Enciclopédia da Energia Natural   CPMA.COMUNIDADES.NET
1057 pág.

Enciclopédia da Energia Natural CPMA.COMUNIDADES.NET


DisciplinaEletricidade4.728 materiais23.190 seguidores
Pré-visualização50 páginas
of anthropogenic emis-
sions by sources of GHG emissions which occur outside of the
CDM project boundaries (in other sectors, regions, or coun-
tries), and which are measurable and attributable to the CDM
project activity. CDM projects may also lead to environmental
externalities in other domains, such as water, biodiversity, or
local air pollution. Here, the narrow definition is used of in-
creases in GHG emissions elsewhere resulting from demand
and supply changes in production factors that change relative
factor prices and, in particular, the energy price. A small
CDM project would normally be assumed not to have any
impact on market prices. Nevertheless, when aggregated, the
CDMmay have important impacts on leakage. Climate-change
research has estimated the extent of carbon leakage to an order
of 5\u201320%. Only recent work is doing more specific assessment
of carbon leakage linked with the CDM. The Marrakesh
Accords stipulate specifically that the PDD should contain a
quantification of CDM project leakage, but there has been little
progress on reporting standards. In general, leakage is seen as a
phenomenon of the pollution haven hypothesis: if stricter
environmental regulation increases the relative shadow cost
of GHG emissions in one country or region, then the produc-
tion generating those emissions may move away from the
country or region. On the one hand, one may thus argue that
the CDM should decrease leakage, as it reduces the shadow cost
differential between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. On the
other hand, a CDM project may change input factor prices and
energy output prices, in particular reduce the local energy price,
which could yield an increase in local energy demand high
enough to outweigh the reduction in carbon emissions inten-
sity brought about by projects investing in CO2 reduction. This
is similar to a scale effect that outbalances the technical effi-
ciency effect sought after with the CDMwhen it concerns energy
supply or demand investments. The most recent work on the
topic thus tries to quantify these opposing effects to assess the
overall leakage that can be attributed to the CDM.
Contribution to Sustainable Development
The contribution to sustainable development of the CDMmay
be appraised on several dimensions: environmental (e.g., the
impact on the local environment), social (e.g., the share of
the project\u2019s net benefits that are recuperated by the poor, the
project\u2019s contribution to human and social development), and
economic (e.g., the project\u2019s impact on local employment and
the regional economy).
The emission reductions funded through the CDM are un-
evenly distributed across regions and countries: as seen in
Climate Change and Policy | Clean Development Mechanism 19
Figure 2, China and India represent the largest share of CERs
and only a very small percentage of projects are implemented
in Africa (Figures 1 and 2). Concerns of the actual contribution
of CDM to sustainability have arisen because of the type of
projects as well and the local distribution of their benefits. The
large part of GHG emission reductions undertaken in the
chemical industry can be claimed to have had little impact, if
any at all, on sustainability in the host countries. The distribu-
tion of benefits from local projects is often considered un-
equal. There are now several analyses that are trying to assess
the sustainability contribution of CDM projects in a rigorous
manner. Some criticize the impact on the local environment;
in some cases, there are trade-offs between local health benefits
and the global public good of GHG mitigation. Others find a
low priority on improving access to energy sources among the
poorest in local society. The origins of the CDM were based on
the argument that constructing new clean energy sources in
developing countries would be of lower cost than retrofitting
energy plants in developing countries. In the first years of the
CDM, few energy efficiency or renewable energy projects were
developed though. In order to improve on the distribution of
project types, the EB has developed simplified baseline ac-
counting procedures for small-scale projects on renewable en-
ergy with a maximum output capacity equivalent to 15 MW
and energy efficiency improvement projects that reduce energy
consumption by up to the equivalent of 60 GWh year\ufffd1. Forest
management and conservation was excluded from the CDM
for the first commitment period (2008\u20132012). The new mech-
anism \u2018Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degrada-
tion\u2019 (REDDþ), separate from the CDM, may provide a means
to target, more explicitly, this GHGmitigation potential and do
so in a manner that will benefit the rural poor.
Technology Transfers
The CDM has also been evaluated on its capacity to improve
transfer of technology that helps mitigate GHG emissions.
Although the CDM does not have any explicit objective of
technology transfer, the UNFCCC explicitly mentions that
parties should cooperate in the diffusion, adoption, and trans-
fer of environmentally friendly technologies as a means to
achieve the overall objective of stabilizing anthropogenic cli-
mate change. Any assessment of the CDM on this issue has to
compare it to alternative policies, in particular a cap and trade
scheme. The comparison will then depend on the access to the
permit market, the competitiveness of output markets as well
as the character of the investment concerned. Our understand-
ing of the differences in technology diffusion between flexible
mechanisms is still at the initial stage, and recent theoretical
advances will shed more light on the issue. The empirical
evidence, on the contrary, shows that technology transfers
have taken place in at least 30% of the CDM projects, and
possibly even half of them, but that it depends to a great extent
on the host country and the type of project. The countries that
have hosted the most projects with technology transfers in-
cluded are Mexico, Malaysia, Brazil, China, and India. Since
China and India tend to implement unilateral projects, tech-
nology transfer has been more limited in those countries com-
pared to similar projects in the other main host countries of the
CDM. On one hand, existing national technological capacities
increase the likelihood of technology transfer; on the other
hand, the larger the cumulative stock of projects of the same
type in the host country, the less likely is a technology transfer.
The likelihood of technology transfers depends very much on
the type of project; for example, projects involving the mitiga-
tion of non-CO2 GHG emissions more often included technol-
ogy transfers than others. It is not straightforward to measure
technology transfers, though, as the term may be included in
the PDD, but details on the exact nature of the knowledge or
equipment transferred and whether it was previously available
in the host country or not may be lacking. Most studies still
tend to conclude that technology transfers are more likely: the
larger the project, the stronger are the bilateral ties between the
parties \u2013 in the form of existing foreign direct investments
(FDIs) or trade links \u2013 and the better is the business climate
and governance of the host country. Transfers have also been
found to depend significantly on whether the host party was a
subsidiary to a company in a developed country. It is thus not
clear whether the CDM has advanced technology transfer to a
further extent than that which would occur through FDI or
existing bilateral trade relations. COP-16 in Cancun decided to
establish a Technology Mechanism to further enhance the
diffusion of GHG mitigation technology.
Conclusion: