Www.perspectives.cc · [email protected] © 2011 Perspectives GmbH Towards practical application of CDM Standardized Baselines – Perspectives experience.

www.perspectives.cc · [email protected] © 2011 Perspectives GmbH

Towards practical application of CDM

Standardized Baselines –

Perspectives experience and comments on latest regulatory decision-making

Matthias Krey, Perspectives GmbH

29.09.2011

Latin American Carbon Forum, San José, Costa Rica, 27-29 September 2011

Panel: CDM Standardized Baselines: latest policy developments and

opportunities for application in LAC

www.perspectives.cc · [email protected]

Analytical groundwork conducted

2

Commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)

Project typeDevelopment of standardised methodology/case studies

Charcoal Cambodia Zambia Mali

Water purification Laos Zambia Benin

Rural electrification Cambodia Tanzania Benin

Step 1: Selection criteria

Step 2: Selection

Step 3: Evaluation

Sector selection

Identification of selection criteria for sectors

Selection of sectors

Evaluation of sectors shortlisted in step 2

Country selection

Identification of selection criteria for countries

Selection of countries

(1)Criteria for evaluation of sector/country combinations

(2)Evaluation of sector/country combinations

1 INCEPTION

2 DEVELOPMENT

www.perspectives.cc · [email protected]

Various elements of standardisation are possible: - Deemed additionality, penetration rates, global benchmarks, default factors, minimum

levels of service, statistical databases, omission of negligible sources of emissions, assumptions on usage patterns, aggregated default leakage, etc.

Benefits…- Conservative default assumptions replace data collection, can unlock specific project

types for which the determination of a baseline is cumbersome- Increased simplicity and decrease of transaction costs => greater mobilisation

including small-scale

Risks…- Environmental integrity - Achieving standardisation can be costly (data gathering)

Development and operationalisation of standardised approaches requires resources and coordination

- Selection of most appropriate project types and methodological concepts- Awareness-raising and capacity-building of project developers, NGOs and DNAs

Lessons learned

3

www.perspectives.cc · [email protected]

Guidelines (GL) SBL (EB 62): - Sector coverage: Transport is not covered- GL provides on a very high-level definitions and procedures- EB understanding of SBL seems to be limited to default factors/benchmarks- The GL does not provide methodologies, and content of GL is only a fraction of

required methodological work- Practical questions are not addressed

- How will the Board (or the submitting DNA?) determine and justify benchmark level and based on which criteria (transparency, conservativeness, etc)?

- What about methodology elements not addressed in the GL (e.g. applicability project emissions, leakage, etc)

- How do (or will) SBL relate to existing methodologies (will they simply replace BL/additionality elements of existing methodologies)

- If not, who is responsible for developing the “missing” elements for a full practically implementable methodology?

Procedures (EB 63, consideration)- Only applicable for DNA submissions and based on GL, approved meth or tool- New form for submission of SBLs- What are the criteria for assessment of adequacy of the SBL?

Comments on latest regulatory decision-making

4

www.perspectives.cc · [email protected] © 2011 Perspectives GmbH

Many Thanks for Your Attention!

Matthias Krey, Perspectives GmbH

[email protected]