change. It follows that “project success” is a multifaceted term that can be measured
in terms of avoided greenhouse gas emissions, expanded economic opportunities
within the host country, improved local health outcomes or even in terms of social
ideals such as increased gender equity or enhanced participation in decision making
processes. The promise of “win-win” outcomes associated with environment and
development projects is readily critiqued (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012; Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016). To add further to the conceptual tangle, the success of the
project is contingent upon the household’s willingness to utilize the technology, a
behavioral feature that involves considerations such as cultural appropriateness
(Troncoso et al. 2007; Shankar et al. 2014), intra-household dynamics (Shankar
et al. 2014), and aftercare (Levine et al. 2013).
Globally, Wang et al. (2015) tracked 277 cookstoves, 134 biodigesters projects
and 11 water filter projects that were either preparing for registration, registered, or
issuing credits with both CDM and other voluntary standards as of June 2014
(Wang et al. 2015). Of this total, 112 projects had issued credits at least once and
222 projects were registered, with the remaining 88 projects in various stages of
preparation (idem).
Given that these carbon projects have multiple goals, it is likely that evaluations
for their “success” can differ greatly, depending on the goal of interest. The
likelihood of unintended negative consequences resulting from a development
intervention have been well documented in the general development literature
(Ferguson 1994; Scott 1998) and in specific assessments of carbon credit projects.
However, existing studies tend to focus on the theoretical merits and pitfalls of
market-based approaches either by providing a global assessment of the market
(Abadie et al. 2012; Kossoy and Guigon 2012; Climate Policy Initiative 2014;
Climate Funds Update 2016) or by utilizing illustrative case studies to bolster a
position on the carbon market’s merits in general (Haya 2007; Bumpus and Cole
2010) or that achieving climate and development co-benefits is context dependent
(Simon et al. 2012). Rather than condemn or condone carbon markets as a concept,
there is a need to uncover causal mechanisms that can explain variations in
development outcomes between carbon project types and designs.
12.2.1 Conceptualizing Local Economic Development
Impacts for Carbon Finance Projects
There are numerous attempts in the academic and gray literature as to how one
might approach evaluating the sustainable development impact of a household
intervention. Household interventions which are subsidized by carbon finance are
often called “charismatic carbon” “premium” or “pro-poor” projects (The Gold
Standard 2010; Cohen 2011; Verles and Santini 2012) given that they directly
address the development needs of the rural and urban poor and are therefore
assumed to have higher sustainable development impact than projects which
216
J. Hyman
in terms of avoided greenhouse gas emissions, expanded economic opportunities
within the host country, improved local health outcomes or even in terms of social
ideals such as increased gender equity or enhanced participation in decision making
processes. The promise of “win-win” outcomes associated with environment and
development projects is readily critiqued (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012; Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016). To add further to the conceptual tangle, the success of the
project is contingent upon the household’s willingness to utilize the technology, a
behavioral feature that involves considerations such as cultural appropriateness
(Troncoso et al. 2007; Shankar et al. 2014), intra-household dynamics (Shankar
et al. 2014), and aftercare (Levine et al. 2013).
Globally, Wang et al. (2015) tracked 277 cookstoves, 134 biodigesters projects
and 11 water filter projects that were either preparing for registration, registered, or
issuing credits with both CDM and other voluntary standards as of June 2014
(Wang et al. 2015). Of this total, 112 projects had issued credits at least once and
222 projects were registered, with the remaining 88 projects in various stages of
preparation (idem).
Given that these carbon projects have multiple goals, it is likely that evaluations
for their “success” can differ greatly, depending on the goal of interest. The
likelihood of unintended negative consequences resulting from a development
intervention have been well documented in the general development literature
(Ferguson 1994; Scott 1998) and in specific assessments of carbon credit projects.
However, existing studies tend to focus on the theoretical merits and pitfalls of
market-based approaches either by providing a global assessment of the market
(Abadie et al. 2012; Kossoy and Guigon 2012; Climate Policy Initiative 2014;
Climate Funds Update 2016) or by utilizing illustrative case studies to bolster a
position on the carbon market’s merits in general (Haya 2007; Bumpus and Cole
2010) or that achieving climate and development co-benefits is context dependent
(Simon et al. 2012). Rather than condemn or condone carbon markets as a concept,
there is a need to uncover causal mechanisms that can explain variations in
development outcomes between carbon project types and designs.
12.2.1 Conceptualizing Local Economic Development
Impacts for Carbon Finance Projects
There are numerous attempts in the academic and gray literature as to how one
might approach evaluating the sustainable development impact of a household
intervention. Household interventions which are subsidized by carbon finance are
often called “charismatic carbon” “premium” or “pro-poor” projects (The Gold
Standard 2010; Cohen 2011; Verles and Santini 2012) given that they directly
address the development needs of the rural and urban poor and are therefore
assumed to have higher sustainable development impact than projects which
216
J. Hyman