Project-Based Emissions Trading: The Impact of Institutional Arrangements on Cost-Effectiveness

In this paper we demonstrate that the institutionalarrangement (or: design) of Joint Implementation (JI) and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) has a decisive impact on theircost-effectiveness. We illustrate our arguments by statistically analyzing thecosts from 94 Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot phase projects aswell as by adjusting these data on the basis of simple mathematicalformulas. These calculations explicitly take into account the institutionaldifferences between JI (sinks, no banking) and the CDM (banking, no sinks)under the Kyoto Protocol and also show the possible effects on credit costsof alternative design options. However, our numerical illustrations shouldbe viewed with caution, because AIJ is only to a limited extentrepresentative of potential future JI and CDM projects and because creditcosts are not credit prices. Some of the main figures found in this study are:an average cost figure per unit of emission reduction for AIJ projects of 46dollar per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent ($/Mg CO₂-eq), anaverage potential JI credit cost figure which is lowered to 37$/Mg CO₂-eq by introducing banking and an average of 6$/Mg CO₂-eq per credit for potential low-cost CDM projects whichincludes sinks. However, at CoP6 in November 2000 in The Hague (TheNetherlands), the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change(FCCC) did not (yet) reach consensus on the institutional details of theproject-based mechanisms, such as the possible arrangement of early JIaction or the inclusion of sinks under the CDM.     

Domestic UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms Project Supply Coordination Through Tendering – Lessons from the New Zealand Experience

A United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Joint Implementation (JI) host country has to make sure that JI projects are additional to avoid extra costs to generate the reductions necessary to cover the deduction of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) from the country’s Kyoto Protocol emissions budget. A tender of ERUs by the government allows to generate additional reductions beyond the ERUs issued if it thoroughly checks project additionality. The government of New Zealand is running a tender for JI projects under the title “Projects to Reduce Emissions” since 2003. In two rounds, 10 million ERUs have been awarded and several projects have already entered into contracts with European buyers. The ratio of ERUs awarded to reductions achieved was 0.8 in the second tender. However it remains to be seen whether the additionality test of this tender is sufficient to exclude clearly non-additional projects.     

Joint Implementation Under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: Technical and Institutional Challenges

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) allows for the joint implementation (JI) of measures to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases. The concept of JI refers to the implementation of such measures in one country with partial or full financial and/or technical support from another country, potentially fulfilling some of the supporting country's emission-reduction commitment under the FCCC. At present, all JI transactions are voluntary, and no country has claimed JI credit against existing FCCC commitments. Nevertheless, JI could have important implications for both the economic efficiency and the international equity of the implementation of the FCCC. This paper discusses some of the information needs of JI projects and seeks to clarify some of the common assumptions and arguments about JI. Issues regarding JI are distinguished according to those that are specific to JI and those that apply to JI as well as other types of regimes and transactions. The focus is on the position of developing countries and their potential risks and benefits regarding JI.     

The Multiple Benchmark System Application to Indonesia,Russia and Panama

Joint Implementation (JI) and theClean Development Mechanism (CDM) have beenestablished under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol asproject-based instruments to mitigategreenhouse gases of the industrialisedcountries to the levels imposed by theirKyoto commitments. An outstanding issueassociated with the implementation of thesetwo flexibility mechanisms concerns thechoice of appropriate baseline forcalculating the emission reductions. Thispaper applies a computerised tool thatconstructs and compares different types ofstandardised baselines for projects inIndonesia, Panama and the RussianFederation. It evaluates the effects of theselection of different baselines to theenvironmental integrity of the two Kyotomechanisms.     

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol: What Does It Mean for Project-Based Climate Change Mitigation?

The Kyoto Protocol effectively ends the Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot phase. However, it is premature to conclude that Articles 6 and 12 of the Protocol vindicate joint implementation and successfully conclude the AIJ pilot phase. Rather, Articles 6 and 12 can be seen as part of the price developing countries felt they had to pay to obtain a Protocol. Debate over Articles 6 and 12 is likely to be as contentious as the JI/AIJ debates that preceded it. Indeed, the AIJ pilot phase has not answered many concerns posed by developing countries and other interest groups. While companies and countries participating in AIJ have had wide latitude to pursue almost any projects they wished, it remains to be seen how much of this flexibility will be preserved as Articles 6 and 12 become operational. This will determine whether the importance and cost-effectiveness originally predicted for the joint implementation concept comes to pass. A review of the JI and AIJ literature suggests many potential stumbling blocks to achieving large-scale and cost-effective emissions reductions through project-based mitigation efforts under the Kyoto Protocol. This paper identifies these stumbling blocks and systematically assesses their potential implications. The Greenhouse Gas Offset Cost Assessment and Decisionmaking Model (GGOCAD©) is used to qualitatively as well as quantitatively evaluate the importance of key criteria and methodological decisions under Articles 6 and 12. It is easy to develop scenarios in which project-based mitigation through Articles 6 and 12 would not be permitted to contribute substantially to achievement of countries’ obligations under Article 3. Overcoming the challenges facing project-based mitigation efforts is important to achieving the larger goals of the Kyoto Protocol.     

Towards an efficient and low carbon economy post-2012: opportunities and barriers for foreign companies in the Russian energy market

Russia is one of the most energy- and carbon-intensive countries in the world. The high level of technical abrasion and a low level of investments into modernization of the Russian energy industry cause huge energy wastage and carbon emissions. This situation is regarded by countries relying on energy imports from Russia as an increasing threat to security of supply and as a major barrier to global climate change policy. This paper provides an overview of the current and future Russian energy efficiency and greenhouse gas mitigation policies. The focus is laid on the detailed investigation of the progress and future potential of the market-oriented mechanisms Joint Implementation (JI) and Green Investment Scheme (GIS), being considered as two possible channels for FDI in transnational energy efficiency and carbon mitigation projects. The analysis was conducted by reviewing the relevant scientific and non-scientific literature including a variety of theoretical and practice-oriented arguments. Based on this assessment, we conclude that JI and GIS are confronted with numerous barriers in the Russian energy market. We further scrutinize the ability of Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), as one of the market intermediary models, to overcome some of these barriers in the process of effectively integrating JI and GIS in their long-term business strategies. Due to the compatibility of the main features of JI and GIS with the working procedures under the ESCO model we conclude that numerous synergy effects can be generated and that the majority of transaction barriers specific for the Russian energy market can be overcome. Such an integrative framework for international energy efficiency and carbon mitigation projects would contribute to the modernization of the Russian energy industry and enable a “win-win” situation for foreign companies seeking to invest in a sustainable manner.     

Reside0ntial solar water heating as a potential Clean Development Mechanism project: A South African case study

A community-based Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project – asolar water heating project in a low-income community in South Africa –is analysed to illustrate the methodological and policy challenges that faceimplementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. We evaluate four baseline options, andthree potential CDM interventions. The emissions reductions range from –670 to +5 929 Mg CO₂ per year, with all option but oneshowing positive emission reductions. Using metered solar water heatingwith liquefied petroleum gas back-up as the CDM intervention, and electricstorage geysers as the baseline, the annual emissions reductions are 5686 Mg CO₂. The cost-effectiveness from the national perspective,which is the incremental life cycle costs divided by the lifetime emissionsreductions, is –$18 per Mg CO₂ From the perspective of theCDM investor, however, the cost-effectiveness is $5.2 per mgCO₂, assuming that the investor receives all of the carbon credits forproviding the incremental capital investment. From our analysis, weconclude that using the current technology (kerosene stoves) as a baselineis probably not appropriate because it does not reflect likely future trendsand also penalises the community for their poverty and current lack ofinfrastructure. We also highlight the importance of credit sharing, and howit affects the cost-effectiveness of the project from the CDM investor'sperspective. The lessons from this analysis are important for the currentinternational policy debate on how to preferentially treat small-scale CDMprojects.     

Integrating Joint Implementation Projects for Energy Efficiency on the Built Environment with White Certificates in The Netherlands

In this paper we analyze policy interactions between two innovative climate and energy policy instruments, namely White Certificates (WhC) and Joint Implementation (JI) that target at energy efficiency improvement and reductions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. We have selected The Netherlands and Bulgaria as a case study given that the former has a cumulated experience in energy efficiency policies and the latter for a growing potential in JI projects as a host country. Based on a method of analyzing policy interactions, we demonstrate how a possible design of such a scheme can take place and how it should function. A couple of parameters that deserve attention are a baseline definition and a conversion rate for credits. Our basic finding is that an integrated scheme is complementary and can assist substantially in achieving Dutch national United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol targets. Dutch electricity and gas suppliers (parties that receive energy efficiency obligations) can implement energy efficiency projects domestically and in other countries, hence reducing total abatement costs. Furthermore, such a scheme can stimulate further energy efficiency actions from other stakeholders participating in energy markets. Based on an ex-ante assessment, a carefully designed hybrid WhC and JI scheme appears to be effective in terms of targets, efficient, generating positive impacts on markets and society, while uncertain in stimulating innovation.

Monitoring and economic factors affecting the economic viability of afforestation for carbon sequestration projects

The Kyoto Protocol is the first step towards achieving the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and aims among others to promote ‘the protection and enhancement of carbon sinks and reservoirs’. To encourage afforestation for carbon sequestration a project must be economically viable. This study uses a model to analyse the impact on project viability of a range of carbon monitoring options, international carbon credit value and discount rate, applied to a Pinus radiata afforestation project in New Zealand. Monitoring carbon in conjunction with conventional forest inventory shows the highest return. Long-term average carbon accounting has lower accounting costs, compared to annual and 5 yearly accounting, as monitoring is only required every 5–10 years until the long-term average is attained. In this study we conclude that monitoring soil carbon stocks is not economically feasible using any of the accounting methods, when carbon is valued at US$ 10/t. This conclusion may be relevant to forest carbon sequestration projects elsewhere in the world and suggests care is needed in selecting the appropriate carbon monitoring options to avoid the risk that costs could be higher than any monetary benefits from terrestrial carbon sequestration. This would remove any commercial incentive to afforest for carbon sequestration reasons and severely limit the use of forest sinks as part of any package of measures addressing the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC.     

The Kyoto Protocol could make a difference for the optimal forest-based CO2 mitigation strategy: some results from GORCAM

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed on by more than 150 nations in December, 1997 and (if and when ratified) will establish international commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Under the Kyoto Protocol, some of the carbon emissions and removals within the land-use change and forestry sector can be counted toward a country's commitments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition to the impacts that land-use practices have on CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, changes in the carbon stocks of forests (possibly including forest soils) caused by the direct human activities afforestation, reforestation and deforestation and taking place in the `first commitment period' (2008–2012), are to be accounted for under the Kyoto Protocol. Credits for carbon sinks in the biosphere are limited to projects initiated since 1990. A modified version of the model GORCAM has been used to assess eligible emission-reduction credits under the Kyoto regime and to illustrate how the optimal forest-based strategy for carbon dioxide mitigation might change under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol offers rewards for only some of the changes in carbon stocks that might occur and hence the forestry project that produces the most emission reduction credits under the Kyoto Protocol is not necessarily the same project that produces the greatest benefit for net emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Supplementing the Protocol with appropriate definitions, interpretations and agreements could help to make sure that it does not provide incentive for activities that run counter to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.     

The Monitoring,Evaluation, Reporting and Verification of Climate Change Projects

Because of concerns with the growing threat of global climate change from increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States and other countries are implementing, by themselves or in cooperation with one or more other nations, climate change projects. These projects will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or sequester carbon, and will also result in non-GHG benefits (i.e., environmental, economic, and social benefits). Monitoring, evaluating, reporting, and verifying (MERV) guidelines are needed for these projects to accurately determine their net GHG, and other, benefits. Implementation of MERV guidelines is also intended to: (1) increase the reliability of data for estimating GHG benefits; (2) provide real-time data so that mid-course corrections can be made; (3) introduce consistency and transparency across project types and reporters; and (4) enhance the credibility of the projects with stakeholders. In this paper, we review the issues involved in MERV activities. We identify several topics that future protocols and guidelines need to address, such as: (1) establishing a credible baseline; (2) accounting for impacts outside project boundaries through leakage; (3) net GHG reductions and other benefits; (4) precision of measurement; (5) MERV frequency and the persistence (sustainability) of savings, emissions reduction, and carbon sequestration; (6) reporting by multiple project participants; (7) verification of GHG reduction credits; (8) uncertainty and risk; (9) institutional capacity in conducting MERV; and (10) the cost of MERV.     

Desertification,and climate change: the case for greater convergence

Poor knowledge of links between desertification and globalclimate change is limiting funding from the Global Environment Facility foranti-desertification projects and realization of synergies between theConvention to Combat Desertification (CCD) and the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (FCCC). Greater convergence betweenresearch in the two fields could overcome these limitations, improve ourknowledge of desertification, and benefit four areas of global climate changestudies: mitigation assessment; accounting for land cover change in thecarbon budget; land surface-atmosphere interactions; and climate changeimpact forecasting. Convergence would be assisted if desertification weretreated more as a special case in dry areas of the global process of landdegradation, and stimulated by: (a) closer cooperation between the FCCCand CCD; (b) better informal networking between desertification and globalclimate change scientists, e.g. within the framework of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Both strategies wouldbe facilitated if the FCCC and CCD requested the IPCC to provide ascientific framework for realizing the synergies between them.     

Small holder’s carbon forestry project in Haryana India: issues and challenges

The small scale forestry carbon project in Haryana, India has been registered as a Clean Development Project (CDM) activity and is the first such projects from India. Developed under the Kyoto Protocol of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the projects aims at restoring heavily degraded sandune affected private lands and contribute to climate change mitigation. The project is expected to sequester 234,584 tons of carbon dioxide (tCO²) in 20 years project cycle with an average annual sequestration of 11,729 (tCO²) per year. The project is expected to have a total carbon stock of 385,253.1 ton Carbon (tC) in the project life span of 20 years as against 7,920.6 (tC) in the baseline scenario. The carbon credits earned from the project is supposed to provide additional incentives to the smallholders who have formed a cooperative society for this purpose. This paper addresses the issues and challenges in developing the project activity and also discusses the lessons learned in the process. The project is supposed to help in poverty alleviation and has become a success story for rehabilitating degraded lands in semi arid regions of India through plantation forestry.     

Issues and challenges for forest-based carbon-offset projects: A case study of the Noel Kempff climate action project in Bolivia

The Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia, nowin its third year, is breaking ground to establishcredible and verifiable methods to quantify greenhousegas (GHG) benefits of land-use change and forestry (LUCF)projects. Developed under the United Nations FrameworkConvention Climate Change (FCCC) Activities ImplementedJointly pilot phase, the project conserves naturalforests that would otherwise have been subjected tocontinued logging and future agricultural conversion.Carbon (C) monitoring began with a C inventory of theproject area in 1997. The total amount of C in theproject area was 118 Tg (Tg = 10¹²g) ± 4%(95% confidence interval). Periodic monitoring ofrelevant C pools (occurring in 1999 and every 5 yrthereafter) occurs over the 30-year life of theproject to establish the difference between thewith-project and projected without-project scenarios. Permanent sample plots were established both insidethe project area to monitor changes in C pools overtime and in a proxy logging concession near theproject area to determine changes in C pools inforests that have been impacted by logging. Ground-based monitoring is complemented by datacollection on forest industry trends and land-usechange patterns. Remote sensing was used to developa vegetation stratification map of the area, and workis ongoing to investigate the potential application ofdual-camera aerial videography to improve theefficiency of monitoring over time.     

Misdefining “climate change”: consequences for science and action

The restricted definition of “climate change” used by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) has profoundly affected the science, politics, and policy processes associated with the international response to the climate issue. Specifically, the FCCC definition has contributed to the gridlock and ineffectiveness of the global response to the challenge of climate change. This paper argues that the consequences of misdefining “climate change” create a bias against adaptation policies and set the stage for the politicization of climate science. The paper discusses options for bringing science, policy and politics in line with a more appropriate definition of climate change such as the more comprehensive perspective used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.     

Land-based carbon storage and the European union emissions trading scheme: the science underlying the policy

Climate change is occurring with greater speed and intensity that previously anticipated. All effective environmentally and socially sound mitigation efforts need to be employed to effectively address this global crisis. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects can provide significant climate change mitigation benefits as well as poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation benefits. The policies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), the world’s largest carbon market exclude LULUCF. Scientific support for this exclusion was presented in a briefing paper published by the Climate Action Network—Europe (CAN) that puts forward the proposition that land based storage of carbon is ineffective. A careful review of the scientific papers cited in support of CAN’s position indicates that, while the papers themselves are scientifically sound, they do not support the continued exclusion of LULUCF projects from the EU-ETS. At the same time some important recent research papers that describe the carbon storage and social benefit potential of such projects are not included in the analysis. An in-depth consideration of the scientific evidence is necessary in evaluating this policy option. Based on this evidence a case can be made for the inclusion of LULUCF projects in the EU-ETS.     

The elephant in the room – A comparative study of uncertainties in carbon offsets

The clean development mechanism (CDM) is a flexible mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which makes it possible for developed countries to offset their emissions of greenhouse gases through investing in climate change mitigation projects in developing countries. When the mitigation benefit of a CDM project is quantified, measurable uncertainties arise that can be minimised using established statistical methods. In addition, some unmeasurable uncertainties arise, such as the rebound effect of demand-side energy efficiency projects. Many project types related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) have been excluded from the CDM in part because of the high degree of statistical uncertainty in measurements of the carbon sink and risk of non-permanence. However, recent discussions within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have opened up for the possibility of including more LULUCF activities in the future. In the light of this discussion, we highlight different aspects of uncertainties in LULUCF projects (e.g. the risk of non-permanence and the size of the carbon sink) in relation to other CDM project categories such as renewables and demand-side energy efficiency. We quantify the uncertainties, compare the magnitudes of the uncertainties in different project categories and conclude that uncertainties could be just as significant in CDM project categories such as renewables as in LULUCF projects. The CDM is a useful way of including and engaging developing countries in climate change mitigation and could be a good source of financial support for LULUCF mitigation activities. Given their enormous mitigation potential, we argue that additional LULUCF activities should be included in the CDM and other future climate policy instruments. Furthermore, we note that Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) are currently being submitted to the UNFCCC by developing countries. Unfortunately, the under-representation of LULUCF in comparison to its potential is evident in the NAMAs submitted so far, just as it has been in the CDM. Capacity building under the CDM may influence NAMAs and there is a risk of transferring the view on uncertainties to NAMAs.     

Including land use,land-use change,and forestry in future climate change,agreements: thinking outside the box

This paper presents a framework that encompasses a full range of options for including land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) within future agreements under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The intent is to provide options that can address the broad range of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals as well as to bring the broadest possible range of nations into undertaking mitigation efforts. We suggest that the approach taken for the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period is only one within a much larger universe of possible approaches. This larger universe includes partially or completely “de-linking” LULUCF commitments from those in other sectors, and allowing commitments specified in terms other than tonnes of greenhouse gases. Such approaches may provide clarity and transparency concerning the role of the various sectors in the agreements and encourage participation in agreements by a more inclusive, diverse set of countries, resulting in a more effective use of LULUCF in addressing climate change.     

Baseline Standardisation with Optimising Energy-System Models

Determining adequate baselinesis a major methodological problem whenquantifying emissions reductions achievedwith the project-based flexibilitymechanisms. Possible methodologies forbaseline setting may be classified intomulti-project and project-specificapproaches. While multi-project approachesprovide baselines for a series of typicalprojects within a certain geographicregion, a sector, or a load range,project-specific (orproject-by-project/single-project)approaches only cover one specific project.Project-by-project baseline approaches havebeen tested extensively within theActivities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilotphase; multi-project methodologies, on theother hand, have only rarely been applieddue to the (perceived) political andeconomic complexity of the issue, whichmakes the process of introducingstandardised baselines a very sensitivetask. In particular, there is a lack ofmulti-project baseline approaches takingadvantage of optimising computer modelswithin the electricity sector, even thoughother fields of research have made use ofsuch models quite successfully in the past.Experiences made in the PROBASE projectwith the calculation of standardised,aggregated multi-project baselines forJI/CDM projects using optimising energysystem models are illustrated in this paperfor South Africa, Russia, and Indonesia.Increased transparency and credibility ofstandardised approaches along withpotentially lower transaction costs areidentified as the main arguments for theiruse and further development. In addition,the text gives recommendations wheremodel-based baseline standardisation canpreferentially be applied.     

A basic study with feasibility of applying clean development mechanism to the transport projects

In the transport sector, few projects applied Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI) projects. This study will examine the feasibility of applying CDM to the transport sector from viewpoints of validation of processes and funding. A number of greenhouse gas emission reduction projects, as well as traffic management project within existing transport infrastructures, can be implemented as CDM projects. New transport infrastructure projects can be validated by transportdemand forecasting and traffic simulation methods, though application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) technologies. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.