Search

Stakeholder participation is recognized as a key principle for effective climate governance. Climate mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) provide guidelines for local stakeholder consultation (LSC). However, little empirical research exists on how LSC is practised, and synergies between climate mechanisms are largely unexplored. This study explores how international LSC rules are practised at national and local levels. It aims to better shape future LSC in climate mechanisms by learning from the case of China. First, LSC policies in CDM, REDD+, and GCF are identified. Relevant rules in China's local policies are analysed. To understand the interaction between CDM policies and China's local LSC rules, a selection of Chinese CDM Projects Design Documents (PDDs) are analysed, providing an overall impression of the stakeholder process and results. Afterwards, we focus on a single case for an in-depth understanding of LSC in practice. Results point to the weakness of current CDM LSC rules and lack of good practice guidance, e.g. regarding who to consult, what approaches to be used, and when and how consultations shall take place. It also points to the lack of a clear relationship between global CDM policies and national LSC rules. The weaknesses of existing CDM LSC practices and procedures are not unique to the China case but are relevant to other countries and climate mechanisms. REDD+ and GCF provide good examples of LSC rules, where CDM can learn, share experiences, and explore synergies for future revisions. Policy relevance Contributing to the debate on public participation and effective climate governance related to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Article 6, this study examines stakeholder participation in the CDM and explores synergies with other mitigation mechanisms such as REDD+ and the GCF. Stakeholder participation in China is investigated to present realities on the ground. It points out the lack of detailed guidelines and provides insights into how national regulations and cultural practice take precedence over international CDM rules. The findings point to proposals for improving international regulations on stakeholder participation in the CDM and beyond for a stronger framework across climate governance mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]