Publications

Review of the experience with monitoring uncertainty requirements in the Clean Development Mechanism

5 June 2015 - Special issues

By Igor Shishlov & 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, inter alia, through the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) process. MRV, however, comes at a cost that ranges from several cents to E1.20 and above per tCO2e depending on the project type. This article analyses monitoring uncertainty requirements for carbon offset projects with a particular focus on the trade-off between monitoring stringency and cost. To this end, existing literature is reviewed, overarching monitoring guidelines, as well as the ten most-used methodologies are scrutinized, and finally three case studies are analysed. It is shown that there is indeed a 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. It is then demonstrated 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.

Please find the full report by clicking HERE

 

Review of the experience with monitoring uncertainty requirements in the Clean Development Mechanism Download
To learn more
  • 02/24/2026 Op-ed
    EU Member States set 2040 climate target – but is the Union on track for 2030 in the energy sector?

    An outlook on EU investment needs for the energy transition and the EU’s 2040 climate target. Just before the start of COP30 in Belém, EU Member States agreed to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 2040 compared to 1990 levels, including a 5% flexibility through international carbon credits. 

  • 02/19/2026 Blog post
    Food sovereignty relies on ecological planning

    The upcoming food sovereignty conferences are likely to shape debates on the future of French agriculture in 2026. The main responses provided over the past two years can be summarised as follows: remove production constraints to produce more of everything (both animal and plant products), to recover market shares in France and abroad. Seeking to produce more of everything without considering adaptation or transition is a form of denial, at a time when climate change is hitting farmers hard and regularly, and when our dependence on imported fertilisers and oilseed meals undermines our sovereignty. The conferences must take these considerations into account — otherwise, they will serve only to perpetuate the notion of an illusory sovereignty. 

  • 02/19/2026
    Which production assets for more resilient and sustainable agricultural and food sectors? Which investment needs? Which stranded assets?

    Les choix d’investissements des secteurs agricoles et alimentaires des années à venir sont déterminants. Pour pérenniser leurs productions et faire face aux crises, les secteurs agricoles et alimentaires français doivent évoluer vers des systèmes plus résilients et durables. L’enjeu est d’autant plus crucial que différentes vagues d’investissements sont en cours ou à venir dans ces secteurs. Dans cette étude, I4CE a estimé qu’environ 100 milliards d’euros d’outils de production agricoles et alimentaires sont affectés par la transition. Une coordination et une planification des investissements semblent incontournables, notamment pour en limiter les coûts.

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