A sustainable framework for joint implementation

International Environmental Affairs

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 79-97

  Hamwey, Robert M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EMISSION CONTROL; EQUITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 0031733148     PISSN: 10414665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Parties with QELROs under the Protocol are listed in its Annex B. They include all of the Annex I parties with the exception of Belarus, Liechtenstein, and Turkey. Furthermore, Monaco and Croatia, not listed in Annex I, are included in Annex B. See United Nations, "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change," document FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1 (Geneva: UN, 1997).
2. The reductions referred to are limited to carbon dioxide-equivalent emission reductions of the group of six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A of the Protocol.
3. A party's assigned amount is equal to its 1990 baseyear level of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions of the GHGs listed in Annex A multiplied by five (that is, for the five-year commitment period 2008 to 2012). The baseyear differs from 1990 for certain parties with economies in transition.
4. The United States alone has reportedly suggested that it might meet as much as 40 percent of its commitments in this way. See Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12, no. 76 (1997).
5. The World Bank, The Carbon Offset Investment Business and the Role of the World Bank, Global Environment Division (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1997).
6. Unless otherwise stated, a party refers to a country that is a member of both the Convention and the Protocol.
7. Through bubble agreements, two or more parties share their aggregated QELROs.
8. The instrument is also referred to as Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ).
9. See Reinhard Loske and Sebastian Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Affairs 6, no. 1 (1994): 45-58; Jyoti Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation for Climate Change," International Environmental Affairs 7, no. 1 (1995): 22-11; Anne Arquit Niederberger and Marie-Therèse Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la «joint implementation»," in La vie économique: Revue de politique économique (Bern: OFIAMPT, 1997); and L. D. Danny Harvey and Elizabeth Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy for Global Warming," Environment 39, no. 8 (1997): 14-20.
10. See Reinhard Loske and Sebastian Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Affairs 6, no. 1 (1994): 45-58; Jyoti Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation for Climate Change," International Environmental Affairs 7, no. 1 (1995): 22-11; Anne Arquit Niederberger and Marie-Therèse Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la «joint implementation»," in La vie économique: Revue de politique économique (Bern: OFIAMPT, 1997); and L. D. Danny Harvey and Elizabeth Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy for Global Warming," Environment 39, no. 8 (1997): 14-20.
11. See Reinhard Loske and Sebastian Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Affairs 6, no. 1 (1994): 45-58; Jyoti Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation for Climate Change," International Environmental Affairs 7, no. 1 (1995): 22-11; Anne Arquit Niederberger and Marie-Therèse Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la «joint implementation»," in La vie économique: Revue de politique économique (Bern: OFIAMPT, 1997); and L. D. Danny Harvey and Elizabeth Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy for Global Warming," Environment 39, no. 8 (1997): 14-20.
12. See Reinhard Loske and Sebastian Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Affairs 6, no. 1 (1994): 45-58; Jyoti Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation for Climate Change," International Environmental Affairs 7, no. 1 (1995): 22-11; Anne Arquit Niederberger and Marie-Therèse Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la «joint implementation»," in La vie économique: Revue de politique économique (Bern: OFIAMPT, 1997); and L. D. Danny Harvey and Elizabeth Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy for Global Warming," Environment 39, no. 8 (1997): 14-20.
13. 2emmissions from fossil fuel consumption contribute to roughly half of the global warming potential. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
14. While the energy sector commonly refers to a wide set of activities in various sub-sectors such as power, industry, residential, and transportation, I use a narrower definition of energy sector limited to stationary power generation activities in this article. Utilities within this category include power plants generating electricity and possibly usable heat, industrial plants generating electricity, heat, and/or motive force, and district heating plants used in large-scale commercial and residential applications.
15. Mark Trexler, "Joint Implementation: Down and Out or Just On Hold?," Global Environmental Change Report 9, no. 10 (1997): 1-3.
16. R. Shakespeare Maya, "Joint Implementation: Cautions and Options for the South," in The Feasibility of Joint Implementation, ed. Catrinius Jepma (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995).
17. Sometimes referred to as "measures worth doing anyway," no-regrets options are mitigation measures whose benefits other than climate protection, such as reduced energy costs through higher efficiency utilities, exceed the total costs of implementing the measure. The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC found that OECD countries can reduce their GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent using no-regrets options alone.
18. José Goldemberg, "Is Joint Implementation a Realistic Option?" Environment 39, no. 9 (1997): 44-48.
19. Trexler, "Joint Implementation: Down and Out."
20. Goldemberg, "Is Joint Implementation a Realistic Option?"
21. See United Nations, "Kyoto Protocol," article 12.
22. Loske and Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention."
23. For a discussion of these concerns, see Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; and Maya, "Joint Implementation: Cautions and Options for the South."
24. For a discussion of these concerns, see Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; and Maya, "Joint Implementation: Cautions and Options for the South."
25. Uwe Frische, "Joint Implementation: The Problems of Monitoring and Verification," in Joint Implementation from a European NGO Perspective (Brussels: CNE, 1994).
26. Anne Arquit Niederberger, Activities Implemented Jointly: Review of Issues for the Pilot Phase (Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscapes, 1996).
27. Catrinus Jepma, "On the Baseline," Joint Implementation Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Groeningen: Foundation JIN, 1997); Linda Carter, Modalities for the Operationalization of Additionality (Washington, D.C.: US EPA, 1997).
28. Catrinus Jepma, "On the Baseline," Joint Implementation Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Groeningen: Foundation JIN, 1997); Linda Carter, Modalities for the Operationalization of Additionality (Washington, D.C.: US EPA, 1997).
29. Edward Parson and Karen Fisher-Vanden, Joint Implementation and Its Alternatives: Choosing Systems to Distribute Global Emissions Abatement and Finance, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1997).
30. See Loske and Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention"; Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; Niederberger and Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument"; and Harvey and Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy."
31. See Loske and Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention"; Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; Niederberger and Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument"; and Harvey and Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy."
32. See Loske and Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention"; Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; Niederberger and Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument"; and Harvey and Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy."
33. See Loske and Oberthür, "Joint Implementation Under the Climate Change Convention"; Parikh, "Joint Implementation and North-South Cooperation"; Niederberger and Niggli, "Un nouvel instrument"; and Harvey and Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy."
34. Joel Swisher, "Joint Implementation Under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: Technical and Institutional Challenges," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2 (1997): 57-80.
35. Johannes Heister, "Determining a Reference Project for a JI Investment," Joint Implementation Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Groeningen: Foundation JIN, 1997): 8-9.
36. Funding for climate change mitigation activity in developing countries derives from three principal external sources: the Convention's Financial Mechanism, the GEF; bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA); and sponsors of a joint implementation project.
37. Robert Anderson, Joint Implementation of Climate Change Measures, Environment Department Papers, Climate Change Series No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1995). See also Parson and Fisher-Vanden, Joint Implementation and its Alternatives.
38. Robert Anderson, Joint Implementation of Climate Change Measures, Environment Department Papers, Climate Change Series No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1995). See also Parson and Fisher-Vanden, Joint Implementation and its Alternatives.
39. Tsjalle van der Burg, "Economic Aspects," in Joint Implementation to Curb Climate Change, ed. Onno Kuik, Paul Peters, and Nico Schrijver (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994).
40. Harvey and Bush, "Joint Implementation: An Effective Strategy."
41. See Parson and Fisher-Vanden, Joint Implementation and its Alternatives; van der Burg, "Economic Aspects."
42. See Parson and Fisher-Vanden, Joint Implementation and its Alternatives; van der Burg, "Economic Aspects."
43. A floor for utility power generation capacities to be included in the average is needed, since data for smaller utilities (such as those in buildings, small factories, and remote communities) are not easily available and difficult to estimate. In many settings, 1 megawatt could provide a suitable floor.
44. Alternatively, an N-year running average of annual emissions to annual energy production could be used to flush out annual emission anomalies resulting from year-to-year fluctuations in weather, economic activity, and corresponding changes in load patterns and fuel mixes.
45. 2 per MWh. Furthermore, to simplify details of the calculations, we use a zero project lead-time assumption; that is, it is assumed that a JI project certified in year t becomes operational in the same year. Under current FCCC reporting requirements, national greenhouse gas inventories only report data on total emissions of GHGs from stationary energy generation sources, and not data on total energy generated. The latter data are also needed to calculate national emission factors.
46. JI and ω at time t′ are known.
47. An international JI instrument would need to objectively monitor ω and X on a yearly basis in order to calculate Δ.
48. Incremental costs must be calculated in a JI transaction. Within the proposed framework, reaching agreement on them remains a matter of negotiation between the project's sponsor and host.
49. See Niederberger, Activities Implemented Jointly.
50. d for example).