Before discussing which place the CDM can take in the discussions about sustainable development and poverty alleviation, I consider it necessary to shortly provide some extra views on the relationship between these two concepts. It is not my intention to give a full account of the scientific debates concerning theses issues, but still they deserve a certain degree of clarification.

The notion of sustainable development was first used in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development in the famous 'Brundtland report'. It is defined as "a development pattern that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (www.un.org).

This rather vague definition has been followed by many attempts to develop specific and operational indicators of sustainable development. The result is that there are three dimensions of sustainable development recognised: economic, environmental, and social (Huq 2002, p.2). Poverty reduction is at the centre of the social dimension of sustainable development. If the needs of future generations have to be met, actions should be taken regarding the millions of individuals who are not able to meet their needs and who belong to the present generation.

The eradication of poverty is the first objective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). No sustainable development takes place if present generations have to live without limited or no access to basic resources like food and energy, and basic services like healthcare and education. As Chambers (1993) states: "It is by starting with the priorities of the poorer, and enabling them to gain the livelihoods they want and need, that both they and sustainable development can be best served".

As a research Associate in the Participation Group of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, Robert Chambers has acquired a large experience in poverty and development issues in a rural context from a participatory perspective. Dietz (1996, p.23) criticises his tendency to idealise local communities by not paying enough attention to the internal conflicts and power relations that might prevent development interventions from being successful. If the ideas of Chambers are combined with the concept of intracommunity dynamics of Leach et. Al (1999, p.225), a more differentiated and valid connection between poverty reduction and sustainable development can be established. This concept pays attention to the inner workings of local communities and the diverse (formal and informal) institutions that regulate the management and access to their immediate environment. Identifying the intracommunity dynamics can improve the efficiency of development interventions. The statement by Chambers could be reformulated like this: Prioritising the poorer sections of the population, enabling them to gain the livelihoods they need and taking intracommunity dynamics into account, is how both the poor and sustainable development are best served.

The question is how a development intervention, such as the CDM, can include the already mentioned considerations and aim at poverty reduction goals. Focusing on what kind of specific interventions CDM project activities are, can give us a clue in the right direction. CDM projects embody the motto that was created during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992: "think global, act local", meaning that by implementing projects at a low scale level, the quality of the global environment will be improved. Since the first goal of the CDM is mitigating GHGs emissions, project activities are involved with the activities that produce these emissions. The idea is that by the implementation of a CDM project, GHGs emissions are lower than the baseline scenario. This is how the emission situation would be if the CDM project had not taken place. In the table below I divide project types into three different categories based on a project-type list provided by CDMwatch.

The main activity generating emission of GHGs is the generation and the use of energy, especially from fossil fuels like oil or coal. It is no wonder that the majority of the projects are related to theses issues, as clarified by the table. The table also gives insights into the diversity of energy projects. Some practical examples of energy projects are the introduction of electric vehicles in a city's public transport system, the addition of electricity into a grid through the use of solar or wind energy, or the upgrading (quantity and quality) of the energy use of a local community. Gas projects are a separate category because they are not necessarily related to energy issues. Examples of such projects are: incineration of waste by using technologies that prevent emissions from occurring, or the flaring of GHGs coming from sanitary landfills. Nevertheless, some of the gas projects can generate energy, i.e. turning a flared gas into electricity. The scale of the project can determine whether the amount of generated electricity is enough to add it into a grid, or it is just enough for on-site use. Sink projects involve sequestrating CO2 in forest areas by means of afforestation or reforestation. Some of these projects may even have energy implications if the afforested/reforested area provides energy to a population in the form of wood.

According to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), energy is central to achieving sustainable development goals because more than two billion people have no access to modern energy. Two of the calls for action coming from the CSD are: (a) recognize that energy services have positive impacts on poverty eradication and the improvement of standards of living, and (b) Improve access to reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy services ( www.un.org ). O'Keefe (2004, p.8-9) offers a more specific view on the importance of energy for sustainable development. He uses the idea of an energy ladder in which moving up is connected with improved energy technology.

Reducing poverty is not only climbing the ladder, but also ensuring access to the resources and quality of the resources, no matter in which step we find ourselves. Problems at all the levels of the ladder should be addressed if poverty is to be reduced. At the top of the ladder, the provision of light through electricity "to the one third of the world population for whom activities have to stop when it gets dark is probably the most important intervention in delivering the MDGs". At the bottom of the ladder ' increasing efficiency in the end-use technologies associated with wood and charcoal, and (?) increasing afforestation activities" might contribute to the use of sustainable energy (O'Keefe 2004, p.9). Nevertheless, the discussion on afforestation projects is a very different one. As Gundimeda (2004, p.330) puts it, afforestation projects involve land use change and can have direct implications for the livelihoods of the poor, not necessarily related to energy provision, which goes beyond the scope of this paper.

As we have seen before, the majority of the CDM projects are directly or indirectly involved with the generation of the provision of energy and with poverty issues. As suggested by the CSD, they can improve access to environmentally sustainable energy services, and more specifically they can address issues at all the levels of O'Keefe's energy ladder: energy and gas projects can generate electricity and sink afforestation projects can provide wood and charcoal.