Search

Even though sustainable development has been broadly debated, the clean development mechanism (CDM) still lacks sophisticated multi-criteria decision methods for identifying, selecting and assessing CDM project activities from this perspective. Bearing in mind the huge number of CDM projects that are beginning to accumulate as the carbon market gains momentum, and the importance for non-Annex I Parties to keep focused on the sustainability objective, this article aims at developing a tool for prioritizing — within a given group, and once a specific list of sustainable development criteria is agreed upon and given — proposed CDM projects from this sustainable development point of view. We reached the following conclusions: (1) it is important to make a conscious choice of an appropriate way to normalize the sustainability performance data of CDM projects; (2) it is important to make a conscious choice of how to aggregate across multiple attributes; (3) in contrast with conventional multi-criteria assessments, which elicit preferences from a stakeholder panel, preference optimization infers from CDM projects' performance data an optimal set of weights that proponents would choose in order to win a competitive selection process. Such preference optimization methods (a) yield sensible results, simulating a range of decision circumstances, (b) avoid conflict and convey impartiality in situations where competing project proponents are likely to clash over objectionable weightings, (c) avoid cognitive overload when the number of CDM projects and/or indicators is overwhelmingly large, and (d) circumvent time-consuming and costly interviews and surveys. From a policy perspective, the multi-criteria assessment described here can be a powerful tool for prioritizing CDM projects (1) when there is a limited amount of grant funding to certain CDM project candidates, and (2) when the decision-making process incorporates the CDM objective of promoting sustainable development, in addition to the objective of helping developed countries to meet part of their reduction obligations as specified in Annex I of the Protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK is reportedly an international leader in the application of environmental policy appraisal (EPA). From the late 1980s until 2004, UK central government sought to produce ex ante assessments of the potential environmental impacts of different policy options. Critics maintain that EPA had a very limited impact on policy-making activities in Whitehall departments. However, the empirical basis for these claims is surprisingly thin. This paper seeks to better understand what facilitated or retarded EPA by looking at its use in Whitehall, with the aim being to draw lessons for the UK's new and more integrated appraisal regime, as well as similar systems in the European Union. The paper finds that the implementation of EPA was both weak and highly sectorised, and that there is an underlying resistance to policy appraisal per se in Whitehall. These weaknesses urgently need to be addressed otherwise new systems of integrated appraisal will not deliver what is expected of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]