{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["performance analysis"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'performance analysis' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=performance+analysis","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"climstra-000014","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/climstra-000014","title":"The EU Emission Trading Scheme: National Allocation Patterns and Trading Flows","publisher":{"name":"Climate Strategies","organization":"climate-strategies"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2011-11-01","source_url":"https://climatestrategies.org/publication/the-eu-emission-trading-scheme-national-allocation-patterns-and-trading-flows/","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The paper evaluates the EUETS between 2005 and 2010, finding that while 2008 allocation caps were more stringent than the first trading period, a surplus of allowances later emerged due to the economic crisis. It notes that traded certificates represent a small portion of surrendered allowances, though this share grew in the second phase, and observes that some countries became net importers of EUAs despite having national surpluses.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000014#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Allocation caps in 2008 demonstrated greater overall stringency than those in the first trading period, which the authors attribute to the increased influence of the European Commission. However, subsequent years saw a surplus of allowances caused by emission declines resulting from the economic crisis.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000014#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Traded certificates constitute a small percentage of the total allowances surrendered across the EU, although this proportion increased during the second trading phase.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000014#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Certain countries acted as net importers of European Allowance Units (EUAs) even when they possessed national surpluses. This phenomenon is attributed to internal allocation pattern differences, transfers between associate companies, or incorrect emission growth expectations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000014#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["European Union Emission Trading Scheme 1","emission trading","greenhouse gas emissions"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["performance analysis","comparative analysis"]},{"id":"climstra-000287","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/climstra-000287","title":"Global Carbon Mechanisms Annex I: Analysis of CDM project performance","publisher":{"name":"Climate Strategies","organization":"climate-strategies"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gcm-technical-annex-i-cdm-project-performance.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document examines the 'CER yield' of CDM projects, finding significant underperformance and variation based on project type, size, and developer. It identifies mis-calculation and implementation delays as the primary drivers of failure, while noting that bilateral projects generally outperform unilateral ones.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"There is a significant gap between projected and actual emission reductions, with the Climate Strategies sample showing an average CER yield of 76%. New Carbon Finance found that 70% of projects issuing CERs were underperforming, and 42% had yields below 80%.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Project rejection rates increased over time, rising from less than 2% for projects submitted in 2004/2005 to over 10% for those submitted in 2007. Requests for review also rose from 8% in 2004/2005 to over 40% in 2007.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Energy efficiency projects, specifically cement blending, faced high rejection rates due to failure to pass the 'additionality' test. Of 22 cement blending projects submitted, 8 were rejected.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Bilateral projects generally achieve higher CER yields (approximately 77%) than unilateral projects (approximately 67%), with those involving European participants performing best at 121%.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Mis-calculation and delays in project implementation are the most influential factors in delivery failure, accounting for at least 75% of failures in hydro, wind, landfill, and industrial gas projects.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Landfill gas projects showed particularly poor performance, with 90% of issuing projects underperforming, often with yields below 50%, due to the poor application of emission saving models to local site conditions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Chinese wind projects performed relatively poorly compared to those in India, partly because the use of domestically-produced turbines led to more technical faults and delays in reaching full load capacity.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"climstra-000287#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["clean development mechanism","energy efficiency","hydropower","wind power","landfill gas"],"geography_discussed":["People's Republic of China","India","Brazil","Mexico","Argentina","Chile","South Korea","Egypt"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["performance analysis","empirical analysis"]}]}