Joint Implementation reforms: too little too late? (Newsletter #3)

In Doha Parties decided that the two JI tracks should be merged. However, all further decisions about JI were delegated to be discussed at the upcoming meeting in Bonn in June 2013. Below is a short summary of essential reform requirements needed.

JI is currently divided into two “tracks”. Undder Track 2 an international board – the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC) – approves JI projects and issuance of credits. Under Track 1, it is the host Parties that approve projects and issuance of credits (ERUs). Over 95% of JI offsets have been issued under track 1, with very limited transparency. Countries such as Ukraine and Russia have been issuing millions of JI credits with virtually no integrity or climate benefits (see JI article in our last Newsletter). In Doha [1] Parties decided that the two JI tracks should be merged. They also decided to establish common overarching guiding principles, including “clear, transparent and objective requirements to ensure that projects are additional to what would otherwise occur”.


JI Mazurskie Landfill Gas Project in Poland, Courtey of Mihai Brasoveanu

All further decisions about JI were delegated to the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and will be discussed at the upcoming meeting in Bonn in June 2013. Despite the poor quality of JI offsets they are used extensively. In 2012, companies covered in the EU-ETS for the first time used more JI offsets (over 284 million, representing 58%) than CDM offsets. In order to prevent JI offset credits to further undermine climate targets a number of essential revisions are necessary. Below we summarize the most important issues that will be discussed at the upcoming intercessional conference in Bonn. For our detailed recommendations to reform the JI see our Carbon Market Watch recommendations for SB38, June 2013.

Treatment of JI Projects during the interim period

Current rules should stay in place which means that issuance of ERUs for emissions reductions after 2012 will only be possible once the new AAUs have been issued.

Require Review Procedure at Registration Stage

A review procedure by the governing body should be included at the stage of validation or registration.

Require strong criteria and review procedures for baseline and additionality determination

Such criteria have to be strengthened by, inter alia, including prior consideration requirements and requiring a review and approval of baselines and positive lists by the international governing body.

Implement procedures to renew crediting period

A procedure for the renewal of the crediting period for projects registered in the first commitment period must require that the baseline scenario and additionality claims of each project are re-established.




[1] The decision text can be downloaded here.




Related posts

Carbon Market Watch welcomes EU ban on “carbon neutrality” greenwashing

Companies selling in the European Union will no longer be able to claim that their products are carbon or climate neutral, the EU has provisionally agreed. This victory against greenwashing corresponds to longstanding demands from climate campaigners to eliminate the use of offsets and send a signal to the voluntary carbon market.

Integrity Council’s rulebook sets minimum threshold instead of high bar for carbon markets

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s latest guidelines provide a set of much-needed incremental improvements but fail to raise the quality of carbon credits sufficiently and leave too much wiggle room to truly tackle the climate crisis. The ICVCM has the opportunity to clear up the loopholes and ambiguities when it issues its first assessments of carbon market programmes.

Joint Implementation reforms: too little too late? (Newsletter #3)

Join our mailing list

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