اولویت ذینفعان به سمت توسعه پایدار پروژه های مکانیسم توسعه پاک: درس هایی از زیست توده (سبوس برنج) پروژه مکانیسم توسعه پاک در تایلند

This research applies both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate stakeholder preferences towards sustainable development (SD) priorities in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. The CDM's contribution to SD is explored in the context of a biomass (rice husk) case study conducted in Thailand. Quantitative analysis ranks increasing the usage of renewable energy as the highest priority, followed by employment and technology transfer. Air pollution (dust) is ranked as the most important problem. Preference weights expressed by experts and local resident are statistically different in the cases of: employment generation; emission reductions; dust; waste disposal; and noise. Qualitative results, suggest that rice husk CDM projects contribute significantly to SD in terms of employment generation, an increase in usage of renewable energy, and transfer of knowledge. However, rice husk biomass projects create a potential negative impact on air quality. In order to ensure the environmental sustainability of CDM projects, stakeholders suggest that Thailand should cancel an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) exemption for CDM projects with an installed capacity below 10 MW and apply it to all CDM projects.

As part of the international response to climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established an international policy framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Adopted at the third Conferences of the Parties (COP-3), the Kyoto Protocol aims to stabilization atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous climate change. However, the costs of reducing GHG emissions vary across countries. In order to achieve cost effective emission reductions, the Kyoto Protocol incorporates three flexibility mechanisms based on the principle that GHG emission reductions anywhere in the world will ultimately have the same effect on the atmosphere. Consequently, it is more cost effective for Annex I (developed) countries to reduce GHG emissions in other developing countries rather than at home. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of these flexibility mechanisms. The CDM allows Annex I countries to invest in emission reduction projects in developing countries. CDM projects have twin objectives. Firstly, to assist non-Annex I countries achieve Sustainable Development (SD). Secondly, to assist Annex I countries achieve their emission reduction targets in a cost effective way. A host country Designated National Authority (DNA) is directly responsible for assessing the sustainability of CDM projects. This duty is clearly defined in the Bonn Agreement, which states that “The Conference of the Parties agrees to affirm that it is the host Party's prerogative to confirm whether a clean development mechanism project activity assists it in achieving sustainable development” ( UNFCCC, 2001). Therefore, a CDM project's contribution to SD is interpreted and assessed by the host country. Host countries develop their own SD criteria for assessing CDM projects. There are no common international standards for the host country approval processes and the development of SD criteria. In contrast to GHG emissions, whose assessment and monitoring are standardized, the SD criteria for approval of projects are not clearly defined. Consequently, the host countries' duties to assess the SD benefits of CDM projects are inconsistently applied and SD criteria vary widely. Several studies have now concluded that the SD objectives of CDM project are not clearly interpreted by many host countries (Brown et al., 2004, Schneider, 2007 and Sterk et al., 2009). Sterk et al. (2009) find that only 15 countries have their own SD criteria for assessing CDM projects. More importantly, the relative importance of individual SD objectives is vague. Stakeholder preferences towards the SD of CDM projects are not explicit, and are left to the host countries to interpret. Making these preferences explicit would help reduce conflicts and help develop consensus as different stakeholders can evaluate their own proposals from the others' preferences (Pascoe et al., 2009). Finally, the contribution that CDM projects make towards SD has been widely debated (Burian, 2006, Kolshus et al., 2001, Michaelowa, 2005, Nussbaumer, 2009, Olsen, 2007, Olsen and Fenhann, 2008, Schneider, 2007 and Sutter and Parreno, 2007). Given this context, an investigation of stakeholder preferences towards the SD of CDM projects is clearly needed. Moreover, there is a need for more specific research investigating how the CDM contributes to SD. This research tries to investigate these issues using a case study of a biomass CDM project in Thailand.

This paper presents quantitative evidence of stakeholder SD preferences in the case of rice husk biomass CDM projects in Thailand. Following previous research recommendations (Sutter 2003), ‘grass-roots’ local residents were included in the stakeholder survey. The Thai study clearly answers Sutter's open question on whether the sustainability preferences of experts and local residents differ. Our results demonstrate different priorities regarding the importance of (i) employment generation, (ii) emission reductions, (iii) air quality (dust), (iv) waste disposal, and (v) noise because of an information gap between the experts and the local residents. We found that most experts never visit CDM project areas, so these two groups have different views on importance of SD benefits and social costs. Adding a group of local residents into the stakeholder surveys provides a clearer understanding, sustainability preferences, and highlights conflicting opinions. We suggest that future research on the sustainability preferences of CDM stakeholders should include experts and local residents. Quantitative results revealed a similar pattern of priority weighting to Sutter's research in South Africa and India. Sutter (2003) concluded that the specific energy situation in a host country will influence the SD priorities of CDM stakeholders'. According to Sutter, India which is heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports, ranked the replacement of fossil energy with renewable energy as the most important SD benefit. Conversely in South Africa, which has abundant coal reserves, this criterion had the lowest priority. Thailand depends heavily on fossil fuel imports and our results showed that Thai stakeholders give the highest priority to increasing renewable energy production. Finally, we agree with Sutter's conclusion that SD of CDM projects can only be properly understood at the level of the case study. Our qualitative results indicate that some SD benefits described in PDDs may not be realized in practice. Specifically (i) rice husk CDM projects may not give an extra income to farmers and the allocation of this benefit is unfair; (iii) rice mills stopped burning rice husks before the implementation of the CDM; and (iii) rice husk CDM projects can have a negative impact on air quality (dust problem and waste disposal). In theory rice husk ash can be used for many purposes: (1) soil improvement; (2) cement production; and (3) steel production, but in reality it is very difficult for CDM project developers to find the buyers. In Thailand there is very small demand for rice husk ash and the buyers of rice husk ash are very far from the projects. Therefore, some CDM projects try to get rid of rice husk ash with least costs by dumping it in the open fields near the project area (Gilbertson, 2009 and Tangwisutijit, 2009). Our qualitative results also found that the villagers experienced dust problems from rice husks and ash. Therefore, these environmental problems found by qualitative method are consistent with the results of the priority weights (quantitative method). These results support the argument that the Thai Government should apply the priority weights found by the quantitative analysis when assessing the sustainability of Biomass (rice husk) CDM projects. However, projects do contribute significantly to SD in terms of: (i) employment generation; (ii) increase in renewable energy; and (iii) transfer of knowledge and technology. These results confirm that the quality of PDDs is poor in terms of the assessment of SD benefits. According to Sterk et al. (2009), most host countries assess the sustainability of CDM projects by desk-based review and an interview with the project developers. Consequently, the results of sustainability assessment conducted by host countries may be incorrect. This conclusion is supported by the Thai case study, suggesting an inability of host countries to ensure the sustainability of CDM projects. Our results suggest that host countries should be required to assess the sustainability of CDM projects using, inter alia, in-depth interviews with a range of stakeholders supported by project site visits. This is particularly important in areas that may be affected by negative impacts. Moreover, an EIA should be required for all CDM projects as this would better inform the PDD process. Finally, we offer two recommendations for Thailand. Firstly, the Government should consider developing a biomass commodity market to support the high demand for the rice husks created by Thailand's renewable energy plan. An alternative is that farmers could come together to form cooperatives that would force the price of paddy rice to the mills higher, i.e. to include the true value of the rice husk in the price paid.