배출권 거래제에서 상쇄분 제도에 관한 법적 연구

This article is to research the theoretical basis of offset credit system in emission trading scheme and to analysis the legal system, policy strategy of offset credit in cap-and-trade scheme. In order to this purpose, this article is comprised of three chapters that include the definition of offset system, offset credit and the relation between cap-and-trade and offset credit system. Additionally, this article includes key offset quality criteria, offset policy design principles and recommendations. Also this article has review comparatively legal and policy strategy of related offset credit system in cap-and-trade emission trading system. A key assumption regarding the inclusion and usage of offsets in cap-and-trade system is that they represent credible emission reductions. The following are the key criteria that author believes all offsets must to ensure their integrity. Offsets should be real, additional, quantified & monitored, independently verified. Offsets also should be based on a realistic baseline, address leakage, and do not no net harm to environment. Operationalizing offset additonality and baseline, there are three approaches to determine addionality and establishing baselines. Those are comprised of project-specific assessments, standardized assessments, and hybrid assessments. Project-specific assessments are individual or case-by-case examinations of the unique circumstances of a proposed offset project. Standardized project assessments credit reductions on the uniformly applicable criteria. A standardized approach typically defines additionality as a set of objective eligibility criteria based on an assessment of regulatory, financial, institutional, and technical conditions for a particular project type. Hybrid assessments determine the additionality and baseline on the combining two methodologies. Moreover, this article recommends the key high-level design principles for the optimal incorporation of offsets into emission trading scheme at national level. Offset credit system in emission trading should ensure high environmental integrity, that offsets are not double counted, be accurate, establish reasonable offset crediting period, exclude forward crediting but allow forward selling, be quantitative restrictions on offset supply and use. There are a number of approaches for addressing reversal risk in GHG capture and sequestration offset project. One approach of managing reversal risk is a liability regime that impose the repayment requirement on the buyer or seller of offset credit. This approach would mean that credits from sequestration project would have a default risk similar to a bond. However, this liability regime has a number of flaws. An alternative to approaches that assign liability to the buyer or seller is a regime that socializes the risk across all projects. This type of socialized risk regime is a buffer reserve. Under this approach, all offset projects involving sequestration would contribute a risk-weighted amount of credits to a common reserve. This article emphatically recommends a buffer reserve type approach for controlling reversal risk related to sequestration offset credits but buffer reserve eligible only for non intentional reversal events. This article sequently reviews the GHG emission right’s allocation and trading act and related executive rule in Korea by applying the drawing results of previous discussions. After reviewing current emission trading act in Korea, this article emphatically recommends several improvements to the act and executive rule. Those include the principles for high-level offset credit in emission trading and the buffer reserve system for managing reversal risk, the restriction policy on usage of offset credit.