Outcomes of the Clean Development Mechanism in Argentina

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of the implementation of the CDM in Argentina during the first period of commitment of the Kyoto Protocol. From a total of sixtyfive projects ideas, forty-four achieved registration under the CDM EB while the rest remained approved at national level (12), under evaluation (2), suspended (5) or rejected (2). Most of the projects focused on the generation of electricity from renewable energy, mainly wind energy and the use of landfill gas and methane for energy. Emissions reductions achieved 33.4% of the expected CERs up to 2012 with strong differences among sectors. Results demonstrated that under the current Argentina's energy policy framework, the income by the selling of CERs covered less than 6% of the incremental costs for renewable energy projects. A sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of CDM in the coverage of incremental costs for renewable energy based on the prices of both the energy in the local market and the CER demonstrated that the best conditions would only cover 15% of those costs. The contribution of CDM to technology transfer in Argentina was minor considering that 45% of the projects qualified as type III where technological learning and capacity building were limited at the level of operation and maintenance of a foreign technology. Domestic and external barriers that prevented a better performance of CDM projects in terms of GHG mitigation, technology transfer and the contribution to a sustainable development were also analyzed.

A Review of Global Policy Mechanisms Designed for Tropical Forests Conservation and Climate Risks Management

“…Inadequacy in monitoring modalities and verification procedures of co-benefits is also cited as a significant gap in most CDM. Complexities in assessment procedures, design, low awareness, and related bureaucracies have consistently halted the success of the CDM interventions and inclusion of the co-benefits in Brazil (Fernández et al, 2012) and Argentina (Blanco et al, 2016), and Indonesia (Mafira, 2013), calling for improved design protocol to achieve co-benefit goals.…”

“…Additionally, Okubo and Michaelowa (2010) establish the inadequate design of the subsidies related to CDM projects development, noting that the subsidies available are limited to particular aspects, such as institutional capacity building. Blanco et al (2016) indicated that CDM only contributed 45% to technology transfer with limited capacity building support on operation and maintenance in Argentina's case. This has limited the (Disch, 2010), which is the core mandate of CDM.…”