climate change mitigation Archives

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) reached a milestone in February when countries participating in the development of ISO 26000, Guidance on social responsibility, approved the latest version of their document as a Draft International Standard. This brings ISO one step closer to publication of an International Standard which could occur later in 2010 or in 2011.

The road to this milestone has been long and bumpy. Seven meetings of 430 experts from 90 countries and representing 40 organizations have been held, and what could be the final one is scheduled for May 2010. Although the Danish host of the May meeting, Ole Blöndal, stated in his invitation letter that the document now represents “broad consensus on common guidelines among different stakeholders around the world,” the results of the DIS ballot suggest that serious differences of opinion remain. Before returning to that topic, let’s take a closer look at the content of the standard.

The heart of the document is found in sections 3-6. Section 3 introduces the topic of social responsibility through discussions of its historical background, recent trends, characteristics of social responsibility, and the different roles for states and organizations with respect to the creation and application of laws.

Seven principles of social responsibility are set forth in section 4. They include:
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Ethical behavior
• Respect for stakeholder interests
• Respect for the rule of law
• Respect for international norms of behavior
• Respect for human rights.

Section 5, “Recognizing social responsibility and engaging stakeholders,” provides guidance on the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders and society. It defines core subjects and issues of social responsibility and describes the “sphere of influence” on these subjects and issues that an organization has.

The “core subjects” covered by the standard include the most likely economic, environmental and social impacts that should be addressed by organizations, namely:
• Organizational governance
• Human rights
• Labor practices
• The environment
• Fair operating practices
• Consumer issues
• Community involvement and development.

Section 6 of the standard is organized around the core subjects and associated issues relating to social responsibility. Subsections provide an overview for each subject, principles and considerations in understanding an organization’s role with respect to the topic, and detailed descriptions of issues and what related actions and expectations an organization should take with respect to them. For example, in subsection 6.5, the guidance provides an overview of the relationship of an organization to the environment and identifies four principles for organizations: environmental responsibility, use of the precautionary approach, environmental risk management, and polluter pays.

A section on “considerations” refers organizations to the following approaches and strategies:
• Life cycle thinking
• Environmental impact assessment
• Cleaner production and eco-efficiency
• A product-service system approach
• Use of environmentally sound technologies and practices, and
• Sustainable procurement.

Four environmental issues are analyzed in detail. They include prevention of pollution, sustainable resource use, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and protection of the environment and restoration of natural habitats.

Section 7 provides guidance on integrating social responsibility throughout an organization. Topics include increasing understanding of social responsibility and setting expectations, communication, taking action, monitoring progress and improving performance, and evaluating the relevance of voluntary initiatives outside the organization that are designed to assist organizations in meeting social responsibility objectives.

When all the country votes on adopting ISO 26000 as a Draft International Standard were counted in February 2010, the document that so many experts had worked on since 2005 barely achieved the needed margins for approval. It needed 52 affirmative votes and got 56; and it had to attract no more than 19 negative votes (it received 18). Half of no votes came from states in the Middle East. The other nine negative votes were cast by an array of countries that included Russia, China, India, Malaysia, Cuba, Viet Nam and Kazakhstan. Thirteen countries abstained or did not vote.

ISO/DIS 26000 represents a serious attempt to address the social responsibilities of organizations. The document is not designed to be used for certification purposes, and explicitly says that any certification program that makes such a claim is misrepresenting the intent of the standard. Nonetheless, it is difficult to define “actions and expectations” related to the world’s most important economic, social and environmental issues and not expect watchdogs, self-appointed or otherwise, to take heed and to hold organizations accountable for their actions, or inactions.

ISO/DIS 26000 is available for download at www.iso.org/wgsr.

The COP-15 negotiations in Copenhagen did not produce a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. This left many countries and observers bitterly disappointed. It also left in doubt the future beyond 2012 of institutions spawned by the Kyoto Protocol such as the Clean Development Mechanism and the program of Joint Implementation, both “flexible mechanisms” of Kyoto that produce tradable carbon offset credits.

But the agreement brokered by US President Barack Obama did accomplish one goal the US has long held dear. It formally committed the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, to concrete goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions. At Chinese insistence these goals will be based on reducing the intensity of China’s growth in future emissions rather than in absolute cuts. And for now, no text has been agreed to that will give China’s or any other country’s emission reduction targets the force of international law. Nonetheless the largest of the world’s most rapidly industrializing developing countries have agreed to set targets, and that principle is important.

Many details of the new agreement have been left for resolution to future meetings. One of the most contentious is the verification regime that will permit assessment of the progress developing countries make on achieving targeted reductions. President Obama insisted that independent verification was essential and that all countries should consent to it. Earlier in the talks the Chinese had insisted that its sovereignty was at stake and that it would certify the results of actions taken without the involvement of outside parties. While the details are not yet clear, President Obama’s direct negotiations with the Chinese premier on Friday Dec. 18 appeared to have succeeded in obtaining China’s agreement to some acceptable form of monitoring and verification.

Transparency was a major theme of the COP-15 before the international leaders arrived on the scene for conference’s waning days. At an earlier COP the principle had been agreed to that emission reductions from developing countries should be “monitored, reported and verified”—or MRV’d for short. The MRV concept specifically was to be applied to “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” that developing countries take on a voluntary basis. Hence the interest of having the largest emitters in the rapidly industrializing world, China and India in particular, set targets and agree to some kind of regime for monitoring and verification.

It was left to a future meeting—perhaps the COP-16 in Mexico City in December 2010—to flesh out the details for monitoring, reporting and verification. In the meantime ISO—the International Organization for Standardization—presented a concept at a side event cosponsored by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for a greenhouse gas management system standard that could be used by national governments—or regional or local subunits of governments—to manage, monitor, report and verify climate change mitigation actions. The outline of such a standard was presented by the US-based United Nations Foundation, an advocacy group, and commented on by an Indonesian delegate to the talks in his capacity as Vice Chair of ISO Technical Committee 207 Subcommittee 1 on Environmental Management Systems. Last week in my blog I described the standards published by ISO TC 207 Subcommittee 7 on Greenhouse Gas Management and Related Activities which would also support this management system approach.

The ISO approach is valuable for at least two reasons. First, it provides a framework for countries, regions, or communities to manage climate change mitigation actions at the operational level. A management system provides a ready framework for capacity building and technology transfer, which is just what the developing world needs to implement mitigation actions. Second, it provides assurance to countries furnishing climate change mitigation assistance that their investments in hundreds of locations throughout the world are properly deployed and that results are monitored, reported and verified.

ISO management system standards, in particular ISO 9001 for quality management and ISO 14001 for environmental management, are some of the most popular and widely adopted management system standards in the world. There is no doubt that a management system standard for climate change mitigation could be developed on an accelerated timetable and that it could be of enormous importance in achieving the verification objectives set forth in the Copenhagen COP-15 accord. Third-party verification could be achieved by bodies independent of any national government or the UNFCCC while at the same time augmenting the effectiveness of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions.

Tag: climate change mitigation

COP-15 Accord Breaks New Ground In Voluntary Commitments from China, India and Brazil; Could an ISO GHG Management System Standard Help with Verification?