The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: practical experiences and lessons learned
Abstract
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol allows industrialized countries to use credits from greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement projects in developing countries. A key requirement of the CDM is that the emission reductions be real, measurable and additional. This article evaluates how the additionality of CDM projects has been assessed in practice. The analysis is mainly based on a systematic evaluation of 93 registered CDM projects and comes to the conclusion that the current tools for demonstrating additionality are in need of substantial improvement. In particular, the application of the barrier analysis is highly subjective and difficult to validate in an objective and transparent manner. Key assumptions regarding additionality are often not substantiated with credible, documented evidence. In a considerable number of cases it is questionable whether the emission reductions are actually additional. Based on these findings, practical recommendations for improving the assessment of additionality are provided.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Understanding the effectiveness of environmental offset policies
Hahn, R., & Richards, K. (2013) · Journal of Regulatory Economics · doi:10.1007/s11149-013-9211-1 · Cited by 19
Barriers to achieving additionality in carbon offsets: a regulatory risk perspective
Campbell, J., Herremans, I. M., & Kleffner, A. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1406340 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- SCHNEIDER, L.
- Venue
- Climate Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 242-254
- ISSN
- 1469-3062 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7457
- OpenAlex
- W1996545933
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: practical experiences and lessons learned. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3763/cpol.2008.0533
- The paper
- SCHNEIDER, L. (2009). Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: practical experiences and lessons learned. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0533
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
