JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: LOOKING BACK AND FORWARD

The report examines the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, detailing its two operational tracks and comparing it to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It highlights significant delays in implementation, particularly in Russia and Ukraine, and the restrictive impact of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) on projects in Central and Eastern Europe. The document also analyzes the role of Green Investment Schemes (GIS) as an alternative to JI and concludes that the mechanism's late start and short crediting period (ending in 2012) threaten its overall viability unless post-2012 certainty is established.

• Joint Implementation (JI) operates via two tracks: Track 1, where the host country decides project qualification and issues emission reduction units (ERUs) independently, and Track 2, which requires evaluation by the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC).
• The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) significantly hindered JI activities in Central and Eastern European member states due to 'double counting' rules and the requirement to comply with EU environmental standards (acquis communitaire), which made many projects non-additional.
• JI experienced a late start compared to the CDM, with the JISC only becoming operational in early 2006, and a short crediting period ending December 31, 2012, which has limited investor interest to large-scale, high-revenue projects.
• Russia holds approximately 65% of the Track 2 project portfolio, dominated by gas pipeline refurbishment, but as of October 2008, it had not officially approved a single project due to administrative delays and a lack of priority.
• Ukraine is viewed by developers as a realistic JI option because it is a non-EU country, meaning it is not subject to the same double-counting restrictions and EU environmental standards as new EU member states.
• Green Investment Schemes (GIS) emerged as a viable alternative to JI, particularly in Central Europe, by allowing the sale of surplus assigned amount units (AAUs) to fund environmental projects without the cumbersome project-by-project approval of JI.
• Belarus and Kazakhstan have been unable to host JI projects during the first commitment period because they are not members of Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol and the required 75% ratification of amendments to add them is seen as an insurmountable task.

APA

Korppoo, A., & Gassan-zade, O. (2008). JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: LOOKING BACK AND FORWARD. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ji-synthesis-report-final-201008.pdf

Chicago

Korppoo, Anna, and Olga Gassan-zade. JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: LOOKING BACK AND FORWARD. Climate Strategies, 2008. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ji-synthesis-report-final-201008.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Korppoo |first1=Anna |last2=Gassan-zade |first2=Olga |title=JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: LOOKING BACK AND FORWARD |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=20 October 2008 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ji-synthesis-report-final-201008.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{korppoo2008joint, author = {Korppoo, Anna and Gassan-zade, Olga}, title = {{JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: LOOKING BACK AND FORWARD}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2008}, month = oct, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ji-synthesis-report-final-201008.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }