Climatic Change

, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 75–90 | Cite as

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

  • Christoph SutterEmail author
  • Juan Carlos Parreño


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


Host Country Emission Reduction Clean Development Mechanism Clean Development Mechanism Project Clean Development Mechanism Project Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bøhren Ø, Ødegaard BA (2001) Patterns of corporate ownership: insights from a unique data set. Nord J Polit Econ 27(1):55–86Google Scholar
  2. De Montis A et al. (2000) MCDA and sustainable development – a comparison of methods, Working paper. Universita di Cagliari, CagliariGoogle Scholar
  3. Dobbelaere S (2004) Ownership, firm size and rent sharing in Bulgaria. Labour Econ 11(2):165–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Greiner S, Michaelowa A (2003) Defining investment additionality for CDM projects – practical approaches. Energy Policy 31(10):1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kelly C, Helme N (2000) Ensuring CDM project compatibility. Working paper. Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington (
  6. Mygind N (2004) Shareholder, stakeholder-owner or broad stakeholder maximization, Copenhagen Business School. Working paper No. 53 presented at the IAFEP (International Association For the Economics of Participation) 12th Biannual Conference, Mending the Global Economy: A Role for Economic Participation. St. Mary’s University, Halifax, 8–10 July 2004Google Scholar
  7. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Sutter C (2003) Sustainability check-up for CDM projects: How to assess the sustainability of international projects under the Kyoto Protocol. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Sutter C et al. (2001) Small-scale CDM. Opportunities and limits, study on behalf of Swiss development cooperation. Factor Consulting and Management AG, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  10. UNFCCC (1997) Kyoto protocol to the UN framework convention on climate change. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. UNFCCC (2002) Report of the conference of the parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 200, Addendum. Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties. Volume II. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2Google Scholar
  12. UNFCCC (2005) CDM projects and methodologies database.
  13. United Nations (2005) Millennium development goals.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Pole Carbon Asset ManagementZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Den HaagThe Netherlands
  3. 3.KüsnachtSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations