12.07.2015 Views

The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

demonstration initiative. <strong>The</strong> Community <strong>Development</strong><strong>Carbon</strong> Fund and the Bio<strong>Carbon</strong> Fund have strong, explicitdemonstration goals. <strong>The</strong> other Kyoto Funds are stronglyoriented toward helping developed countries secure carboncredits for compliance purpose. <strong>The</strong> newer initiatives, the<strong>Carbon</strong> Partnership Facility and Forest <strong>Carbon</strong> PartnershipFacility, return to the pioneering mode in seeking to demonstratenovel kinds <strong>of</strong> carbon transactions not yet recognizedunder Kyoto.<strong>The</strong> new facilities also feature equal representation <strong>of</strong> donorand host countries in fund governance. In contrast, earlierfunds were governed by a committee <strong>of</strong> the participants(donors), though in consultation with host countries.Catalytic impact on the carbon market<strong>The</strong> CFU played an important role in catalyzing the emergence<strong>of</strong> the market. Although there had been earliercarbon transactions (including Costa Rica’s pioneering sale<strong>of</strong> forest carbon credits), observers point to the PCF’s earlymobilization <strong>of</strong> funds and private sector investors as galvanizingthe realization that carbon markets were workable.<strong>The</strong> PCF invested heavily in developing monitoring andverification tools and in the legal apparatus for transacting<strong>of</strong>fsets, which were diffused among practitioners in theemerging market.<strong>The</strong> CFU was important in catalyzing theemergence <strong>of</strong> the carbon market and activein developing methodologies for carbon<strong>of</strong>fset measurement.<strong>The</strong> CFU was active in developing methodologies for carbon<strong>of</strong>fset measurement, though not uniquely so. As notedin box 5.2, development <strong>of</strong> a validation methodology is akind <strong>of</strong> public good: it cuts the development time, risk, andcost for all subsequent projects that use the same technology.In the first five rounds <strong>of</strong> the CDM’s MethodologicalPanel, the WBG was responsible for 12 <strong>of</strong> the 44 submittedmethodologies and for 6 <strong>of</strong> the 22 that were approved.Altogether, for large scale energy and transport technologies,the CFU has been involved in the preparation <strong>of</strong> 45 methodologies,<strong>of</strong> which 16 were eventually approved. Those methodologieshave been used so far in registered energy andtransport projects that are expected to produce 137 milliontons CO 2e, or about 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the CDM total for thesecategories. <strong>The</strong> CFU has also proposed most <strong>of</strong> the acceptedforestry methodologies, though there have been few otherusers <strong>of</strong> these and many small-scale methodologies. Currentwork on the Forest <strong>Carbon</strong> Partnership Facility and <strong>Carbon</strong>Partnership Facility aims at facilitating the development <strong>of</strong>radically new approaches to the carbon market that work atscales much larger than site-specific projects.From the beginning, there was concern about whether the<strong>Bank</strong>’s carbon funds would spur private sector participationor crowd it out—especially given the <strong>Bank</strong>’s perceived clout.UNFCCC statistics show that, using registered projects ortons as a measure, the <strong>Bank</strong>’s market share rapidly dwindled(figure 5.2). <strong>The</strong>re was a surge <strong>of</strong> project registrationswhen the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, so that by2005 the <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> comprised only a small share <strong>of</strong> themarket. That being so, one could question the relevance <strong>of</strong>the 2005 goal <strong>of</strong> helping countries to market carbon credits,as a vibrant market was already emerging at the time.<strong>The</strong> <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>’s market share <strong>of</strong> CDMprojects dwindled rapidly over time as avibrant market emerged.One way to assess the CFU’s demonstration effect on additionalityis to compare its relative success in securing CDMregistration. Registration is a measure <strong>of</strong> a project’s quality,including its stringency in determining additionality. <strong>The</strong>CFU’s ratio <strong>of</strong> problematic to registered projects is smallerthan that <strong>of</strong> the CDM at large (table 5.2).Figure 5.2<strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> CDM Projectsand Tons RegisteredPanel A. Registered projects (log scale)Registered CDM, number1,0001001012004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Registration, yearPanel B: CERs registeredCER by 2020 (tCO 2 ) (millions)1,2001,0008006004002000OtherWBG2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Registration, yearOtherWBGSource: Calculated by IEG based on IGES Oct 2009, IGES as <strong>of</strong>October 2009.Note: CDM = Clean <strong>Development</strong> Mechanism; CER = certifiedemission reduction.Special Topics | 75

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!