Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Climate change mitigation and international finance: the effectiveness of the Clean Development Mechanism and the Global Environment Facility in India and Brazil


Tatrallyay, Nicholas; Stadelmann, Martin (2013). Climate change mitigation and international finance: the effectiveness of the Clean Development Mechanism and the Global Environment Facility in India and Brazil. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(7):903-919.

Abstract

This study analyzes the effectiveness and efficiency of the two principal United Nations (UN) climate change mitigation finance mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The realised abatement and costs of the two mechanisms in India and Brazil (using data from 28 GEF and 233 CDM project documents) are compared with theoretical marginal abatement cost curves, based on bottom-up technology studies. We find that both mechanisms have focused on negative and low-cost abatement potential but still leave substantial theoretical potential in this cost range untapped. CDM has more effectively harvested abatement potential of industrial gases and methane emissions, whereas GEF has more successfully targeted demand-side energy efficiency (EE) and transport emission reduction opportunities. CDM has excelled at capturing abatement potential in areas with a limited understanding of abatement, highlighting the shortcomings of theoretical estimates (such asMarginal Abatement Cost Curves) and the benefits of a market mechanism. In some sectors and technologies (particularly renewable energy), the two mechanisms overlapped, which suggests a need for better coordination in the future.

Abstract

This study analyzes the effectiveness and efficiency of the two principal United Nations (UN) climate change mitigation finance mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The realised abatement and costs of the two mechanisms in India and Brazil (using data from 28 GEF and 233 CDM project documents) are compared with theoretical marginal abatement cost curves, based on bottom-up technology studies. We find that both mechanisms have focused on negative and low-cost abatement potential but still leave substantial theoretical potential in this cost range untapped. CDM has more effectively harvested abatement potential of industrial gases and methane emissions, whereas GEF has more successfully targeted demand-side energy efficiency (EE) and transport emission reduction opportunities. CDM has excelled at capturing abatement potential in areas with a limited understanding of abatement, highlighting the shortcomings of theoretical estimates (such asMarginal Abatement Cost Curves) and the benefits of a market mechanism. In some sectors and technologies (particularly renewable energy), the two mechanisms overlapped, which suggests a need for better coordination in the future.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
3 citations in Web of Science®
5 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Political Science
Dewey Decimal Classification:320 Political science
Scopus Subject Areas:Physical Sciences > Global and Planetary Change
Physical Sciences > Ecology
Language:English
Date:October 2013
Deposited On:05 Nov 2013 15:22
Last Modified:24 Jan 2022 01:54
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:1381-2386
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9398-y
Full text not available from this repository.