Today’s fragmented world demands creative institutional arrangements to allow governments, international organizations, and civil society actors to join forces in addressing global environmental problems. This article discusses the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as foreseen under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol in the context of new models of governance. To do so, it depicts CDM’s history, institutional setting and participatory elements. The CDM serves as a concrete example of how new collaborative networks consisting of nation states and nonstate actors can help in implementing international treaties. The articles traces the history of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process to provide a sufficient background for a more detailed discussion of the CDM. On that basis, it provides an analysis of the CDM, and depict the Prototype Carbon Fund, administered by the World Bank, as an example for an innovative model of cooperation between the private and the public sectors.
Agarwal, A.
, & Narain, S. (1999). Addressing the challenge of climate change: Equity, sustainability and economic effectiveness: How poor nations can help save the world. New Delhi, India: Center for Science and Environment.
2.
Baumert, K. A.
, Kete, N., & Figueres, C. (2000). Designing the Clean Development Mechanism to meet the need of a broad range of interests. Washington, DC: World Resources Center Climate Notes.
3.
Beg, N.
, Morlot, J. C., Davidson, O., Afrane-Okesse, Y., Tyani, L., Denton, F., et al. (2002). Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Climate Policy, 2, 129-144.
4.
Campbell, L. B.
(1998). Emission trading, joint implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism: The role of the private sector and other state actors in implementation. In Global Climate Governance: Inter-linkages Between the Kyoto Protocol and Other Multilateral Regimes [Monograph]. Tokyo: Global Environment Information Centre.
5.
Climate Action Network
. (2000, July 21). Public participation in the CDM and JI: Climate Action Network (CAN) recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.climatenetwork.org/docs/CAN-pubpartrec.pdf
6.
European Parliament and Council
. (2002-2003). Documents from the Official Journal of the European Union. Available from http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/
7.
Freestone, D.
(2001). The World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund: Mobilising new resources for sustainable development. In S. Schlemmer-Schulte & K. Tung (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Ibrahim F. I. Shihata (pp. 265-341). The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
8.
Goldberg, D.
(1998). Twelve principles for joint implementation. In D. Hunter, J. Salzman, & D. Zaelke (Eds.), International environmental law and policy (pp. 666-671). New York: Foundation Press.
9.
Grubb, M.
, Vrolijk, C., & Brack, D. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol: Aguide and assessment. London: Earthscan.
10.
Kolk, A.
, & Pinkse, J. (2004). Market strategies for climate change. European Management Journal, 22(3), 304-314.
11.
Larson, D. F.
(2001). Regulating the Clean Development Mechanism: Implications for investors, developing countries, and the environment (PCFplus research paper). Washington, DC: World Bank.
12.
Lecocq, F.
(2004). State and trends of the carbon market, 2004. Washington, DC: World Bank.
13.
Messner, D.
(1997). The network society: Economic development and international competitiveness as a problem of social governance. London: Frank Cass.
14.
Oberthür, S.
, & Ott, H. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol: International climate policy for the 21st century. New York: Springer Verlag.
15.
Parikh, J.
(1992). IPCC response strategies unfair to the south. Nature, 360, 507-508.
16.
Parikh, J.
(1994, November 5). North-South issues for climate change. Economic and Political Weekly, 29, 2940-2943.
17.
Parikh, J.
(1995).North-South cooperation in climate change through joint implementation (JI). International Environmental Affairs, 7(1), 22-43.
18.
Prototype Carbon Fund
. (2001). Prototype Carbon Fund annual report, 2001. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
19.
Reinicke, W. H.
(1998a). Global public policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20.
Reinicke, W. H.
(1998b). Policy cooperation in a post-interdependent world. In A. F. P. Bakker & N. Gruijters (Eds.), Aglobal order for sustainable growth (pp. 39-51). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Bank-en Effectenbedrijf.
21.
Reinicke, W. H.
(1999/2000, Winter). The other World Wide Web: Global public policy networks. Foreign Policy, 116, 44-57.
22.
Reinicke, W. H.
, Deng, F., Benner, T., Witte, J. M., Whitaker, B., & Gershman, J. (2000). Critical choices: The United Nations, networks, and the future of global governance. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
23.
Strange, S.
(1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Strange, S.
(1997). Territory, state, authority and economy. In R. Cox (Ed.), The new realism (pp. 3-19). New York: St. Martin’s.
25.
Thatcher, M.
(1998). The development of policy network analyses: From the modes origins to overarching frameworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10, 289-416.
26.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (1992, 1997, 2001-2002). Available from www.unfccc.int
27.
Werksman, J.
(1998). The Clean Development Mechanism: Unwrapping the ‘Kyoto surprise.’Review of the European Community & International Environmental Law, 7(2), 147-158.
28.
Witte, J. M.
, Streck, C., & Benner, T. (2003). The road from Johannesburg: What future for partnershipsing lobal governance? In J.M.Witte,C.Streck,&T.Benner(Eds.), Progress or peril? Partnerships and networks in global environmental governance: The post-Johannesburg agenda (pp. 59-84). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
