Role of Parties involved in JI-projects: Sweden Background: Sweden’s commitment is 104% according to the EU burden sharing agreement Sweden expects to be fully eligible for participation in the mechanisms in 2008 Swedish government participates in JI as buyer through the Baltic Sea Regional Co-operation Testing Ground Facility, the Prototype Carbon Fund, and SICLIP (purchase programme administered by the Energy Agency)

Sweden as Host Country EU ETS limits the scope for JI in the CO2 sector in EU member states (as hosts) EU ETS allows entities to use ERU for their compliance, number of emitting installations relatively low, in particularly in power sector What is a reasonable institutional preparation for JI in a party that does not expect to host projects and where the number of potential project participants is small? Keep it simple and put main focus on authorisation of project participants

Approval Process Project Participant 1 General approach in legislation: any entity should be able to trade and possess any type of Kyoto unit DFP requires: PDD and Pre-determination report DFP makes no qualified additional review of the project: Work of AIE (Accredited Independent Entity) Track 1 projects also eligible (independent entity or the like) Exception: large-Scale hydropower (dam), unless AIE has included WCD-guidelines in determination

Approval Process Project Participant 2 Entities need to confirm their identity, Swedish companies: easy check in national company registry, foreign applicants need to submit a document supporting they are who they say they are Currently no fees + contribution to administration costs Additional administration needed Trend in Sweden is not to ask for fees, e.g. when applying for local extensions of power grids

Approval Process Host Country Expect only – if at all - projects in non EU ETS sectors, non C02-projects If C02-projects, emissions will be reduced in Sweden? difficult to estimate number of projects, as a matter of principle, policy decision to open up for JI in Sweden Applies Track 2: difficult to argue for set up of national determination and verification rules when scale is unknown

Experiences from creation of DFP Timing of LoA Approving a project, or authorising a project participant: it would have been nice to do that after independent and international assessment has been made. Track 2 requires LoA before finalisation of determination. Compare CDM. Development of JISC-procedure and host country procedures All details of flow of information not known Memorandum of Understanding Some agreed at very early stage, may need update, needed for entity trade with AAU according to legislation