How do regulated and voluntary carbon-offset schemes compare?

Corbera, Esteve; Estrada, Manuel; Brown, Katrina

doi:10.1080/15693430802703958

Cited by 49 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reviewed studies conclude that small-scale projects tend to deliver a slightly wider range of local cobenefits per project than large-scale projects 25 (Sutter and Parreño 2007, Olsen and Fenhann 2008, Corbera et al 2009, Spalding-Fecher et al 2012. Olsen and Fenhann, for example, found out that small-scale projects deliver a slightly wide range of SD benefits than large-scale projects (3.2 benefits 26 per project for small vs 2.9 benefit per project for large) (Olsen and Fenhann 2008).…”

Section: Co-benefit Variations By Project Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, some authors proposed to reform the CDM to include specific SD criteria and to ensure that specific kinds of co-benefits be delivered to local communities (Corbera et al 2009, Macdonald 2010, Dirix et al 2016. However, others noted the challenge of accommodating national sovereignty considerations if an international standard is created without national inputs.…”

Section: Lack Of Agreement On Co-benefits Criteria and Monitoring Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this literature sample, all cases where CDM projects successfully delivered local co-benefits involved robust engagement of local communities and local stakeholders (Crowe 2013, Wood, International Institute for Environment and Development, Sustainable Markets Group (2011)). Where CDM projects failed to achieve local co-benefits, one of the main reasons is that there is no local capacity to be aware of, understand, and fully utilize the CDM (Boyd et al 2007b, Ellis et al 2007, Sirohi 2007, Corbera et al 2009, Gillenwater and Seres 2011, Schomer and van Asselt 2012, Dirix et al 2016. Two studies employed econometric models and demonstrated local community engagement is essential for realizing development outcomes (Glomsrød et al 2011, Kim et al 2013.…”

Section: Strong Local Capacity and Local Stakeholder Participation Comentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

Hultman

Lou

Hutton

2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been the major international offset mechanism within the broader world of carbon finance. It was designed with two goals in mind: to lead to significant emission reductions that will help reduce the cost of climate mitigation in countries with commitments as well as contribute to sustainable development in the host countries. However, there has been significant discussion about the degree to which these projects fulfilled their dual mission of emissions reductions and sustainable development, particularly with respect to fostering local community co-benefits as part of broader sustainable development outcomes. In this paper, we review literature on the co-benefits delivered by the CDM at the local or community level, based on a group of 84 peer-reviewed articles and other reports. While perspectives on co-benefits are diverse, most sources argue or acknowledge that even with more recent procedural improvements, the CDM has not consistently delivered significant co-benefits to local communities. It appears likely that the situation has improved somewhat in recent years as CDM procedures have been refined, and there may be more opportunities for enhancing procedures to favor such benefits. There is overall variability in delivering co-benefits depending on the technology type, design features and the country context.

show abstract

Section: Co-benefit Variations By Project Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lack Of Agreement On Co-benefits Criteria and Monitoring Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strong Local Capacity and Local Stakeholder Participation Comentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

Hultman

Lou

Hutton

2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, in the last few years, the share of forestry projects in the voluntary market has declined (Corbera et al 2009b ) . In 2007, forestry projects represented 15% of the transacted volume in the voluntary Over The Counter (OTC) market 3 (of which 10% came from AR projects and 5% from REDD activities), less than half of their share in 2006 (37%) (Hamilton et al 2008 ) .…”

Section: Small-scale Lulucf Projects In the Voluntary Carbon Marketmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) v Humanity has entered the Anthropocene. If ever there was a time when we could take nature's benefi cence for granted, it has passed. With seven billion people on the planet, and the eight-billionth arrival expected by 2025, human pressures on every ecosystem have multiplied, in some cases to the breaking point. The famine in the Horn of Africa reminds us that productive and resilient ecosystems are important not only for human well-being but also for human survival, especially in the dire circumstances of impoverished populations.The urgent need to sustain ecosystems in the face of climate change, growing human populations, and rising demands for a multitude of primary commodities and agricultural outputs is giving rise to a burgeoning new discipline of sustainable development. More than ever, we need to understand how society depends on a range of complex and subtle ecosystem functions, and conversely, how ecosystem functions are impacted by human activities. The intellectual challenge is enormous. Both ecosystems and human systems are immensely complex. Their interactions add further dimensions of complexity. And understanding natural and human systems requires a range of analytical tools that surpass traditional academics' disciplinary boundaries.The present volumes, Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction , are a powerful and innovative addition to this vital fi eld of research. These volumes are also a personal thrill for me, since their genesis is the multidisciplinary setting of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I am most grateful to our former Earth Institute postdocs who conceived and carried out these studies. They and the contributors to these volumes have earned our admiration and gratitude.Every chapter in these volumes shows that the emerging scientifi c discipline of sustainable development is both vital and diffi cult. This is especially the case when it is viewed as an applied science that aims to fi nd practical solutions in specifi c human-ecological contexts. It is one thing to recognize that ecosystem functions are vital to a society's health and economic productivity (as explored in the fi rst volume, Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction: Ecological Dimensions ), and quite another to devise institutions and policies that protect ecosystems in the face of climate change, growing populations, and rising economic pressures (as explored Foreword vi in the second volume, Integra...

show abstract

“…Bumpus and Liverman 2008;Corbera et al 2009;Lovell et al 2009;Lovell and Liverman 2010;Lovell 2014). The main point for my case is that the valuation employs different but comparable knowledge-making practices that make different claims about the relationship between carbon credits and reduced emissions.…”

Section: Carbon Valuation and Cer Tif Ication: What Is T He Mater Ialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Valuation: Alternatives, Alternations and Lateral Measures?

Dalsgaard

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article refers to carbon valuation as the practice of ascribing value to, and assessing the value of, actions and objects in terms of carbon emissions. Due to the pervasiveness of carbon emissions in the actions and objects of everyday lives of human beings, the making of carbon offsets and credits offers almost unlimited repertoires of alternatives to be included in contemporary carbon valuation schemes. Consequently, the article unpacks how discussions of carbon valuation are interpreted through different registers of alternatives-as the commensuration and substitution of variants on the one hand, and the confrontational comparison of radical difference on the other. Through the reading of a wide selection of the social science literature on carbon markets and trading, the article argues that the value of carbon emissions itself depends on the construction of alternative, hypothetical scenarios, and that emissions have become both a moral and a virtual measure pitting diverse forms of actualised actions or objects against each other or against corresponding nonactions and non-objects as alternatives.

show abstract

How do regulated and voluntary carbon-offset schemes compare?

Cited by 49 publications

References 27 publications

A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM)

Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction

Carbon Valuation: Alternatives, Alternations and Lateral Measures?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About