The ownership of carbon credits under certain types of compensation schemes (especially those where people use the spread of technology which reduces GHG emissions) is a question of debate; which can however be solved.
The project holder initiates the project and conducts all the different phases, taking the associated risks and can legitimately claim ownership of the credits.
However, the people using the developed technology (improved cooking ovens, buildings, agro fuel...) could also claim property right over the carbon credits as it is they who directly generate the CO2 savings.
The issue demonstrates that the material benefits of development are real and direct.
The core of this issue lies in the transfer of the benefits of carbon finance to the user.
Transfer of Benefits
Certain projects directly finance the cost of the technology via carbon finance. In this case, the users get the benefits directly though the reduction in the cost of their equipment.
However, the story of the efficient cooker programs showed that direct subsidies create market imbalances and prevent the setting up of sustainable supply networks. Other projects, however, indirectly transfer the benefits to the users.
For example, in the case of the NLS project in Cambodia, the carbon finance is used to finance the related costs that can't be transferred to the consumer. These include the costs of marketing, research, development, the training of producers, quality control and therefore a guarantee of standards. If the costs of these activities were passed on to the final user, the improved ovens would become too expensive and would not be competitive compared to traditional cookers.
In this case, the users benefit indirectly from carbon finance reducing their energy consumption and saving money on their fuel budget.
The NLS users benefit directly from carbon finance via fuel savings.
