Constanze Haug

The future of the CDM: same same, but differentiated?

Policy-makers and scientists have raised concerns about the functioning of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in particular regarding its low contribution to sustainable development, unbalanced regional and sectoral distribution of projects, and its limited contribution to global emission reductions. Differentiation between countries or project types has been proposed as a possible way forward to address these problems. An overview is provided of the different ways in which CDM differentiation could be implemented. The implications for the actors involved in the CDM are analysed, along with a quantitative assessment of the impacts on the carbon market, using bottom-up marginal abatement cost curves. The discounting of CDM credits, quota systems, or differentiated eligibility of countries could help to address several of the concerns raised. Preferential treatment may also make a limited contribution to achieving the aims of CDM differentiation by increasing opportunities for under-represented host countries. The impact on the carbon market appears to be limited for most options.

Learning the Hard Way? European Climate Policy After Copenhagen

For the European Union, the December 2009 United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen represents more than a grand failure of political strategy—it represents an identity crisis. Over the past two decades, climate change and European policy responses to it have fulfilled a number of important roles for the Union. The emergence of a coherent international climate policy regime through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol was a powerful illustration of seemingly effective multilateralism and sustainable development. Europe believed that it had played a leadership role in creating and sustaining this global regime 1 and earned prestige domestically and internationally by taking an approach consistently different from the United States, especially after President George W. Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Climate change increasingly became a powerful rationale for furthering the European integration project and an important legitimization for EU action. 2

Mainstreaming climate change in regional development policy in Europe: five insights from the 2007–2013 programming period

The EU Structural and Cohesion Funds (SCF) are potentially important instruments for supporting climate policy-related efforts and addressing unevenly distributed capacities for successful mitigation and adaptation across the EU. This paper reports on the level of climate mainstreaming in EU regional development policy in the 2007–2013 programming period: first, we explore the normative commitment to climate change concerns through an analysis of the National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRFs) in which all 27 Member States specify their development and funding priorities. Second, we analyze the substantive commitments by mapping financial allocations from the SCF related to climate mitigation and adaptation. Based on this, we gain five main insights, which are relevant to future mainstreaming efforts and which may have important implications for the wider debate on the purpose of European regional policy: (1) mitigation appears well mainstreamed in EU cohesion policies, both in normative and financial terms, whereas adaptation is hardly considered. (2) Rhetorical commitment to climate concerns in the strategy documents does not necessarily match financial allocations to respective priorities. (3) Neither mitigation nor adaptation-relevant priorities and allocations in the NSRFs can be linked to the ambitious mitigation targets and low adaptive capacity, respectively. (4) There is ample potential to improve climate-relevant SCF support in the area of adaptation, particularly given that several existing priority areas for funding coincide with the climate adaptation agenda. (5) By conditioning a minimum percentage of funds to be spent on priority areas (earmarking), cohesion policy also gains meaning as a burden sharing instrument for adaptation to climate change.