The Future of the Clean Development Mechanism. Note on the report “A Call to Action” of the High-Level Panel on CDM Policy Dialogue. CEPS Special Report No. 71, 20 November 2012

The clean development mechanism (CDM) has been through a long and complex growing process since it was approved as part of the Kyoto Protocol. It was designed within the framework of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and reflected the political and economic realities of that time. To ensure its continued effectiveness in contributing to future global climate action and to reflect on how best to position the CDM to respond to future challenges, a high-level panel (HLP) was formed at the Durban climate change conference in 2011. Following extensive consultations, the panel published its report in September 2012. Through this Special Report, the CEPS Carbon Market Forum offers its reflections on findings and recommendations of the HLP, as well as, by extension, its own views on the future of the CDM. In the context of the latter, it explores the following questions: Is there a need for an instrument such as the CDM in the future? What ‘demand’ can it fill? In the roles identified under the first question, what can be done to adapt it and also continue to increase its efficacy?

Does the Common Agricultural Policy Reduce Farm Labour Migration? Panel data analysis across EU regions. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 28, July 2012

This paper deals with the determinants of labour out-migration from agriculture across 149 EU regions over the 1990–2008 period. The central aim is to shed light on the role played by payments from the common agricultural policy (CAP) on this important adjustment process. Using static and dynamic panel data estimators, we show that standard neoclassical drivers, like relative income and the relative labour share, represent significant determinants of the intersectoral migration of agricultural labour. Overall, CAP payments contributed significantly to job creation in agriculture, although the magnitude of the economic effect was rather moderate. We also find that pillar I subsidies exerted an effect approximately two times greater than that of pillar II payments.