Presentation on theme: "BASELINE STANDARD UNFCCC secretariat workshop"— Presentation transcript:
1BASELINE STANDARD UNFCCC secretariat workshop Presentation titleBASELINE STANDARDUNFCCC secretariat workshopBonn, Germany, 4 and 5. March 2011Massamba THIOYE, Manager of the Standard Setting UnitUNFCCC secretariat, programme
2Why a baseline standard Why now TABLE OF CONTENTSPresentation titleWhy a baseline standardWhy nowPlace in the architecture of the CDM standardsWhat is it made ofWhy the proposed approachWhat will it be used for1.
3WHY A BASELINE STANDARD The most appropriate approach, taking into account any guidance by the CDM EB is either:(a) Existing actual or historical emissions, or(b) The economically most attractive or(c) A benchmarkThe Executive Board shall develop:Definition of project categories that show common methodological characteristics for baseline setting;
4WHY A BASELINE STANDARD Presentation titleWHY A BASELINE STANDARDProvides guidance for the development of Meth and SBsEnsures consistencyEnhances objectivityEnhances predictabilityEnhances transparencyPuts the quality gate at an early stageSo far, there is no guidance for the development of methodology as well as SBs. This is needed for the top-down and for the bottom up development of Methodologies and SBsA baseline standard will ensure the consistency between the different CDM methodologies. Currently the same issue can be addressed differently in different methodologies. This contribute to the complexity of the CDM standard. Why in AM0034 a campaign is conducted to determine the baseline N2O EF in a Nitric Acid plant and in AM0001 the historical HFC23 EF and a benchmark are used for the baseline EF?Currently, there are no established requirements based on which methodologies are assessed. This provide room for enhanced objectivity. The MP try as much as possible to ensure the consistency of the decision making process. However, it happens that the rationale of decisions taken several years ago are no more in the memories. The baseline standard will be the receptacle where this important knowledge will be accumulated.With a baseline standard, the predictability of the process of considering methodology related standards will be enhanced. Methodology developers will have more possibilities to predict the outcome of the consideration of their submissionsA baseline standard available to Meth developers and based on which the rationale of rejections will be justified where applicable will increase the transparency of the processAvailable to meth developers, it will put the quality gate of the Meth consideration process at the early stage
5WHY NOWPresentation titleWe have enough experience from the bottom up development of MethTop-down development of Meth is just starting and needs standardsDevelopment of SBs requires frameworkA more predictable, more objective and more transparent CDM might positively influence the negotiation processIt was important to first accumulate enough experience of methodology development bottom up, relevant to the economical sector before trying to find what they have in common in term of baseline setting and develop a general standard. This is more cautious than developing a top down standard before hand.Some might argue why now at the end of the first commitment period. Well, I think that this is precisely now that Parties have to reconsider the renewal of their contract avec CDM that we have to “parer la marie”
7WHAT IS IT MADE OF Project (II) Technology Switch (EEI) Presentation title(II) Technology Switch (EEI)(V) More GHG intensityoutput displacement(I) One or multiple fuel switchNew outputsProject(IV) GHG formation avoidanceConsumer(I) One or multiple feed stock switch(III) GHG destruction
8WHAT IS IT MADE OF Definition of the five MABS Presentation titleDefinition of the five MABSGrouping of ER activities of a project into components ofsame characteristics for baseline Setting using one MABSCriteria for the identification of the applicable MABSAlgorithm for the identification of the baseline based oneach MABSThe algorithm for the identification of the baseline based on each MABS clarify the difference between baseline and baseline scenario and build the baseline on the baseline scenarioProcedure for baseline emissions calculation for thebaselines
9WHY THE PROPOSED APPROACH Presentation titleThe standard is the methodology that combines the use of different MABSA standard is developed for each combination of the MABSThe standard is A MABS: Higher level of standardization, more consistency, less complexity for the userMethodologies combine the standardized MABSThe proposed approach is quite similar with the approach taken for SSC Methodologies. This is probably due to the fact that the SSC Meths started with a top down approach for Meth developmentSSC Meths are of type I, Renewable energy that use MABS 5, type II that use MABS 2 and III that covers all other types of methodologies. Under the proposed approach, there is more disaggregation. Five types of MABS are proposed.SSC projects combine the Meths as it is here proposed to combine the MABS
10WHY THE PROPOSED APPROACH Presentation titleSBs are developed for the components not for the methodologiesHelps solve the issue of prioritization for the development of SBsScales up the development of SBsHelps to address an important issue in the setting of benchmark: the level of aggregationA SB could be developed through a simplification of existing methodology by making it specific to a given country. The first stage might be the development of qualitative baselines derived from existing approved methodologies. This does not need to have the data from the countries because the SB is a algorithm for the calculation of the baseline emissions. The second step might be the development of quantitative baseline such as a grid EF.A SB could also be developed not based on existing approved methodologies. In this case, the baseline standard with the approach based on MABS is useful as guidance for the development of the SBs and needed for their assessmentFor the development of SBs, one of the issues faced is from where to start? Which sector? Which countries? By developing standardized baseline for the 5 components through a simplification of the MABS, a lot of sectors might be covered in one go.For a given project that include several components using different MABS, the level of aggregation is generally challenging to determine. This is mainly because the level of aggregation change from one component to another. It might be needed for the purpose of establishing a benchmark for the EF of projects in a given sector to first establish a benchmark for the different components of the project. A typical example is the benchmark EF for cement production. If the project include fuel switch, feed stock switch, EEI and increase of blending, the level of aggregation of the different component of the project might be completely different. The level of aggregation for the benchmark for the EF of the electricity consumed will be the grid. The level of aggregation for the benchmark feedstock will be the region where the project feedstock is available (component 1). The level of aggregation for the benchmark fuel will be the region where the project fuel is available (component 1). The level of aggregation for the benchmark SEC will be the region where the project technology is available (component 2). The level of aggregation for the benchmark level of blending will be the market where the cement is sold (component 5). If the project use biomass that would otherwise be left to decay, the level of aggregation for the benchmark fate of the biomass will be the region where this biomass is available (component 4).
11WHY THE PROPOSED APPROACH Presentation titleWHY THE PROPOSED APPROACHEases the assessment of methodologies by the Meth PanelEases the assessment of SBs by the Board particularly when they are not based on approved methodologiesFacilitates the understanding of the methodologies by the DOEs and the registration teamUnder which criteria the CDM EB will approve a SB submitted by the DNA of one country and not the SB submitted by another country. The Board need to have clear criteria for the assessment of SBs submitted by countriesThe availability of this baseline standard provide the basis for simplification of the CDM standard in a specific contextThe lack of general rules for baseline setting make our methodologies be a jungle.
12WHY THE PROPOSED APPROACH Presentation titleWHY THE PROPOSED APPROACHGuidance on how to identify and treat suppressed demandClarifies baseline and baseline scenario and aligns the baseline to the baseline scenarioBenchmark is preferred but is not the only possible approachThe development of a general guidance on how to treat suppressed demand was a request from CMP.5. The Board was not able to respond to that request because of the lack of a baseline standard, that provides general requirement for cross cutting issues to all methodologies. So far, suppressed demand is addressed on a case by case manner in the methodologies.CMP.6 reformulated the request to the CDM EB
13POSSIBLE USE The assessment of methodology and SBs related submissions Presentation titlePOSSIBLE USEThe assessment of methodology and SBs related submissionsThe top-down development of methodologiesThe top-down development of standardized baselinesA framework for the bottom-up development of standardized baselines by relevant entitiesThe revision of the approved methodologiesAt least, as standard it might be used for the followingThe final decision of the Board will take on bord the outcome of the discussion during this workshop with regard to the possible use of the baseline standard
14Presentation titleTO CONCLUDEA baseline standard will contribute to the improvement of the CDMThe approach proposed eases the assessment of methodologies and makes them easy to understandIt helps address the issues of prioritization and level of aggregation in SBs developmentIt helps scale-up the development of SBsIt addresses the issue of suppressed demand