20060930-IEA-Linking_GHG_Emission_Trading_Systems_and_Markets_34页_656kb

报告摘要

Carbon Markets Expansion: The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol stimulated the growth of carbon markets via various emission trading schemes (ETS) and project-based mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI).
Diversity of Systems: Numerous ETS operate or are planned, varying in size, design, coverage, and stringency. The EU ETS is the largest system.
Current and Future Links: Few direct links exist between different ETS, though unilateral (one-way) and potential bilateral (two-way) links are planned or underway.
Need for Harmonization: Linking emissions trading systems may require technical harmonization and careful consideration of policy factors such as carbon pricing, allocation methodologies, and compliance provisions.
Distributional Impacts: Linking can create distributional impacts if entities in different systems face different compliance burdens.
Recommendations: Encourage harmonization to avoid setting precedents that may hinder future links, while addressing technical and policy barriers to ensure effective and environmentally credible linking.

Background: The report examines how emissions trading schemes can be linked to improve market liquidity and efficiency.
Types of Linking: Direct links (two-way) between ETS and indirect links via offsets or large-scale transfers can enhance market interactions.
Key Objectives: Evaluate the feasibility and implications of linking different GHG trading systems to foster a more integrated and efficient global carbon market.

Diversity: Current and planned ETS vary widely in size, design, and scope.
Notable Systems:
- EU ETS: Largest system, capping emissions from industrial installations.
- Norway, NSW, UK ETS: Focuses on direct emissions or includes electricity users.
- Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX): Mandatory for electricity generators.

Direct AAU Trades: Government-to-government transfers of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) are limited.
Transfer via Projects: Links can occur via project-based offsets linked to JI or Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects.

Limited Interactions: Few links exist, but planned expansions and transfers are underway.
Examples: Proposed links between EU ETS and Norwegian ETS, pre-2008 AAU transfers, and unilateral links between systems like CCX and other ETS.

Indirect Links: Possibilities through registries, transfer via CDM/JI, and direct links between Annex I Parties or non-Parties.
Challenges: Ensuring compatibility in design features (targets, units, periods) is crucial.

Co-ordination Mechanisms: Needed to review changes in individual ETS to maintain valid links and adjust regulations as required.

Key Features: Target types (fixed vs. indexed), banking/borrowing provisions, commitment periods, units, and coverage are critical for technical compatibility.
Banking Effects: Linking can affect the effective timing of compliance, requiring detailed accounting.

Carbon Price: Significant differences exist across systems, impacting attractiveness for linking.
Allocation & Offsets: Modes of allocation (auction vs. free) and eligibility criteria for offsets influence policy desirability.
Penalties and Compliance: Variations in non-compliance provisions and borrowing rules affect perceived environmental effectiveness.

Allocation Impact: Different allocation methodologies can create winners and losers within and between countries, affecting political and economic acceptability.

Feasibility: Linking different GHG mitigation systems enhances market efficiency and should be encouraged through harmonization.
Recommendations: Focus on technical and policy compatibility to enable credible and effective links, while addressing distributional impacts to maintain fairness within systems.

展开完整摘要