Research on the regulatory mechanisms of China's pilot carbonmarkets and comparison with international experiences
YI Lan,LU Yao,LI Zhao-peng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2016.12.011
2016-01-01
China Population Resources and Environment
Abstract:Since China declared its plan to establish a national Carbon Trading System by 2017 in the US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change published in September 2015, the progress of setting up the national carbon trading system and how the 7 pilot schemes operate aroused strong interests of not only the media but also the academics.According to forecast, China's carbon trading system will surpass the current largest carbon market-EU ETS and become the number 1 carbon market worldwide.However, due to rather short history, different degrees of significance and different focuses of development been given to the 7 regional pilot carbon markets, China's carbon market presents a series of problems at the moment, including unclear responsibilities of regulatory bodies, unsound regulatory system, and regulatory policy not in place.Therefore, this study attempts to analyze the regulatory systems of 7 regional pilot markets from the prospects of regulatory bodies, regulatory policies, technical support systems and regulatory contents, after comparison with the relatively more advanced international counterparts such as EU ETS and RGGI, the study found that: ①in terms of regulatory measures, EU ETS and RGGI rely on legal control while Chinese ETS is still regulated by local governmental policy documents;②as for the function of regulatory bodies, EU ETS' two-level management system effectively differentiates each level's scope and range of responsibilities, RGGI also ensures its fairness and in-process control via its independent third party regulatory model, while Chinese regional ETS is solely regulated by the Development and Reform Commission whose responsibilities are not defined clearly;③with respect to the regulatory focus, EU ETS pays great attention to the operational and transactional risks control, RGGI cares more on real-time monitoring of transactional risks, while China so far focuses on market price fluctuation risk prevention.Based on which, the study proposes a few recommendations as how to design the regulatory mechanism for the national carbon market: ① improve the effectiveness of regulatory policy system through legislation;② set up full-time regulatory agencies to balance powers from various departments;③ enhance security of electronic platforms to reinforce the supervision of whole trading process;④ form the external monitoring mechanism via in-depth information disclosure and encouragement of public participation.