Technology transfer in the Clean Development Mechanism

Technology transfer is often mentioned as an ancillary benefit of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but this claim has hardly been researched or substantiated. The question of technology transfer is important, both for developing countries in need for new technology and knowledge and for industrialized countries, as it provides export potential for climate-friendly technologies. To determine what technology transfer means, whether it is occurring through the CDM, and what the value of the associated capital flows is, this article examines technology transfer in the 63 CDM projects that were registered up until 1 January 2006. Technology hardware originates from outside the host country in almost 50% of the evaluated projects, particularly in non-CO₂ greenhouse gas projects, wind energy projects, and a substantial share of the hydropower projects. Bioenergy and projects in the agricultural sector mainly use local technology. The investment value associated with the CDM projects that transferred technology is estimated to be around €470 million, with about €390 million coming from the EU. As the non-CO₂ greenhouse gas projects had very low capital costs, the investment value was highest in the more capital-intensive wind energy and hydropower projects. We also found substantial soft technology transfer, but uncertainties for this finding are greater.     

Technology transfer in the CDM: the role of host-country characteristics

Technology transfer is not an explicit objective of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, it constitutes a potential co-benefit by helping to improve living conditions in developing countries. Understanding the drivers and barriers of technology transfer in CDM projects is therefore essential to direct investment flows in host countries and enhance the current CDM framework. In this respect, the contribution of this article is twofold. First, it identifies stepping stones and stumbling blocks to technology transfer in the CDM. Higher applied tariff rates on environmental goods and services as well as burdensome administrative procedures to start a new business are found to be negatively associated with the likelihood of a technology transfer. The results are robust to the exclusion of large host countries such as China and India from the sample. Second, as an extension, the article analyses the correspondence of these supporting factors and barriers with the likelihood of a transfer of the different types of technology (equipment, knowledge, or both). The article concludes with policy recommendations for non-Annex I governments, and suggestions for improvements to the CDM to better assess technology transfer in offsetting projects.     

Will the Clean Development Mechanism be effectively implemented in China?

The on-going process of setting up a national system for identification, approval and implementation of CDM-projects in China illustrates the changes in the Chinese attitude towards the CDM after COP7. This is a very important process, and the outcome could strongly influence investors’ willingness to invest in Chinese CDM-projects. The massive interest and capacity building by international assistance organisations, bilateral and multilateral donors, for preparing the implementation of the CDM will provide China with information and experience. Nevertheless, potential factors that may negatively influence efficient implementation of CDM-projects are: the domestic implementation system is not yet finalised and may impact on China’s ability to compete for CDM-projects; the priorities of the Chinese authorities may not match those of foreign investors; the main expertise regarding CDM is found in a few ministries and research institutes in Beijing, and there is a need to increase capacity for CDM among local project developers and authorities; most research carried out concerned technical issues, and there is a need to include economists and market experts in order to increase understanding of the market.     

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.     

Finding a path for REDD+ between ODA and the CDM

Abstract

Strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate change recognize that carbon sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere can reduce the build-up of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. However, climate mitigation policies do not generally incorporate the effects of these changes in the land surface on the surface albedo, the fluxes of sensible and latent heat to the atmosphere, and the distribution of energy within the climate system. Changes in these components of the surface energy budget can affect the local, regional, and global climate. Given the goal of mitigating climate change, it is important to consider all of the effects of changes in terrestrial vegetation and to work toward a better understanding of the full climate system. Acknowledging the importance of land surface change as a component of climate change makes it more challenging to create a system of credits and debits wherein emission or sequestration of carbon in the biosphere is equated with emission of carbon from fossil fuels. Recognition of the complexity of human-caused changes in climate does not, however, weaken the importance of actions that would seek to minimize our disturbance of the Earth's environmental system and that would reduce societal and ecological vulnerability to environmental change and variability.

© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.     

Standardization of baseline and additionality determination under the CDM

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project developers have long complained about the complexities of project-specific baseline setting and the vagaries of additionality determination. In response to this, the CDM Executive Board took bold steps towards the standardization of CDM methodologies, culminating in the approval of guidelines for the establishment of performance standards in November 2011. The guidelines specify a performance standard stringency level for both baseline and additionality of 80% for several priority sectors and 90% for all other sectors. However, an analysis of 14 large-scale CDM methodologies that use performance standard approaches challenges this top-down approach to the performance standard design. An appropriate performance standard stringency level strongly depends on sector and technology characteristics. A single stringency level for baseline and additionality determination is appropriate only for greenfield projects, but not for retrofit ones. Overly simple, highly aggregated performance standards are unlikely to ensure high environmental integrity, and difficult questions regarding stringency and updating frequency will eventually have to be addressed on a rather disaggregated level. A careful balance between data requirements and the practicability of performance standards is essential because the heavy data requirements of the existing performance standard methodologies have been the key barrier to their actual implementation.

Policy relevance

CDM regulators have been pushed by many stakeholders to standardize baseline setting and eliminate project-specific additionality determination. At first glance, performance standards seem to provide the perfect solution for both tasks. However, a one-size-fits-all political decision – e.g. the average of the top 20% performers as enshrined in the Marrakech Accords – is inappropriate. Substantial disaggregation of performance standards is required both technologically and geographically in order to limit over- and under-crediting and close loopholes for non-additional projects. As a lack of reliable and complete data has been and will be a key bottleneck for the development of performance standards, international support for data collection will be indispensable, but costly, and time-consuming. Empirically driven, techno-economic assessments of performance standard stringency levels must be the central task of the future work on standardized methodologies, and should not be sidelined by perceived needs of policy makers to take bold decisions under time pressures.     

Learning from CDM SD tool experience for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement (PA) emphasizes the intrinsic relationship between climate change and sustainable development (SD) and welcomes the 2030 agenda for the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, there is a lack of assessment approaches to ensure that climate and development goals are achieved in an integrated fashion and trade-offs avoided. Article 6.4 of the PA introduces a new Sustainable Mitigation Mechanism (SMM) with the dual aim to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and foster SD. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has a similar objective and in 2014, the CDM SD tool was launched by the Executive Board of the CDM to highlight the SD benefits of CDM activities. This article analyses the usefulness of the CDM SD tool for stakeholders and compares the SD tool’s SD reporting requirements against other flexible mechanisms and multilateral standards to provide recommendations for improvement. A key conclusion is that the Paris Agreement’s SMM has a stronger political mandate than the CDM to measure that SD impacts are ‘real, measurable and long-term’. Recommendations for an improved CDM SD tool are a relevant starting point to develop rules, modalities, and procedures for SD assessment in Article 6.4 as well as for other cooperative mitigation approaches.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Research findings are relevant for developing the rulebook of modalities and procedures for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which introduces a new mechanism for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development. Lessons learnt from the CDM SD tool and recommendations for enhanced SD assessment are discussed in context of Article 6 cooperative approaches, and make a timely contribution to inform negotiations on the rulebook agreed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement.     

Can CDM monitoring requirements be reduced while maintaining environmental integrity?

Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are perceived to be of high quality, but also complex and stringent. Only one-third of the registered projects successfully managed initial verification and already received carbon credits. The time required to achieve first issuance remains high despite considerable improvements in other CDM project cycle steps. This leads to the question of whether MRV provisions in the CDM represent barriers that could be lowered while ensuring the CDM's integrity. The CDM requirements are compared with the MRV provisions of the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). The comparison shows that CDM–MRV provisions are often stricter and less flexible compared to similar provisions in the EU ETS. Due to structural differences between the EU ETS and the CDM, some different MRV approaches are justified and reflect the CDM's disparate objectives and complexity. It is found that some CDM provisions result in barriers which seem avoidable and do not contribute to the CDM's environmental integrity. Recommendations are made for CDM-specific improvements and general structural changes to improve cost-efficiency and reduce uncertainty with relevance to policy developments around future market mechanisms.     

Waste energy recovery CDM projects in China: status,challenges and suggestions

The recovery potential for waste energy from major Chinese industries is significant. For example, the estimated waste energy recovery potential is 40 million tons of coal equivalent in the iron and steel industry, accounting for ～10% of the total energy use in the industry. A detailed overview is presented of existing waste energy recovery Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in China. These projects have been developed predominantly in large enterprises and rarely in small or medium-sized companies. The chance of waste energy projects being reviewed or rejected by the Executive Board is slightly higher and delivery rates of certified emission reductions are generally lower than other types of CDM projects. Several major barriers that inhibit project development are identified, such as the lack of CDM awareness or development capacity among many small or medium enterprises, low internal rates of return of the projects, increasing review risk and long delays in the registration process, the varying quality of intermediary buyers, a lack of local Chinese Designated Operational Entities, and policy implementation inconsistency at different levels. Suggestions are put forward to address these problems and such critical issues as additionality are also discussed.     

Combining cap-and-trade with offsets: lessons from the EU-ETS

Linking a cap-and-trade with an offset mechanism has many theoretical advantages: it reduces compliance costs, extends the price signal outside the cap-and-trade, and triggers technology transfer. However, it is feared that such linking will induce outsourcing of emissions reduction at a low price and undermine the price incentive in the cap-and-trade. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the first full-scale example of a cap-and-trade system linked to project-based mechanisms such that offsets have effectively been used by industrial installations. This article is an ex post analysis of EU ETS data for the years 2008 and 2009, and the characteristics of the link and its efficiency are evaluated. Although offsets have been much used, their use is concentrated and not very intense or frequent, which allays the fear that offsets will flood the market. Although the majority of surrendered CERs effectively come from the largest and oldest projects, the credits surrendered are similar to those available on the market. Possible factors that contribute towards inefficiency are the rules for using offsets, transaction costs affecting the participation of small installations, awareness and openness to market-based instruments, and uncertainties regarding CERs offer and demand from other markets. However, the impact on EUA equilibrium price still needs to be quantified.     

Accounting methods for carbon credits: impacts on the minimum area of forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism

Abstract

The Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) decided to adopt an accounting system based on expiring carbon credits to address the problem of non-permanent carbon storage in forests established under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This article reviews and discusses carbon accounting methods that were under consideration before COP-9 and presents a model which calculates the minimum area that forest plantation projects should reach to be able to compensate CDM transaction costs with the revenues from carbon credits. The model compares different accounting methods under various sets of parameters on project management, transaction costs, and carbon prices. Model results show that under current carbon price and average transaction costs, projects with an area of less than 500 ha are excluded from the CDM, whatever accounting method is used. Temporary crediting appears to be the most favorable approach to account for non-permanent carbon removal in forests and also for the feasibility of smaller projects. However, lower prices for credits with finite lifetimes may prevent the establishment of CDM forestry projects. Also, plantation projects with low risk of unexpected carbon loss and sufficient capacity for insuring or buffering the risk of carbon re-emission would benefit from equivalence-adjusted average carbon storage accounting rather than from temporary crediting.     

Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: practical experiences and lessons learned

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol allows industrialized countries to use credits from greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement projects in developing countries. A key requirement of the CDM is that the emission reductions be real, measurable and additional. This article evaluates how the additionality of CDM projects has been assessed in practice. The analysis is mainly based on a systematic evaluation of 93 registered CDM projects and comes to the conclusion that the current tools for demonstrating additionality are in need of substantial improvement. In particular, the application of the barrier analysis is highly subjective and difficult to validate in an objective and transparent manner. Key assumptions regarding additionality are often not substantiated with credible, documented evidence. In a considerable number of cases it is questionable whether the emission reductions are actually additional. Based on these findings, practical recommendations for improving the assessment of additionality are provided.     

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.     

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.     

Optimal liability apportionment in programmatic credit-based emissions trading

The inclusion of Programmes of Activities (PoAs) within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been limited by the fact that third-party project validators, who determine the eligibility of a CDM Project Activity (CPA), are currently held liable for any certificates that are erroneously issued. As such, validators must replace any credits issued for the relevant CPA. Moreover, the risk associated with the validation of small-scale CPAs is considerably higher than that associated with traditional CDM projects. Using a simple game-theory model to model the interactions between project validators and coordinators, it is shown that shifting liability for certificates that are erroneously included – from the former to the latter – is never optimal, does not provide a strong enough incentive to enforce first-best levels of due care in CPA selection and inclusion, and can induce overprovision in validation efforts. The main problem with such a simple proportionate liability regime is that an increase in incentives for one player automatically leads to a decrease in incentives for the other. Two additional instruments are also considered that would both rectify this problem and improve the environmental integrity of the CDM mechanism.     

Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice

The literature on equity and justice in climate change mitigation has largely focused on North–South relations and equity between states. However, some initiatives (e.g. the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD), and voluntary carbon markets (VCMs)) are already establishing multi-level governance structures that involve communities from developing countries in global mitigation efforts. This poses new equity and justice dilemmas: how the burdens and benefits of mitigation are shared across various levels and how host communities are positioned in multi-level governance structures. A review of the existing literature is used to distill a framework for distinguishing between four axes of climate justice from the perspective of communities. Empirical evidence from African and Asian carbon market projects is used to assess the distributive and procedural justice implications for host communities. The evidence suggests that host communities often benefit little from carbon market projects and find it difficult to protect their interests. Capacity building, attention to local power relations, supervision of business practices, promotion of projects with primarily development aims and an active involvement of non-state actors as bridges between local communities and the national/international levels could potentially contribute towards addressing some of the key justice concerns.Policy relevance International negotiations on the institutional frameworks that are envisaged to govern carbon markets are proceeding at a rather slow pace. As a consequence, host countries and private-sector actors are making their own arrangements to safeguard the interests of local communities. While several standards have emerged to guide carbon market activity on the ground, distributive as well as procedural justice concerns nevertheless remain salient. Four empirical case studies across Asia and Africa show that within the multi-scale and multi-actor carbon market governance, local-level actors often lack sufficient agency to advance their claims and protect their interests. This evidence suggests that ameliorating policy reforms are needed to enhance the positioning of local communities. Doing so is important to ensure future acceptability of carbon market activity in potential host communities as well as for ensuring their broader legitimacy.     

CDM and international technology transfer: empirical evidence on wind power

This article examines the effect of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) on the international transfer of wind power technologies. The analysis is conducted using patent data from over 100 countries during the period 1988–2008. It is found that transfers from Annex I countries to non-Annex I countries are significantly affected by the contemporaneous establishment of projects under the CDM. However, when taking into account the cumulative effect of CDM projects, the effect is negative. Finally, the effect of domestic absorptive capacity in the host country is positive and significant. Because involvement with the CDM may increase the latter, this is an important area for further research.     

Factors driving international technology transfer: empirical insights from a CDM project survey

This study empirically explores factors driving international technology transfer via Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects by explicitly considering factors that have been identified in the literature on international technology transfer as being relevant for transfer success. These factors include technological characteristics, such as the novelty and complexity of a technology, as well as the use of different transfer channels. Employing data from an original survey of CDM project participants, the econometric analysis also distinguishes between knowledge and equipment transfer. The findings suggest that more complex technologies and the use of export as a transfer channel are both associated with a higher degree of technology transfer. Projects involving two- to five-year-old technologies seem more likely to involve technology transfer than both younger and older technologies. Energy supply and efficiency projects are correlated with a higher degree of technology transfer than non-energy projects. Unlike previous studies, technology transfer was not related to project size, to the length of time a country has hosted CDM projects, or to the host country's absorptive capacity. The findings for knowledge and equipment transfer are similar, but not identical.

Policy relevance

CDM projects are often seen as a vehicle for the transfer of climate technologies from industrialized to developing countries. Technology transfer is an important element of the new and emerging market mechanisms and frameworks under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, such as the Technology Mechanism, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Thus, a clearer understanding of the factors driving technology transfer may help policy makers in their design of such mechanisms. For the CDM, this may be achieved by including more stringent technology transfer requirements in countries’ CDM project approval processes. Based on our findings, such policies should focus particularly on energy supply and efficiency technologies. Likewise, it may be beneficial for host countries to condition project approval on the novelty and complexity of technologies and adjust these provisions over time. Since such technological characteristics are not captured systematically by project design documents, using a survey-based evaluation opens up new opportunities for a more holistic and targeted evaluation of technology transfer in CDM projects.     

Review of the experience with monitoring uncertainty requirements in the Clean Development Mechanism

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be ‘real, measurable and additional’, which is ensured, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to €1.20 and above per tCO₂e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. It is then demonstrated that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value.

Policy relevance

The CDM Executive Board acknowledged that monitoring uncertainty has not been treated in a consistent manner and the draft standard on uncertainty was subsequently presented in May 2013. This article supports the implementation of this standard for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects. Moreover, in the light of the ongoing discussions on the New Market Mechanisms as well as the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund and different national mitigation policies, the CDM experience provides valuable insights with regards to the treatment of monitoring uncertainty and constitutes a solid basis for designing uncertainty requirements for new mechanisms to mitigate climate change.     

清洁发展机制（CDM）造林再造林项目碳汇成本研究——以CDM广西珠江流域治理再造林项目为例

以清洁发展机制（CDM）广西珠江流域治理再造林项目为例,对项目及其5种造林模式临时核证减排量（temporary certified emission reduction,缩写为tCER）和长期核证减排量（long-term certified emission reduction,缩写为lCER）成本的动态变化进行了初步研究。结果表明：从项目期初到期末,整个项目及5种造林模式人工林的tCER成本均逐渐降低,其中项目成本由第一承诺期末的40.33 ￥/t CO₂降至最后承诺期末的13.34 ￥/t CO₂;lCER成本先降低后升高,在第一承诺期末均降至最小值,项目成本由第一承诺期末的40.33 ￥/t CO₂增加至最后承诺期末的105.27 ￥/t CO₂;各造林模式tCER和lCER成本均以枫香+杉木、枫香+马尾松较高,马尾松+荷木、马尾松+栎类较低,桉树最低;贴现率对项目tCER和lCER、桉树tCER、枫香+杉木lCER成本影响均较大,而对马尾松+栎类tCER和lCER成本影响均较小;对桉树一个轮伐期内的tCER成本进行了敏感性分析,单位面积碳贮量的变化对其影响较大;考虑木材收益时,项目期末tCER净现值为13.11 ￥/t CO₂,从中反映了该CDM项目实施是可行的。