Transcript Improvement of Methodologies Tackling the Elephant Anja Kollmuss, head of consulting [email protected] Content • • • • • Framing the issue Time Frame Examples from the field Standardization: where do we go.

Improvement of Methodologies
Tackling the Elephant
Anja Kollmuss, head of consulting
[email protected]
Content
•
•
•
•
•
Framing the issue
Time Frame
Examples from the field
Standardization: where do we go from here?
Communication: how do we get there?
A word about myself and a disclaimer:
Anecdotal evidence, simplifications, images for illustrative purposes
I’m not talking about additionality. I’m not saying anything new.
2
Context: Where are we at?
Consumed between 2000-2009:
nearly one-third of the 2°C budget
(330 out of 1000 gigatons CO2)
Global emissions currently about
50 gigatons CO2e per year
Expected CERs 1.4 gigatons
Remember: CDM currently zero sum
Source: Sivan Kartha, SEI
http://sei-us.org/publications/id/309
Post- 2012…
• Scaling-up mitigation
• Building and preserving capacity for post 2012 mechanisms
• Going beyond offsetting: beyond zero-sum
New
Better
Bigger
Ensure environmental integrity
Ensure equity between rich and poor
Improve efficiency: e.g. reduce transaction costs
Ensure attractiveness for investors
Improve regional and sectoral distribution
….
Can we get there?
•
•
•
•
Complex
Difficult
Unprecedented scale
Never done before
5
Different Actors
UNFCCC
Project developers
DOEs
DNAs
Local stakeholders
Environmental NGOs
Policy makers & politicians
Citizens
…
6
How do we get there?
7
From a Project Developer Perspective
•
•
•
•
Time Frame
Examples from the field
Standardization: where do we go from here?
Communication: how do we get there?
8
Time Frame
Given the uncertainties, what should be the priorities?
Short term:
• improving and developing specific methodologies,
• developing support tools,
• improving processes,
• improving collaboration.
No changes that would require a significant restructuring and change for many methodologies
Given the EU focus on LDCs: How can LDC participation be improved?
Tailoring approaches to LCDs: simplification, standardization, capacity building, guidance on issues
relevant to LCDs:
• Specific guidance on suppressed demand
• Non-renewable biomass
• Focus on methodologies suitable for LCDs: transportation, charcoal, water purification, etc.
.Long term:
• Longer-term view on improving mechanisms through standardization, benchmarks and other tools
and policies.
9
Monitoring: When rural meets high-tech
10
Monitoring: When rural meets high-tech
Type
Meth.
Projects
Registered
Projects w/
issued
CERs
% of Projects
w/ CERs
issued
Methane recovery in animal
manure managements systems
AMS-III.D.
201
10
5%
Methane recovery in wastewater
treatment
AMS-III.H.
74
7
10%
-Thermal energy production with
or without electricity
AMS.I.D/I.C
494
234
47%
- Grid connected renewable
electricity generation
Why the discrepancy?
Monitoring requirements often hamper successful project implementation.
 example
11
Monitoring: Example of AMS.III.H monitoring set-up
Project boundary
FT
501A
Power
meter
Genset - 1
H2S Gas
Cleaner
Genset - 2
Power
meter
FT
501B
Gas Storage
FT
501
Boiler
FT
103
TT
Flare
AIT
101
FT
105
FT
100
Starch
Factory
Equalization
pond
UASB
Biogas Plant
Secondary
treatment
wastewater
biogas
electricity
COD sampling point
12
Monitoring: Example of AMS.III.H monitoring
Two monitoring procedures required:
•
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD):
simple procedure: technically simple
• Measurements of methane at each
destruction source: technically
challenging
More conservative has to be chosen
Experience from South Pole projects:
15 verifications (mainly VERs):
In ALL of them COD approach turned out
to be more conservative.
Relevance:
Many projects in LDCs will be small
scale and rural
 these projects need monitoring
requirements that are tailored to such
projects.
13
Monitoring: Technical Solutions
Reduction of monitoring parameters:
Allow for 2 monitoring options:
• Existing (complex) monitoring or
• Simple standardized but conservative approach
Conservative default factors as alternative to exact monitoring:
Utilization of conservative default factors for non-material parameters (e.g. electricity
consumption of auxiliary equipment) or as alternative to complex measurements.
 on average conservative default factors and monitoring
procedures will lead to fewer CERs
 preserving environmental integrity
 much reduced monitoring costs and much less delay at issuance
 ensured that projects are viable
14
Baseline Determination
Some methods are too perscriptive and do not leave enough flexibility to
account for specific project circumstances.
Some methodologies have started out very simple and have become more
and more complicated.
15
Baseline Determination
AMS.III.D7/AMS.III.H: Initially very simple approaches (mostly based on IPCC methods), which
became more and more complex over time.
 Possible solution: Make comparison between early meth versions and newer ones
based on real monitoring data and check whether the early simplified versions could be
used in conservative manner.
AMS.I.C: Requirement for historic data to determine baseline emission factor is often a difficult
requirement for small-scale projects (especially in LDC context).
 Possible solution: Baseline emission determination based on project output and backcalculation of emissions using default equipment efficiency and emission factors would be
better suited for such projects.
AM.III.H: The determination of baseline COD removal efficiency is complex , requiring historical
records for existing plants and campaign data for greenfield projects.
 Possible solution: Options can be given to the PP to use default values depending on
effluent type (starch, ethanol, POME) with some discount factor.
Experience shows that lagoon efficiencies are very homogeneous for similar effluent types
and/or industries. This can be verified based on PDD values in CDM pipeline.
...
16
Good examples
New additionality guidelines for very small projects (<5MW/ <20GWh/year), EB 54 (Annex 15)
Very encouraging development, especially in the context of LDCs.
Expansion to PoAs and type III projects should be considered.
AMS.III.H
Removal of conditions related to anaerobic lagoons loading rate, and simplification for accounting of
biogas generation and consumption.
Tool to determine the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation systems
Very flexible tool allowing for many options to calculate the baseline efficiency, including default
factors.
Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment
Several options for lifetime determination available including default factors.
Tool could be further simplified for SSC projects., especially in LDCs.
17
Learning by doing vs. Stress in the Market
18
Suggestions to the UNFCCC Secretariat
Technical improvement prioritisation
Systematic analysis of monitoring data to determine which parameters could
be standartized or simplified w/o compromising environmental integirty.
e.g. compare between early, simpler meth versions and newer ones based on real
monitoring data and check whether the early simplified versions could be used in
conservative manner.
 fact-based, scientifically sound way to assess potential for simplification
and standardization.
19
Transportation: Congestion Impact Study Results
Project
Meth
Rebound
tCO2/a
Speed
tCO2/a
Congestion
impact
tCO2/a
ER per
annum
% Impact of
congestion
Bogota
AM0031
9,000
-15,000
-6,000
247,000
-2.4%
Cali
AM0031
11,000
-23,000
-12,000
258,000
-4.65%
Pereira
AM0031
2,000
-1,000
1,000
35,000
2.86%
Barranquilla
AM0031
1,000
-2,000
-1,000
55,000
-1.82%
Medellin
AM0031
0
-4,000
-3,000
194,000
-1.55%
Guatemala
AM0031
-3,000
-95,000
-97,000
534,000
-18.16%
Guadalajara
AM0031
1,000
0
1,000
51,000
1.96%
Quito
AM0031
1,000
-19,000
-19,000
155,000
-12.26%
Chongqing
AM0031
-2,000
0
-2,000
218,000
-0.92%
Zhengzhou
AM0031
-8,000
0
-8,000
205,000
-3.90%
Joburg
AM0031
-1,000
0
-1,000
35,000
-2.86%
Seoul
ACM0016
0
0
0
>200,000
0.00%
Nitric Acid: Baseline and Project Emissions
Everybody agrees, improved communication:
but how?
Workshops and informal discussions are great but not enough b/c
follow-up is not ensured.
• Improving communication structures
• Clarify roles and responsibilites
 ensure accountability
22
Communication Structures:
Maximizing the constructive input from different stakeholders:
Project participants are asking for, e.g.:
• Stronger interaction at association/interest groups level (DOE Forum, PD Forum, IETA, CMIA,
UNFCCC Secretariat)
• More direct communication: Possibility for bilateral communication via conference calls or emails
prior to issuance of formal requests for information might decrease the work load significantly for
all parties involved.
NGO and Local Stakeholder are asking for, e.g.:
• Set up an email notification system for the beginning of commenting period
• Require translation of the PDD into the language of the host country
• Accept submission of comments in the language(s) of the host country
• How can the Secretariat ensure that non-market stakeholders (NGOs, civil society) are
heard?
• How can the collaboration between PP, DOAs, and the Secretariat be strengthened?
• What should be the role and responsibility of DNAs (e.g. in standardization efforts)?
• How can checks and balances be improved?
Two examples:
23
Communication Structures
UNFCCC
What should the follow-up be?
How will prioritization be communicated?
How can transparency be enhanced?
24
US Experience: Protocol Development
1. Internal research and scoping
2. Kick-off/scoping meeting
3. Multi-stakeholder workgroup formation
4. The Reserve drafts a protocol
5. Draft protocol considered by workgroup
–
Provides technical expertise and practitioner experience
–
Period meetings and individual consultation when needed
6. Revised draft released for public comment
7. Public workshop
8. Final version adoption by Reserve board in public
session
Recommendation
Build on the wealth of experience accumulated by all stakeholders over the last years:
Technical recommendation:
Using the large amount of collected data to do very
targeted analysis and improvement.
Structural/procedural recommendation:
Improve communications structures to build
trust and capacity.
26