در سهم نشاندار شده کاهش دادن انتشار آلودگی به توسعه پایدار: ارزیابی چند معیاره پروژه های CDM
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29336||2009||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Policy, Volume 37, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 91–101
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has a twofold objective, to offset greenhouse gas emissions and to contribute to sustainable development in the host country. The contribution to the latter objective seems marginal in most CDM activities. Also, CDM activities are unevenly spread among developing countries. In response to these concerns, initiatives with the objective of promoting CDM projects with broad local sustainable development dividends have been launched, such as the Gold Standard and the Community Development Carbon Fund. The Gold Standard label rewards best-practice CDM projects while the Community Development Carbon Fund focuses on promoting CDM activities in underprivileged communities. Using a multi-criteria method, the potential contribution to local sustainable development of those CDM projects with particular attributes is compared with ordinary ones. This evaluation suggests that labelled CDM activities tend to slightly outperform comparable projects, although not unequivocally.
The Kyoto Protocol creates a legally binding set of obligations for industrialised countries and obliges those countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to an average of 5% below their 1990 levels over the commitment period 2008–2012 (UNFCCC, 1997, p. 3). Three flexible mechanisms, Emission Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation, aim at reducing the costs of meeting emission targets by allowing for geographical and temporal flexibility (Dutschke and Michaelowa, 1998). The CDM is the outcome of lengthy and delicate international negotiations. It represents a compromise between the aspirations of developing countries for development on the one hand and the desire for industrialised countries to meet their emission target in an economically efficient manner on the other. The CDM has two objectives, to offset GHG emissions produced in developed countries, and to promote sustainable development in developing countries, as stated in the article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1997, p. 11). The CDM was originally seen as of particular interest for developing countries. Indeed, the fear of environmental measures hampering development would vanish if climate and development policies could converge. However, the question of whether climate and development objectives are compatible or in contradiction is open to debate (see e.g. Michaelowa and Michaelowa, 2007). The effective contribution of CDM projects to sustainable development is being questioned, giving rise to a series of measures, which aim at promoting CDM activities with broader sustainable development dividends. Attempts to evaluate the contribution of CDM projects to sustainable development exist (see e.g. Olhoff et al., undated; Olsen and Fenhann, 2008; Sutter and Parreño, 2007; Policy and Operations Evaluation Department, 2008). This paper contributes to this debate by comparing CDM activities with particular attributes to ordinary ones. It does so by applying a multi-criteria methodology in order to evaluate how labelled projects perform with respect to sustainability criteria in comparison to similar non-labelled projects. In Section 2, the current status of the CDM portfolio is portrayed and its challenges briefly discussed. Section 3 introduces initiatives promoting CDM activities delivering broad sustainable development dividends. The methodology applied in the framework of this research is depicted in Section 4. The projects evaluated are presented in Section 5. The evaluation, analysis and discussion feature Section 6, and the conclusions are presented in Section 7.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The CDM seems to have been very successful in contributing to the development of a global carbon market, allowing for temporal and spatial flexibility in achieving emission reduction targets. On the other hand, its role in assisting host countries in their effort to promote sustainable development is being questioned. According to critics, the contribution to sustainable development of several Clean Development Mechanism projects is disappointing. Several actions have taken place intending to remedy some of those shortcomings. The Gold Standard rewards best-practice CDM projects. The CDCF promotes CDM activities located in underprivileged communities. This analysis compares projects with special attributes with ordinary ones. Since labelled Certified Emission Reductions are likely to be more costly than those delivered by ordinary CDM activities, it is legitimate to evaluate whether their contribution in terms of sustainable development differs from non-labelled projects. It is important to underline here, however, that the added-value of labelled projects might also be reflected in other issues. For example, the Gold Standard methodology features additional requirement in terms of additionality demonstration. Such effects go beyond the scope of this study and are thus not captured in this analysis, since it focuses exclusively on sustainable development attributes. Multi-criteria seems particularly appropriate for evaluating the multi-dimensionality of sustainable development. The MATA-CDM provides a methodology that allows for a straightforward and consistent appraisal of the projects’ contribution to sustainable development. The methodology applied in this research derives from the MATA-CDM and is adapted to the specific requirements of this evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the respect of the principle of incommensurability of the different indicators. The evaluation carried out in this research suggests that, based on the sample of projects evaluated, the sustainable development profile of premium CDM projects tends to be comparable or slightly more ample than similar ordinary projects. Labelled projects do not, however, drastically out perform non-labelled ones. Also, the distinction between projects might very well be within the range of uncertainty intrinsic to such assessment. The contribution of labelled projects to social sustainable development tends to outdo comparable ordinary activities, whereas the contrary holds for economic criteria of sustainable development. It must be noted that this evaluation compares CDM activities that are believed to be the most promising in terms of sustainable development contribution, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for instance. Also, most projects evaluated are small-scale activities. Industrial end-of-the-pipe adjustments for instance, which are subject to fierce criticisms from the sustainable development contribution viewpoint, are not the focus of the Gold Standard or the CDCF, and thus do not appear in this analysis. There are reasons to believe that such projects would feature a significantly different sustainable development profile. Considering that the CDM is at best carbon-neutral, its contribution to sustainable development is essential. Since the CDM is a market-based mechanism, it is likely to be driven by factors others than the contribution to sustainable development in the host country since those are not marketed. Means to differentiate the quality of the projects, such as labels, therefore provide valuable signals to investors, project developers, and potential certificate buyers, provided that such labels are credible. Albeit the current shortcomings, a framework such as the CDM appears to have a great potential as an effective market instrument, including in the medium term (post-Kyoto). It is therefore of critical importance to ensure that both objectives, GHG emission reduction and contribution to sustainable development, effectively unfold their full potential. While the former objective is clearly regulated, clearer guidance in terms of making the assessment of the potential contribution to sustainable development, through a set of quantifiable indicators for instance, would be most useful. Guidelines in that regard could be integrated into the validation and verification processes.