Leal Filho, W. (2011), "Editorial", International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 3 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm.2011.41403daa.001
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Volume 3, Issue 4
Welcome to the final issue of volume 3 of International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. The journal has now successfully completed its third year, which also saw its registration at Thomson ISI, which will provide it with an even larger indexing than it had before.
In this editorial, I would like to refer to a new report produced by the UK-based International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) titled “Carbon finance and pro-poor co-benefits: the gold standard and climate, community and biodiversity standards” (available at: http://pubs.iied.org/15521IIED.htmlv). It assesses the practical contribution of the Gold Standard (GS) and Climate Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards to local development through the identification of high quality carbon offset projects and ensuring high standards of consultation with local communities during project development and implementation.
It is primarily based on desk research, involving analysis of the GS and CCB Standards’ project databases, project design documents, and secondary literature. In addition, over 20 representatives of the two standards systems, project developers, NGO representatives, and researchers were interviewed. The paper concludes that both standard systems successfully reward high quality projects which have a demonstrated commitment to local consultations and sustainable development benefits. Moreover, they serve to give well-meaning project developers frameworks with which to ensure that a wide range of criteria are considered in planning and implementing projects.
Critically speaking, it is unrealistic to expect either the GS or CCB Standards to improve poor quality or unsustainable projects, since these are voluntary standards. Given that carbon markets are primarily tools for greenhouse gas mitigation rather than for development or extending energy access, it is clear that a change in the way of thinking is needed, so that this approach, which is sound in principle, may make sense in practice.
Enjoy your reading!
Walter Leal Filho