Publications

Review of monitoring uncertainty requirements in the CDM

5 October 2014 - Special issues

By Igor Shishlov and Valentin Bellassen

In order to ensure the environmental integrity of carbon offset projects, emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have to be ‘real, measurable and additional’, which is ensured through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to EUR1.20 and above per ton of CO2e depending on the project type. This article analyzes monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, we review existing literature, scrutinize both overarching monitoring guidelines and the 10 most-used methodologies, and finally we analyze four case studies. We find that there is indeed a natural trade-off between the stringency and the cost of monitoring, which if not addressed properly may become a major barrier for the implementation of offset projects in some sectors. We demonstrate that this trade-off has not been systematically addressed in the overarching CDM guidelines and that there are only limited incentives to reduce monitoring uncertainty. Some methodologies and calculation tools as well as some other offset standards, however, do incorporate provisions for a trade-off between monitoring costs and stringency. These provisions may take the form of discounting emissions reductions based on the level of monitoring uncertainty – or more implicitly through allowing a project developer to choose between monitoring a given parameter and using a conservative default value. Our findings support the introduction of an uncertainty standard under the CDM for more comprehensive, yet cost-efficient, accounting for monitoring uncertainty in carbon offset projects.

Review of monitoring uncertainty requirements in the CDM Download
To learn more
  • 03/28/2025 Hors série
    The pathway for climate investments in turbulent times – annual report 2024

    We are witnessing a withdrawal of commitments to climate action. In the US, President Donald Trump does not hide his hostility to what he calls the ‘climate hoax’. In Europe and in France, new narratives around competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security are gaining ground, reflecting a new political reality. If there is still a broad consensus on the long-term objective of climate neutrality, how to get there is increasingly challenged, generating uncertainty. The scarcity of fiscal resources impacts the willingness to embark on the green transition.

  • 03/24/2025
    TRAMe2035 Scenario for a transition of households dietary habits by 2035

    Current food production and consumption trends contribute to a range of public health, social and environmental problems. The need for a transition is no longer in doubt: we must move towards a system that produces healthy food with a low impact on ecosystems, is accessible to all, and ensures fair remuneration for producers. There’s no denying that the questions we raise here are politically and socially sensitive, as food is deeply connected to cultural, economic, environmental and health issues. Nevertheless, it is essential to develop ways to foster open discussion. IDDRI and I4CE have therefore joined forces with several other actors to provide insights for the debate.

  • 03/21/2025 Blog post
    In the absence of a carbon tax in Canada, measures to fill the gap are essential 

    On his first day in office, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, in response to political pressures rather than evidence-based concerns about its effectiveness or impact on affordability. The tax had played a crucial role in reducing the country’s GHG emissions, and along with other carbon pricing policies, was expected to contribute nearly half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. Additionally, the majority of revenues collected were redistributed to citizens, protecting vulnerable households. Thus, without alternative policies to compensate, eliminating the tax could slow emissions reductions and increase inflationary pressure, particularly for low- and middle-income families who benefited financially from the Canada Carbon Rebate funded by the tax. 

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer