Spain: words that succeed and climate policies that fail

Abstract

The two project-based Kyoto mechanisms, joint implementation (JI) and the clean development mechanism (CDM), require a determination of the “baseline”, the development of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the absence of the project. This paper examines, whether absolute (given in tCO₂ equivalent) or relative baselines (“benchmarks”, given, e.g. in tCO₂ equivalent/MWh) should be applied for JI/CDM projects in the energy sector. Accuracy of the GHG emission reduction and manageability of GHG emission balances are used as evaluation criteria. The results show that relative baselines are a more accurate instrument for the estimation of emission reductions in JI/CDM projects in the energy sector without posing significant additional risks to the management of GHG emission balances for large entities. In comparison to absolute baselines, relative baselines indicate in a more realistic and conservative manner the amount of emission reductions obtained in the energy system and give more appropriate incentives to project sponsors. The additional risks of relative baselines are likely to be small compared to the normal deviation of the domestic/internal GHG emissions. The findings are in line with the Marrakesh Accords, which set restrictions to application of absolute baselines.     

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.     

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.     

Greenhouse gas emissions from Indian livestock

Livestock constitutes an integral component of Indian agriculture sector and also a major source of GHGs emissions. The study presents a detailed inventory of GHG emissions at district/state level from different age-groups, indigenous and exotic breed of different Indian livestock categories estimated using the recent census 2003 and country-specific emission coefficients based on IPCC guidelines. The total methane emission including enteric fermentation and manure management of livestock was estimated at 11.75 Tg/year for the year 2003. Enteric fermentation constitutes ~91 % of the total methane emissions from Indian livestock. Dairy buffalo and indigenous dairy cattle together contribute 60 % of the methane emissions. The total nitrous oxide emission from Indian livestock for the year 2003 is estimated at 1.42 Gg/year, with 86.1 % contribution from poultry. The total GHGs emission from Indian livestock is estimated at 247.2 Mt in terms of CO₂ equivalent emissions. Although the Indian livestock contributes substantially to the methane budget, the per capita emission is only 24.23 kgCH₄/animal/year. Using the remote sensing derived potential feed/fodder area available for livestock, the average methane flux was calculated as 74.4 kg/ha. The spatial patterns derived in GIS environment indicated the regions with high GHGs emissions that need to be focused subsequently for mitigation measures. The projected estimates indicate a likely increase of 40 % in methane emissions from buffalo population.     

Accounting for flexibility against uncertain baselines: lessons from case studies in the eastern European energy sector

The Kyoto Protocol defines two project-based flexibility mechanisms: joint implementation (JI) and the clean development mechanism (CDM). The main methodological problem associated with both these mechanisms is the choice of an appropriate baseline: since the baseline is, by definition, counterfactual, it imposes considerable uncertainty on the accounting framework. Little work to date has been carried out on trying to estimate how large this uncertainty might be for particular project types. This paper aims to fill this gap by proposing an approach to baseline construction which explicitly acknowledges this uncertainty. This approach is illustrated through the examination of pilot JI projects in the energy sector in eastern Europe, and then discussed in terms of its implications for climate policy. The results presented are estimates of the range of counterfactual uncertainty in greenhouse gas emission reductions based on the construction of a number of possible baselines for each project. This range is found to be about ±35% for demand side projects, ±45% for heat supply projects, ±55% for cogeneration projects, and ±60% for electricity supply projects. Estimates of uncertainty in the costs of the pilot projects are also found to be high. The paper discusses the problems arising from such large uncertainty and starts to indicate how this uncertainty may be managed.     

Accounting for flexibility against uncertain baselines: lessons from case studies in the eastern European energy sector

Abstract

The Kyoto Protocol defines two project-based flexibility mechanisms: joint implementation (JI) and the cleandevelopment mechanism (CDM). The main methodological problem associated with both these mechanisms isthe choice of an appropriate baseline: since the baseline is, by definition, counterfactual, it imposes considerable uncertainty on the accounting framework. Little work to date has been carried out on trying to estimate how largethis uncertainty might be for particular project types. This paper aims to fill this gap by proposing an approach to baseline construction which explicitly acknowledges this uncertainty. This approach is illustrated through theexamination of pilot JI projects in the energy sector in eastern Europe, and then discussed in terms of its implicationsfor climate policy. The results presented are estimates of the range of counterfactual uncertainty in greenhouse gas emission reductions based on the construction of a number of possible baselines for each project. This range is found to be about ±35% for demand side projects, ±45% for heat supply projects, ±55% for cogeneration projects, and ±60% for electricity supply projects. Estimates of uncertainty in the costs of the pilot projects are also found to be high. The paper discusses the problems arising from such large uncertainty and starts to indicate how this uncertainty may be managed.     

Can CDM finance energy access in Least Developed Countries? Evidence from Tanzania

Policy documents and academic literature suggest that Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) finance could complement traditional ‘energy access’ (EA) funding in developing countries, including the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Yet these propositions have not been empirically tested. This study helps fill this gap by examining constraints to CDM project passage through five stages of an idealized project development cycle (PDC) in Tanzania, and their implications for the ability of the CDM to contribute to financing energy access in LDCs. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews and documentary material were analysed using an analytical framework developed for systematic investigation of constraints. Institutional constraints such as the under-performance of Tanzania's Designated National Authority were the most often mentioned obstacles for project development. Yet non-institutional constraints such as limited energy sector mitigation potential, indigenous skill shortages, and low carbon market prices also hinder project development. Institutional constraints buttress, rather than supersede, pre-existing non-institutional constraints, and together they prevent energy projects from completing the PDC and accessing CDM finance. The number and severity of constraints suggest that the situation is unlikely to change rapidly, and that the CDM sustains and exacerbates existing global inequalities. Since traditional energy access funding is insufficient to address these inequalities, new funding and policy mechanisms are required.

Policy relevance

The CDM fails to fill the EA financing gap in Tanzania. This is also true for other LDCs where comparable project development challenges prevail. The CDM therefore appears to sustain uneven development patterns overlooking those most in need. Claims about its potential to enhance EA are misplaced, and the situation is unlikely to change rapidly. CDM and carbon market projects more widely will have limited ability to help financing EA in LDCs, even if the institutional setting within which they are implemented were reformed in the future. Yet traditional energy funding will be inadequate on its own. The debate over extending the CDM post-2017, when the second Kyoto Protocol commitment period expires, should be informed by honest appraisal of its merits and defects. Policy makers should revisit lessons provided by this article and wider research to help ensure that new EA mechanisms are not hampered by constraints and can benefit those most in need.     

Perverse incentives under the CDM: an evaluation of HFC-23 destruction projects

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 uses data from registered projects to evaluate the extent to which these objectives are met by projects that reduce hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23) emissions in the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCFC-22). The data show that HCFC-22 plants produced significantly less HFC-23 during periods when no emission credits could be claimed compared with periods when HFC-23 destruction could be credited under the CDM. Moreover, the total amount of HCFC-22 produced appears to be determined mainly by CDM rules. This suggests that the claimed emission reductions may partly not be real and that the CDM provides perverse incentives to generate more HFC-23. The accelerated phase-out of HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer could worsen this situation. To address these issues an ambitious emission benchmark for the baseline HFC-23 emissions is proposed.     

Sufferer and cause: Indian livestock and climate change

Climate change poses formidable challenge to the development of livestock sector in India. The anticipated rise in temperature between 2.3 and 4.8°C over the entire country together with increased precipitation resulting from climate change is likely to aggravate the heat stress in dairy animals, adversely affecting their productive and reproductive performance, and hence reducing the total area where high yielding dairy cattle can be economically reared. Given the vulnerability of India to rise in sea level, the impact of increased intensity of extreme events on the livestock sector would be large and devastating for the low-income rural areas. The predicted negative impact of climate change on Indian agriculture would also adversely affect livestock production by aggravating the feed and fodder shortages. The livestock sector which will be a sufferer of climate change is itself a large source of methane emissions, an important greenhouse gas. In India, although the emission rate per animal is much lower than the developed countries, due to vast livestock population the total annual methane emissions are about 9–10 Tg from enteric fermentation and animal wastes.     

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.     

Carbon Accounting and Cost Estimation in Forestry Projects Using CO2Fix V.3

Carbon and financial accounting of projects in the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector is a topic of hot debate. Large uncertainty remains concerning the carbon dynamics, the way they should be accounted and the cost efficiency of the projects. Part of the uncertainty can be alleviated by standardisation and transparency of reporting methods. For this reason we further developed CO₂FIX, a forest ecosystem carbon model, with modules for carbon and financial accounting. The model is applied to four cases: 1) Joint implementation afforestation project in Romania, 2) Forest management project in Central Europe, 3) Reduced impact logging possibly under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the future, and 4) Afforestation with native species under the Clean Development Mechanism. The results show the wide applicability of CO₂FIX, from degrading grasslands as baseline cases to multiple cohort forest ecosystems. Also the results show that Forest Management in the European case can generate considerable amounts of carbon emission reductions. Further, the results show that although reduced impact logging is not yet an allowed option under the Clean Development Mechanism, it shows promising results in that it is 1) very cost effective, 2) seems to be able to generate intermediate amounts of credits and 3) seems to us as a project type that is not prone to leakage issues. These results are yet another indication to seriously consider reduced impact logging as an eligible measure under the CDM.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Application of the Multiple Benchmark System (MBS) to selected case study projects

Abstract

Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have been established under the Kyoto Protocol as project-based instruments to mitigate greenhouse gases of the industrialized countries to the levels imposed by their Kyoto commitments. An unresolved issue associated with the implementation of these two flexibility mechanisms, concerns the choice of the appropriate baseline for calculating the emission reductions in JI or CDM projects. This article describes a computerized tool that constructs and compares different types of standardized baselines and benchmarks. The analysis focuses on the suitability of several different types of benchmarks for assessing the emission reductions of certain types of projects. The analysis is also expanded into a discussion of the extent to which benchmarks reduce the crediting of non-additional projects and limit the risk of missed additional investments. This tool has been applied to actual JI and CDM projects in the Russian Federation and Indonesia.     

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.     

Does the CDM discourage emission reduction targets in advanced developing countries?

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries can voluntarily participate in climate change mitigation through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in which industrialized countries, in order to meet their mitigation commitments, can buy emission reduction credits from projects in developing countries. Before its implementation, developing-country experts opposed the CDM, arguing that it would sell-off their countries’ cheapest emission reduction options and force them to invest in more expensive measures to meet their future reduction targets. This ‘low-hanging fruit’ argument is analysed empirically by comparing marginal abatement cost curves. Emissions abatement costs and potentials for CDM projects are estimated for different technologies in eight countries, using capital budgeting tools and information from project documentation. It is found that the CDM is not yet capturing a large portion of the identified abatement potential in most countries. Although the costs of most emissions reduction opportunities grasped are below the average credit price, there are still plenty of available low-cost opportunities. Mexico and Argentina appear to use the CDM predominantly for harvesting the low-hanging fruit, whereas in the other countries more expensive projects are accessing the CDM. This evidence at first sight challenges the low-hanging fruit claim, but needs to be understood in the light of the barriers for the adoption of low-cost abatement options.     

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.     

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.