A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

Hultman, Nathan; Lou, Jiehong; Hutton, Stephen

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab6396

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the collection, measurement, and inclusion of their data in carbon pricing mechanisms is tricky (Vrsatz et al, 2014). Even when they are quantified, the co-benefits may be unequally distributed between communities or individuals due to the absence of internationally recognized criteria for them (Hultman et al, 2020). Moreover, conflicting political and stakeholder interests may result in uncertainty regarding the co-benefits reaped (Hultman et al, 2020).…”

Section: Quality Of Carbon Creditsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Khurana,

Kajale,

Cariappa

et al. 2024

Outlook Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activities are responsible for emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to global warming and climate change. As the world's second-largest producer of staple food and the third-largest emitter of GHGs, India has been witnessing an increase in demand for food and energy, resulting in increased emissions. Thus, to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2070, India must focus urgently on climate change mitigation. Its agriculture sector has the potential to transition from being a net emitter to a net absorber of GHGs by adopting sustainable farming practices such as zero tillage, laser-assisted precision land leveling, direct seeding of rice, intercropping, biochar application, use of solar energy, and more efficient management of irrigation water, soil nutrients, livestock feed, and manure. To incentivize climate consciousness, a voluntary carbon credit trading system could be utilized in agriculture, supported by a measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification platform. This system would also bring about social, environmental, and financial co-benefits for its stakeholders. Specifically, the agriculture sector could substantially reduce the country's annual emissions by 84% from 2019 to 2070. But to realize their potential, the carbon markets must overcome the limitations currently set by policy, economic, cultural, and biophysical factors.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Carbon Creditsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Khurana,

Kajale,

Cariappa

et al. 2024

Outlook Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But there still might be some variability in choosing certain project types. Especially, some projects have the potential to generate a more positive, immediate local sustainable development impact, and buyers would purchase these projects by adding a price premium to these offsets (Hultman et al, 2019;Lou et al, 2022). Currently, different project types are sold at different prices in the market (see Supplementary Figure 8).…”

Section: Mapping Motivations On To Purchasing Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Co-benefits in Private Climate Finance Investment: How are Corporate Motivations for Voluntary Carbon Offset Investments Reflected in Valuation of Project Co-benefits?

Lou

Hultman

Patwardhan

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Companies can prioritize diverse types of sustainable investment finance to reflect their concerns about climate change and carbon emissions. One example of such climate investments is corporate investments in voluntary carbon offset (VCO) projects. Despite growing research into what and how these companies are doing in the VCO markets, much remains to be learned about the motivations for such investments. We utilized two datasets with a natural linkage that can validate across by each other, and conducted a mixed-method analysis based on a group of 186 companies globally with 534 carbon offset projects in 2017 to explore the motivations that drive companies to invest in the offset projects, and how different motivations map on to specific purchase decisions which then channel into larger financial flows. We identified three corporate motivations for carbon offset investment and found that the growing prevalence of companies using carbon offsets to achieve carbon neutrality has been coupled with an increasing number of companies highlighting the importance of using offsets to contribute to “company values” and “market competitiveness.” Our study reveals that companies investing in offsets represent a unique class that is willing to pay more for projects with higher co-benefits.

show abstract

“…Purchasers at premium prices do this by either altruistic motives or because of a higher quality of their investments, which might result from a higher degree of participation and cooperation of local stakeholders. Against this background, Hultman et al (2019) suggest that it may become important to encourage more purchasers to act on the premium market in the future. To reduce transaction costs Olsen et al (2019) endorse an approach which uses qualitative characteristics of a project to assess its expected SD benefits and to rank various projects in this way.…”

Section: Cooperative Approaches In Accordance With Article 6 Of the Paris Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Buchholz

Rübbelke

2021

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Climate finance is regularly not only seen as a tool to efficiently combat global warming but also to solve development problems in the recipient countries and to support the attainment of sustainable development goals. Thereby, conflicts between distributive and allocative objectives arise, which threaten the overall performance of such transfer schemes. Given the severity of the climate change problem, this study aims to raise concerns about whether the world can afford climate transfer schemes that do not focus on prevention of (and adaptation to) climate change but might be considered as a vehicle of rent-seeking by many agents. Design/methodology/approach Future designs of international transfer schemes within the framework of the Paris Agreement are to be based on experience gained from existing mechanisms. Therefore, the authors examine different existing schemes using a graphical technique first proposed by David Pearce and describe the conflicts between allocative and distributional goals that arise. Findings In line with the famous Tinbergen rule, the authors argue that other sustainability problems and issues of global fairness should not be primarily addressed by climate finance but should be mainly tackled by other means. Research limitations/implications As there is still ongoing, intense discussion about how the international transfer schemes addressed in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement should be designed, the research will help to sort some of the key arguments. Practical implications There are prominent international documents (like the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) seeking to address different goals simultaneously. While synergies between policies is desirable, there are major challenges for policy coordination. Addressing several different goals using fewer policy instruments, for example, will not succeed as the Tinbergen Rule points out. Social implications The integration of co-benefits in the analysis allows for taking into account the social effects of climate policy. As the authors argue, climate finance approaches could become overstrained if policymakers would consider them as tools to also solve local sustainability problems. Originality/value In this paper, the authors will not only examine what can be learnt from the clean development mechanism (CDM) for future schemes under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement but also observe the experiences gained from a non-CDM scheme. So the authors pay attention to the Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which was established with global benefit orientation, i.e. – unlike the CDM – it was not regarded as an additional goal to support local sustainable development. Yet, despite its disregard of local co-benefits, the authors think that it is of particular importance to include the GEF in the analysis, as some important lessons can be learnt from it.

show abstract

A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

Cited by 21 publications

References 67 publications

Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Valuing Co-benefits in Private Climate Finance Investment: How are Corporate Motivations for Voluntary Carbon Offset Investments Reflected in Valuation of Project Co-benefits?

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About