Clean Development Mechanism and Least Developed Countries: Changing the Rules for Greater Participation

Lopez, Thanakvaro Thyl De; Ponlok, Tin; Iyadomi, Keisuke; Santos, Sérgio Pereira dos; McIntosh, Bridget

doi:10.1177/1070496509347744

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even before the carbon market crash, CDM finance increased the rates of return only marginally, and projects needed to be near to financial closure without CDM to be viable (Schroeder, 2009). LDCs suffer from heightened project development costs, poor investment climates, and inadequate access to financial products (De Lopez et al, 2009;Sieghart, 2009). Nearing financial closure is therefore more testing than in higher-income developing countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constraints to project development, which prevent access to CDM finance, differ among LDCs, but often include institutional constraints such as budgetary restrictions (Byigero, Clancy, & Skutsch, 2010), poor quality of regulation, and corruption (De Lopez, Tim, Iyadomi, Santos, & McIntosh, 2009;Sieghart, 2009). Common constraints also include underdeveloped private sectors (De Lopez et al, 2009), skills shortages (Sieghart, 2009), high transaction costs (Dhakal & Raut, 2010), poor access to financial products (Sieghart, 2009), limited local CDM awareness and experience, and lack of community buyin (Gilau, Van Buskirk, & Small, 2007) because local benefits are absent (Mathur, Afionis, Paavola, Dougill, & Stringer, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common constraints also include underdeveloped private sectors (De Lopez et al, 2009), skills shortages (Sieghart, 2009), high transaction costs (Dhakal & Raut, 2010), poor access to financial products (Sieghart, 2009), limited local CDM awareness and experience, and lack of community buyin (Gilau, Van Buskirk, & Small, 2007) because local benefits are absent (Mathur, Afionis, Paavola, Dougill, & Stringer, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, households and small businesses dominate LDCs' energy consumption. Together with underdeveloped industrial sectors this translates to low energy-sector emissions and mitigation potential (De Lopez et al, 2009). This reduces profitable project development opportunities (Jung, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can CDM finance energy access in Least Developed Countries? Evidence from Tanzania

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy documents and academic literature suggest that Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) finance could complement traditional 'energy access' (EA) funding in developing countries, including the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Yet these propositions have not been empirically tested. This study helps fill this gap by examining constraints to CDM project passage through five stages of an idealized project development cycle (PDC) in Tanzania, and their implications for the ability of the CDM to contribute to financing energy access in LDCs. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews and documentary material were analysed using an analytical framework developed for systematic investigation of constraints. Institutional constraints such as the under-performance of Tanzania's Designated National Authority were the most often mentioned obstacles for project development. Yet non-institutional constraints such as limited energy sector mitigation potential, indigenous skill shortages, and low carbon market prices also hinder project development. Institutional constraints buttress, rather than supersede, pre-existing noninstitutional constraints, and together they prevent energy projects from completing the PDC and accessing CDM finance. The number and severity of constraints suggest that the situation is unlikely to change rapidly, and that the CDM sustains and exacerbates existing global inequalities. Since traditional energy access funding is insufficient to address these inequalities, new funding and policy mechanisms are required. Policy relevanceThe CDM fails to fill the EA financing gap in Tanzania. This is also true for other LDCs where comparable project development challenges prevail. The CDM therefore appears to sustain uneven development patterns overlooking those most in need. Claims about its potential to enhance EA are misplaced, and the situation is unlikely to change rapidly. CDM and carbon market projects more widely will have limited ability to help financing EA in LDCs, even if the institutional setting within which they are implemented were reformed in the future. Yet traditional energy funding will be inadequate on its own. The debate over extending the CDM post-2017, when the second Kyoto Protocol commitment period expires, should be informed by honest appraisal of its merits and defects. Policy makers should revisit lessons provided by this article and wider research to help ensure that new EA mechanisms are not hampered by constraints and can benefit those most in need.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can CDM finance energy access in Least Developed Countries? Evidence from Tanzania

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Just 1.5% of all CDM projects have been located in LDCs and 17 (out of 47) LDCs have yet to host a project [94]. Common constraints related to LDC implementation contexts restrict project development, including limited institutional capacity and corruption; underdeveloped private sectors [111,112]; poor access to financial products [113]; restricted awareness of the CDM [114]; low carbon prices; and insufficient mitigation potential [93]. These constraints run counter to conditions that are valued by CDM investors [115].…”

Section: Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially Just Triple-Wins? A Framework for Evaluating the Social Justice Implications of Climate Compatible Development

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate compatible development (CCD) aims to help people improve their lives in the face of climate threats without exacerbating these threats for current and future generations. It is proving an attractive concept to both academics and practitioners. However, the social justice implications of CCD have not yet been comprehensively explored and an absence of adequate evaluation frameworks has led to multiple, legitimate cross-scalar social justice claims being marginalised. This article develops a framework to guide holistic social justice evaluation of CCD initiatives across levels and scales. Underpinning this framework is a social justice approach that embraces particularism, pluralism and procedural justice. Drawing on existing research, the framework is used to explore the implications of the Clean Development Mechanism for recognition, participation and distribution in the Least Developed Countries. Findings show that achieving social justice through CCD is not a given; rather, the social justice implications of CCD differ within and between levels and scales. We conclude by suggesting ways in which our framework can be applied to augment knowledge on CCD. Understanding the processes through which social justices and injustices are created is integral to considerations of whether and how CCD should be used to underpin a new development landscape.

show abstract

Private‐sector responses to climate change in the Global South

Pulver

Benney

2013

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the private sector response to climate change in the Global South? And what has motivated action? The Carbon Disclosure Project and Clean Development Mechanism registries offer some systematic data in response to the first question. Despite limitations to both data sources, they show that private sector action on climate change clusters in China, India, Brazil and other large industrializing countries. Four drivers–physical, regulatory, market, and reputational–offer answers to the second question. In the more developed countries of the Global South, corporate action is driven primarily by the prospect of domestic climate regulation—some large developing countries have pledged greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2020—and by the market opportunities created by the Clean Development Mechanism. In the less developed countries, barriers related to weak regulatory environments, low levels of industrialization and growth, restricted access to capital, and limited technical capacity intersect to limit private‐sector action on climate change. Looking to the future, the lack of depth and breadth in the push for corporate action on climate change in the Global South suggests reasons for concern. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:479–496. doi: 10.1002/wcc.240 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change

show abstract

Clean Development Mechanism and Least Developed Countries: Changing the Rules for Greater Participation

Cited by 16 publications

References 3 publications

Can CDM finance energy access in Least Developed Countries? Evidence from Tanzania

Can CDM finance energy access in Least Developed Countries? Evidence from Tanzania

Socially Just Triple-Wins? A Framework for Evaluating the Social Justice Implications of Climate Compatible Development

Private‐sector responses to climate change in the Global South

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About