Transcript Document

Joint Implementation
- An overview and recent development -
Motoharu Yamazaki
UNFCCC Secretariat
http://ji.unfccc.int
[email protected]
Moscow Carbon Market Forum 2008
Moscow, Russian Federation, 28-29 April 2008
Joint Implementation
Basic principles
 Market mechanism
 Lowest marginal cost of abatement
 Additionality to any emission reductions that would occur in the
absence of the project
 Bottom-up approach, re-use and broad application principles for
standards
 International supervisory and standard setting bodies
 Two tracks: Track 1 & Track 2
 Track 2 process overseen by the body known as the Joint
Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC)
Joint Implementation
JI Track 1/Track 2 (1)
Participation requirements
(ERU issuance, transfer and acquisition)
Eligibility requirements
• Designated focal point
• National guidelines and procedures
• Party to the Kyoto Protocol
Track 2 procedure
• Assigned amount calculated
• National registry in place for
tracking assigned amount
Verification procedure under
JISC
• National system in place for
estimating emissions/removals
• Submission of most recent
required emissions inventory
• Accurate accounting of
assigned amount and
submission of information
Track 1 procedure
Verification procedure according
to host Party rules
Joint Implementation
JI Track 1/Track 2 (2)
Track 2
Verification procedure under JISC
• Mandatory publication procedures regarding all project steps (JI information system)
• Full transparency
Track 1
Verification procedure according to host Party rules
“Bali decision”
Request to secretariat to develop Web-based interface to be used by DFPs of host
Parties (having provided information on national guidelines/procedures) to:
• Provide transparent access to project information
• Provide information to the international transaction log (ITL) on Track 1 project
establishment
• Receive unique project identifiers to be used with the ITL
Overview of all JI projects
Joint Implementation
JI Supervisory Committee
Members/alternates:
Members
Alternate members
Annex I (EIT)
Mr. Oleg Pluzhnikov
Ms. Agnieszka Gałan
Ms. Daniela Stoycheva
Mr. Georgiy Geletukha
Mr. Vlad Trusca
Mr. Matej Gasperic
Annex I (Non-EIT)
Mr. Olle Björk
Mr. Franzjosef Schafhausen
Mr. Maurits Blanson Henkemans
Mr. Hiroki Kudo
Mr. Georg Børsting
Mr. Benoît Leguet
Non-Annex I
Mr. Carlos Fuller
Mr. Javier Andrés Hubenthal
Ms. Fatou Gaye
Mr. Vincent Kasulu Seya Makonga
Mr. Muhammed Quamrul Chowdhury
Mr. Maosheng Duan
Non-Annex I (AOSIS)
Mr. Derrick Oderson
Ms. Ngedikes Olai Uludong-Polloi
Basic role: Operationalization and supervision of JI Track 2 procedure
Joint Implementation
Legal basis:
Mandates of the JISC
“Marrakesh Accords” (Decision 9/CMP.1 )
“Montreal decision” (Decision 10/CMP.1 )
“Nairobi decisions” (Decisions 2/CMP.2 & 3/CMP.2 )
“Bali decision” (Decision _/CMP.3)
Mandates:
CDM experience
Similarities
Differences
• Rules of procedure
• Accreditation of independent entities
• No approval of
methodologies
• Criteria for baseline setting and monitoring
• No project registration
• Provisions for small-scale projects
• JI project design document (PDD) form(s)
• Reviews
• Provisions for fees
• Management plan
• Reporting to the CMP

• No ERU issuance by the
JISC
• No limitation of LULUCF
projects to afforestation
and reforestation
• No restriction on CPR
regarding ERUs issued
under JI Track 2
Joint Implementation
Status of work of the JISC
2006: operationalization of JI Track 2 procedure
Mandates
Administrative issues
• Rules of procedure
• Management plan 2006-2007
PDD forms
• PDD form
• Guidelines for users (PDD form)
• LULUCF PDD form
• Guidelines for users (LULUCF PDD form)
Verification procedure
• Procedures on public availability of documents
• Procedures for appraisals of determinations
• Procedures for reviews
Accreditation
• Standards/procedures
• Panel
Baseline setting and monitoring
• Guidance on criteria
Small-scale projects
• Provisions for SSC projects
• SSC PDD form
• Guidelines for users (SSC PDD form)
Fees
• Provisions
JISC report to CMP 2
• Main report
• Addendum
Adoption/agreement
(revision) by JISC
Adoption by CMP
 JISC 01
 JISC 04 (05)
 CMP 2
-
 JISC 03
 JISC 03 (06)
 JISC 04
 JISC 04 (06)
 CMP 2
 CMP 2
-
 JISC 04
 JISC 04
 JISC 03
-
 JISC 04 (06)
 JISC 03
-
 JISC 04
-
 JISC 04 (06)
 JISC 04 (05)
 JISC 05 (06)
 CMP 2
-
 JISC 04
 CMP 2 (endorsement)
 prior to JISC 04
 after JISC 05
-
Launch of
JI Track 2 procedure
on
26 October 2006
Since 2007: operation/supervision of JI Track 2 procedure
Joint Implementation
JI Track 2 project cycle
Project development
Project implementation
Preparation and publication of
PDD by
project participants/AIE
Preparation and publication of
monitoring report by
project participants/AIE
30 days:
stakeholders’ comments
Fees (advance payment)
Project approval by host Party
Participation requirements
Fees
Project approval by non-host Party
(at the latest)
Preparation and publication of
Determination by
AIE
Preparation and publication of
Verification by
AIE
45 days:
decision on review request by
Parties involved/
individual JISC members,
supp. by 2 JISC members’/alternates’
appraisal (incl. expert inputs)
15 days:
decision on review request by
Parties involved/
individual JISC members,
supp. by 2 JISC members’/alternates’
appraisal
Possible
review by
JISC
Possible
review by
JISC
Carbon
Market
Eligibility
requirements
Issuance of ERUs
by host Party
(conversion of
AAUs/RMUs)
Transfer of ERUs by
host Party and
acquisition of ERUs
Joint Implementation
Baseline setting / monitoring
Appendix B to JI guidelines (adopted by CMP)
Guidance on baseline setting and monitoring (adopted by JISC)
 Baseline: on project-specific basis and/or using multi-project emission factor
 Project participants allowed, but not obliged, to use approved CDM baseline and
monitoring methodologies
 Additionality: various approaches possible
Provisions for small-scale projects (adopted by JISC)
 JI SSC definitions: like for CDM SSC project activities (non-A/R) – revised by CMP 2
 Main difference to CDM approach: No limits on bundling
Joint Implementation
Stakeholders’ comments (status)
133 PDDs published for stakeholders’ comments
(4 open for comments)
Host Parties:
• Bulgaria (10 PDDs)
• Estonia (4)
• Germany (2)
• Hungary (2)
• Latvia (1)
• Lithuania (7)
• Poland (7)
• Romania (2)
• Russian Federation (75)
• Slovakia (1)
• Ukraine (21)
• Czech Rep. (1)
Technologies:
• Renewable energy (biomass, wind, hydro)
• Methane avoidance (gas distribution, landfills, coal mine)
• Destruction of nitrous oxide from chemical processes (nitric acid production)
• Energy efficiency (manufacturing industries, district heating)
• Fuel switch (manufacturing industries, transportation, power generation)
• Reduction of HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions (chemical and metal industries)
Emission reductions 2008-2012:
~ 251,000,000 t CO2equ
Joint Implementation
Participation requirements (status)
Designated
Focal Point
National
guidelines
and
procedures
Japan



Liechtenstein




Lithuania


Bulgaria


Luxembourg

Canada

Netherlands


Croatia

New Zealand


Czech Republic


Poland

Denmark


Portugal

Estonia

Romania


European Community

Russian Federation


Finland

Slovenia

France

Spain


Germany


Sweden


Hungary


Switzerland


Ireland


Ukraine


Italy


UK


Designated
Focal Point
National
guidelines
and
procedures
Austria


Belarus*

Belgium

* The CMP, by its decision 10/CMP.2, adopted an amendment to Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, adding Belarus to it.
Joint Implementation
Accredited independent entities (1)
“Montreal decision”
 Designated operational entities (DOEs) under the CDM may act
provisionally as accredited independent entities (AIEs) under JI
 Determinations/actions valid only after accreditation
Accreditation status
 15 applications (13 DOEs) to date, of which:
• 14 desk reviews conducted
• 13 on-site assessments conducted
• 3 indicative letters issued
• No witnessing assessment started yet
Joint Implementation
Accredited independent entities (2)
• Application as of 28 April 2008
Ref No.
Entity name
Sectoral scopes applied
0001
Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV)
1-15 (all scopes)
0002
Japan Quality Assurance Organization (JQA)
1-15 (all scopes)
0003
Deloitte Tohmatsu Evaluation and Certification Organization Co., Ltd (TECO)
1-10, 12-13, 15
0004
Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (LRQA)
0005
JACO CDM., Ltd.
0006
Japan Consulting Institute (JCI)
0007
Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS
1-15 (all scopes)
0008
TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH
1-15 (all scopes)
0009
Spanish Association for Standardisation and Certification (AENOR)
1-15 (all scopes)
0010
SGS United Kingdom Limited
1-15 (all scopes)
0011
TÜV NORD CERT GmbH
1-15 (all scopes)
0012
TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.
1-15 (all scopes)
0013
SQS, Swiss Association for Quality and Management Systems
1-15 (all scopes)
0014
KPMG Sustainability B.V. (KPMG)
0015
Germanischer Lloyd Certification GmbH
1-13
1-15 (all scopes)
1-5, 8-11, 13
1-4, 13
1-3, 7, 10, 13
Joint Implementation
Determinations (status)
Determinations regarding PDDs
First determination deemed final on 26 March 2007
(“Switch from wet-to-dry process at Podilsky Cement”):
Host Party: Ukraine
Emission reductions 2008-2012:
~ 3,000,000 t CO2 equ
Joint Implementation
UNFCCC JI website
http://ji.unfccc.int/
Reporting and review
Overview 2006-2008
Reporting
Review + Reports
(by Parties)
(by ERTs)
• Initial report: deadline 1 Jan 07
– 37 reports received by 1 Mar 08
– Most of them received in Dec 06
– Late submissions:
Iceland (11 Jan 07), the Russian Federation
(20 Feb 07), Canada (15 Mar 07), Romania
(18 May 07), Bulgaria (25 Jul 07)
– Monaco 7 May 07 (ratification 27 Feb 06, entry
into force 28 May 06)
– New KP Parties:
Croatia (rat. 30 May 07, e.i.f. 28 Aug 07),
Australia (rat. 3 Dec 07, e.i.f. 2 Mar 08)
• Annual report: deadline 15 Apr 08
• Periodic reporting (NC4): deadline 1 Jan 06
– Pending submissions by Luxemburg
• Initial review:
– 37 review reports in 2007-2008
(decision 26/CMP.1 and 22/CMP.1)
– 32 reports published, 4 under
preparation, 1 review pending Belarus
– 2 new initial reviews: Australia, Croatia
– 37 + 4 Review Reports of the 2006
Inventory submission under the
Convention (decisions 7/CP.11)
• 38 Annual Review Reports to be
prepared by 15 Apr 08 (Croatia not
included)
• Periodic review (NC4) and RDP review:
– 37 In-depth Review Reports in 2007–
2009
– 16 IDRs published, 10 reviews planned
for May 2008
Reporting and review
Establishing eligibility
Eligibility to be established (decision 11/CMP.1)
 No later than 16 months have elapsed since the submission of the initial
report unless the Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Committee
finds that the Party does not meet eligibility requirements
 Early eligibility: not applied
 Status: 25 Parties are eligible as of 28 April 2008, another 4 parties will
become eligible as of 29 April 2008:
– Ukraine: 29 April 2008 (expected)
– Russian Federation: 20 June 2008 (expected)
 Eligibility status released from the CAD to the ITL and eligible Parties
could perform transactions, e.g. on emission trading
Reporting and review
Maintaining eligibility
Decisions 11/CMP.1 and 15/CMP.1
 Party continues to meet the eligibility requirements unless the
Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Committee decides that the Party
does not meet eligibility requirements
 Party may start annual reporting from the year following the submission of
the initial report, on a voluntary basis
 2008 inventory submission for Kyoto Parties is already the KP annual
submission for Parties to maintain eligibility
COP13/CMP3
Bali Roadmap
 A two year negotiating process for a broad and robust
response to climate change (deadline 2009).
 Components:
•
A new negotiation process under Convention
•
Reducing emissions from deforestation
•
Technology transfer
•
Kyoto track: time table for the AWG, adaptation fund
and the review of the Protocol
COP13/CMP3
Bali Action Plan
 Enhance the implementation of the Convention (along with
Kyoto negotiations)
 An Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative
Action (AWG-LCA) to address:
•
Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or
actions by developed countries and mitigation actions
by developing countries;
•
Actions to adapt to climate change and promote
climate-resilient development;
•
Finance and technology cooperation to support
action.
Bangkok Climate Change Talks
AWG-LCA 1
 Agreed on work programme 2008
 Organization of workshops to deepen understanding and
clarify elements in Bali Action Plan
•
Adaptation;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Financial flow;
Technology transfer;
Deforestation / forest degradation;
Sectoral approaches, sector specific actions;
Risk management and risk reduction strategies
R&D of innovative technology
Shared vision of long-term cooperative action
Bangkok Climate Change Talks
AWG 5
 Emission trading, project-based mechanisms and LULUCF
should continue to be available after 2012
 Consider:
•
Improvements to emission trading and project-based
mechanisms;
•
•
•
Treatment of LULUCF in 2nd commitment period;
Approaches targeting sectoral emissions;
Broadening of coverage of GHGs, sectors and source
category;
Approaches on emissions from aviation and marine
bunker fuels;
Implications for carbon market
•
•