ABSTRACT
At first sight, joint implementation (JI) appears to offer a simple institutional mechanism for increasing the flexibility with which parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change might meet their commitments under the convention. JI is haunted by a multiplicity of underlying objectives and operational forms. It should be clear that the existence of counterfactuality in baseline construction introduces an element of uncertainty into the analysis of JI projects which is largely irreducible, in particular when considered ex ante. Any effective methodology for assessing the technological, environmental, economic and social impacts of technology must begin by defining an appropriate system boundary. The time-frame of the JI project may be the technical lifetime of the technology, or it may be adjusted by consideration of what might have happened in the baseline. For example, if the host country has GHG emissions targets, it has an incentive to introduce low-emission technology.
