BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

How Can the Clean Development Mechanism Better Contribute to SustainableDevelopmentAuthor(s): Nathan E. HultmanSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 38(2):120-122. 2009.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.2.120URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-38.2.120

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and bookspublished by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercialinquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

Synopsis

This synopsis was not peer reviewed.

Comparative Assessment of Soil Propertiesafter Bamboo Flowering and Death in aTropical Forest of Indo-Burma Hot Spot

The general impact of unregulated shiftingcultivation in the tropics altered thelandscapes that were once large tracts ofevergreen dense primary forests into frag-mented mosaics of small habitat islands ofdegraded primary forests, secondary for-ests, and low quality bamboo forests (1, 2).After slash and burn agriculture (jhum) atlower elevations in northeast (NE) India,the secondary succession passes from aherbaceous weedy community to a bam-boo forest (2).

Bamboo is a predominant understoryspecies in forest ecosystems of NE India(2). Out of the 150 species of bambooavailable in India, 58 are present in NEIndia (3). Bamboo is an important com-mercial source for a variety of purposes,such as manufacture of paper; construc-tion of houses, bridges, furniture, bags,and baskets; and use as, although to alimited extent, fuel and fodder (4). Others(5) also mentioned the economic impor-tance of bamboo in the form of food(young shoot), timber, and agriculturalimplements (culms and branches) in threestates (Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Sikkim)of NE India. Bamboo is also inextricablylinked with the traditional culture ofpeoples of NE states, particularly Mizor-am, and various festivals are based on itwith the performance of the bamboodance. Therefore, in real sense, bamboois poor’s man timber in the NE states ofIndia. However, one menace occurredfrom 2005–2006 in NE India in the formof famine, resulting from an increase in thenumerical strength of rodents after syn-chronous bamboo flowering.

Bamboo shows a characteristic simul-taneous mass flowering after long intervalsof several decades (6). Bamboo speciesflower suddenly and simultaneously, thenall the flower clumps die, leading to drasticchanges in forest dynamics and environ-mental conditions, for example, lightintensity, seedling survival, organic matterdecomposition, and nutrient cycling, al-though complete destruction of bambooclumps requires another few years (7).Bamboo communities follow active nutri-ent cycling, and their vigorous growth andlitter production ameliorates nutrient im-poverished coal mine spoil and tropicalsoil fertility (2, 4, 8). However, after massflowering and death, nutrient uptake bythe bamboo ceases and large amounts ofdead organic matter are deposited.

Several studies emphasized the role ofbamboos in soil nutrient conservation (2,4, 9). Also, bamboos in the early succes-sional fallows of slash and burn agricul-ture systems of NE India are veryimportant in stabilizing nutrient cycling(2, 9). However, there is very little infor-mation on the impact of bamboo flower-ing on soil properties. Henceforth, in thepresent study, I confined my quest towardthe impact of the flowering bamboo standon soil fertility. Likewise, the present workattempted to investigate whether soilfertility declines after bamboo floweringbecause of the disruption of nutrientcycling or is it maintained because ofrelease of nutrients from decomposingorganic matter. Further, the findings maybe relevant in relation to plant growth andvegetation succession. We therefore exam-ined the surface soil nutrient status andmicrobial population of sites after bambooflowering compared with those with livingbamboo species in a seasonal tropicalforest in a NE state of India.

Northeast India forms a significantportion of both the Himalaya and Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspots (10–12). Thestudy area was Mizoram, the 23rd state ofthe Indian union; it covers an area of21 087 sq km and is sandwiched betweenMyanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh (3).The vegetation of Mizoram, according toproposed classification (13), is tropicalevergreen and semi-evergreen forest inthe lower altitude hills; subtropical tomontane subtropical in the high hills. Amajor portion of Mizoram’s forests aretherefore tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen. The sampling site (238450 and248310N latitude and between 928160 and938260E longitude at an elevation of 850 mabove mean sea level) was located in peri-urban settlement of Western Aizawl (3 kmaway from Mizoram University), thecapital of Mizoram, and samplings wereperformed along a hilly transect varyingacross slope gradient. The climate washumid tropical, characterized by shortwinters and long summers with heavyrainfall. During the summer season, thetemperature generally varies from 218C to358C, while the winter temperature rangesfrom 48C to 238C. The rainfall periodgenerally ranges from April to October.The peak rainfall during the investigationperiod was recorded as 550 mm. Asmentioned earlier, because of the frequentpractice of shifting cultivation, bamboos

form the major secondary successionalvegetation component along with sometrees and herbaceous weeds, prominentlyLantana camara.

In 2007 (during the month of October),approximately 1 year after flowering, twoquadrats (20 3 20 m2) were placed intriplicate along a slope gradient approxi-mately 100 m apart. One quadrat in eachplot was placed in a site with deadbamboo (DB site) and the other in a sitewith living bamboo (LB site). The LB sitecomprised nonflowering stands of Bambu-sa tulda, B. khasiana, and Dendrocalamushamiltonii whereas flowering stands ofMelocanna baccifera syn. bambusoides(common name moutak, i.e., death caus-ing because of associated famine andplague) were present at the DB site alongthe slope gradient. Because flowering issimultaneous, utmost care was taken todifferentiate flowering stands of M. bacci-fera from other live or nonfloweringbamboo species.

Five replicates of surface soil (0–10cm), litter, and ground vegetation sampleswere collected from the corners and centerof each quadrat. The litter layer andherbaceous ground vegetation in a 100 3100 cm2 frame were collected, dried at708C for 1 week in an oven, and then usedfor biomass estimates. The moist surfacesoil samples were dried at 1058C in anoven for determination of soil moisturecontent.

Part of the moist soil samples were air-dried and sieved to obtain fine soil samples(,2 mm). Soil pH was measured with asoil–water (1 : 5) slurry using a pH glasselectrode. Organic carbon was determinedaccording to the Walkley and Blackmethod, total nitrogen was determinedusing the Kjeldahl method, and availablephosphate was extracted using the Braymethod. All analyses were conducted asper the methodology described elsewhere(14). To determine potentially availablenitrogen (NH4þ and NO3�), the steamdistillation method was used. The extent ofnitrification was expressed as the percent-age of mineralized NO3� in total mineral-ized nitrogen.

For the estimation of microbial popu-lation and biomass, another set of threesoil samples (0–15 cm depth) were collect-ed. In this case, the corer was wiped withabsolute ethanol before every insertion toprevent any external microbial contami-nation. The bacterial and fungal popula-

118 Ambio Vol. 38, No. 2, March 2009� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009http://www.ambio.kva.se

tions were determined using dilution platetechniques on nutrient agar and rosebengal agar medium, respectively. Soilbacterial population was estimated byWaksman’s (15) method using nutrientagar medium. Fungal population wasestimated by the dilution plate method(16) using Martin rose bengal agar medi-um at 103 dilution in water. MicrobialN, C, and microbial P were estimated bythe chloroform fumigation extractionmethod (17).

SPSS 11.5 was used for statisticalanalysis. Analysis of variance was used toevaluate the impact of bamboo death onsoil chemical properties. Least significantdifference at 95% confidence level wasused to compare the mean values acrossboth sites.

The average values of soil propertiesare represented in Figures 1 and 2. Soil pH(6.4 at the LB site; 5.7 at the DB site) wasslightly acidic at the DB site. Soil pH mayplay an important role in the biogeochem-istry of soil and may affect the uptake ofexchangeable ions, particularly Ca andMg. Soil moisture (15.6 at the LB site;18.9 w/w% at the DB site) values wererecorded higher at the DB site, but thedifference was not significant. The litterlayer (90 g m�2 at the LB site; 73.5 g m�2 atthe DB site) showed no significant differ-ence between litter mass at both the sites,although all leaves of M. baccifera becamesenescent, subsequently falling and accu-mulating at the DB site. The oppositetrend may be attributed to the high litterdecomposition during the rainy season,making the litter layer less available.Ground vegetation (15.5 g m�2 at the LBsite; 27.8 g m�2 at the DB site), mostlygerminated bamboo seedlings and L.camara (an exotic invasive species), wasgreater at the DB sites than the LB sites.At the LB site, less vegetation occurredbecause of shade imposed from the grow-ing bamboo canopy (Fig. 1).

Soil organic carbon content was signif-icantly lower in the DB site than the LBsite (Fig. 2). Likewise, available N and P

were relatively low in the DB site com-pared with the LB sites, although thedifferences were not significant. However,the nitrification rate was unaffected by theimpact of bamboo flowering (Fig. 2).

The microbial population was alsohigher at the LB site (bacterial: 13.596 3105 g�1 dry soil and fungal: 67.8893103 g�1

dry soil). However, the recorded CNP washigher in the soil of the DB site (Table 1).

Results of the present research revealedthat total soil nitrogen, available nitrogen,and P content were low in sites wherebamboo had flowered and died. In gener-al, the surface soil in the DB (M. baccifera)sites was comparatively more infertile thanthat in the LB sites, although a largeamount of dead organic material (forexample, leaf litter, broken culms, androot litter) was deposited after bamboodeath. This suggests that nutrient condi-tions declined within a year after bambooflowering and death. Thus, the soil phys-icochemical properties of the tropicalforest are probably maintained by bamboospecies through nutrient and carbon cy-cling, as demonstrated by several previous

workers (2, 8, 9). Further, opening of thecanopy through the death of bamboosmay increase the penetration of light andhence temperature. Increase in tempera-ture coupled with more soil moisturemight have decomposed the fallen litterwithin 1 year after flowering.

Except for soil carbon content observedat the DB site, the rest of the soilproperties have not varied significantlywhen compared with the LB site. BecauseN and P in the surface soil largely followthe dynamics of soil organic matter, theeffects of bamboo death on N and P soilcontent should also be negligible in theshort term (7).

Comparatively lower nutrient contentmight be responsible for the decrease inthe microbial population at the DB site.Also, bamboo death seems to affect thelabile fraction, which is related to theexistence of the bamboo community,probably through leaf and root litterturnover (7). Their finding suggested thatthe labile nutrients available for microbialactivity are reduced after bamboo death.However, persistent nutrient allocationbetween soil and microbes might haveresulted in a comparatively higher micro-bial biomass at the LB site. This findingcorroborates the other group (4), whoreported that soil microbial biomass andavailable N increased with the develop-ment of the bamboo community on minespoil soil. Further, in contrast with the soilnutrient status, microbial biomass showedcomparatively higher CNP content, whichmight be due to the more microbialimmobilization in nutrient poor condi-tions. This finding is in accordance witha previous finding (18), which suggested areciprocal relationship between microbialbiomass and plant growth in nutrient poorecosystems.

CONCLUSION

Bamboo flowering and death lead to adecline in nutrient status and microbial

Figure 1. Soil pH, soil moisture, ground vegetation (g m�2), and litter layer (g m�2) at the live anddead bamboo sites (LB and DB) (average of five replicates).

Figure 2. Soil organic C content (g kg�1), total N content (g kg�1), available N content (mg kg�1),nitrification rate (%), and available P content (mg kg�1) at live and dead bamboo (LB and DB)sites (average of five replicates).

Ambio Vol. 38, No. 2, March 2009 119� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009http://www.ambio.kva.se

population. High nutrient concentrations(CNP) recorded in microbial biomass atthe DB site revealed that microbial bio-mass acts as source and sink for plantnutrients in nutrient-poor ecosystems.Higher nutrient status and microbialpopulation in the LB stands offer its scopefor reclamation of nutrient impoverishedagroecosystems and agroforestry systems,particularly those that have undergoneshifting cultivation with a less fallowperiod. The impact of individual bamboospecies should also be monitored in futureresearches. Henceforth, further study isneeded to completely analyze and under-stand the consequences of bamboo deathon soil parameters, microbial biomass, andnutrient cycling.

References and Notes

1. Mertz, O., Wadley, R.L., Nielsen, U., Bruun, T.B.,Colfer, C.J.P., Neergaard, A., de, Jepsen, M.R.,Martinussen, T., et al. 2008. A fresh look at shifting

cultivation: fallow length an uncertain indicator ofproductivity. Agric. Syst. 96, 75–84.

2. Rao, K.S. and Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1989. Role ofbamboos in nutrient conservation during secondarysuccession following slash and burn agriculture (jhum)in north-east India. J. Appl. Ecol. 26, 625–633.

3. Lianzela 1997. Effects of shifting cultivation on theenvironment: with special reference to Mizoram. Inter.J. Social Econom. 24, 785–790.

4. Singh, A.N. and Singh, J.S. 1999. Biomass, net primaryproduction and impact of bamboo plantation on soilredevelopment in a dry tropical region. For. Ecol.Manag. 119, 195–207.

5. Bhatt, B.P., Singha, L.B., Singh, K. and Sachan, M.S.2003. Commercial edible bamboo species and theirmarket potential in three Indian tribal states of NorthEastern Himalayan Region. J. Bamboo Rattan 2, 111–133.

6. Wong, K.M. 2004. Bamboo: The Amazing Grass-AGuide to the Diversity and Study of Bamboos inSoutheast Asia. IPGRI and University of Malaya,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

7. Takahashi, M., Furusawa, H., Limtong, P., Sunantha-pongsuk, V., Marod, D. and Panuthai, S. 2007. Soilnutrient status after bamboo flowering and death in aseasonal tropical forest in western Thailand. Ecol. Res.22, 160–164.

8. Mailly, D., Christanty, L. and Kinunins, J.P. 1997.‘Without bamboo, the land dies’: nutrient cycling andbiogeochemistry of a Javanese bamboo tahn-kebunsystem. Forest Ecol. Manage. 91, 155–173.

9. Arunachalam, A. and Arunachalam, K. 2002. Evalua-tion of bamboos in eco-restoration of ‘jhum’ fallows in

Arunachal Pradesh: ground vegetation, soil and micro-bial biomass. For. Ecol. Manage. 159, 231–239.

10. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., daFonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversityhotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 203, 853–858.

11. Mittermeier, R.A., Gil, R.P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim,J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J. and daFonseca, G.A.B. 2004. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’sBiologically Richest and Most Endangered TerrestrialEcosystems. Cemex, Mexico.

12. Conservation International. 2005. Biodiversity Hot-spots. Conservation International, Washington, DC.(http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/)

13. Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. 1968. A Revised Surveyof the Forest Types of India. Government of IndiaPublication, New Delhi, India.

14. Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

15. Waksman, S.A. 1952. Soil Microbiology. Wiley, NewYork.

16. Johnson, L.F. and Curl, E.A. 1972. Methods for theResearch on Ecology of Soil-borne Plant Pathogens.Burgess Minneapolis.

17. Anderson, J.M. and Ingram, J.S.I. 1993. TSBF—Handbook of Methodology. CAB International, Wall-ingford.

18. Singh, J.S., Raghuvanshi, A.S., Singh, R.S. andSrivastava, S.C. 1989. Microbial biomass acts as asource of plant nutrients in dry tropical forest andsavanna. Nature 399, 499–500.

19. The author is thankful to Dean, Mizoram University,for providing the necessary facilities and Professor A.N. Rai, Vice Chancellor, Mizoram University forencouragement and support.

Prabhat Kumar RaiDepartment of Forest EcologyBiodiversity and EnvironmentalScience

Mizoram University Tanhril CampusPost Box N. 190 Aizawl, IndiaPin code 796001 Gram; MZUprabhatrai24@yahoo.co.in

Synopsis

This synopsis was not peer reviewed.

How Can the Clean DevelopmentMechanism Better Contribute toSustainable Development?

In the December 2007 climate conferencein Bali, Indonesia, delegates defined atrajectory for international climate policythat extends beyond the Kyoto Protocol’sexpiry in 2012. During the 11 Decembermeeting was the 20th anniversary of theBrundtland Commission’s 1987 report OurCommon Future, which famously crystal-lized a vision of sustainable developmentthat implies ‘‘meeting the needs of thepresent without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their ownneeds’’ (1). No issue may be more central toplanetary sustainability than humankind’smodification of the Earth’s climate (2).

Yet the concept of sustainability isessential not only to impel action onemissions reductions but also to fosteragreement on the process: In all past andongoing climate negotiations, a keystoneof consensus is the idea of ‘‘common butdifferentiated responsibilities’’—paralleland equitable action toward the goals ofhuman and natural well-being. While thisfoundational idea, echoed again in the BaliAction Plan, stems from environmentaldiscussions in the 1980s, the principlesunderpinning it are likely to be perpetual:given the voluntary nature of internationallaw, the obligations for different countries

must necessarily acknowledge the varietyof economic weight, historical and presentcontribution to atmospheric emissions,and vulnerability to climate impacts.

While the overall success of the KyotoProtocol remains debated (3), the treatyhas unequivocally driven the creation of anumber of market-driven institutions foremissions reductions, which include theClean Development Mechanism (CDM)(4). As of late 2008, the CDM wasresponsible for spurring over 4300 projectsin 70 developing countries (5). These proj-ects are expected to reduce global green-house gas emissions by up to 5.5 Gt CO2-

Table 1. Soil microbial population and CNP (carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus) content inmicrobial biomass.

Site

Population

Biomass (lg g�1)Bacteria (numberof colonies 3

105 g�1 dry soil)

Fungi (numberof colonies 3

103 g�1 dry soil) C N P

LB site 13.596 67.889 248.561 176.891 6.443DB site 6.937 77.899 376.931 233.00 7.982LSD at 0.05 level 1.63 23.9 179.88 63.00 2.70

120 Ambio Vol. 38, No. 2, March 2009� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009http://www.ambio.kva.se

equivalent by 2020 and the continuation ofa similar market framework after 2012could result in larger numbers. While suchreductions are but a fraction of the cutsneeded to halt the rise of global temper-atures, the annual growth in CDM vol-umes can be seen as a partial success in aregime with otherwise limited demonstra-ble progress toward its stated goals.

Yet the CDM was originally conceivednot only as a tool to mitigate climatechange. It was proposed by a group ofdeveloping countries as the compromisethat allowed for their economic growthwithin environmental constraints. It wasenvisioned that developing countries couldaccrue benefits for sustainable develop-ment from carbon markets while simulta-neously addressing greenhouse gasemissions. The treaty language, in fact,places sustainable development benefits onequal footing with emissions reductions,and developing nations saw an opportu-nity to bring substantial investments andnew technology to foster sustainablegrowth through CDM projects. The in-dustrialized countries were willing toparticipate because the CDM offered acost effective alternative to domestic emis-sion reductions.

The perceived tension between thesetwo goals—market efficiency in loweringemissions and nonmarket improvements inhuman welfare and local environment—has raised questions about the potential forclimate policy simultaneously to promotesustainable development. On the one hand,the CDM has achieved cost effectiveemissions reductions in developing coun-tries on a large scale. However, by somemetrics, the CDM has fallen short on thisdimension. While stimulating a greatnumber of projects, the distribution ofthese projects has been geographicallyuneven, weighted toward larger countries,and dominated by a few sectors (see Fig.1). China, for example, has captured 65%of the Certified Emission Reductions(CER) market, while Africa has gainedlittle from technology transfer with only4% of projects to date and only 3% of thevolume. Overall, the top five countries(China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Malay-sia) account for 79% of the total volume(5). Projects focused on eliminating indus-trial gases, including hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons, N2O, and methane ac-count for 75% of the credits issued thus far.

Sustainable development is left unde-fined in the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyo-to Protocol, and all the ancillary docu-ments that have followed from years ofnegotiations. Each host country can there-fore interpret sustainable development foritself, a provision stemming from Principle21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration.For example, the mechanism might con-tribute to local environmental benefits, jobgrowth, income equity, technology devel-opment, or additional energy infrastruc-ture in developing nation economies.

Nations have accordingly approachedCDM sustainability in different ways.Because governments are responsible forcertifying sustainable development, criticssuggest a potential conflict of interestbetween national governments’ overalldesire for foreign investment and the needsof local communities who may be affectedby a project (6, 7). The extent to whichlocal stakeholders may comment on pro-posed CDM activities or benefit fromCDM projects is highly dependent onstructures of local governance and oppor-tunities for participation (8).

In some large-scale CDM projects withvery few direct benefits to local people,developers have had to commit to use apercentage of CER revenues to fund localdevelopment projects (9, 10) such as newroads, training programs, health centers,and employment-generating initiatives.Some projects have also increased localemployment and improved local air qual-ity, though these benefits have beenmodest (11). For smaller projects with afocus on community development, howev-er, potential carbon revenues are ofteninsufficient to cover the high transactioncosts involved in the development andverification of CDM projects (12). In part,this crowding out of sustainability stemsfrom the interest of buyers in low-costemissions reductions. Given the currentarchitecture, therefore, the CDM’s contri-bution to sustainable development hasbeen and is likely to remain limited (13).

This need not be the case, however. TheCDM already links markets to widerpoverty agendas. It potentially provides amodel for integrating sustainability intodevelopment finance, a goal which hasbeen frequently stated but only imperfectly

achieved. Leaders of wealthy nations haverepeatedly made promises of large-scaleinternational financial assistance for de-veloping countries, from the 0.7% of grossdomestic product (GDP) claim made inthe 1970s to the Gleneagles Plan of Actionpromise of an additional USD 50 billion inaid to Africa by 2010. The ‘‘GrandBargain’’ at Rio included promises ofUSD 141.9 billion a year in additionalfunding from the global North for sus-tainable development, of which USD 15billion was to be devoted to globalenvironmental issues like climate change.However, these promises have largelyfailed to materialize. Some voluntaryfunds, including the three establishedunder the UNFCCC, have received onlymodest donations. Since the mid 1990s,the level of multi- and bilateral environ-mental donor funding has totaled aboutUSD 8–10 billion, and most of this hasbeen spent on water and sewage projects(14). After years of negotiations, the CDMnow includes an ‘‘adaptation levy’’ of 2%of revenues from the sale of CertifiedEmissions Reductions, providing the firstdedicated tax base of funds from North toSouth of approximately USD 300 millionfrom 2010–2012. In addition, USD 7.9billion in carbon finance were createdunder the CDM in 2006 alone and thisfigure is expected to grow steeply in theyears to come.

A future framework might allow for theaggregation of individual projects to re-duce transactions costs. Current proposalsfor reducing emissions from deforestationand the use of development aid to fosterlocal capacities, for example, would reduceproject transaction costs through aggrega-tion (15, 16). First, an expanded invest-

Figure 1. CDM emissions reductions (in kilotonnes CO2 equivalent) expected by 2012, plottedby population and GDP. Data from UNEP Risoe CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database,November 2007.

Ambio Vol. 38, No. 2, March 2009 121� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009http://www.ambio.kva.se

ment framework could also allow workwith development institutions in sectorsand regions where CDM investments aremore likely to lead to substantial develop-ment benefits. For example, these coulddraw upon public investment guarantees,capacity building, rural electrification withrenewable energies, or landfill gas captureand storage. Second, improving the gov-ernance of regions with the greatest needfor poverty-reducing investments wouldalso address one of the foremost invest-ment risks for CDM project developers,while laying the groundwork for real anddiversified sustainable development in theregions. Third, experiences from voluntarycarbon markets demonstrate possiblemeans to channel demand from carbonbuyers to projects that contribute to localdevelopment (17). Internationally agreedvoluntary standards for sustainable devel-opment–CDM projects could help differ-entiate such projects and give them anadvantage in the marketplace and buildexperience for more universal require-ments. It has also been proposed that thesystem for awarding CERs to projectsmight also be adapted to promote andreward projects that generate significantsustainable development benefits or in-volve investment in the world’s leastdeveloped countries. Fourth, followingChina’s model, host developing nationsmay also consider taxing carbon financerevenues of CDM projects differentiallydepending on the projects’ contribution tosustainable development. Fifth, the pro-motion of technologies within the CDMthat specifically benefit the rural sectorand less industrialized countries couldcorrect some of the systemic imbalancesin the current architecture and incentivestructure. For example, avoided defores-tation activities, agroforestry, and im-proved efficiency cooking stoves couldbenefit precisely those people and coun-tries that have until now been disadvan-taged by the CDM’s focus on industrialtechnologies.

Should international climate policyinstruments such as the CDM encompassbroader sustainable development goals, orshould they focus exclusively on utilizingmarket efficiencies to bring about as manyemission reductions as possible? Sustain-able development, being a politicallycentral but poorly executed tenet in theCDM, is currently not incorporated intoits core incentive structure. In the currentsystem, any additional, noncarbon specificrequirements are likely to increase costs.Similarly, it is logical that private investorsfocus their efforts on countries that poselower political and economic risks for theirprojects, or who impose weak sustainabledevelopment criteria, and the CDM is nodifferent in this regard from other forms offoreign investments.

Yet two principles will always lie at theheart of successful international climate

policy: first, diverse countries will have‘‘common but differentiated responsibili-ties’’ for climate protection; second—asarticulated in the Brundtland report butpresent from Stockholm to Rio andKyoto—environmental goals must be pur-sued in partnership with economic growth.Divorcing sustainable development fromthe CDM—and not including them else-where—could remove incentives forbroad-based participation. The experienceof the past 20 years of contested interna-tional policy underscores the importanceof policies that command the confidenceof a majority of countries, both developedand developing. Therefore, parallel actionfrom all countries—especially the largestemitters—will be needed to unlock actionon climate change. Ensuring broad-basedparticipation in climate governance re-quires that the overall architecture beperceived as fair and beneficial to thedevelopment goals of all countries. Yet atthe same time, structural reforms shouldrespect the preliminary success of theCDM in stimulating market innovations.Enhancing sustainability in the interna-tional architecture of climate protection isa critical element in policy that willencourage the parallel, differentiated ac-tions needed to protect our commonfuture.

References and Notes

1. World Commission on Environment and Development.1987. United Nations General Assembly, New York.

2. Bouwer, L.M., Crompton, R.P., Faust, E., Hoppe, P.and Pielke, R.A. Jr. 2007. Disaster management:confronting disaster losses. Science 318, 753.

3. Prins, G. and Rayner, S. 2007. Time to ditch Kyoto.Nature 449, 973–975.

4. Wara, M. 2007. Is the global carbon market working?Nature 445, 595–596.

5. Fenhann, J. 2008. UNEP Risø CDM/JI PipelineAnalysis and Database. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Risø Centre, Risø, Denmark.

6. Lohmann, L. 2001. Democracy or carbocracy? Intel-lectual corruption in the debate over climate change.Watershed 7, 20–35.

7. Pearson, B. 2007. Market failure: why the cleandevelopment mechanism won’t promote clean develop-ment. J. Cleaner Prod. 15, 247–252.

8. Boyd, E., Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. 2007. Adaptingsmall-scale CDM to low income communities. Glob.Environ. Change 17, 250–259.

9. Capoor, K. and Ambrosi, P. 2006. State and Trends ofthe Carbon Market. IETA and The World Bank,Washington DC.

10. Ellis, J., Winkler, H., Corfee-Morlot, J. and Gagnon-Lebrun, F. 2007. CDM: taking stock and lookingforward. Energy Pol. 35, 15–28.

11. Boyd, E., Hultman, N.E., Roberts, T., Corbera, E.,Ebeling, J., Liverman, D.M., Brown, K., Tippmann,R., et al. 2007. The Clean Development Mechanism: AnAssessment of Current Practice and Future Approachesfor Policy. Tyndall Centre, Working Paper 49. TyndallCentre on Climate Change, Norwich.

12. Brunt, C. and Knechtel, A. 2005. Delivering SustainableDevelopment Benefits through the Clean DevelopmentMechanism. The Pembina Institute, Canada.

13. Olsen, K.H. 2005. UNEP Riso Centre: Energy, Climateand Sustainable Development. Riso National Laborato-ry, Roskilde, Denmark.

14. Hicks, R.L., Parks, B.C., Roberts, J.T. and Tierney,M.J. 2008. Greening Aid? Oxford University Press,Oxford.

15. Begg, K. and van der Horst, D. 2004. Preservingenvironmental integrity in standardized baselines: Therole of additionality and uncertainty. Mitigation Adapt.Strat. Glob. Change 9, 181–200.

16. Kjellen, B., Egenhofer, C., van Schaik, L. and Corn-land, D. 2005. Improving the Clean DevelopmentMechanism. European Climate Platform, Gothenburg.

17. Corbera, E. and Brown, K. Building institutions totrade ecosystem services: Marketing forest carbon inMexico. World Dev. (In Press).

Nathan E. Hultman2101 Van Munching HallSchool of Public PolicyUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742, USAhultman@umd.edu

Emily BoydEnvironmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for theEnvironment

South Parks RoadOxford OX1 3QY, UKemily.boyd@ouce.ox.ac.uk

J. Timmons RobertsDepartment of SociologyCollege of William & MaryP.O. Box 8795Williamsburg, VA 23187, USAjtrobe@wm.edu

John ColeEnvironmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for theEnvironment

South Parks RoadOxford OX1 3QY, UKjohn@cole.ch

Esteve CorberaFaculty of Social SciencesSchool of Development StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwich NR4 7TJ, UKe.corbera@uea.ac.uk

Johannes EbelingEcoSecurities, Ltd.1st Floor, Park Central40/41 Park End StreetOxford OX1 1JD, UKJohannes.Ebeling@ecosecurities.com

Katrina BrownFaculty of Social SciencesSchool of Development StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwich NR4 7TJ,k.brown@uea.ac.uk

Diana M. LivermanEnvironmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for theEnvironment

South Parks RoadOxford OX1 3QY, UKdiana.liverman@eci.ox.ac.uk

122 Ambio Vol. 38, No. 2, March 2009� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009http://www.ambio.kva.se