DOCSLIB.ORG

Trading Spaces - Joint Implementation After the Kyoto Protocol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trading Spaces - Joint Implementation After the Kyoto Protocol CES Working Paper 01/98 TRADING SPACES - JOINT IMPLEMENTATION AFTER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL Authors: Tim Jackson, Katie Begg, and Stuart Parkinson ISSN: 1464-8083 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson Trading Spaces - Joint Implementation after the Kyoto Protocol Tim Jackson, Katie Begg, and Stuart Parkinson ISSN: 1464-8083 Published by: Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford (Surrey) GU2 7XH, United Kingdom http://www.surrey.ac.uk/CES Publication date: 1998 © Centre for Environmental Strategy, 2007 The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and not of the Centre for Environmental Strategy. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publishers cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. This publication and its contents may be reproduced as long as the reference source is cited. CES Working Paper 01/98 page 2 of 22 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson Table of Content: Abstract__________________________________________________________ 4 1 Introduction __________________________________________________ 5 2 Flexibility instruments in the language of the Convention______________ 6 3 Classification of JI/trading arrangements __________________________ 8 4 JI/trading mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol ______________________ 13 4.1 “Joint fulfilment” ________________________________________________13 4.2 Transfer of emission reduction units_________________________________14 4.3 The clean development mechanism__________________________________17 4.4 Banking of emissions reduction credits_______________________________18 4.5 Representation in JI/trading space.__________________________________18 5 Discussion___________________________________________________ 20 References ______________________________________________________ 22 CES Working Paper 01/98 page 3 of 22 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson Abstract Flexibility instruments such as joint implementation and emissions trading have played an important part in climate change policy negotiations since before the signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. They are likely to remain an important feature of future negotiations. This paper examines the characteristics of the various flexibility mechanisms introduced by the Kyoto Protocol. Although the language in which they are couched differs significantly from earlier language on flexibility, the authors point out that many of the proposed mechanisms are broadly similar to mechanisms which have already been mooted. They suggest that contentious issues will not be resolved by linguistic changes, and are best addressed by an open recognition of the multiple objectives under which flexibility instruments operate. Keywords Flexibility instruments, joint implementation, emissions trading, climate change, Kyoto Protocol. Acknowledgements The work described in this paper has been supported by DGXII under the Human Dimensions component of the Environment and Climate Programme 1994-1998 (Contract No: ENV4-CT96-0210); by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and by the Royal Academy of Engineering. The authors are grateful for constructive comment on various aspects of this paper from Peter Bailey, Michael Chadwick, Jean-Charles Hourcade, Catrinus Jepma, and the participants two peer review meetings of the EC funded project, one in Brussels in May and one in Surrey in June 1998. CES Working Paper 01/98 page 4 of 22 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson 1 Introduction Concepts of “joint implementation” and “emissions trading” have entered the language of several international conventions concerned with environmental policy. Joint implementation (JI), for example, has been discussed in the context of the Montreal Protocol (Barrett 1993, Markandya 1992), the Second Sulphur Protocol (Klaasen 1994, Jackson and Bailey 1997), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Jepma 1995, Jackson 1995). The basic idea of such instruments is to provide flexibility in meeting specific environmental goals. Rather than insisting that strict environmental targets are met within national boundaries, flexibility instruments allow one country to achieve some of its commitments by investing in emissions reduction (for example) an another country. In principle, it is argued, this should allow for greater cost-efficiency in meeting global targets, since abatement action can be taken first, where it is least costly to do so. In this paper, we describe the development of these concepts within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The objective of the FCCC is “the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. It is generally agreed that this means reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources and the thrust of the Kyoto Protocol negotiated at the 3rd Conference of the Parties in December 1997 was to provide a framework for achieving such reductions. Flexibility instruments have been a key issue within the negotiations that led up to the Kyoto Protocol, and are likely to continue to be important within the Convention. In this paper, we discuss the impact which opposing views about flexibility have had on the development of the instruments, illustrate the complexity which underlies this situation, and discuss appropriate strategies for resolving the conflicts which have arisen. CES Working Paper 01/98 page 5 of 22 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson 2 Flexibility instruments in the language of the Convention Given the prominence of JI in the period between the signing of the FCCC and the 3rd Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, it is surprising, at first sight, to find that the Kyoto Protocol contains no explicit reference to the terms “joint implementation” or “activities implemented jointly”. There are, however, numerous references to the transfer or trade of emission reduction credits. By a strange contrast, the FCCC contained no explicit reference to emissions trading at all, but couched any consideration of flexibility issues entirely in the language of joint implementation. These apparently trivial linguistic anomalies reveal important social and institutional lessons about the process of devising international environmental policy for the mitigation of climate change. The concept of emissions trading was first proposed as a general mechanism for pollution policy by Tietenberg (1985); and introduced specifically in the context of greenhouse gas emission reductions in Negotiating Targets (Grubb 1989), published some three years before the signing of the FCCC. Between the publication of that influential report and the Rio Conference, considerable effort was made to incorporate the concept of emissions trading into the Framework Convention. Those efforts were obstructed by a sharp division of views on emissions trading. Advocates argued that emissions trading would allow for improved cost-effectiveness and flexibility in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In support of the argument from cost-effectiveness they pointed out that the costs of reducing emissions vary widely between countries, and that the least expensive route to emissions reductions would be to implement first those options which are least expensive, irrespective of geographical location. Opponents to emissions trading argued (variously) that such arrangements would reduce the incentive for donor countries to take domestic action, compromise the sovereignty of host nations, their ability to harness indigenous resources and develop their own markets, increase the transaction costs of achieving emissions reductions, and ultimately undermine the objectives of the Convention. An additional obstacle to global emissions trading was the highly political issue of devising an initial allocation of permits. In the event, the failure to reach agreement on these issues led to the omission of any language in the Convention explicitly referring to emissions trading. Instead, the terminology of joint implementation was introduced as “enabling language” to allow for the future development of CES Working Paper 01/98 page 6 of 22 Trading Spaces - Jackson, Begg and Parkinson trading type mechanisms. Almost immediately however, it became apparent that the change in terminology had not eliminated the underlying conflict of views (Jackson 1995 eg). In fact, at one point the term “joint implementation” became so problematical that the attempt to introduce a “pilot phase” - in which bilateral investments could be made (without credit) for the purpose of testing the concept - only survived by changing the terminology yet again, to refer to these investments as “activities implemented jointly” (AIJ). The existence of conflicting views on JI/AIJ prior to Kyoto may have been one reason for excluding explicit reference to it in drawing up the Protocol. There were already enough inflammatory elements in the negotiations. Arguably, the problematic nature of the JI terminology may even have drawn some flak away from the emissions trading terminology, and allowed the latter to re-enter the institutional language. From a historical perspective, JI and emissions trading were quite clearly references to very similar kinds of mechanisms. In the intervening five years however, the two terms had increasingly come to be seen as separate mechanisms, although the distinguishing line
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation
    Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation New Instruments for Financing Renewable Energy Technologies Thematic Background Paper January 2004 Authors: Axel Michaelowa; Matthias Krey; Sonja Butzengeiger Perspectives Climate Change and Hamburg Institute of International Economics Editing: Secretariat of the International Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn 2004 Disclaimer This is one of 12 Thematic Background Papers (TBP) that have been prepared as thematic background for the International Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn 2004 (renewables 2004). A list of all papers can be found at the end of this document. Internationally recognised experts have prepared all TBPs. Many people have commented on earlier versions of this document. However, the responsibility for the content remains with the authors. Each TBP focusses on a different aspect of renewable energy and presents policy implications and recommendations. The purpose of the TBP is twofold, first to provide a substantive basis for discussions on the Conference Issue Paper (CIP) and, second, to provide some empirical facts and background information for the interested public. In building on the existing wealth of political debate and academic discourse, they point to different options and open questions on how to solve the most important problems in the field of renewable energies. All TBP are published in the conference documents as inputs to the preparation process. They can also be found on the conference website at www.renewables2004.de. Executive Summary The project-based Kyoto Mechanisms CDM and JI can improve financing of renewable energy projects but will not provide a panacea for large-scale renewables promotion as long as the market price for greenhouse gas reduction credits will remain at its current level of 3 €/t CO2.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining a Fair Price for Carbon
    CD4CDM PERSPECTIVES SERIES PERSPECTIVES SERIES 20 07 he annual CD4CDM Perspectives Series will feature a topic of Equal Exchange: pivotal importance to the global carbon market. The series seeks to communicate the diverse insights and visions of leading actors in the carbon market to better inform the decisions of professionals and 20 07 policymakers in developing countries. The fi rst theme of the series focuses Equal Exchange: on determining an ‘equal exchange’ between carbon buyers and sellers in Determining a CDM transactions. Each of the contributors presents their perspective on the emerging market for emission reductions—its structure, dynamics, Fair Price for Carbon T Price a Fair Determining and likely evolution—as well as how these and other factors, such as risks and fi nancing, infl uence the negotiation power of CDM project sponsors. These insights can help CDM stakeholders to better understand each others’ needs and to maximize the benefi ts accruing to for Carbon all parties through more equitable transactions. P e r s P e c t i v e s s e r i e s 20 07 Equal Exchange: Determining a FairGlenn Hodes and Pricesami Kamel, for Carbon editors Contributors • • Francisco Ascui and Pedro Moura Costa, EcoSecurities • Veronique Bishop, World Bank Group • Jørund Buen, Elisabeth Lokshall, and Marte Nordseth, Point Carbon • Martha Castillo, Andean Development Corporation, Latin American Carbon Program • Martijn Wilder and Monique Willis. Baker & McKenzie • Gao Guangsheng and Li Liyan, Chinese DNA for CDM • Karen Degouve, NATIXIS/European
    [Show full text]
  • Has Joint Implementation Reduced GHG Emissions? Lessons Learned for the Design of Carbon Market Mechanisms
    Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2015-07 Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms Anja Kollmuss, Lambert Schneider and Vladyslav Zhezherin Stockholm Environment Institute Linnégatan 87D 104 51 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 674 7070 Fax: +46 8 674 7020 Web: www.sei-international.org Author contact: Anja Kollmuss, [email protected] Director of Communications: Robert Watt Editors: Elaine Beebe and Marion Davis Cover photo: A steel plant in Ukraine with a coal waste heap in the background. Photo © Mykola Ivashchenko. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educa- tional or non-profit purposes, without special permission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without the written permission of the copyright holder(s). About SEI Working Papers: The SEI working paper series aims to expand and accelerate the availability of our research, stimulate discussion, and elicit feedback. SEI working papers are work in progress and typically contain preliminary research, analysis, findings, and recom- mendations. Many SEI working papers are drafts that will be subsequently revised for a refereed journal or book. Other papers share timely and innovative knowledge that we consider valuable and policy-relevant, but which may not be intended for later publication. Copyright © August 2015 by Stockholm Environment Institute STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER NO. 2015-07 Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms Anja Kollmuss, Lambert Schneider Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supplementarity Challenge: CDM, JI & EU Emissions Trading
    Policy Paper Nr. 1/2004 Erstellt im März 2004 The Supplementarity Challenge: CDM, JI & EU Emissions Trading This policy paper is a contribution to the ongoing discussion on the Commission’s proposal for a directive ‘amending the Directive 2003/…/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms’ (henceforward called Proposed Directive and ET Directive respectively). It is largely based on a policy brief that has been produced within the framework of the IEEP/Ecologic contract ‘External expertise on emerging regulatory and policy issues within the responsibility of the EP Environment Committee’ (project EP/IV/A/2003/09/01). This policy brief can be downloaded from the European Parliaments website at http://www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/envi/externalexpertise/default_en.htm. The focus of this paper is on the question of supplementarity in the context of linking the project-based mechanisms CDM and JI to the EU Emission Allowance Trading. The EU 15 as a whole as well as many of its member states will find it very difficult to achieve compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. It might therefore become necessary to make use of the flexibility provided by the Kyoto Protocol. However, the EU’s credibility crucially depends on meeting the supplementarity requirement, i.e. achieving at least 50% of its emission reductions through domestic action. The relevant provision contained in the Proposed Directive is not comprehensive enough to guarantee this outcome, the authors therefore recommend that a more wide-ranging approach is taken. Introduction: The Situation in the EU with Respect to Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol Most of the EU 15 member states will have to make significant additional efforts to achieve compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Bank
    37579 The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized STATE AND TRENDS OF THE CARBON MARKET 2006 Public Disclosure Authorized Washington DC, May 2006 Public Disclosure Authorized With data and analysis provided by Evolution Markets and Natsource STATE AND TRENDS OF THE CARBON MARKET 2006 Karan Capoor, Carbon Finance Unit, World Bank* Philippe Ambrosi, Development Economics Research Group, World Bank* Based on data and insights provided by Evolution Markets LLC and Natsource LLC *The findings and opinions expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) or of IETA member companies, who cannot be held responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the content of this study or non-infringement of third parties’ intellectual property rights. The findings and opinions expressed in this paper also do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its executive directors, or the countries they represent; nor do they necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit Team, or of any of the Participants in the Carbon Funds managed by the World Bank. Finally, findings and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Evolution Markets LLC or of Natsource LLC. The CF-Assist program of the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit funded this research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to many of our colleagues and friends for their cooperation and assistance in preparing this report. Special thanks are due to Mahua Acharya for her active contribution to this study.
    [Show full text]
  • T H E Kyoto Mechanisms & Global C L I M a T E C H a N
    T h e Kyoto Mechanisms & Global c l i m a t e c h a n g e Coordination Issues and Domestic Po l i c i e s Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change by Er ik Ha i t es M ARGAR E E C O N SU L TA N TS I N C . Mal ik Amin Asl am E NVOR K R E S E AR C H A N D D EV E L O P M E N T O RGA N I S AT I O N Sept emb er 2000 Contents Foreword ii E xecutive Summary iii I. Introduction 1 A. The Benefits of Emissions Trading 1 B. The Kyoto Mechanisms 2 C. Implementation Issues 4 D. The Kyoto Mechanisms and Domestic Policies 5 E. Equity, Environmental Integrity, and Economic Efficiency 6 II. Proposed Rules for the Kyoto Mechanisms 9 A. Participation by Legal Entities 9 B. Substitution Among Mechanisms (Fungibility) 10 C. Supplementarity 12 D. Penalties, Enforcement, and Liability 13 E. International Review of Projects 15 F. The Need To Demonstrate Additionality 17 G. Approval by Annex B Parties 19 H. Date When Projects Can Begin To Generate Allowances 20 + I. Eligibility of Sink Enhancement Projects 21 J. Levies on Transactions 21 K. Contribution to Sustainable Development 23 III. Coordination of the Kyoto Mechanisms with Domestic Policies 24 A. Potential Purchase and Use of Kyoto Mechanism Allowances by Legal Entities 25 B. Potential Sales of Kyoto Mechanism Allowances by Legal Entities 29 C. Coordination of Domestic Policies with the Rules of the Kyoto Mechanisms 31 + I V.
    [Show full text]
  • Decoding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement-Version II
    Decoding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement—Version II Article 6 of the Paris Agreement enables countries to utilize market and nonmarket approaches to achieve their nationally determined contributions. Yet, international negotiations on Article 6 are complex and ongoing. The Parties of the Paris Agreement have made progress on many issues, but contentious matters on political and technical aspects remain unresolved. This publication presents the latest developments in negotiations, discusses the key outcomes, and highlights the remaining unresolved issues leading up to the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Glasgow. About the Asian Development Bank ADB is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific, while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. Established in 1966, it is owned by 68 members —49 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance. DECODING ARticle 6 OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT VERSION II DECEMBER 2020 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK www.adb.org DECODING ARticle 6 OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT VERSION II DECEMBER 2020 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2020 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2020. ISBN 978-92-9262-619-8 (print); 978-92-9262-620-4 (electronic); 978-92-9262-621-1 (ebook) Publication Stock No.
    [Show full text]
  • Sectoral Approaches and the Carbon Market
    ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY SECTORAL APPROACHES AND THE CARBON MARKET www.oecd.org/env/cc/AIXG Richard Baron, Barbara Buchner (IEA) and Jane Ellis (OECD) Graphic design: Betrand Sadin www.iea.org June 2009 For Official Use COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2009)3 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 29-May-2009 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY Use Official For COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2009)3 Cancels & replaces the same document of 26 May 2009 SECTORAL APPROACHES AND THE CARBON MARKET Richard Baron, Barbara Buchner (IEA) and Jane Ellis (OECD) The ideas expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the OECD, the IEA, or their member countries, or the endorsement of any approach described herein. English - Or. English JT03265722 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2009)3 Copyright OECD/IEA, 2009 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be addressed to: Head of Publications Service, OECD/IEA 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France or 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. 2 COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2009)3 FOREWORD This document was prepared by the OECD and IEA Secretariats in Spring 2009 in response to the Annex I Expert Group on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Arrangements for Drought Under the UNCCD Prospective Assessment
    Additional arrangements for drought under the UNCCD Prospective assessment April 2019 This prospective assessment concerning additional arrangements for drought under the UNCCD looks at a variety of legal instruments of international cooperation, ranging from protocols to gentleman’s agreements, and assesses their suitability for addressing drought under the UNCCD. The assessment uses information of experiences in using these tools under other international processes, and takes into account the specific priorities and working modalities of the Convention in addressing drought. On this basis, the assessment presents conclusions on the likelihood of success of each legal instrument in addressing drought under the UNCCD. This assessment was authored by the UNCCD Evaluation Office with the support of Dr. Sylvestre- José-Tidiane Manga and Ms. Aurore Vernhes in June 2018 – April 2019. 2 Additional arrangements for drought under the UNCCD: a prospective assessment List of content Page 1. Introduction 5 2. Drought in the context of international cooperation 6 2.1 About drought 6 2.2 Addressing drought through international cooperation 7 2.3 Addressing drought in the context of the UNCCD 9 3. Potential legal instruments for addressing drought under the UNCCD 10 3.1 An overview of legal instruments for international environmental 10 cooperation 3.2 Legal instruments 12 a) Protocols 12 b) Annexes and amendments 19 c) Principles 22 d) Declarations 26 e) Decisions 29 f) Standards 31 g) Gentlemen’s Agreements 34 4. Conclusions 36 Annex: Potential legal
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Implementation: Current Issues and Emerging Challenges
    ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES www.oecd.org/env/cc Katia Karousakis, OECD www.iea.org October 2006 Unclassified COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006)7 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 25-Oct-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY Unclassified COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006)7 JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES Katia Karousakis, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development The ideas expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent views of the OECD, the IEA, or their member countries, or the endorsement of any approach described herein. English text only JT03216583 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006)7 Copyright OECD/IEA, 2006 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be addressed to: Head of Publications Service, OECD/IEA 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France or 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. 2 COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006)7 FOREWORD This document was prepared by the OECD and IEA Secretariats in September-October 2006 in response to the Annex I Expert Group on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Annex I Expert Group oversees development of analytical papers for the purpose of providing useful and timely input to the climate change negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paris Agreement Putting the First Universal Climate Change Treaty in Context
    The Paris Agreement Putting the first universal climate change treaty in context On December 12, 2015, 196 Parties1 agreed to the terms of a Paris Agreement, a historic document aimed at limiting global warming to "well below 2°C". The Paris Agreement was negotiated under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and is expected to come into force from 2020, replacing the existing Kyoto Protocol under which developed countries have binding emission reduction targets. The Paris Agreement is all encompassing – with legal obligations on all counties – to report and account for their mitigation actions. While implementation of the Agreement will take some time, the Paris COP showcased the range of other climate change initiatives already occurring at a sub-national government level (states, provinces and cities), and non-government action, some of which have substantial implications for companies and other organizations within those jurisdictions. A copy of the Paris Decision (containing the Paris Agreement) is available here, the terms of which we analyze in detail in this alert. Please contact a member of our Environmental Markets team for further information. Baker & McKenzie has been a part of nearly all of the prior twenty UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties (COPs), but even before our team arrived in Paris for COP 21, we knew this would be a different COP – and not a repeat of the Copenhagen conference, at which the Parties failed to agree to a new climate treaty. Throughout the course of 2015 the French Government worked tirelessly to prepare for COP 21. French diplomats and politicians led efforts around the world with governments, business, non-government organizations and media to prepare the groundwork for a successful outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking CDM & JI with EU Emission Allowance Trading
    Policy Brief for the EP Environment Committee EP/IV/A/2003/09/01 Linking CDM & JI with EU Emission Allowance Trading Brief number 01/2004 By Thomas Langrock (Wuppertal Institute) Wolfgang Sterk (Wuppertal Institute) With contributions from Maike Bunse (Wuppertal Institute) 12 January 2004 SUMMARY Analysis 1 The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are two of the so-called flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol designed to allow its parties flexibility in achieving their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments. Under these mechanisms projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere generate emission certificates: Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) in the case of the CDM, Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) in the case of JI. 2 On 23 July 2003 the Commission of the European Communities put its proposal for a ‘Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Directive 2003/…/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms’ on the table. The proposed Directive is thus to amend Directive 2003/87/EC (ET Directive). 3 The new Article 11(bis) that is proposed for the ET Directive establishes a link between CDM & JI on the one side and EU emission allowance trading on the other. According to this proposed article, the actual flow of emission certificates from a CDM/JI project developer to one of the EU Member States will be as follows: the CDM/JI project developer receives CERs/ERUs after the project has successfully undergone the project cycle for CDM/JI projects respectively.
    [Show full text]