IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Permanence of CDM forests or non-permanence of land use related carbon credits?


  • Dutschke, Michael


Carbon sequestration projects in the context of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) suffer from the stigma of permanence risk. The risk that carbon reduced or sequestered in forestry projects is release further down the road is in fact undeniable, whoever bears the onus. The merit of the so-called ?ton/year approach? is to destroy the fiction of infinity when talking about permanent sequestration. The merit of the ?Columbian proposal? is to destroy the fiction of comparability between technological emission reduction and sequestration in natural systems. Yet, both approaches are discussed as more or less unrelated alternatives. By making use of both methodologies and providing a link between both proposals on permanence in CDM forestry, the present article puts forward the proposal of leasing reduction certificates.

Suggested Citation

  • Dutschke, Michael, 2001. "Permanence of CDM forests or non-permanence of land use related carbon credits?," HWWA Discussion Papers 134, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hwwadp:26399

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Marshall, Liz & Kelly, Alexia, 2010. "The Time Value of Carbon and Carbon Storage: Clarifying the terms and the policy implications of the debate," MPRA Paper 27326, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Suraje Dessai & E. Schipper & Esteve Corbera & Bo Kjellén & María Gutiérrez & Alex Haxeltine, 2005. "Challenges and Outcomes at the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 105-124, June.
    3. Miriam Miranda & Carel Dieperink & Pieter Glasbergen, 2002. "The Social Meaning of Carbon Dioxide Emission Trading Institutional Capacity Building for a Green Market in Costa Rica," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 69-86, March.
    4. Emma Paulsson, 2009. "A review of the CDM literature: from fine-tuning to critical scrutiny?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 63-80, February.
    5. Michael Dutschke, 2002. "Fractions of permanence – Squaring the cycle of sink carbon accounting," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 381-402, December.
    6. Lucio Pedroni, 2005. "Carbon accounting for sinks in the CDM after CoP-9," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 407-418, July.
    7. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2013. "REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkage?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-52.
    8. Frank Vöhringer, 2004. "Forest conservation and the clean development mechanism: Lessons from the Costa Rican protected areas project," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 217-240, July.
    9. Philip Fearnside, 2002. "Why a 100-Year Time Horizon should be used for GlobalWarming Mitigation Calculations," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 19-30, March.
    10. Bruno Locatelli & Lucio Pedroni, 2006. "Will Simplified Modalities and Procedures Make More Small-Scale Forestry Projects Viable Under the Clean Development Mechanism?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 621-643, May.
    11. Marechal, Kevin & Hecq, Walter, 2006. "Temporary credits: A solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 699-716, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:hwwadp:26399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.