Close this search box.

Press Release: World Bank Attempting to Sabotage Reform of CDM HFC-23 Projects

London/Washington DC. In an effort to justify its participation in perhaps the biggest carbon market scandal to date, the World Bank has dismissed concerns that the UN Clean Development Mechanism’s (CDM) HFC-23 projects are generating millions of fake carbon credits in a report published earlier this month.

An analysis released today by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Ethically Bankrupt: World Bank Defense of the HFC-23 Scandal (available at:–EBBriefing26August2010.pdf ) details the factual and analytical errors rife within the recently published World Bank Q & A on CDM HFC-23 projects.

Despite its role as the fiscal agent for distributing billions to combat global warming, the World Bank has defended the flawed program for destroying HFC-23 even as the Executive Board of the CDM launched a comprehensive investigation into the scandal and suspended issuance of credits from six of the projects, including one from the World Bank.

“The World Bank can’t be the solution to climate change until they stop being the problem”, said Fionnuala Walravens, Campaigner with EIA who added, “Self-enrichment at the expense of climate mitigation is indefensible, as is paying chemical plants so much to destroy waste gas that they intentionally produce more.”

Under the CDM, 19 projects that manufacture the refrigerant HCFC-22 are paid to capture and incinerate HFC-23 byproduct though issuance of Certified Emission Reductions Units (CERs) that are then sold on international carbon markets.  An analysis of HFC-23 projects in the form of a Revision Request submitted by CDM-Watch (available at: to the UNFCCC in March, revealed evidence that some CDM plants are intentionally maximizing the amount of HFC-23 waste gas produced up to the level to which they receive CDM credits.  This has likely resulted in the issuance of millions of fake carbon credits with no benefit to the climate, and huge subsidies to manufacturers resulting in higher production of super greenhouse gases.

Eva Filzmoser from CDM-Watch said: “We find it astonishing that the World Bank concludes there is not sufficient evidence to support our allegations, while the investigation by the Methodology Panel is still ongoing. There is a clear conflict of interest here.”

Manufacturers in China and India, where most of the HFC-23 projects are located, earn as much or more for destroying HFC-23 than they do for producing HCFC-22, which incentivizes production and use of HCFC-22 for the sole purpose of increasing the amount of HFC-23 created.

Last week in an unprecedented move, members of the Executive Board requested a review of the issuance more than 9.5 million CERs from six HCFC-22 plants, requiring additional information from the plants to ensure the projects do not result in fake emissions offsets.  CERs for HFC-23 destruction account for 51% of the almost 430 million CDM credits issued to date and are used extensively in carbon markets by the EU, Japan and other Kyoto Protocol Parties.

The World Bank’s Umbrella Carbon Facility invests in two of the largest HFC-23 incineration projects. In 2006 the Facility contracted to pay €775 million for almost 130 million CERs (€1.76 billion at current carbon market value) from two projects in China. Both projects were identified by the Revision Request as operating to generate the maximum amount of HFC-23 that could be credited, resulting in superfluous greenhouse gas emissions and fake carbon credits.

The World Bank Q & A argues against any changes in current crediting for HFC-23 projects and dismisses any and all evidence of wrongdoing.  EIA’s analysis reveals a number of serious factual errors in their Q & A and a clear avoidance of the larger issues.  “The World Bank’s position is both scientifically and morally indefensible”, said Clare Perry, Senior Campaigner for EIA. “It should stop trying to subvert the CDM investigation and allow the UN to do a job they are far better qualified for than the World Bank.”

For more info contact:

Fionnuala Walravens
[email protected]

+44 (0) 207 354 7971

Clare Perry
[email protected]

+34 664 348821

Natasha Hurley
[email protected]

+32 2 89 30 890


Related posts

Pricing the priceless: Lessons for biodiversity credits from carbon markets

Biodiversity markets are meant to channel private sector funding towards schemes that aim to conserve and restore biodiversity. In its current form, the unregulated funding schemes are reminiscent of the voluntary carbon market, which has a track record of supplying poor quality, cheap credits that inadequately transfer funds to the Global South. 

Going for green: Is the Paris Olympics winning the race against the climate clock?

Aware of the impact of the games on the climate and of record temperatures on the games, organisers of the Paris games have pledged to break records when it comes to reducing the impact of this mega event on the planet. ‘Going for Green’, a Carbon Market Watch and éclaircies report assessing the credibility of these plans reveals that if completely implemented, only 30% of the expected carbon footprint is covered by a robust climate strategy.

Lost in Documentation

Navigating the maze of project documentation

A new report by Carbon Market Watch has raised concerns over a lack of transparency and accountability within the unregulated voluntary carbon market caused by the unavailability of important project documents from the four biggest carbon crediting standards.

Join our mailing list

Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.