Abstract
The perception of the project-based mechanisms has varied since their inception under the name of Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) to their form under the Kyoto Protocol of Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). AIJ projects of course still exist under the Marrakech Accords. The controversy surrounding the concept of emissions trading and the need for purely domestic reduction actions has not really abated. The role of JI and the CDM and of AIJ is therefore interesting in the way these mechanisms have alternately been propelled along by their role as market mechanisms in achieving a low carbon future ‘at least cost to society’ and then reined in by those concerned that the priority should be domestic action. New arguments have appeared with time. The environmental integrity of the reductions achieved by project based mechanisms is now seen as a key selling point in an international market beset by ‘hot air’. Thus the popularity of the project mechanisms is now being propelled along by concerns on environmental integrity but then limited by problems with increasing transaction costs due to the complexity of the system to ensure that integrity.
The pressure to reduce transaction costs for the project mechanisms has led to investigation of possible simplified and standardised procedures for baselines for the project mechanisms. This paper therefore traces the evolution of the project mechanisms and some of the latest developments in carbon accounting for reductions for large and small-scale projects as well as looking at the implications for projects under the EU and UK emissions trading schemes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anagnostopoulos K, Flamos A, Askounis D, Psarras J (2004) The Multiple Benchmark System Application to Indonesia, Russia and Panama, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9(2): 147–180
Begg K, Jackson T, Parkinson S (2001a) Beyond Joint Implementation-Designing Flexibility into Global Climate Policy, Energy Policy 29(1): 17–27
Begg K, Parkinson S, Wilkinson R (2001b) Maximising GHG emissions and sustainable development aspects in the Clean Development Mechanism, World Resources Review 13(3): 315–334
Begg K, Jackson T, van der Gaast W, Jepma C, Sorrell S, Smith A, van der Horst D, Bandsma J, ten Hoopen M (2002) Guidance for UK emissions trading projects: Advice to Policymakers, (Final report Policy Document for UKDTI)
Begg K, Wilkinson R, Parkinson S, Amissah-Arthur H, Atugba S, Brew-Hammond A, Theuri D, Mathenge M, Gitonga S, Meena H, Mwakifwamba S, Mwakifsonde S and van der Horst D (2003) Encouraging CDM energy projects to aid poverty alleviation, (Summary Report to UK DFID).
Begg K, van der Horst D (2004) Preserving Environmental Integrity in Standardised Baselines: The Role of Additionality and Uncertainty, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9: 181–200
Cason TN (2003) Buyer liability and voluntary inspections in international greenhouse gas emissions trading: A laboratory Study, Environmental & Resource Economics, 25(1): 101–127
Green J, Mariyappan J, Plastow J, Mensah-Brown H, Agbey S, Brew-Hammond A, (2002) ‘Bundling and small scale projects’, Report for FCO CCCF
Grubb M (2003) The Economics of the Kyoto protocol, World Economics 4(3): 143–189
Hambleton A, Figueres C and Chatterjee K (1999) Do AIJ Projects Support Sustainable Development Goals in the Host Country? Chapter 8 in The UNFCCC AIJ Pilot: Experiences and Lessons Learned, pp. 167–181
JIQ (2003a) Joint Implementation Quarterly JIN Foundation 9, 2: 2–4 (July 2003)
JIQ (2003b) Joint Implementation Quarterly JIN Foundation 9, 4: 1 (December 2003)
JIQ, (2004a) Joint Implementation Quarterly JIN Foundation 10, 4 (December 2004)
JIQ (2004b) Joint Implementation Quarterly JIN Foundation 10, 1: 14 (March Issue)
Kartha S, Lazarus M, Bosi M, (2004) Baseline Recommendations for GHG mitigation projects in the electric power sector, Energy Policy, 32(4): 545–566
Korppoo A (2003) Forging alliance with Russia: The example of the green investment scheme, Climate Policy 3(1): 67–76
Michaelova A, Stronzik M (2002) Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms, HWWA discussion paper 175
Pointcarbon (2004) CDM and JI monitor, Dec 2004
Sager J (2003) An analysis with the CERT model of the FSU market power in the carbon emissions trading market, Environmnetal Modelling & Assessment 8(3): 219–238
Sathaye J, Price L, Worrell E, Ruth M, (2001) Multi project baselines for evaluation and Industrial Energy efficiency and Electric Power projects, LBNL-48242, (LBL report for the EPA)
Stainforth DA, Alna T, Christenesen C, Collins M, Faull N, Frame DJ, Kettleborough JA, Knight S, Martin A, Murphy JM, Plant C, Sexton D, Smith LA, Spicer RA, Thorpe AJ, Allen MR (2005) Uncertainty in the prediction of climate responses to rising levels of greenhouse gases, Nature, 433–436 (January 11th 2005)
Sutter C (2003) Sustainability Check up for CDM projects, Wissenschaftl. Verlag, Berlin
Tangen K, Korppoo A, Berdin V, Sugijama T, Drexhage J, Egenhofer C, Grubb M, Legge T, Moe S, Stern J, Yamaguchi K, (2002) A Russian Green Investment Schemesecuring environmental benefits from international emissions trading, Climate Strategies Report, Nov 2002, http://www.climate-strategies.org
Thomas F, Ullrich S, Mazzoni O, (2000) Developing a Methodology to Evaluate CDM Projects According to National Sustainable Development Criteria. SUSAC project for UK FCO and EU, http://www.esd.co.uk/Tindex.htm?, http://www.esd.co.uk/html/CDM_Susac.htm~tmain
Troni J, Ageby S, Costa PM, Haque N, Hession M, Gunaratne L, Rodriguez H, Sharma A (2002) Moving Toward Environmentally Neutral Development (MEND), (Final Report to UK DFID)
UNFCCC (2002) FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3 Simplified modalities and procedures for small scale projects
van der Gaast W, Jepma C, Begg K, Michaelova A, Butzengeiger S, Flamos A, Brodmann U (2003) Procedures for Accounting and Baselines for JI and CDM projects (PROBASE), Final report to EU FPV
Woerdman E (2000) Implementing the Kyoto protocol: why JI and the CDM show more promise than international emissions trading, Energy Policy 28(1): 29–38
Woerdman E (2001) Emissions Trading and Transaction Costs: analysing the flaws in the discussion, Ecological Economics 38,2: 293–304
World Bank (2003) State of the Carbon Market (December 2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Begg, K.G. (2006). The changing role of the project mechanisms in emissions trading. In: Antes, R., Hansjürgens, B., Letmathe, P. (eds) Emissions Trading and Business. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7908-1748-1_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7908-1748-1_24
Publisher Name: Physica-Verlag HD
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-1747-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-1748-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)