Small and beautiful? The Programme of Activities and the least developed countries

Abstract

Most carbon abatement projects under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have been implemented in rapidly industrializing countries, notably China and India. To support small carbon abatement projects and to promote decarbonization in the least developed countries, the Programme of Activities (PoA) modality was introduced. Are the determinants of project implementation different under the PoA from those of conventional CDM projects? To answer this question, we conduct a statistical analysis of the global distribution of CDM projects and PoAs during the years 2007–2012. In regard to country size, large countries clearly dominate both the CDM and PoA, suggesting that the PoA may do only little to facilitate project implementation in small countries. However, the number of PoAs has a strong negative association with a country's corruption level, while the importance of corruption for the CDM is much smaller. Moreover, per capita income has no effect on PoA implementation, while high wealth levels have a weak positive effect on CDM projects. Thus, the PoA modality seems to promote sustainable development in poor countries that have exceeded a certain threshold of good governance. In this regard, PoAs are directing carbon credits to new areas, as many had initially hoped.

Keywords:

• Clean Development Mechanism
• Programme of Activities
• Kyoto Protocol
• flexibility mechanisms
• climate policy
• governance

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.900471]

Notes

1. The data are retrieved August 19, 2013, from http://www.cdmpipeline.org/. The UNEP Risoe database on CDM and JI projects includes registered projects, projects waiting for registration, and projects at the validation stage.

2. Initially, CPA stood for “CDM Programme Activity”.

3. Project counts for the African countries among the top 20 PoA hosts are as follows: South Africa (104 PoAs), Kenya (34 PoAs), Uganda (12 PoAs), Ghana (10 PoAs), Rwanda (9 PoAs), and Nigeria (8 PoAs).

4. In categorizing countries, we follow the official UN classification. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/.

5. Further details on the CDM project cycle can be found at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/diagram.html. Retrieved December 31, 2011.

6. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from http://www.cdmpipeline.org/.

7. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from http://www.cdmpipeline.org/.

8. Rejected and withdrawn projects are, therefore, excluded.

9. In the online appendix, we show that we obtain similar results for conventional CDM projects if we extend the time period covered to years 2003–2012. To be able to better compare CDM projects and PoAs, we prefer the 2007–2012 period.

10. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview.

11. See http://www.prsgroup.com/ICRG_methodology.aspx for methodological details. Retrieved December 3, 2012.

12. See http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/approved for a complete list of all approved small scale methodologies. Retrieved April 4, 2013.

13. See “CDM Executive Board Adopts Tool to Promote Sustainable Development Co-Benefits”. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/cdm-executive-board-adopts-tool-to-promote-sustainable-development-co-benefits/.