Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects

An analysis of 52 Indian CDM projects registered by May 2006 reveals a systemic preference for barrier analysis over investment analysis, with significant gaps in transparency and evidence. The study finds that while 94% of projects use barrier tests, only 33% conduct investment analyses, and only 50% identify alternatives. Detailed case studies of JSW Steel and Bajaj Auto illustrate that the CDM Executive Board's additionality assessments are inconsistent, often depending on how information is 'packaged' by developers. The author concludes that validators frequently fail to critically evaluate barrier claims, potentially allowing non-additional projects to increase net global emissions.

• A quantitative analysis of 52 registered Indian CDM projects shows that barrier analysis is almost universal at 94%, while investment analysis is used by only 33% of projects.
• Half of the analyzed Indian CDM projects fail to identify alternatives as part of their additionality testing, with renewable electricity for the grid being the most over-represented project type in this category.
• A detailed evaluation of 19 projects indicates that developers struggle to substantiate claims, with only 32% providing references to independent sources.
• The study identifies four primary clusters of barriers cited by projects: technology (13 projects), institutions (7 projects), feedstock variability (7 projects), and investment (6 projects), alongside a lack of experience (6 projects).
• The JSW Steel case study demonstrates how corporate accounting can be used to obfuscate a project's economic attractiveness to the CDM Executive Board, allowing a non-additional energy efficiency project to be registered.
• The Bajaj Auto case study shows that the CDM Executive Board rejected projects when the developer's own annual reports explicitly praised the project's high internal rate of return and standalone profitability.
• The author concludes that validators are often unable or unwilling to thoroughly check additionality arguments, particularly regarding barrier tests, which may lead to more non-additional projects from India being registered.

APA

Michaelowa, A., & Purohit, P. (2007). Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/additionality-cdm-india-cs-version9-07.pdf

Chicago

Michaelowa, Axel, and Pallav Purohit. Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects. Climate Strategies, 2007. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/additionality-cdm-india-cs-version9-07.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Michaelowa |first1=Axel |last2=Purohit |first2=Pallav |title=Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=February 2007 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/additionality-cdm-india-cs-version9-07.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{michaelowa2007additionality, author = {Michaelowa, Axel and Purohit, Pallav}, title = {{Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2007}, month = feb, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/additionality-cdm-india-cs-version9-07.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }