Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects

This article presents an analytical framework for analyzing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in terms of their contribution to employment generation, equal distribution of CDM returns, and improvement of local air quality. It assesses 16 officially registered CDM projects with regard to whether they fulfill the two objectives required by the Kyoto Protocol: greenhouse gas emission reductions and contribution to sustainable development in the host country. While a large part (72%) of the total portfolio’s expected Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) are likely to represent real and measurable emission reductions, less than 1% are likely to contribute significantly to sustainable development in the host country. According to our analysis, there are currently no UNFCCC registered CDM projects that are likely to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol’s twofold objective of simultaneously delivering greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and contributing to sustainable development.     

Developing institutions for the clean development mechanism (CDM): African perspectives

Abstract

The clean development mechanism (CDM) requires developing countries to set up designated national authorities (DNAs). The DNA should be designed to both attract investment and to establish an effective regulatory framework for project approval—including assessment to ensure that CDM projects contribute to national sustainable development objectives. Since CDM investment flows to Africa are uncertain, however, countries cannot risk large investments in institutional infrastructure and need to build on existing institutions. This article examines the critical functions that a DNA has to fulfil, and outlines several institutional models. It concludes that models that minimize institutional cost by drawing on existing institutions for environmental impact assessment and promotion of foreign direct investment are likely to be the best starting-point for DNAs in many African countries.     

Determinants of technology transfer through the CDM: a within-country analysis for China

Technology transfer (TT) is not mandatory for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, yet proponents of CDM argue that TT in CDM can bring new technologies to developing countries and thus not only reduce emissions but also foster development. We review the quantitative literature on determinants of TT in CDM and estimate determinants for CDM projects in China. China is by far the largest host country of CDM projects and it is therefore crucial to understand the factors that drive TT there. To gain better interpretation, we focus on heterogeneity within a single country and results can thus be linked to specific policies of the country. Our probit estimations confirm previous international cross-country studies, indicating that larger projects and more advanced technologies are more likely to involve TT. In addition, we find evidence that agglomeration effects are more pronounced at the province level rather than larger regions. We also find a positive effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) on TT, and academic research and development (R&D) is complementary to TT.

Policy relevance

Technology transfer (TT) is a goal of Chinese CDM legislation, but it is not a prerequisite for project approval. Our estimations show the project specific, technological and region-specific features that encourage more TT among CDM projects. Some variables analysed such as R&D spending and FDI (both are found to have positive effects on TT) can be, to some extent, influenced by the policy-makers. Moreover, we find some evidence for the presence of negative agglomeration effects on the provincial level: the likelihood of TT is decreasing in the number of previous projects operating in the same technology and province. This finding needs to be interpreted with great caution. It may suggest the existence of a learning externality, which could serve as a justification for policy intervention. Any policy intervention requires however careful analysis of potential positive or negative externalities resulting from the agglomeration of CDM projects and a comparison of possible benefits with the costs of TT.     

A two-track CDM: improved incentives for sustainable development and offset production

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been criticized in the literature for encouraging a focus on offset production (OP) at the expense of achieving or encouraging sustainable development (SD). It is argued that one explanation for this is that there is no commonly agreed definition of SD and, moreover, the priority of CDM project developers is often to produce cost-effective OP. Many of the proposals to address these drawbacks are not politically feasible. It is argued that the CDM should be split into a two-track mechanism, with one track for offset production and the other for offset production with an emphasis on sustainable development benefits. This would enable the political deadlock to be broken, allow the inclusion of SD benefits in the price mechanism itself, and allow both SD and OP objectives to be simultaneously achieved.

Policy relevance

The CDM has been criticized for failing to achieve its sustainable development objective, for verification problems regarding the mitigation effects of projects’ emissions, for being complex and bureaucratic, and for the very limited participation by the least developed countries. Given the adoption of a second period of the Kyoto Protocol and the discussion of new market mechanisms in the context of negotiating a new global climate agreement to be adopted in 2015, it is time to explore the ways in which the CDM might be reformed. A two-track version of the CDM is proposed, with one track focused on credit (offset) production and the other track focused on sustainable development. This system could improve the incentive for achieving sustainable development, reduce the uncertainty regarding whether real emissions reductions have been achieved, and be attractive to both developing and industrialized countries.     

Towards practitioner-initiated interactive knowledge development for sustainable development: A cross-case analysis of three coastal projects

Although the central challenges of sustainable development are well-known, sustainability science has been slow in contributing to effective and feasible solutions for sustainable development. Turning knowledge into action for sustainable development therefore remains a major challenge for sustainability science. Interactive knowledge development is considered a prerequisite for sustainability-oriented action. Most studies approach interactive knowledge development from a researcher's perspective. This paper focuses on practitioners that initiate interactive knowledge development for sustainability-oriented actions. A cross-case analysis is presented for interactive knowledge development in coastal projects. Three cases are analysed through the framework of project arrangements and knowledge arrangements. The projects are located in the Wadden Sea, San Francisco Bay and the Ems estuary and address issues of flood control, nature restoration and liveability. The cross-case analysis revealed 11 causal mechanisms that help explain how project decision-making impacts on interactive knowledge development, how a process of interactive knowledge development functions and what its outcomes are. The mechanisms clarify the key underlying processes of interactive knowledge development in coastal projects. The mechanisms show that interactive knowledge development may result in sustainability-oriented solutions that are feasible for implementation. As such, this paper contributes to a practice-oriented understanding of turning knowledge into action for sustainable coastal development.     

The potential of the CDM to deliver pro-poor benefits

The potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to deliver pro-poor benefits at the community level is examined. Both regular CDM and premium add-on standard projects are evaluated, including the Gold Standard and Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard, through the use of seven poverty indicators. Some key characteristics associated with providing pro-poor benefits are also identified. Finally, the market potential of a revised or new premium add-on standard explicitly designed to deliver pro-poor benefits is assessed through the use of a survey. The results indicate that regular CDM projects are only moderately successful at delivering pro-poor benefits. Although the few projects registered that utilize the CCB Standard all performed well in delivering pro-poor benefits, those that used the Gold Standard performed only slightly better than regular CDM projects. Characteristics associated with providing pro-poor benefits include the use of add-on standards, a high level of stakeholder participation, and the development of projects by not-for-profit and government/intergovernmental organizations. The survey of carbon market participants indicated both an interest and desire for Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits with pro-poor benefits attached and shows that the market potential for such a standard to be quite good.

Policy relevance

This analysis of the CDM goes beyond sustainable development to consider the potential of a project to deliver pro-poor benefits at the local community level. Specific characteristics associated with projects are identified that appear to deliver pro-poor benefits that may benefit future project design. Through this analysis and identifying these characteristics, actions may be taken to incorporate those into CDM project requirements or guidelines to advance the mechanism as a means to contribute to poverty alleviation.     

Implementing CDM for the Indian dairy sector: prospects and issues

What is the potential for developing small-scale CDM projects in India to reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle and buffaloes? The issue of baseline setting for prospective CDM projects is a complex one in the Indian context. The baselines constructed on the basis of aggregate emission rates at the national level are unlikely to be precise as methane emission rates are influenced by the livestock and feed characteristics, which vary widely across regions in an agro-climatically diverse country like India. This calls for establishing a project specific baseline underpinned with regional methane emission rates. The various aspects of sustainable development that merit consideration in formulating a CDM project in the Indian dairy sector include; increasing the productivity of animals, increasing the net income of producers, decreasing the cost of milk production and the transfer of safe technologies. The projects in the sector would be able to meet the ‘additionality’ conditions of the CDM. However, there are a number of constraints in implementing the enteric methane mitigation strategies through a CDM project at the field level. The article discusses these technical, financial, socio-cultural and institutional barriers along with possible responses to these constraints.     

CDM: Is it a ‘win–win’ strategy for rural poverty alleviation in India?

India is perceived to be one of the most attractive Non-Annex I countries for CDM project development. There are more than 350 projects in the CDM pipeline, largely in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency in industries and fossil fuel switching. This paper examines the socio-economic component of sustainable development commitments of the CDM projects to see if they can make any impact on rural poverty in India, since the goal of poverty alleviation lies at the core of the country’s development priorities. The study concludes that CDM is not contributing to rural poverty alleviation to any notable extent. Nearly all the projects have a business orientation and are not directed to the development of rural poor. Even the renewable energy projects will have limited role in up-liftment of the masses below poverty line due to their weak resource base. For CDM to emerge as a “win–win” strategy for poverty alleviation projects should be aimed at the rural communities and designed to accelerate agricultural growth in the rainfed regions of the country.     

Community forest management in Mexico: carbon mitigation and biodiversity conservation through rural development

Forest management is an important carbon mitigation strategy for developing countries. As demonstrated by the case of Mexico, community forest management is especially effective because it offers tangible local benefits while conserving forests and sequestering carbon. Community forestry receives minimal government support now, but the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol could leverage additional resources to promote the approach in Mexico and elsewhere. We argue that adequately designed and implemented, community forestry management projects can avoid deforestation and restore forest cover and forest density. They comprise promising options for providing both carbon mitigation and sustainable rural development. These kinds of projects should be included in the CDM.     

Time to market in the CDM: variation over project characteristics and time

Not only is the carbon market inundated with Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) issued by successful projects, it is also littered with failed projects, that is, projects that either fail to be registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or projects that have been successfully registered but fail to issue CERs. By relying on a novel application of survival analysis in the context of the CDM, this article shows that half of all projects that start the Global Stakeholder Process fail to issue CERs, while the other half have a median time to market of four years. Furthermore, it is shown that some of the best projects, in terms of being additional, are those that are least likely to make it to market, whereas some of the worst projects, in terms of not being additional, are the ones that are most likely to make it to market. This presents a fundamental challenge for the CDM and future offset schemes that rely on the same design as the CDM. In contrast with previous studies, it is shown that, when project characteristics are controlled for, not all durations measured along the CDM project cycle have increased over time.

Policy relevance

This article develops a novel method for analysing durations measured along the CDM project cycle that avoids the biases of previous studies, and corrects for some misconceptions of what the delays faced by CDM projects are and how these delays have changed over time. Developing an understanding of the delays is important in order not to draw the wrong lessons from the CDM experience. As the leading example of an offset scheme, both in terms of geographical scope and sectoral coverage, and some would say institutional complexity, the CDM serves as a benchmark and reference for all future offset schemes, among others, for the New Market Mechanisms (NMMs) and the Chinese domestic offset programme. While the NMMs are still very much in development, China has announced that it will rely on the methodologies and procedures developed under the CDM for generating offsets for their regional carbon trading schemes.     

The future of the CDM: same same,but differentiated?

Policy-makers and scientists have raised concerns about the functioning of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in particular regarding its low contribution to sustainable development, unbalanced regional and sectoral distribution of projects, and its limited contribution to global emission reductions. Differentiation between countries or project types has been proposed as a possible way forward to address these problems. An overview is provided of the different ways in which CDM differentiation could be implemented. The implications for the actors involved in the CDM are analysed, along with a quantitative assessment of the impacts on the carbon market, using bottom-up marginal abatement cost curves. The discounting of CDM credits, quota systems, or differentiated eligibility of countries could help to address several of the concerns raised. Preferential treatment may also make a limited contribution to achieving the aims of CDM differentiation by increasing opportunities for under-represented host countries. The impact on the carbon market appears to be limited for most options.     

Technology transfer by CDM projects

Abstract

Technology development and transfer is an important feature of both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. Although the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) does not have an explicit technology transfer mandate, it may contribute to technology transfer by financing emission reduction projects using technologies currently not available in the host countries. This article analyses the claims about technology transfer made by CDM project participants in their project design documents. Roughly one-third of all CDM projects, accounting for almost two-thirds of the annual emission reductions, involve technology transfer. Technology transfer varies widely across project types and is more common for larger projects and projects with foreign participants. Equipment transfer is more common for larger projects, while smaller projects involve transfers of both equipment and knowledge or of knowledge alone. Technology transfer does not appear to be closely related to country size or per-capita GDP, but a host country can influence the extent of technology transfer involved in its CDM projects.     

Who uses the Clean Development Mechanism? An empirical analysis of projects in Chinese provinces

China is by far the largest host of projects implemented under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, earlier studies shed little light on the determinants of the distribution of CDM projects across Chinese provinces. Given China's large size and political-economic diversity, this dearth of research is troubling. We provide an empirical analysis of 2097 CDM projects in 30 Chinese provinces, 2004–2009. We find that high electricity consumption, low per capita income, and a lack of foreign direct investment are all associated with CDM project implementation. The findings are particularly strong for electricity and foreign direct investment. These findings are consistent with the economic theory of CDM project implementation. Project developers focus on minimizing the cost of carbon abatement. Moreover, they suggest that the CDM can, despite its limitations, contribute to reducing economic inequality and uneven development in China.     

Experts talk the future Reflections on the Bonn Seminar of Governmental Experts, 16–17 May 2005: a view from Europe

Abstract

This article provides a first-cut estimate of the potential impacts of the clean development mechanism (CDM) on electricity generation and carbon emissions in the power sector of non-Annex 1 countries. We construct four illustrative CDM regimes that represent a range of approaches under consideration within the climate community. We examine the impact of these CDM regimes on investments in new generation, under illustrative carbon trading prices of US$ 10 and 100/t C. In the cases that are most conducive to CDM activity, roughly 94% of new generation investments remains identical to the without-CDM situation, with only 6% shifting from higher to lower carbon intensity technologies.We estimate that the CDM would bolster renewable energy generation by as little as 15% at US$ 10/t C, or as much as 300% at US$ 100/t C.

A striking finding comes from our examination of the potential magnitude of the “free-rider” problem, i.e. crediting of activities that will occur even in the absence of the CDM. The CDM is intended to be globally carbon-neutral—a project reduces emissions in the host country but generates credits that increase emissions in the investor country. However, to the extent that unwarranted credits are awarded to non-additional projects, the CDM would increase global carbon emissions above the without-CDM emissions level. Under two of the CDM regimes considered, cumulative free-riders credits total 250–600 MtC through the end of the first budget period in 2012. This represents 10–23% of the likely OECD emissions reduction requirement during the first budget period. Since such a magnitude of free-rider credits from non-additional CDM projects could threaten the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol, it is imperative that policy makers devise CDM rules that encourage legitimate projects, while effectively screening out non-additional activities.     

Technology transfer in the CDM: an updated analysis

The prevalence of technology transfer (TT) for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects is analysed, based on information in the project design documents (PDDs) of 3949 projects registered as of 31 March 2012. Responses to a follow-up survey indicate that the PDD statements that concern TT are reasonably accurate and at least 39% of the related projects are expected to involve it. Technology transfer is very heterogeneous across project types and is more common for larger projects. It also usually involves both knowledge and equipment and differs significantly by host country. Technology transfer has declined over time in China, India, and Brazil, the countries that host most of the CDM projects, but it has remained high for other host countries. A host country's existing capacity specific to the technology, the scope for economic deployment of the technology, and complementary policies to build capacity and promote TT, increase the frequency of TT by CDM projects. The technology used by CDM projects originates mostly from Germany, the US, Japan, Denmark, and China, with multiple suppliers of the technology for all project types.     

Should the use of standardized baselines in the CDM be mandatory?

There has been considerable debate on the merits of standardized baselines (SBLs) in the clean development mechanism (CDM), and how such baselines could reduce transaction costs for CDM projects. It has not been considered whether the voluntary versus mandatory use of SBLs by CDM project developers can affect the environmental integrity of the CDM. An example is given in which SBLs are applied to a homogeneous output industry in order to illustrate how the voluntary use of SBLs could lead – even with relatively stringent benchmarks – to over-crediting of emission reduction credits.     

A CER discounting scheme could save climate change regime after 2012

We can generate a net global GHG emission reduction from developing countries (in an UNFCCC term, non-Annex 1 Parties) without imposing targets on them, if we discount CERs generated from CDM projects. The CER discounting scheme means that a part or all of CDM credits, i.e., CERs, made by developing countries through unilateral CDM projects will be retired rather than sold to developed countries to increase their emissions. It is not feasible to impose certain forms of target (whether sectoral or intensity targets) on non-Annex 1 whose emission trend is hard to predict and whose industrial structure is undergoing a rapid change.

Instead of imposing targets (a command and control approach), we should apply market instruments in generating a net global emission reduction from non-Annex 1. Since April 2005 when the first unilateral CDM was approved by the CDM Executive Board, CDM has been functioning as a market mechanism to provide incentives for developing countries to initiate their own emission reduction projects. As CDM is the only market mechanism engaging developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol, we should try to re-design CDM so that it can generate net global emission reductions by introducing the idea of discounting CERs. But in order to produce meaningful GHG emission reductions by discounting CERs, the project scope of CDM has to be expanded by relaxing project additionality criteria while maintaining strict technical additionality criteria. Agreeing on the CERs Discounting Scheme will have a better political chance than agreeing on imposing emission reduction targets on developing countries.     

Cleaner generation,free-riders,and environmental integrity: clean development mechanism and the power sector

This article provides a first-cut estimate of the potential impacts of the clean development mechanism (CDM) on electricity generation and carbon emissions in the power sector of non-Annex 1 countries. We construct four illustrative CDM regimes that represent a range of approaches under consideration within the climate community. We examine the impact of these CDM regimes on investments in new generation, under illustrative carbon trading prices of US$ 10 and 100/t C. In the cases that are most conducive to CDM activity, roughly 94% of new generation investments remains identical to the without-CDM situation, with only 6% shifting from higher to lower carbon intensity technologies. We estimate that the CDM would bolster renewable energy generation by as little as 15% at US$ 10/t C, or as much as 300% at US$ 100/t C.A striking finding comes from our examination of the potential magnitude of the “free-rider” problem, i.e. crediting of activities that will occur even in the absence of the CDM. The CDM is intended to be globally carbon-neutral — a project reduces emissions in the host country but generates credits that increase emissions in the investor country. However, to the extent that unwarranted credits are awarded to non-additional projects, the CDM would increase global carbon emissions above the without-CDM emissions level. Under two of the CDM regimes considered, cumulative free-riders credits total 250–600 Mt C through the end of the first budget period in 2012. This represents 10–23% of the likely OECD emissions reduction requirement during the first budget period. Since such a magnitude of free-rider credits from non-additional CDM projects could threaten the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol, it is imperative that policy makers devise CDM rules that encourage legitimate projects, while effectively screening out non-additional activities.     

Forest certification eligibility as a screen for CDM sinks projects

Parties negotiating the Kyoto Protocol recently agreed that Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) investments can include carbon sequestration projects in developing countries. However, guidelines for achieving the socio-economic and environmental objectives of the CDM, and other concerns with sinks projects, have yet to be elaborated. Independently of the Kyoto process, international efforts have advanced to define and certify sustainably managed forests through processes, such as that of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). In this paper, the FSC-US principles and criteria for sustainable forest management are evaluated in light of current concerns for guiding afforestation and reforestation projects in the CDM. It is found that the FSC criteria would help to meet some of the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, including provisions to reduce the risk of premature carbon loss, and features that could somewhat lessen leakage of emissions outside the project area. Existing FSC monitoring and verification procedures provide some, but insufficient, overlap with expected requirements for measuring carbon stock changes. FSC principles and criteria articulate stringent guidelines for meeting environmental and social goals that reflect years of negotiations between environmental, timber, human rights and labor interests.     

Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms

Transaction costs will reduce the attractiveness of the Kyoto Mechanisms compared to domestic abatement options. Especially the project-based mechanisms Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are likely to entail considerable costs of baseline development, verification and certification. The Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot phase and the Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) programme give indications about the level of these costs. Under current estimates of world market prices for greenhouse gas emission permits, projects with annual emission reductions of less than 50,000 t CO₂ equivalent are unlikely to be viable; for micro projects transaction costs can reach several hundred € per t CO₂ equivalent. Thus, the Marrakech Accord rule to have special rules for small scale CDM projects makes sense, even if the thresholds chosen advantage certain project types; projects below 1000 t CO₂ equivalent per year should get further exemptions. An alternative solution with no risk for the environmental credibility of the projects would be to subsidise baseline setting and charge lower, subsidised fees for small projects for the different steps of the CDM/second track JI project cycle.