Additionality is one of the conditions on which the integrity of the carbon market ultimately rests. A credited emission reduction has value only if it is additional; a reduction that would have happened anyway confers a credit without a corresponding abatement. If the same reduction would have taken place anyway, because the project was already profitable, because regulation required it, or simply because technological and economic change was already moving in that direction, then the carbon market has added nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The requirement is simple to state but extraordinarily difficult to establish, because it asks not merely whether an emission reduction occurred, but whether it would have occurred anyway. The first question concerns the observable world; the second concerns a world that does not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To understand why such an apparently impossible question came to occupy so central a position in carbon markets, it is necessary to return to the treaty architecture from which those markets emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From Rio to Kyoto: The Emergence of the Carbon Market<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n All contemporary international climate policy can be traced back to a particular outcome of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. Among the several instruments that emerged from Rio, one forms the foundation on which all later climate governance has been built: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Consecutive climate diplomacy both descends from and points back to this founding treaty. In terms of climate policy and politics, the so called Framework Convention defines both the target of global climate action and the process by which it is to be achieved. The target is set out in Article 2, which names as the Convention’s ultimate objective the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, without, however, specifying any concrete threshold or deadline. The process to achieve that aim is established in Article 7, which creates the Conference of the Parties as the treaty’s supreme body and provides that it convene annually to review implementation and negotiate the substantive commitments the Convention itself had left open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the Convention’s entry into force in 1994, the first Conference of the Parties was held in Berlin in 1995, the second in Geneva in 1996, and the third followed in Kyoto in 1997. The Kyoto conference proved to be a particularly consequential one, for two reasons. First, it formalised a division between industrialised and developing countries. It placed binding emission reduction obligations on the former, the states referred to from then on as the Annex B states, since they were listed in Annex B of the Protocol, while exempting the latter, in recognition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, a guiding principle already stipulated in Article 3 of the Convention. Second, it was here that crucial mechanisms were devised through which the climate crisis might actually be addressed, for example the market-based instruments that came to be known collectively, though not in the treaty text, as the flexible mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The purpose of these mechanisms was to make binding reductions for the Annex B states economically bearable. Under the Protocol these states committed to cut their aggregate greenhouse gas emissions by some five per cent below 1990 levels over the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012, though the individual targets varied considerably, from an eight per cent reduction for the European Community to more modest cuts elsewhere. Meeting such targets domestically threatened to be costly, and unevenly so, since the expense of cutting emissions differed widely from one economy to the next. It was this problem that the mechanisms were designed to relieve. The underlying idea was straightforward. For the atmosphere it is immaterial where a tonne of carbon dioxide is saved, since the climate system is a single global sink, yet the cost of avoiding that tonne varies enormously from one country to another. The flexible mechanisms exploited this fact. Rather than requiring each Annex B state to achieve its entire reduction domestically, they allowed the obligation to be met wherever reductions were cheapest, whether in another industrialised country or in a developing one. The environmental target would still be reached, but at the lowest possible cost. Flexibility, in other words, referred to freedom over the location and the manner of compliance, not over the target itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From Kyoto to Paris: Continuity and Discontinuity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The intellectual and political groundwork for this approach was to a significant degree American, and it rested on more than economic theory alone. The design of the emissions market written into the Protocol is closely associated with the economist and mathematician Graciela Chichilnisky, who negotiated and drafted the wording of the carbon market provision adopted at Kyoto in 1997 and furnished its underlying mathematical model. Yet her contribution drew its force from something the theory by itself could not supply: proof that the instrument worked. The United States had already run a capped, tradeable pollution market at home, the sulphur dioxide trading system of the 1990 Clean Air Act, and that system had cut emissions faster and more cheaply than direct regulation was expected to. The market approach thus arrived at Kyoto not as a proposal but as a tested precedent, carrying the authority of demonstrated success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That this particular instrument became the international standard, however, reflected more than its empirical record. It also manifested the capacity of the United States to press a nationally proven design into a multilateral treaty. What Kyoto accomplished, in essence, was to take an instrument matured within one national order and, through the negotiating weight of its principal advocate, to materialise it within the diplomatic process structured by the Framework Convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mechanism itself is not an abstract economic scheme derived from some principles but a referential web of concrete provisions, articulated in the specific articles of the Kyoto Protocol; and because they are inscribed in a ratified treaty, they possess the force of international law. Three articles form its core. Article 17 establishes International Emissions Trading, allowing states bound by a target to buy and sell portions of their permitted emissions among themselves. Article 6 provides for Joint Implementation, under which one industrialised country earns credits by financing an emission reduction project on the territory of another. Article 12 creates the Clean Development Mechanism, through which an industrialised country earns credits by financing such a project in a developing country that carries no reduction target of its own, since only the industrialised Annex B states bear emission reduction obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These provisions do not stand in isolation but refer to and depend upon one another, and upon the definitions, accounting rules and compliance obligations set out elsewhere in the Protocol. What had begun as an economic proposal thus became, once the Protocol entered into force, a binding legal architecture enforceable upon the states that had ratified it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the better part of two decades this Kyoto architecture governed the practice of international carbon markets. Under its provisions markets were built and grew, trading infrastructures and registries came into being, and a whole grammar of emission accounting took shape: baselines were defined, reductions were certified, tradeable units, above all the Certified Emission Reductions of the Clean Development Mechanism, were issued and exchanged. It was also under this architecture that the characteristic problems of the field were first encountered in practice, from questionable project quality to the persistent difficulty of proving that a credited reduction had genuinely occurred. Kyoto, in short, did not merely propose a mechanism; it structured the procedures and processes through which an entire market learned to operate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This settlement held until 2015, when the Paris Agreement sought to place international climate action on a new and more homogeneous footing. Where Kyoto had rested on a division between industrialised states bearing binding targets and developing states bearing none, Paris required all parties alike to set their own nationally determined contributions, dissolving the very asymmetry around which the Kyoto mechanisms had been designed. The market question was not abandoned in this transition but concentrated: the Paris Agreement devotes a single article, Article 6, to the whole matter of cooperative and market-based approaches, and the intensity of the negotiations over its rules, which were not finalised until the COP in Glasgow in the year 2021, testifies to how central the question of markets had become to the international climate regime as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The relationship between the two treaties is therefore one of continuity and discontinuity at once. There is continuity in the underlying idea, that emission reductions can be certified, credited and traded across borders, and in the instruments themselves, since the new crediting mechanism established under Article 6.4 is the acknowledged successor to the Clean Development Mechanism and even absorbs its legacy projects. There is discontinuity in the architecture that surrounds them, for the bipartite world of Kyoto has given way to the universal, self differentiated structure of Paris. What passes across this divide intact, however, is the conceptual core on which the entire edifice rests, and with it the problem that has accompanied project-based crediting from the beginning: the requirement of additionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionality: The Condition the Market Rests On<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Like any market, a carbon market justifies itself only insofar as it creates value, and the value it is meant to create is of a particular kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In part it lies in efficiency: the structure channels the effort of reducing emissions towards those places where reduction is cheapest, so that a given environmental result is achieved at the lowest possible cost. But efficiency alone does not exhaust what the structure must accomplish. The project-based mechanisms permit a state to discharge its own emission reduction obligation by financing a reduction elsewhere, and the entire construction stands or falls on a single condition: that the reduction so financed is real, and genuinely brought about by the intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For if it is not, the structure turns against itself. Where a state is released from a portion of its own obligation in return for financing a reduction abroad, and that reduction would have taken place regardless, then a real permission to emit has been granted in exchange for an avoidance that never occurred. In that case the mechanism does not merely fail to help; it produces the opposite of its purpose, licensing emissions against savings that exist only on paper. A market built to reduce emissions would then become an instrument for legitimising them, a caricature of itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The danger is greatest under the Clean Development Mechanism. Here an industrialised state earns the right to emit more at home by financing a reduction in a developing country. Under the Kyoto rules, that developing country had no emissions target of its own, and therefore no limit against which its emissions were held. If the financed reduction was not real, the extra tonne emitted in the North stood against nothing on the other side. It is here that the integrity of the whole arrangement comes to depend not on any accounting rule but on a prior question of fact: would this reduction have happened anyway?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Paris Agreement changed the setting of this question without answering it. Because Paris requires every country regardless of the economic development status to outline national emissions reductions pathways, an emission reduction financed abroad must now be booked against the host’s own target rather than simply released into a system with no ceiling. But this only prevents the same reduction from being counted twice. It says nothing about whether the reduction was real in the first place. The underlying question is untouched, and the mechanism that succeeds the Clean Development Mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement inherits it in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That question, whether a reduction would have happened anyway, is not idle, because there exist several reasons why it might have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reduction may already have been profitable in its own right and undertaken for ordinary commercial reasons; it may have been required by existing law; or it may simply have belonged to the technological and economic change that was going to unfold in any case. Wherever one of these holds, the intervention adds nothing, and the structure remains left certifying an illusion. What prevents this, the requirement that the financed reduction be genuine and would not have occurred without the mechanism, is precisely what is signified by the term and criteria of additionality. Therefore, additionality must not be considered as an external constraint imposed upon the market but the condition under which it does not collapse into a parody of its own purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is worth stating the requirement precisely, and worth recognising that it was present from the very beginning. The architects of the mechanism understood that a market permitting one party to emit in exchange for another’s reduction would be worthless, indeed worse than worthless but counterproductive, if those reductions were not real. Additionality was therefore not added to the system as an afterthought or a later safeguard. It was written into its foundations as the condition designed to prevent precisely the construction fault described above: the danger that the market might certify reductions that would have occurred without it, and so licence emissions against nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its legal form the requirement is set out in the Kyoto Protocol itself, whose Article 12 stipulates that the emission reductions certified under the Clean Development Mechanism must be additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity. The formulation appears spare, but it carries the whole weight of the concept. A reduction can be regarded as additional if, and only if, it would not have taken place without the mechanism that credits it. Everything the market is meant to achieve depends on this single word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difficulty is that the definition, though simple to state, must be considered as extraordinarily hard to satisfy, measure, or verify because at its core it rests on a counterfactual. It does not ask whether a reduction has occurred, a matter that can in principle be proven, but whether it would have occurred anyway, a matter that cannot be observed at all. Every claim to additionality rests on a comparison between two worlds: the actual world, in which the project was carried out, and a hypothetical world, the baseline, in which it was not. The additional reduction is the difference between the two. But only one of these worlds can be ever real. The other must be imagined, estimated, argued for, and it is against this imagined world, never against an observed one, that additionality is judged. A requirement that appears indispensable in principle thus turns out to be unverifiable in fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This gap between what the market must guarantee and what can actually be shown is not a marginal technicality but the source of nearly every controversy that has surrounded carbon markets since. It is what a substantial empirical literature has since sought to probe. The most prominent contribution, the study “Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon?” by Calel, Colmer, Dechezlepr\u00eatre and Glachant of the London School of Economics, examined the actual record of Clean Development Mechanism projects and found reason to doubt that a large share of the credits they generated corresponded to genuine, additional reductions. The instrument built to guarantee real mitigation, in other words, could not reliably demonstrate that it had delivered any. This is where the question of additionality, conceived at the outset as the safeguard of the market’s integrity, has led, and where it still stands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assessing the Unobservable<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If additionality cannot be observed, it must somehow be assessed, and the practical history of carbon markets is in large part the history of the procedures devised to do so. The response has never been a single test but a battery of them, each manifesting an attempt to reconstruct the missing counterfactual as plausibly as the available evidence allows. Three approaches have come to dominate, and they have passed, essentially intact, from the Clean Development Mechanism into the standard adopted under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first and now most important is investment analysis. A project must demonstrate that it would not be financially viable without the revenue from selling the emission reduction units it generates, on the reasoning that if it were profitable in its own right it would have been built anyway, and its reductions could not be additional. The second is barrier analysis, which asks whether obstacles other than financial ones, no matter of technical, institutional or informational, would have prevented the project in the absence of the mechanism, and whether the prospect of that revenue is the decisive factor in overcoming them. The third, applied as a complement to the other two, is common practice analysis, which examines whether the technology in question has already become widespread in the relevant context; for if it has, its adoption can hardly be attributed to the incentive created by the carbon market mechanisms. Around these core tests the responsible oversight bodies, the CDM Executive Board under Kyoto and the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body under Paris, have layered further requirements, sensitivity analyses, the disclosure of financial assumptions, conservative benchmarks, all intended to narrow the room for a project developer to present a scheme as additional when it is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet these procedures mitigate the difficulty rather than resolve it, for they remain, unavoidably, attempts to prove a negative about a world that does not exist. Each rests on assumptions, about costs, about what the project developer would otherwise have done, about what counts as a barrier, that are themselves contestable and, in a market where units mean revenue, subject to a persistent pressure to be drawn favourably. This is why the debate has not subsided even under the more stringent Paris regime. As the legacy projects of the Clean Development Mechanism transfer into the new mechanism, it is precisely the additionality of the most numerous among them that remains most in doubt, and the integrity of the units they generate that continues to be questioned. The tools have grown more elaborate; the underlying gap between what can be shown and what must be guaranteed has not closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Enduring Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionality occupies an unusual position in the architecture of the carbon market. It is indispensable because project-based crediting cannot maintain environmental integrity if it systematically rewards emission reductions that would have occurred anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet it is inherently difficult because the question on which it rests is counterfactual. From Kyoto to Paris, the institutional framework has changed, accounting rules have become more sophisticated and the procedures used to test additionality have become more demanding. But none of these developments can eliminate the central difficulty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The market must reach a judgement about what would have happened in a world that never existed. That tension is not an accidental weakness of additionality assessment. It follows from the nature of additionality itself, and it remains one of the defining integrity challenges of the carbon market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What remains open is whether the difficulty can be better managed. Digital methods now emerging, continuous monitoring, richer data, remote sensing, computational inference, and the cross-referencing of large datasets, unavailable when the market’s foundational structures were conceived, may not resolve the counterfactual problem, but they offer tools for confronting it that earlier generations of additionality assessment simply did not possess. This would be no final solution since the construction of the market itself perhaps forecloses one but would manifest a genuine advance in how the problem gets operatively handled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Additionality is one of the conditions on which the integrity of the carbon market ultimately rests. A credited emission reduction has value only if it is additional<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7261,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[128],"tags":[130,134,133,131,132,138,137,139,135,136],"class_list":["post-7258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-carbon-market-essay","tag-additionality","tag-article-6","tag-carbon-credits","tag-carbon-market","tag-carbon-market-integrity","tag-carbon-offsets","tag-clean-development-mechanism-cdm","tag-climate-governance","tag-kyoto-protocol","tag-paris-agreement"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7258"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7258\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7276,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7258\/revisions\/7276"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foote-tech.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}