tom heinemann engagement process - the gold standard · 2020-04-02 · this document provides a...

EngagementProcess:TomHeinemannClimateDocumentaryThisdocumentprovidesasummaryoftheinteractionswehadwithTomHeinemann,whilsthewasconductingresearchforhisdocumentaryoncarbonmarketsinapost-Kyotoworld.

16October2012TomcalledTheGoldStandardofficeandhadaconversationaboutthecarbonmarketingeneralandoutlinedthe

synopsisofhisdocumentary–i.e.anoverallinvestigationintocarbontradingaftertheendoftheKyotoProtocol.

Weofferedtobeofwhateverassistancewecould.Tomsaidhewoulddosomewebresearchandgetbacktousif

herequired.

28March2013

TomemailedTheGoldStandardaskingforourresponsetoseveralquestionsfollowingavisitofhistoKenyato

VesteraardFrandsen’sCarbonforWaterproject.Heclaimedthatduringhisvisitthemajorityofpeoplehespoketo

didnotusetheLifestrawfiltertocleansetheirwater,whichseemedtocontradictthepublicityaroundtheproject

andthenumberofcarboncreditsTheGoldStandardhadissuedtoVestergaardinthefirstissuanceperiod.Heasked

forspecificinformationonthevalidation/verificationprocess,thenumberofVERsissuedtodateandourimpression

ofhisinterviewsthatpeopledonotusetheLifestraw.

2April2013

TheGoldStandardrespondedtoTomprovidinganswerstohisvalidation/verificationquestions,includingour

processofNGOandotherstakeholderfeedbackthatisapartofeveryreview.Weexplainedtohimthatno2013

verificationreportwas,asyet,availableonlineasthisprocesswasunderway.Wewereopenthatwehadreceived

questionsfromwithinourNGOsupporternetworkwithregardstotheLifestrawprojectandwewereintheprocess

ofinvestigatingthem.WealsoencouragedTomtoprovideuswithfurtherinformationandmorespecificfeedback

fromhisvisittoKenyaas,ifthereareconcernsaboutanyGoldStandardprojects,itisourdutyastheregulator,to

addressthem.

7April2013

TomrespondedtoTheGoldStandard’spreviousemailaskingforspecificinformationabouttheNGOsconcernsand

askingwhentheinvestigationwouldbemadepublic.HealsodeclinedtoprovideTheGoldStandardwithanyfurther

informationwithregardstohismediainterviewsinKenya,citingthatasajournalisthecouldnotrevealanysources

ordetailsasidefromthoseinterviewsthatwouldbepubliclyairedinhisdocumentary.

8April2013

TheGoldStandardhadalongconversationwithTom,talkinghimthroughallofhispointsandansweringallofhis

questionsaboutGoldStandardprocesses,andVestergaardinparticular,includingthereviewprocessthatwas

underwaywithbothTheGoldStandardTechnicalTeamandTACinvolved,theNGOquestionsaroundusagerates

thathadbeenraisedandtheconceptofsuppresseddemand.TheGoldStandard,onceagain,invitedTomtoprovide

hisinformationtoourTACtobetakenintoconsiderationhoweverhedeclined.Uponbeingpressed,Tomdidadmit

thathedidn’tdo‘thatmany’interviews’10,20,100?’‘oh,nowaynear100,morethan10’,alsoadmittingthathis

interviewswere‘investigativejournalism’,notempirical,randomsample,scientificallyrelevantsurveysofwhichany

resultswouldbetakenseriously.HealsooutlinedthathehadspokentoaneconomistattheUniversityof

Copenhagenwhohadtoldhimsuppresseddemandwasguessworkandlikelookingintoacrystalball.WhenThe

GoldStandardrespondedbyexplainingtheconcept,andthehigh-levelgovernmentworkthathadbeendone

aroundsuppresseddemand,heendedthecall.

16April2013

TheGoldStandardproactivelyemailedTomanupdatefollowingaTACmeetingduringwhichtheCarbonforWater

projectwasdiscussed.Reiteratingtheconversationheldthepreviousweek,TheGoldStandardoutlinedourissuance

processandtheabilityofNGOsandallstakeholderstoinputandqueryprojects.TheGoldStandardagainoutlinedin

detailthat3separatesurveysallrecordedarounda92%usageratefortheLifestrawintheprojectareaandthe

methodologiesbehindthesesurveys.Italsooutlinedtheprocessofreviewunderwayandhighlightedthatthedelay

ofthesecondissuanceofcreditsillustratedhowseriouslywetookthereviewprocess.Forathirdtime,TheGold

StandardinvitedTomtoprovidefurtherinformationofhisallegednon-usageofLifestrawfilters–outliningthat

whilsthisinterviewswereunlikelytobestatisticallyrelevanttheymayprovideimportantcomparisonswithother

surveyresultsandthereforebeusefulinareviewoftheproject.

Tomrespondedonthesamedayquestioningthatthreesurveysfoundanidentical92%usagerate,againreiterating

thathebelievedhisinterviewsshoweddifferentlyandaskingforthesurveyresults.

TheGoldStandardrespondedthatthesurveyresultswerethepropertyofVestergaardFrandsenandhewouldneed

tocontactthemtosecurethemandclarifiedthatthethreesurveysfoundsimilarusagerates,notidenticalusage

ratesandthatcreditingwasbasedupon92%asthatwasthelowestusagenumber.

9May2013

TomwrotetoTheGoldStandardthankingusforprovidingdetailsofourpipelineandaskedhowmanyGSprojects

usethesuppresseddemandmethodologytocalculateemissionreductions/creditissuance.

15May2013

TheGoldStandardrespondedhavingaskedPerspectivesforacomprehensiveexplanationofsuppresseddemand,

givenAbhishek’sfeedbackthatallprojectsthatfollowtheCDM,tosomeextent,takesuppresseddemandinto

account.TheGoldStandardprovidedTomwithAxelMichelowa’ssummaryoftheconcept.GSalsoproactively

updatedTom1.31millioncreditswouldshortlyissueforCarbonforWater.GSalsotoldTomthatthisisnotthefull

numberofcreditsbecause,whilstweandourNGOsupporterswerecomfortablethattheprojectwasdelivering

robustemissionreductionsrelatingtotheuseofLifestrawthatexceedthisvolume,wewerealsohavingsome

additionalindependentresearchundertakeninordertobecertainoftheusagerates.GSdidreiteratethathislower

thanrequestedissuancewasanormalpartofourfeedbackprocess.

18May2013

Tomsentanemailoutliningsomeofhisfinalpassagesinthefilminordertoensurethathehadnotmademistakes.

21May2013

GSrepliedtoTomtocorrect/clarifymanyofhispassages,including:

• HismisunderstandingofhowmanypeopleboiltheirwaterinKenyaandhowmanypeoplewouldboiltheir

waterunderasuppresseddemandmethodologyiftheywereableandanexplanationthatthetwofigures

areirrelevanttoeachotherandarenotcomparable.

• HismisunderstandingandmisrepresentationofsuppresseddemandandhowmanyGSprojectshave

elementsofsuppresseddemandincludedintheirmethodologies,includingthatitisusedthroughoutcarbon

marketsunderCDMmeths.

• HismisrepresentationthatGSestimateshowmanycreditsareissuedovercertainperiods,correctingthat

GSistheregulatorthereforecertifiescreditswhenanissuanceisrequestedbyprojectdevelopersand

perhapsprojectdevelopersestimatethenumberofcreditsoverthelifetimeofaproject.AllfutureGScredit

issuanceforanyprojectisdependentonwhetherourrulesaremetoverthelifetimeofaproject.

• Thatwearenotcreditinga92%usagerate–thatthisnumberispreciselythefocusofthefurtheranalysis

wearecurrentlyundertaking.

24May2013

TomwrotetosayhewouldcorrecthismistakesandrequestedaninterviewwithAdrianashesaidhefoundthe25%

currentboilingrateandthe79%boilingrateusedinsuppresseddemandcalculationshighlyrelevant.Hewantedan

interviewtoatightdeadline.SeveralemailsensuredculminatinginhisstatementthathewouldsayTheGold

Standardwasnotpreparedtobeinterviewed,whichwascorrectedbyanexplanationthatAdrianwastravelling(in

WashingtonDC)andAbhishekwasinIndia.HeagreedtosaythatitwasnotpossibletogetaninterviewwithGS.

Tomwrotetosayhedidnotthinkwehadprovidedadequateanswerstotheconceptofsuppresseddemand,nor

hadweprovidedsufficientcommentonthewomenhehadfilmedinKakamega.

25May2013

GSrespondedthatwehadansweredhisquestionsonsuppresseddemandhowevertheissueshewasraisingwere

morephilosophicalandquestioningaconceptattheheartoftheCDM–establishedandsupportedbytheUNand

nationalgovernments.Forabroadermarket/intellectualperspectiveonhisquestionswesuggestedeitherAxel

Michelowaor,e.g.BMU.InrelationtotheinterviewsheconductedwithwomenintheKakamegaareaGS

respondedagainthat,ashehadpreviouslyacknowledgedhisinterviewswerenotpartofarepresentative,random

samplesurvey.Furtherwerespondedthathehadnotprovideduswithanyfurtherdetailsasidefromageneral

statementthereforewithoutknowingmorespecificallyhowmanywomenhespoketoandwhere,itwasvery

difficultforustocommentfurther.

27May2013

Tomrespondedthathewasnotsatisfiedwithouranswersandwehadfailedtoadequatelyaddressthesuppressed

demandconceptinrelationtoLifestrawinparticularandthenumberofcreditsissued.Healsorespondedthathe

didnotunderstandwhythepercentageofpeoplewhocurrentlyboiltheirwaterisnotcomparabletothosewho

wouldunderasuppresseddemandmethodology.InrelationtohisinterviewswiththewomeninKakamega,hewas

alsonothappywithouranswers,andsharedthathehadnotreceivedanysurveydocumentationfromVestergaard.

Fromourperspectiveitfeltlikehewasunwillingtounderstandtheconceptofsuppresseddemand.Thisprojectis

notaboutwhatpeoplewouldhavedoneinthefuturetotreatwateriftheyhadtheresources.Accesstosafewater

isabasichumanright.Iftheworldwasafairerplace,peopleshouldhavebeenboilingwateralongtimeago.And

wearenotcreditingthevolumeofwaterpeoplearetreatingwithLifestraw,butwecreditthebasichumanneedas

pertheWHO,whichisamaximumof6litres/person/day.Withoutthismethodology,disadvantagedcommunities

wouldnotbeabletoaccessorbenefitfromcleantechnologies,suchasinterventionsthatprovidesafewater,

fundedbyclimatefinancemechanisms.

Formoreinformationaboutourworkonsuppresseddemand:

http://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/climate_policy_brief_final_lo-res.pdf