing images.

Also a second CDM application by the same project participants - Exportadora del Atlantico and EDF Trading, authorised by the UK government - is awaiting validation. Both projects would, if approved, generate around 23,000 and 25,500 CERs annually, equaling to about €276,000 and €306,000 respectively for the two projects.The company behind the project, Grupo Dinant subsidiary Exportadora del Atlantico, is implicated in assassinations and other serious human rights abuses in Honduras and there are grave concerns that additional funding through the CDM could be used to pay for more armed paramilitaries.

1 http://www.cdm-watch.org/?p=16622 Project 3197 : Aguan biogas recovery from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) ponds and biogas utilisa-

tion - Exportadora del Atlántico, Aguan/Honduras http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SU-ED1260202521.42/view

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

The applications were authorised by the UK government and would allow the energy company EDF Trading to buy carbon offsets from Grupo Dinant in respect of biogas capture at two palm oil mills.

A recent report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Honduras confirms that 23 people have been killed between January 2010 and February 2011 in land conflicts involving Grupo Dinant. The violence and assassinations have invol-ved paramilitaries armed by Grupo Dinant‘s owner, Miguel Facussee, some of whom are reported to be hired death squads responsible for large numbers of murders in Colombia, as well as the military and police. If CDM funding is granted, this will generate more profits for a company likely to spend them on more paramilitaries and more oppression of peasant communities, many of which are trying to reclaim land to which they are legally entitled.

See a recent report by Giorgio Trucchi (translation V.C.) published on 26 March 2011.

The massacre must not be supported by the CDM

Current CDM rules rely on the CDM host country government to assess whether a project contributes to sustainable development. This places the assessment of susta-inable development in the hands of governments that would like to see more invest-ment in their respective countries. As a consequence, no CDM project has ever been rejected on the basis that it did not contribute to sustainable development.

Allegations of serious human rights abuses related to CDM project applications in Honduras and Panama have caused an outcry amongst civil society organisations and widespread dismay that human rights are not being taken seriously under the CDM.

This issue clearly needs to be addressed at the next climate change conference in Durban, South Africa (COP-17). However, in the meantime the CDM Executive Board must re-assess their mandate and find ways of preventing projects that are linked to any sort of violations of international laws from acquiring eligibility under the CDM. A stringent requirement for DOEs to check conformity with international human rights law when validating the project would be an option. Another more efficient option would be to link remedies to the monitoring periods of a given project. The detection of non-conformities, e.g. incidents that involve human rights violations should lead to the project being stripped of CDM eligibility or at the very least lead to the suspen-sion of issuance. This would only be a logical move given that responsible investor would not be interested in buying carbon credits from projects that do not comply with minimum international standards.

Perspectives GmbH which initially drafted the PDD has already publicly distanced itself from the project. Civil society representatives are now calling on other Parties involved to follow this example and to take a stand against human rights abuses in Honduras, especially in the context of the CDM.

3 of 11

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

4 of 18

On 4th February, an Open Letter signed by 76 organisations was sent to the UK‘s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), calling on them to withdraw their authorisation and thus to stop the project from going ahead.

Yet after more than two months, neither the UK Government nor EDF Trading has responded to these grave concerns. Also a letter sent to the CDM Executive Board on 4 January remains without a response.

The CDM Executive Board must take this issue seriously. If there are no rules in place that allow for the rejection of the project based on human rights abuses, it is time to change this now.

2. Massive Protests against Barro Blanco Hydropower Project in Panama

Guest article by Oscar Soganda-res, Asociacion Ambientalista de Chiriqui (ASAMCHI) » My t-shirt still smells from the firewood of the protest camp, where I spent several

nights accompanying their cause. The beginning of the day would start with group prayers in Ngobe and in Spanish requesting the help from the Almighty in this unequal struggle3. The M10 (April 10 Movement for the Defense of the Tabasará) which gathers all the affected communities on the banks of the Tabasará River (which is sacred to the Ngobe Bugle Indians) protest group have already 12 days camped outside of the entrance of the Barro Blanco Dam project site, thereby effectively blocking the entrance of additional machinery to the project site. The two remaining machines have long run dry of fuel and are unable to continue with their tasks of devastation of the Tabasará riverbed4.

The protesters have nothing to lose, they are even willing to give up their lives if need be I was told. Just as one of the leaders told me” I am losing 5 hectares of my best farming land to the project so I have nothing to lose”. They even dared to close one of the lanes of the Pan-American hwy. (because according to Panamanian legislation closing up one lane is still considered „peaceful protest“) but also threatening to entirely block the entire highway5. The police immediately came to the scene to warn then, but after two hours they returned to their designated point. They were even ad-vised against this by their fellow indigenous leaders, that it’s better to maintain their point at the entrance as a peaceful struggle than lose everything in the desperation.

The trucks and cars would honk and wave at us in support of our actions, where in a tiny province as Chiriquí of less than 6000 square kilometers there are more than 120 projects in different stages of development, 160 in the entire country of Panama – more than the entire Central America isthmus put together. Most of them “run of the river” type plants which threaten to „desertify“ the province. The fact is that Chiriquí

3 http://chiriquinatural.blogspot.com/2011_04_03_archive.html4 P4060011(2) Vista de pala mecanica y retroexcavadora que devastaban el Rio Tabasara en dias pasados

http://www.box.net/shared/ioaqoy1ns7 and http://chiriquinatural.blogspot.com/2011/03/devastacion-en-el-tabasara.html

5 http://74.52.113.70/periodico/edicion-actual/hoy-interna.php?r=hoypan&story_id=1034873

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

5 of 18

is one of the places of the world in danger of desertification due to soil mismanage-ment attributed to agribusiness, but now due to this present surge of hydroelectric plants which dot their river basins6. On the other extreme are the full scale dams with reservoirs such as Fortuna, Bayano and now Barro Blanco which will effectively flood hundreds of hectares, and threaten to flood thousands of hectares more in the future.

Privatization of energy sector cashes in on energy surplus from hydro dams

There was a time when Panama had more than enough energy for its needs and we only had Bayano, Fortuna and Estrella los Valles, and we still had an energy surplus (and we didn‘t have the energy saving light bulbs in our households in that time either). That was in 1995, suddenly the government under the Balladares administration (presently under legal investigation) started to „privatize“ all the government generators and „globalize“ our economy. The Bayano went

to AES, so did Estrella Los Valles and Fortuna has gone through a string of different hands and is finally with Enel.

Then in 2001 Vicente Fox president of Mexico, a ranch owner and Coca Cola executive (where he sported his trademark Stetson hat, but perhaps all he needed then were to bring his six-shooters with him) comes to Panama and announces the Plan, Puebla Panama to enable Panama to „export“ energy to Central America and Mexico, but actually to balance out his own energy deficit gap with the USA, due to his recently signed NAFTA Treaty with his northern partner and the Sistema Integrado SIEPAC transmission line7 was built which crosses Central America into Mexico and „sudden-ly“ Panama‘s energy needs become insufficient.

Panama’s artificial “growing energy needs”

While the official picture is portrayed to the local citizens that all these projects are due to Panama‘s „growing needs“, which the officials don‘t even themselves believe. Another added incentive in this mad rush for more hydroelectric projects is the added bonus of CERs or carbon credits, like the „icing“ on the cake. The margin of profit on these projects has been so great where 1 kw/hr of water generated electricity is sold slightly lower than fossil fuel generators ($0.18 fuel, $0.12 - $0.17 hydro and where 1 MW =$1million), with the additional feature that the „fuel“ employed --water is free, and that the CERs themselves have been spent on simply “public relations” for their project. Everyone is starting to learn how the CERs and the CDM projects have been mismanaged in the world, where highly questionable projects such as mono cultures where primary forests are chopped down to make way for oil palm farms, or these very hydroelectric projects which devastate thousands of hectares of natural gallery forests, some with endemic species found nowhere else in the world, disrupt ecosystems and displace thousands of perfectly happy river dwellers in the face of a

6 NATIONAL REPORT ON DESERTIC CONDITIONS AND DROUGHT REPUBLIC OF PANAMA http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/lac/national/2000/panama-summary-eng.pdf

7 http://www.iamericas.org/presentations/energy/Honduras_2010/Karla%20Hernandez.pdf

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

6 of 18

highly questionable „progress for a few“ and are financed by these carbon indulging companies who get their sins cleansed by „investing“ in these “carbon credits”.

Agreements to stop hydroelectric projects with Ngobe Bugle Comarca breached

The humble Ngobe Indians are portrayed in the press as „savages“, “ignorant“, „ra-dicals“, „backward“ and all other kinds of derogatory labels, especially by the special interest owned press, whose owners happen to be partners of the many hydroelectric ventures, perhaps orchestrating eventually and unfortunately, unjust and criminal repression against these humble dwellers that have everything to lose and nothing to gain with these greedy business projects. There the airwaves are taken over by the „technocrats“ who worship hydroelectric energy as the panacea for all evils in the country, notwithstanding all the names which ring a bell when we refer to the 50 most wealthy families in Panama. The Gonzalez- Revilla, Eleta, Btesh, Virzi, among others. The mining episode has been a similar case where names such as Pfeiffer, ex-governor of Coclé, who happened to „borrow“ from the government funds to pay off his own partnership in the Petaquilla Gold Venture. Unfortunately this country is full of examples of corruption and „juega vivo“ -- or „play smart“ attitude. But who’s general opposition and protests mainly by the Ngobe Bugle people once again to this highly unpopular mining code forced the government to backtrack and repeal its highly controversial law 8. The agreements with the govt. included an immediate stop to the hydroelectric projects which would affect the Ngobe Bugle Comarca or indigenous Reserve, such as the highly controversial Barro Blanco Project. But now the govt. wants to backtrack on its hydroelectric concessions part and is delaying the issue. Nonetheless the Barro Blanco project has proceeded days after the massive mining code protests ended to swiftly commence its controversial project.

“All the odds are stacked against the communities” How could it feel if suddenly our protest groups were helped by the A-Team who could

champion our cause, where we are faced with all the odds stacked up against us? Actually today the government (which in fact considers itself the government of the

“entrepreneurs”) has enacted the first initial debate in their party controlled legislati-ve assembly or parliament where now companies participating in projects of “social interests” (to include hydroelectric projects) will not even have to participate in bids and could be “directly contracted” by the government18. The consultation periods will be thereby shortened, the participation of the public will be further reduced. All the odds are stacked against the communities. See La Prensa 6 April 2011 Economy Section9.

The contested past of Barro Blanco

Now going into details of this controversial project which is none other than the Taba-sará 1 and 2 projects (the first one would produce 220MW) originally presented in the end of the 1970’s and start of the 1980’s which was to provide energy for the ominous Cerro Colorado mining project to mine copper and gold, since there were not enough

8 Reformas apuntan a hidroeléctricas La Prensa 6 april 2011 http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2011/04/06/hoy/panorama/2557117.asp

9 Reformas reducen plazo de impugnación La Prensa 6 april 2011 http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2011/04/06/hoy/Negocios/2556253.asp

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

7 of 18

power plants to provide the huge energy demand for such gargantuan project. But General Omar Torrijos after the continuous protests by the Panamanian people inclu-ding the Ngobe indigenous population known then as Guaymi, and consultation with his environmental advisors who warned against disastrous ecological consequen-ces10 (Torrijos used to say he who consults most, errs the least) in a solemn pledge before the indigenous Ngobe leaders cancelled the mining projects, as well as both the Tabasará hydroelectric projects -- if this were the wish of the indigenous commu-nity. It was not long after General Omar Torrijos perished in a mysterious airplane crash in 1981.

The front line of defense in the struggle against this excessive proliferation of the hydro-electric projects, which obey no common sense except the market economy – is the Bar-ro Blanco project, long rejected by the community in all its editions. It is the updated version of the Tabasará 1 of the 1980’s with 220MW output and Tabasará 1 of the 1990’s and 2000 with its toned down 46MW11. This time Barro Blanco had initially projected 19MW but revised it to 28.8 MW in order to compete for carbon credits or CERs.

But raising its dam level in the future from 103mts, (long after the CER’s are dis-bursed) to 160mts will enable it to produce the massive amount of 220MW; flooding 6000 hectares (raising it to 200mts will flood 10,000 hectares and enable it to produ-ce even further amounts of energy). That is why the community should not allow this sinister project to make their foothold. Once Barro Blanco (or Tabasara 1 “revised” version) is in place Tabasará 2 whose owners are wealthy and dubious businessmen as Gabriel Btesh and Luis “Pipo” Virzi (the latter incidentally relative to President Martinelli) will kick in.12 13 There simply will be no stop to this.

Besides the harm done to the flooding of hundreds of hectares of indigenous and peasant land bordering the Tabasará River, the loss of an exuberant pocket of gallery forest of more than 50-100 hectares (contrary to what the EIA or the PDD indicate) with many centennial trees which perform a highly important CO2 function and which will inexorably be logged down (how could a project as destructive as this compete for carbon credits in the first place?), where endemic species of wildlife which are in extreme danger of extinction such as the Tabasará Blue Rain frog “craugastor tabasarae”14 which inhabit precisely these threatened gallery rain forests, and nowhere else in the world. The loss and extinction in these waters of diadromous mi-gratory fish15, from the word “dia” in latin or “between” which complete their life cy-cles in the two habitats the marine estuaries and the fresh water Tabasará River head waters, and which form an essential part of the Ngobe diet. These will inevitably be blocked by the physical presence of the dam (not considering the future existence of

10 http://chiriquinatural.blogspot.com/2011/01/de-codemin-tiomin-cerro-colorado-un.html11 Tabasara I EIA Extract http://www.box.net/shared/ir5u5hml6b12 Angry reception for dam surveyors www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_14/issue_13/economy_08.html13 http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/panama-mafiocracia-gabriel-btesh-socio-amigo-narcotraficantes-

tambien-http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/panama-mafiocracia-gabriel-btesh-socio-amigo-narco-traficantes-tambien-

14 http://animal.discovery.com/tv/vanishing-frogs/pictures/tabasara-rain-frog.htm15 Fish migration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_migration

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

8 of 18

the Tabasará 2 project) or will be sliced to pieces by the turbine blades16. Many other river species accustomed to free flowing waters will not survive the oxygen deprived lake conditions.

RECAPITULATION

» The Barro Blanco project (3237) is a 28.84 MW hydroelectric power plant in the district of Tolé, within the province of Chiriquí, Panama. The project has faced wide resistance dating back to 200817 (but actually since the 1970’s in its different versions) and criticism related to serious concerns about the additionality of the project as well as lack of adequate public consultation and human rights abuses involving the company GENISA against the lands of the Ngobe indigenous peoples. The Ngobe peoples inhabit the areas next to the Tabasará River, where the project is planned to be implemented. The project is currently pending registration which means that the members of the CDM Executive Board will decide upon its fate at this upcoming meeting.

» To the shock of Ngobe indigenous peoples, the project has now commenced con-struction despite the ongoing local resistance which is increasing as construction machinery is moving in. Just recently, massive demonstrations by the Ngobe indi-genous people have led to the suspension of a newly passed and heavily contested mining code. This mining code would have allowed even foreign states to invest directly in mines (contrary to the constitution) in Panama and would have spoiled the pristine jungle and forced Indian communities to relocate18.

» Comments outlining these concerns were officially submitted by numerous indige-nous communities and environmental groups in Panama during the public com-menting period of the project and even prompted an investigation by the European Investment Bank (EIB). The results of the investigation are currently pending.

» Although confirmation was sent from the UNFCCC secretariat that comments were received, the auditor (AENOR) has never made them public nor taken them into account when validating the project.

» This has led to the first launch of a complaints procedure against a DOE pursuant to the new rules for complaints procedures against a DOE.

16 Helical Turbine and Fish Safety By Alexander Gorlov, August, 2010 (see Kaplan Turbine Fish kill page 3) http://www.mainetidalpower.com/files/gorlovrevised.pdf

17 http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/columns/081027-staff-columnspanama.html and http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=226

18 http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Panama_Injuries_arrests_in_mining_law_protests_999.html

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

9 of 18

Major concerns about the Barro Blanco project raised by civil society groups include:

› Validation Report Omissions: With regards to the CDM consultation, ACD submit-ted comments in the first consultation process conducted in 2008. These concerns were never addressed by the CDM validator. Instead, AENOR opened a second validation process, in which both ACD and ASAMCHI again submitted comments. The CDM website acknowledged receipt of the ASAMCHI comments through email, but the website failed to display the comments as received by AENOR.

› Public Participation: The Bakama area is legally recognized by the Government of Panama as collective property of the Ngobe indigenous people. Yet, most of the consultation for CDM validation, including the site visit by AENOR, only considered the opinion of the non-indigenous population. In this regard, the validation process for Barro Blanco violated the international principle of free, prior and informed consent contained in ILO 169 and the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.

› Compensation of affected communities: Following the principle that was also uti-lized in the Chan 75 hydroelectric project, GENISA has proposed the use of carbon credits to compensate the affected communities, including the Ngobe indigenous peoples. In the Chan 75 case, this question is currently being examined by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which raises serious questions about the appropriateness of using CERs for the compensation of affected communities when human rights violations have not been considered.

› Additionality: Hydroelectric investment in Panama has an extremely favorable net present value, which derives from the sale of electricity generated by hydroelectric plants at prices comparable to thermoelectric plants with higher operations costs. This situation occurs when non-contracted electricity is sold in the spot market, which happens regularly in Panama. For this reason, there are currently about 87 hydroelectric project scheduled for construction in Panama at this moment. Recently, the Government of Panama has complained about the exaggerated levels of profit raised by hydroelectric companies and has even started investigations to avoid this type of speculation.

› Barro Blanco might place in extinction the endangered Tabasará rain frog species: The construction of the Barro Blanco project is very likely to cause the extinction of the Tabasará Rain Frog, a highly endangered species19.

Against the evidence provided in this article, many organizations, including the April 10 Movement for the Defense of the Tabasara River (M-10), Alianza para la Conservacion y el Desarrollo (ACD), and the Asociacion Ambientalista de Chiriqui (ASAMCHI), Inter-national Rivers and CDM Watch are calling on the CDM Executive Board to extend the review of the project registration request to the issues raised above and to subse-quently reject the project. Moreover, the results of the European Investment Bank´s investigation should be taken into account when deciding upon the fate of the project.

19 http://animal.discovery.com/tv/vanishing-frogs/pictures/tabasara-rain-frog.htm

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

10 of 18

3. Mtoni Dumpside CDM Project putting livelihoods of farmers and wastepickers at risk

Guest comment by Finnigan Wa Simbeye, Tanzania Daily News » So far, CDM biogas projects have been praised as the most sustainable projects

implemented under the CDM. However, a recent eye witness report from a much touted biogas in Tanzania’s commercial capital Dar es Salaam tells a different story.

Carbon Credits from an Abandoned Dumpsite

The “Mtoni Dumpsite” in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania was registered in June 2007 as the first project in Tanzania. According to the project‘s design document, the Mtoni pro-ject is supposed to reduce about 200.000 tons of CO2 emissions annually through the combustion of methane contained in the biogas extracted from the dump site. Since June 2007, the project has been issued 35.122 carbon credits.

The dumpsite was moved over 40 kilometers away from the location in order to serve as a CDM project. Hundreds of waste pickers heavily protested against the closure of the dumpsite in 1997/8 because they used to make their life by picking garbage to recover recyclable materials at the Mtoni Dumpsite. Ironically the dumpsite is now abandoned with erosion sweeping away the soil exposing some of the landfill waste – contrary to its original plans to generate 2.5 megawatts of electricity from an estima-ted 1.8 million metric tons of solid waste.

„People pass here freely throughout the day. Some of them are pick-pockets who hide on the river banks after stealing from people,“ said Sophia Cholobi, a resident in the area since 1981. She lamented over the closure of the dumpsite. She said she earned a living through scavenging in the dumpsite.

A ‚Daily News‘ survey has noted that there was literally no security guard to protect the project area from trespassing vandals. It has also been observed that soil erosion from heavy rains has left plastic garbage projecting to the surface. Residents in the area complained about the foul smell emoted by rotting garbage. Fumes can be seen rising to the sky when it rains. According to experts this indicates that methane is escaping into the air.

The Profiteers

The Dar es Salaam City Council (DCC) and an Italian company Consorzio Stabile Glo-bus invested two million Euro in the project, which is the largest in East Africa.

While it was envisaged that the reduction of more than 200,000 tonnes CO2 should lead to more than US$38,800 per year, the Mtoni project has only managed a fraction of the initiative.

Failure by the Italian firm Consorzio Stabile Globus and the Dar es Salaam City Council to implement the Mtoni Dumpsite biogas project on schedule has also dis-appointed the Director of Environment in the Vice-President‘s Office. The Director of

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

11 of 18

Environment, Mr Richard Muyungi – a former CDM Executive Board member – has stated in January 2011 that delay in implementing the country‘s only Clean Develop-ment Mechanism (CDM) project, has gone beyond acceptable standards. A vividly disappointed Mr Muyungi said “this project is supposed to have started generating 2.5 megawatts of electricity from the dumpsite gas, but so far they are still using Tanesco power and sometimes diesel generators.“.

Until early this year, the project was processing an average of 10 cubic metres of methane daily. The DCC Assistant Dumpsite Manager, Mr Richard Kishere, said that generation of electricity is behind schedule because of insufficient gas on the site.

Yet, the project has so far received more than 35.000 carbon credits. Whether these were actually reduced was verified by the auditor TÜV SÜD who confirms in its audi-ting report20 that “the project is partly implemented as described in the registered PDD. Only phase-1 including a gas flare system has been installed. Phase- 2 consis-ting of biogas fueled electricity generator for supplying to the grid was not implemen-ted due to lack of sufficient biogas from the landfill”. The report also confirms that

“due to the lower biogas generation and non-implementation of phase-2 the emission reductions presented in the current monitoring report are significantly lower from the emission reductions as indicated in the registered PDD”.

Finally, the auditing report also states that “Installed equipment essential for gene-rating emission reductions run reliably”.

Mtoni cause harzardous substances toxic to fauna, flora and human beings

This conclusion clearly does not take into account that leachate oozing from the poorly covered dumpsite is threatening the lives of thousands of Dar es Salaam resi-dents, as vegetable growing goes on using polluted Kizinga river water for irrigation.

A study by the Institute of Human Settlements Studies21 shows that soils used for vegetable production around Mtoni dumpsite and the leachetes flowing to the Mtoni Estuary and towards the Indian Ocean, contaminating the water that is used for watering the vegetables contain a high concentration of heavy metals. Some of these metals are toxic to both fauna and flora, soils close to the edge of the dumpsite con-tain highly concentrated heavy metals, some of which are toxic to humans. Based on these findings, the study recommends shifting vegetables at 10 m from the edge to at least 200 m away from the edge of the dumpsite to reduce health risks. It also notes that alternative income generating activities for farmers who depend on the soils from this area for vegetable production is needed as the production of vegetables is the sole source of income to the people in the area.

20 http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/G/C/L/GCLJMY4KNZ5IBODWX2TFPQ968V31UE/Verification%20Re-port.pdf?t=SnJ8MTMwMTkyMTE4MS43MQ==|VXA_mxd7tb5KDTn7DUF8amLF__c=

21 Heavy metal concentrations in soils and leachetes of Mtoni dumpsite bordering the Indian Ocean inDar es Salaam, Tanzania, June 2010 http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2010/18%20Aug/Shem-doe.pdf

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

12 of 18

What’s next?

Biogas projects under the CDM that reduce emissions and contribute to sustainable development are welcome. Likewise, they are not welcome if they fail to achieve neither of their objectives. This applies to the Mtoni Biogas project as much as to the development of biogas projects in general. Before implementing such a project, a whole life-cycle assessment is needed. The Mtoni biogas project shows that simply moving a dumpsite from one place to the other to save emissions by flaring gas does not do the trick. It is now up to the CDM Executive Board to assess whether the Mto-ni dumpside biogas project is eligible for generating carbon credits despite the state it is in. CDM Watch and people living close to the project area do not believe that the project developers of the Mtoni project should receive any more credits until the serious problems it has caused have been fixed.

4. CDM Watch UNFCCC submissions

The month of March saw a number of deadlines for public input to the UNFCCC policy process. The following section provides an overview of submissions made by CDM Watch:

a. Areas and means for direct communication between the CDM EB and relevant stakeholder groups

Communication between civil society representatives and the Board mainly happens via means of public participation in the CDM process cycle. With the aim to present the views of civil society in the carbon market, this submission focuses particularly on how to improve the public participation as a means to improve direct communication with the Board. In order to improve communication between civil society and the Board following recommendations are made:

1. Set-up email notification systems for registration, issuance and methodology processes as well as for all public participation procedures that depend on a certain period of time

2. Further improve of the user-friendliness of the UNFCCC CDM website including the translation into all official UN working languages

3. Make available essential documents of CDM projects (at least the PDD and the EIA) in the language(s) of the host country

4. Make available hard copies of the translated PDD to affected communities5. Ensure that all supporting documents are uploaded prior to the start of the pub-

lic commenting period6. Allow submissions of comments in the language(s) of the host country7. Allow delayed submissions of comments if the delay is due to a reasonable justi-

fication8. Increase the public commenting period for large projects9. Increase the public commenting period on new methodologies10. Introduce a mechanism where concerns about CDM projects can be submitted at

any time

You can download the submission here.

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

13 of 18

b. CDM Appeals Procedure

Jointly with ClientEarth and Transparency International CDM Watch has submitted comments in response to a call for public input to allow for appeals against Executive Board (EB) decisions22.

The right to information, the right to public participation and the right to seek justice are human rights inherent to all individuals. The inclusion of an appeals procedure in the CDM project approval process presents a crucial opportunity for the EB to secure these human rights and to promote enhanced accountability, legitimacy and public trust in and acceptance of the CDM as a valid tool for reaching its goals under the Kyoto Protocol – namely, mitigating global climate change while promoting sustaina-ble development.

It is likewise an opportunity to introduce coherence and quality control into the EB decision-making process, as access to justice is a vital aspect of accountability, provi-ding venues for the enforcement of procedural and substantive environmental rights and duties.

The purpose of our comments is to outline the critical procedural aspects that must be considered and included in a future CDM appeals procedure, so that it might promote transparency, accountability, and consistency in the CDM project approval process and improve the efficacy of the CDM as a tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it may allow for more meaningful public input into the EB’s decision-making – something that is woefully lacking under the current procedures. You can download the submission here.

c. The issue of materiality in the CDM

In Cancun Kyoto Protocol Parties have decided to consider the issue of materiality with the aim to prepare a draft decision on this matter for COP-17 which will take place in December 2011 in Durban, South Africa.

“Materiality” would limit the liability of DOEs for errors in checking data in PDDs and accompanying documents. In theory, DOEs are held responsible for any CER which may be inappropriately issued. In such cases, DOEs have to replace a corresponding amount of “valid” CERs for those CERs issued in error. Recentely, the EB has shown in its new regulation for Programme of Activities (PoA) that this potential „buy back“ sanction is a serious option.

However, in practice, this situation has never occurred. Nevertheless DOEs re-main concerned over their liabilities and have pressured the EB to set a materiality threshold. They argue that without the application of materiality a DOE would need to be 100 % sure that no wrong figure or statement is given within the assessed

22 Based on decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 42, taking into account the recommendations of the EB contained in annex 2 to its annual report.

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

14 of 18

documents no matter what significance (in terms of non-additional emissions) such a mistake would have. But we believe that it is indeed the task of DOEs, to ensure that no wrong figures or statements are given in the PDD and assessed documents.

We believe that in the case of the CDM, it is important to bear in mind that it is an off-setting mechanism. This means that the emission reductions credited under the CDM entitle the buyers of the CERs to increase their domestic emissions correspondingly. The CDM in itself does not directly reduce global GHG emissions but helps to achieve a given emission reduction target at a lower cost.

Therefore, our comments are presented in the light of the risks the CDM poses to en-vironmental integrity if certified emissions reductions are issued as a result of wrong figures or statements given in the PDD and assessed documents.

You can download the submission here.

d. Inclusion of reforestation of lands with forest in exhaustion as A/R CDM project activities

Jointly with the Ecosystems Climate Alliance, CDM Watch also submitted its views on the potential inclusion of reforestation of lands with forest in exhaustion as A/R CDM project activities.

Currently, any plantation established on land that was forested after 1 January 1990 is excluded from the CDM. But a new possibility to include lands with “forests in exhaustion” as A/R CDM project activities is currently being considered.

The term forests in exhaustion (FE) was proposed by Brazil at COP-14 in Poznan and was used for the first time in Decision 2/CMP.4. But in the forestry sector this ex-pression has not been used so far and a specific description or definition endorsed by international organizations such as FAO, IPCC, etc. is not available.

This new definition would literally mean that an afforestation project could be im-plemented on land which is already forest. This is completely absurd. The definition may even include land areas with existing plantations or forests and builds on the hypothetical assumption that they would be “finally harvested” at some point in the future. This basically means nothing else than forest management would be allowed under the CDM which would severely contradict the agreement reached in Marrakech.

This is a very arbitrary approach, opening considerable potential for gaming. In practice, Brazil’s proposal would not benefit the climate but it would provide massive subsidies for forest management in existing monoculture tree plantations. Accor-ding to the REDD-monitor, Brazil’s “forests in exhaustion” CDM proposal would be a disaster for forests and for the climate and create a massive subsidy for industrial tree plantations. For more information about the impacts of this proposal and Brazil’s alleged motivations, please see Why Brazil is interested in “forests in exhaustion”.

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

15 of 18

In short, we consider this proposal to be little more than an attempt to provide subsi-dies to industrial tree plantations in circumstances that encourage bad management practices and the establishment of plantations in inappropriate locations. Such a subsidy would insulate the wood growing and processing industries from commercial pressures to improve their efficiency, reduce wastage, increase recycling and select more suitable sites for plantation establishment. The “forests in exhaustion” propo-sal also risks undermining the recently established REDD+ mechanism by incentivi-zing the establishment of plantations under the CDM rather than the restoration of natural forest ecosystems under REDD+.

The Ecosystems Climate Alliance and CDM Watch therefore consider that the propo-sal to include the reforestation of lands with forest in exhaustion as a CDM project activity should be rejected.

You can download the full submission here.

5. Civil society’s view on the CDM in Mesoamerica

In response to the growing number of CDM projects in Central America, CDM Watch organized two workshops in Mesoamerica to discuss the role of civil society in the CDM with representatives of the region.

A first workshop was organised on 16 February in Mexico City and a second two-day regional workshop was organised on 26 and 27 February in Santa Cruz Michapa, Cuscatlán, El Salvador bringing together more than 150 participants from all seven Mesoamerican countries: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and El Salvador. Representatives of environmental NGOs, social and gender movements, activists, leaders of peasant and indigenous communities, representa-tives of international networks, journalists and citizens came together to learn about possibilities for public participation and to exchange experience with the CDM in the respective host countries.

The workshops consisted of a detailed explanation of the origins and functioning of the CDM, in particular about the opportunities of public participation in the CDM project cycle. Participants also delivered presentations of case studies triggering country- and case specific discussions on the CDM and its impacts on livelihoods and the environment. Detailed discussions were concluded in “memorias” that provide summaries of demands and recommendations for improvements at local, national and international level for each of the participating countries.

Participants of both workshops clearly rejected the CDM as effective means to combat climate change. They did not agree that the CDM has achieved substantial emission reductions in developing countries but argued that many of the projects would be implemented anyway. Moreover, workshop participants heavily complained about enormous negative environmental and social impacts of large CDM megapro-jects that are being implemented despite local resistance. They argued that when validating a project on the ground, local opinion was strategically avoided and igno-

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

16 of 18

red in the validation process. As regards the public participation process, the main problems faced by local communities were timely access to information, linguistic obstacles and tight deadlines combined with in-transparent closing times, according to the workshop participants. Many discussions were focused on how to use com-ments that were prepared with much effort but could not be submitted due to the 7 hour time difference - a seemingly small issue with a huge impact.

More specifically, the workshop conclusions call for a total reform of the CDM especially with regards to public participation rules, accessibility of information and transparency of procedures. Other demands include the automatic ‘disqualification’ of CDM projects proven to violate human rights or other international conventions, as well as the exclusion of projects with inherent harmful social and environmen-tal impacts such as large hydro and monoculture projects. Equally the exclusion of projects extending the use of fossil fuels, such as supercritical coal and cement plant projects was demanded by civil society representatives.

In both events the level of active participation and constructive discussion was remarkable showing the interest of civil society representatives in the issue and the huge potential of young professional that are eager and keen to learn more about engaging in international climate policies. This was proven by the fact that several workshop participants immediately replicated the event in their home communities. The outcome of the workshop will be the basis of more coordination between local communities and international NGOs, such as CDM Watch.

The aim of these workshops is to empower local communities to understand the rights they were given to by the international community within the CDM process. With a public participation process in place, we believe that it should indeed serve as an instrument to highlight concerns about projects and if those concerns are justified, that appropriate measures are taken. If the

CDM should be an international instrument to reduce emissions and contribute to sustainable development, it must be able to withstand an effective public participati-on mechanism. As long as the CDM’s reputation is famous for ignoring affected communities’ opinions and enforced megaprojects combined with a weak validation that allows those projects to slip through the process, public acceptance in CDM host countries will not be possible. A thorough reform is needed.

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

17 of 18

6. CDM Watch is recruiting

We are seeking a dynamic and experienced Policy & Advocacy Officer to join our team and lead CDM Watch’s EU policy work as of May 2011. For more information check the vacancy announcement.

Applicants should send their CV, references and a strong cover letter, addressing the competencies required to info@cdm-watch.org.

Closing date: 15 April 2011. Interviews will be held on 20 April 2011.

Please forward this newsletter to anyone interested. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an email to info@cdm-watch.org – please specify »subscribe« or »un-subscribe« in the subject line.

WatchCDMScrutinizing Carbon Offsets

18 of 18

About CDM Watch

CDM Watch is an initiative of several international NGOs and was re-established in April 2009 to provide an independent perspective on CDM projects, methodologies and the work of the CDM Executive Board. The ultimate goal is helping to assure that the current CDM as well as a reformed mechanism post-2012 effectively result in emission reductions that are real, measurable, permanent, independently verified, and that contribute to sustainable development in CDM host countries.

Contact

Eva Maria FilzmoserProgramme Director CDM WatchNGO Forum Environment & Development

Rue d‘Edimbourg 26 . 1050 Brussels . Belgiumeva.filzmoser@cdm-watch.org

www.cdm-watch.org

The CDM Watch NetworkAction Solidarité Tiers Monde – ASTM, Luxembourg / Asociación Comunidades Ecologistas la Ceiba. Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica – COECOCEIBA-AT, Costa Rica / Asociacion CEIBA. Amigos de la Tierra Guatemala, Guatemala / Agricultural Development and Training Society – ADATS, India / Alianza para la Conservación y el Desarrollo – ACD, Panama / Angikar Bangladesh Foundation, Bangladesh / Both ENDS, The Netherlands / Centre for Education and Documentation – CED, India / Centro Salvadoreño de Tecnolo-gía Apropriada. Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador – CESTA, El Salvador / Centre for Science and Environment – CSE, India / Centro de Derecho Ambiental Mexicano – CEMDA, Mexico / Church Development Service - EED, Germany / Coordinadora Para La Defensa de Tierras y Aguas – CODETIAGUAS, Panama / Earthjus-tice, USA / Federação de Órgãos para Assistência Social e Educacional– FASE, Brasil / Forum of Collective Forms of Cooperation - FCFC, India / Forum Environment & Development, Germany / Germanwatch, Germany / Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives – GAIA , Philippines / Indian Network of Ethics and Climate Change – INECC, India / International Rivers, USA / Khazer Ecological and Cultural NGO, Armenia / La Vida no se represa - Movimiento Social por la defensa del Rio Sogamoso, Colombia / Laya Resource Center, Indien / Madre Tierra, Amigos de la Tierra Honduras, Honduras / Matu Peoples‘ Organisation, India / Mines, minerals and PEOPLE – mmP, India / Movimiento de Victimas, Afectados y Afectadas por el cambio climatico – MOVIAC, El Salvador /Movimento Nacional de Catadores de Materiais Recicláveis - MNCR, Brasil / Noe 21, Schweiz / Otros Mundos. Amigos de la Tierra Mexico, Mexico / Orissa Development Action Forum – ODAF, India / Paryavaran Mitra, India / Popol Nah Tun, Honduras / South Asian Network on Dams Rivers And People – SANDRP, India / Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, USA / The fair climate network – FCN, India / WWF European Policy Office, WWF Deutschland and WWF Japan

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the entire CDM Watch Network.