In this storyline, household energy technologies are presented as development interventions that create considerable benefits at the household level where they are adopted, but more significantly to the local economy through creating and developing local production chains and employment. The beneficiaries are the various people involved in the local production chains and distribution networks. The benefits are realized as employment opportunities are created. A sustainable benefit occurs when local markets are able to function independently of outside assistance and finance.
The storyline emphasizes the role of public finance and institutional support required for market creation in developing countries. The role of public finance is in the initiation and scale-up of carbon projects, after which the role of private finance, also from the voluntary carbon market, steps in. The storyline should not be conflated with market-based approaches in environmental governance that emphasize substituting government regulation with markets, since the role of public finance and institutional support is significant. Finance from the carbon markets is viewed as temporary, and the long-term aim is the creation of a sustainable local market independent of donor or carbon finance for the given household technology. As a project developer commented:
“[We] define sustainable development as a market-based approach. So everything we do, every project we develop is based on creating markets and creating commercial transactions by the time we leave.” (March 2013).
In the storyline, the emphasis is on supporting local production for all aspects of the supply chain and creating local economic benefits, especially through employment. The expertise behind market creation and support is mainly assigned to foreign experts adept in the complexities of the carbon market. However, there is an element of capacity development in training local staff on both production and carbon market practices.
26 Another element in the sustainable markets storyline was an attempt to differentiate from voluntary carbon market projects that were not committed to longer term market creation in developing countries. The practice of giving out technologies for free to end-users in developing countries was severely criticized in the storyline. The damaging effect such practices have on creating long-term change was captured by a project developer:
“If you distribute stoves, you destroy a full market sector. And of course distributing stoves for free, [worth] $80-100, there is no way the local producers can compete. And so after three years when the first stoves are broken, people revert back to the traditional methods.” (Project developer, March 2013)
A third distinctive factor in the sustainable markets storyline was an aversion to the overt focus some actors had on the health benefits of household energy technologies, especially improved cookstoves, discussed in the first storyline. Focusing too much on the health benefits of household energy technologies was seen as on the one hand diverting attention away from the economic benefits of local production and on the other hand justifying bad practices, such as giving away technologies for free. As a project developer commented:
“It’s only one of the problems of the GACC [Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves], they are focusing only on the health of IAP [indoor air pollution]. But what is the health impact of a family that loses its income?”
27
Table 2 Example statements of the storylines in the analysed material
Storyline Examples of statements
Health Benefits - Smoke from traditional cookstoves and open fires has been a silent killer in developing countries for far too long
- Exposure to these toxic fumes is greatest among women and young children, who spend the most time near open fires or traditional cookstoves
- I guarantee you, we have this meeting in ten years, we’re going to add six or seven, or eight or nine more diseases to this [global burden of disease] and I know what diseases they are, they’re the same diseases that are caused by smoking
Rights to carbon - The end user needs to receive the credits of the carbon reduction - We are hoping that carbon finance will be seen as a tool for
sustainability and not for something that again is dominated by Northern countries, making profit out of it
- There should be clear rules for equal benefit sharing
- We need to question ourselves, just because you manufacture a product does that mean you own the carbon credit?
Sustainable markets - The aim is always to develop a market.
- It’s important to strengthen the market. It’s easier to give stoves for free, but we see benefits in going the longer way.
- First make sure that you are not harmful to the existing markets, then you can talk about positive impact
- [our organization] has a capacity development role. We are not the ones building biodigesters, we are supporting the sector, the enterprises.
6. Discussion
The sustainable markets and health benefits storylines are the most dominant ones in the analyzed material. They are supported by project developers, representatives of project implementing NGOs, donors and social businesses as well as philanthropic organizations. The carbon credit storyline is more marginal, and supported mainly by some project developers and representatives of NGOs. The three storylines focus on different aspects of household energy technologies and the co-benefits surrounding them. The first storyline focuses on the technology itself, its uptake and use, the second on the ownership structures of the carbon market behind the technology, and the third on the
28 production and distribution networks of the technology. The extent to which the technology itself is part of the conceptualization of co-benefits varies. In the health benefits storyline, it is specifically the technology and its use that operationalizes the concept of co-benefits through reducing household air pollution. In the sustainable markets storyline, it is the production and distribution of the technology that creates co-benefits, not the technology itself.
The sustainable markets and health benefits storyline appear to be in tension over how co-benefits are conceptualized, which differs from previous research on forest-based offsets (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006; Melo et al 2014) where marketization and technocratization support one another. Promoters of the sustainable markets storyline focus on production chains and market creation, whereas promoters of the health benefits storyline focus on the technology itself and its attributes, such as efficiency. Framing household air pollution as a humanitarian crisis in developing countries was seen by promoters of the sustainable markets storyline to justify interventions where the effects of distributing imported technologies on the local markets were not regulated.
In the carbon credit storyline, the conceptualization of co-benefits is not based on the technology or its production chains and distribution networks, but the practices of benefit sharing in the carbon markets. The ownership structure of carbon credit revenues is seen to create the most significant co- benefits. The storyline challenges the efficiency-based arguments of the sustainable markets storyline, where the transfer of carbon credit revenue to widely dispersed users of household technologies is seen as inefficient and costly.
Lovell and Liverman (2010) have argued that technologies create connections between the offset project and the potential carbon credit buyer in the voluntary carbon markets. Technologies are something that buyers can imagine and they may create an image of stability and credibility in the voluntary carbon markets (Lovell and Liverman 2010). The conceptualization of co-benefits in the health benefits storyline may be more easily captured into the voluntary carbon markets, since it is centered on the technology itself. This was raised as a concern by promoters of the sustainable markets storyline, who worried that focusing too strongly on the attributes, particularly those affecting health, of household energy technologies could endanger local production networks.
While the storylines on sustainable markets and health are in tension over the production of technologies versus the import of technologies, they both reflect the significant role expert knowledge has gained in carbon markets. A high level of standardization is understood as an entry requirement for technologies into the carbon market (Simon 2014). Consistent monitoring and reporting are necessary for household energy technologies to enter the carbon market, but complicated by their dispersed use (Bumpus 2011). The stringent monitoring requirements are reflected in the analyzed
29 material as well. The sustainable markets and health benefits storylines highlight the importance of expert knowledge. The health benefits storyline relied on expert knowledge to define appropriate levels of indoor air pollution, while the sustainable markets storyline required expert knowledge for defining good practices for local production processes as well as in ensuring access to carbon markets. The storyline on carbon credits questions the purpose of expert knowledge as excluding some actors from participation in the carbon markets.
The storyline on carbon credits presents a counternarrative to the other two storylines as it challenges some of the assumptions present in them. However, limiting the research scope to actors within the voluntary carbon markets also limits the scope of the counternarrative. The storyline on carbon credits, where ownership is understood only through the ownership of carbon credit revenues, offers quite a narrow view on climate justice (cf. Mathur et al. 2014). The conceptualization of co-benefits becomes hinged on the monetary benefits derived from carbon credits. While there are some notions regarding participation in the carbon markets, carbon credit ownership structures arise as the most important issue. In contrast, previous analyses on carbon offset discourses in forest-based carbon projects have brought out more radical counternarratives that challenge issues related to global inequalities and responsibility for climate change mitigation (cf. Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006). Household energy technologies as a project group may account for the relatively modest counternarrative. Household energy technologies are generally viewed as less intrusive projects than forestry projects since they are often based on the purchase of a product and can claim the purchase of the technology as willingness to participate in the project. The extent to which the intricacies of the carbon market are understood at the purchase of the technology and signing of the carbon credit waiver can vary, however. Calling for a change in the carbon credit ownership structure can be understood as a climate justice argument, where the users of the technology would have a stronger voice in comparison to, for example, the businesses involved (cf. Mathur et al 2014). At the same time delivering carbon credit revenues directly to the users of the household energy technology contains risks, such as raising expectations of future income from offset revenues in a volatile carbon market (Käkönen et al. 2013). How such concerns can be addressed remains an issue that has received little attention in the case of household energy technologies.
7. Conclusions
Carbon markets have arisen as one of the responses to climate change. Offset projects in the global South are justified through the co-benefits they produce in addition to emissions reductions. This article set out to examine how co-benefits are conceptualized in one specific project type, household energy technology offset projects. In the article, I have presented three different conceptualizations of win-win assumptions in household energy technology projects. The differences in the
30 conceptualizations point to the need for a more empirically-driven and contingent appreciation of win- win assumptions in carbon offsets. It is important to open up and disentangle the various meanings and interpretations behind win-win assumptions as the foundation upon which carbon offset projects are structured as both climate mitigation and development projects.
How co-benefits are conceptualized is an increasingly important question in the voluntary carbon markets where market actors stress the importance of measuring the ‘non-carbon’ benefits of voluntary offset projects (Ecosystems Marketplace 2013). Which conceptualizations of co-benefits succeed in creating meaning can shape the future design of a monitoring and verification system of co-benefits in voluntary carbon markets. Meanings do not simply emerge, but rather come into politics through particular routines, norms and rules that require careful examination. The conceptualizations of co-benefits carry with them material impacts. Different standards and monitoring approaches produce varying stories of co-benefits, which in turn lead to some projects gaining higher price premiums as they are viewed as more sustainable, whereas other projects can lose market shares due to negative images of their co-benefits.
The current dominance of the sustainable markets and health benefits storyline reflect co-benefits being conceptualized in terms of market creation and employment benefits on the one hand, and health impacts on the other. While there remains a tension with regards to supporting local production chains versus importing technologies, in other aspects these two storylines support the general tendency in climate governance towards emphasizing expert knowledge and market-focused solutions (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006). The negotiation of the tensions between longer term market- creation and the standardization of technologies and monitoring is an issue that is currently under debate in the discussions on clean cooking (Simon et al. 2014). There is, as of yet, no fixed regulation. It is relevant to consider to what extent the debates are reflected in the voluntary carbon markets, where an increasing amount of household energy technology projects receive their financing from. In the voluntary carbon markets, the presence of several different standards and varying monitoring and verification practices ensures that the discussion on what are considered locally relevant and valued co-benefits is open to contestation and interpretation. At the same time, the focus on stories and the technologies themselves risks presenting a simplified picture of household energy technologies and their co-benefits. Questions related to the less material aspects of the technology and its use that are more difficult to communicate, such as the production methods and carbon credit ownership structures, may be sidelined. There is a need for further research into the realization of co-benefits at the local level and how the win-win assumptions behind offset projects translate into practice.
31
Bibliography
Alexeew, J., Bergset, L., Meyer, K., Petersen, J., Schneider, L., Unger, C. (2010). ’An analysis of the relationship between the additionality of CDM projects and their contribution to sustainable development’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10, 233–248.
Bailey, I., Gouldson, A., Newell, P. (2011) ‘Ecological modernisation and the governance of carbon: a critical analysis’, Antipode 43 (3), 682-703
Benford, R. and Snow, D. (2000) ‘Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment’, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611-639.
Boyd, E., Hultman, N., Roberts, J.T., Corbera, E., Cole, J., Bozmoski, A., Ebeling, J., Tippman, R., Mann, P., Brown, K. and Liverman, D.M. (2009) ‘Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures’, Environmental Science & Policy 12, 820–831
Boyd, E. (2009) ‘Governing the Clean Development Mechanism: global rhetoric versus local realities in carbon sequestration projects’, Environment and Planning A 41, 2380-2395
Bumpus, A. (2011) ‘The Matter of Carbon: Understanding the Materiality of tCO2e in Carbon
Offsets’, Antipode 43 (3), 612-638
Bumpus A. and Liverman D. (2008) ‘Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets’, Economic Geography 84, 127–55
Buysman, E., and Mol, A. (2013) ‘Market-based biogas sector development in least developed countries – the case of Cambodia’, Energy Policy (63), 44-51
Bäckstrand, K. and E. Lövbrand (2006) ‘Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism’, Global
Environmental Politics 6, 50–75.
Böhm, S. and Dabhi, S. (2008) (eds) Upsetting the Offset: the Political Economy of Carbon Markets. London: MayFly Books
Corbera, E., Estrada, E., and Brown, K. (2009) ‘How do regulated and voluntary carbon offset schemes compare?’, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6 (1), 25-50
32 Corbera, E and Schroeder, H. (2011) ‘Governing and Implementing REDD+’, Environmental Science
and Policy 14 (2), 89-99
Crowe, T.L. (2013) ‘The potential of the CDM to deliver pro-poor benefits’, Climate Policy 13(1), 1- 22
Drupp. M.A. (2011) ‘Does the Gold Standard label hold its promise in delivering higher Sustainable Development benefits? A multi-criteria comparison of CDM projects’, Energy Policy 39, 1213-1227
Ecosystems Marketplace (2013) V-Carbon News, Reader Retrospective 2012, available at
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=9540§ion=new s_articles&eod=1 [accessed 18.03.2015]
Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (2003) Science, Society and Power: Environmental Knowledge and Policy
in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forsyth, T. (2007) ‘Promoting the ‘development dividend’ of climate technology transfer: can cross- sector partnerships help?’, World Development 35, 1684–98
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (2011) Igniting change: a strategy for universal adoption of
clean cookstoves and fuels. United Nations Foundations, Washington DC
Gottweiss, H. (2003) ‘Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: Towards an analytics of government’, in M. A. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, eds, Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding
Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–265
Gupta, A., Lövbrand, E., Turhnout, E., and Vijge, M.J. (2012), ‘In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems’, Current Opinion in
Enivronmental Sustainability, 4 (6), 726-731.
Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy
Process. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (2005) ‘A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7, 175-184
33 Hirsch, P. D., Adams, W.M., Brosius, J.P., Zia, A., Bariola, N., Dammert, J.L., (2010) ‘Acknowledging Conservation Trade-offs and Embracing Complexity’, Conservation Biology 25 (2), 259-264
Jasanoff, S (2010) ‘A new climate for society’, Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 27, (2–3), 233–253
Jetter, J., Zhao, Y. et al. (2012) ‘Pollutant emissions and energy efficiency under controlled conditions for household biomass cookstoves and implications for metrics useful in setting international test standards’, Environmental Science and Technology 46 (19), 10827-34
Jones, M. D. and M. K. McBeth (2010), ‘A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?’
Policy Studies Journal Vol. 38, 329-353.
Käkönen, M., Lebel, L., Karhunmaa, K., Dany, V., Try, T. (2014), ‘Rendering Climate Change Governable in the Least Developed Countries: Policy Narratives and Expert Technologies in Cambodia’, Forum for Development Studies, 41(3), 351-376
Käkönen, M, Karhunmaa, K., Bruun, O. Kaisti, H., Tuominen, V., Thoun, T. and Luukkanen, J. (2013), Climate Mitigation in the Least Carbon Emitting Countries: Dilemmas of Co-benefits in
Cambodia and Laos, FFRC eBOOk 3/2013, Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre
Lambe, F., Jürisoo, M., Lee, C., Johnson, O. (2015) ‘Can carbon finance transform household energy markets? A review of cookstove projects and programs in Kenya’, Energy Research & Social Science (5), 55-66
Lansing, D. (2011) ‘Realizing carbon’s value: discourse and calculation in the production of carbon forestry offsets in Costa Rica’, Antipode 43 (3), 731-753
Larson, A. (2012) ‘Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+’, Global
Environmental Change 21 (2), 540-549
Lohmann, L. (2008) ‘Carbon trading, climate justice and the production of ignorance: ten examples’,
Development 51 (3), 359-365
Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., and Liverman, D. (2009) ‘Carbon offsetting: sustaining consumption?’
34 Lovell, H. and Liverman, D. (2010) ‘Understanding Carbon Offset Technologies’, New Political
Economy 15 (2), 255-273
Lövbrand, E. (2009) ‘Revisiting the politics of expertise in light of the Kyoto negotiations on land use change and forestry’, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 11, No. 5–6, 404–412
Mathur, V.N., Afianos, S., Paavola, J., Dougill, A.J., Stringer, L.C. (2014) ‘Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice’, Climate Policy 14 (1), 42-62
Melo, I. Turnhout, E., and Arts, B. (2014) ‘Integrating multiple benefits in market-based climate mitigation schemes: The case of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity certification scheme’,
Environmental Science and Policy 35, 49-56
Müller, R. Zerzawy, F., Wirth, A. (2010) Feasibility of CDM funding for household and community level projects: with examples from Caucasus and Central Asia. Available at
http://www.atmosfair.de/en/web/10184/173 [accessed 18.03.2015]
Newell and Paterson (2010) Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of
the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Nussbaumer, P. (2009) ‘On the contribution of labeled Certified Emissions Reductions to sustainable development: A multi-criteria evaluation of CDM projects’, Energy Policy 37, 91-101
Olsen, Karen and Fenhann, Jorgen (2008) ‘Sustainable development benefits of clean development mechanism projects: A new methodology for sustainability assessment based on text analysis of the project design documents submitted for validation’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 2819–2830.
Peskett, L., Seth, P. and Brodnig, G. (2012) Carbon livelihoods: Social Opportunities & Risks of Carbon Finance, Washington D.C., the World Bank, available at