Section Menu

Stakeholder Involvement in the CCPO Review

Stakeholders submitted written comments on the role of the Climate Change Projects Office (CCPO) based on a discussion paper placed on the website, and also attended a workshop on 16 January 2008. Details of comments received are below:

1. Report of CCPO Review Workshop
2. Summary of written responses received

1. Report of CCPO Review Workshop – 16 January 2008

Summary

On 16 January 2008, thirteen individuals representing twelve organisations involved in climate change and the carbon market attended a stakeholder workshop as part of the government’s review of the Climate Change Projects Office (CCPO). Several government departments (BERR, UKTI and Defra) were also represented at the workshop. The companies who took part ranged from large financial institutions whose interest in carbon is only one of their activities, to specialist companies involved in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) market who had worked with the CCPO in the past, and smaller organisations who had not had contact with CCPO before the workshop.

Discussions at the workshop were based on a discussion paper that had been placed on the CCPO website six weeks prior to the event. The afternoon was split into four main sessions covering: Business contact with CCPO, Priority Markets, Capacity Building and Future CCPO Activities. Main messages and specific suggestions from the workshop participants are summarised below.

Main messages

Business contact with CCPO

• CCPO valued as a source of impartial advice, but technical advice is no longer required to the same extent now the market has grown; larger companies in particular have in-house advice.
• Trade missions continue to be useful and should continue; but the format should evolve.
• CCPO should look for ways to improve the profile of their activities.

Priority Markets

• Participants agreed with the discussion paper proposal that CCPO should balance its work between mature and emerging markets, as well as varying the format to suit the destination of trade missions.
• It was suggested that regional and sectoral trade missions should be considered now the CDM market is growing.
• Workshop attendees generally agreed with the proposed destinations for 08-09 and the inclusion of Joint Implementation (JI): Western Asia, Africa, Gulf States, Russia, Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
  

Capacity Building

• As the discussion paper proposed, there is a role for CCPO to do capacity building with the private sector, but the private sector should not be relied upon to deliver capacity building for the UK.
• Sharing private sector experience with host country DNAs in order to facilitate doing business in emerging markets was a popular proposed activity.
• Capacity building must be targeted in order to be effective and cannot always be done alongside trade promotion.

CCPO Future Activities

• Attendees broadly agreed with the proposed activities in the discussion paper. They emphasised that trade missions were key.
• Capacity building activities should be tailored.
• CCPO should act as a conduit to other parts of government for industry.

Sample specific suggestions

• CCPO should raise awareness of CDM issues in areas of the UK outside London
• Business would appreciate more feedback about CCPO activities, e.g. info on website about missions.
• Trade missions to Indonesia and Latin America as well as proposed destinations, plus work to showcase CDM in US, Australia and Canada.
• CCPO should encourage Chambers of Commerce it works with to interact with DNAs for capacity building.
• Pre-mission meetings in London for attendees of trade missions.

2. CCPO Review – summary of written responses to discussion paper

Introduction

As part of the Review of the UK government’s Climate Change Projects Office (CCPO), a discussion paper was published on the CCPO website, including a list of suggested questions for stakeholders to answer. 19 written responses were received, 17 based on the suggested questions, of which 15 were from industry and 2 from staff at UK Embassies in destinations where CCPO had taken trade missions in the past.

Of the industry respondents who participated in the review, some of them also attended the CCPO Review Workshop on 16 January 2008 (see separate document reporting the event). Written responses were received from across most of the spectrum of CCPO stakeholders, from large financial institutions whose interest in carbon is part of wider activities, to companies specialising in the Clean Development Mechanism. Responses were not however received from very small companies (i.e. one or two people) – this is a type of organisation that CCPO frequently advises on how to undertake climate change projects. A summary of the 17 written responses received that focussed on suggested questions is below. More detailed analysis follows. The total of answers described sometimes adds up to more or less than 17 where responses covered two or more areas, or did not contain an answer to that question.

Summary of main messages

• Most respondents thought trade missions were the most useful of CCPO activities and almost all could envisage attending a future trade mission.
• Whilst the value of technical advice from CCPO was questioned by a considerable number of respondents, many could foresee using technical advice from CCPO in the future.
• Using industry secondee(s) was generally popular but conflicts of interest should be avoided at all costs. Finding advantages for companies of funding an impartial secondee was seen as challenging by several respondents.
• Business guides had been used by around half of those who replied and they were seen as more useful for smaller companies. It was suggested that case studies should be used in guides, and that they needed to be updated regularly.
• It was suggested that CCPO should feed in ideas from industry to the rest of Whitehall, including for policy; and that CCPO could provide more market data, and networking opportunities.
• The overwhelming majority of responses were in favour of an annual stakeholder meeting and that it should be made clear how CCPO fits with the rest of government.
• Most responses agreed with the proposed balance between mature and emerging markets; but there was more interest in trade missions to emerging markets; and using sectoral or regional approaches.
• Suggested additional destinations to those proposed in the discussion document included Cambodia, Laos, Least Developed Countries (Africa – Botswana), New Zealand, Australia, voluntary markets, South East Asia.
• The main suggestions for increasing participation in trade missions were greater publicity and the use of trade associations.
• Almost all respondents felt that CCPO could add value by undertaking capacity building work. It should not replace work done by other government departments however. Most suggestions were to work with DNAs on explaining industry perspectives to facilitate work in host countries.
• Most respondents agreed with the proposed activities for CCPO going forward. Other suggestions included looking at forestry and reducing the advice provided to industry now the sector is mature.
• Almost all respondents felt trade missions were the most important CCPO activity. Capacity building was rated as more important than business advice by most, and additional comments ranged from congratulations on CCPO work to date, and suggestions for tailoring services to different audiences.