1 / 26

Verifying Sinks and Bio-energy Projects

Verifying Sinks and Bio-energy Projects. Irma Lubrecht Société Générale de Surveillance. Presentation overview. Validation, Verification & Certification Sinks project SGS Eligibility Criteria Shortfalls Bio-energy project Introduction of the project Shortfalls.

baxter-kemp
Download Presentation

Verifying Sinks and Bio-energy Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Verifying Sinks and Bio-energy Projects Irma Lubrecht Société Générale de Surveillance

  2. Presentation overview • Validation, Verification & Certification • Sinks project • SGS Eligibility Criteria • Shortfalls • Bio-energy project • Introduction of the project • Shortfalls

  3. Société Générale de Surveillance • Worlds largest inspection, testing and verification organisation • Offices in 140 countries, > 30 000 employees • Climate Change Programme, GHG Project Validation & Verification Service

  4. GHG project experience • Service started in 1997 • 9 JI and CDM land-use projects in 8 countries • 8 JI Energy projects in Eastern Europe (ERU-PT) • WB PCF West Nile Hydro Power Project in Uganda

  5. Validation, Verification & Certification

  6. Validation • Process of establishing conformance with defined criteria (i.e. Article 12) • Performed by accredited “Operational Entity” • Validation indicates acceptance of baseline and identification and management of leakage • Results in recommendation for registration as an eligible CDM project • Can be undertaken pre-project implementation

  7. Verification • Process of verifying emission reductions or sequestration relative to a defined baseline • Baseline may be defined via allocation of permits or simply approved by National Authority • Performed by an Independent Entity • Results in award of ERUs or additional credits • Carried out during and after project implementation

  8. Certification • Process of certifying emission reductions or sequestration relative to a defined baseline • Performed by an Operational Entity • Baseline is defined via Validation process • Results in the award of Certified Emission Reduction Units by CDM Executive Board • Performed during and after project implementation

  9. Type by Location

  10. Climate Change Programme Eligibility Criteria • Acceptability - National and International • Additionality - Environmental, Financial, Programme • Externalities - GHG and Non-GHG • Capacity - Financial, Management, Infrastructure and Technology, Demonstrability

  11. Project Shortfalls (1)Additionality • Environmental additionality: difference between baseline and with-project scenario • Programme additionality distinguishes additional activities from business as usual • Financial additionality

  12. Project Shortfalls (2)Leakage for JI • Twin-track approach: • If a country is in compliance, it is assumed that leakage will be covered under the National Inventory • Possibility for Cross Border Leakage • If a country is NOT in compliance, then VALIDATION is required

  13. Project Shortfalls (3)Leakage for CDM • Activity based leakage - widen project boundaries / reduce benefits • Market-based leakage - econometric studies / reduce benefits / test programme additionality

  14. Project Shortfalls (4)Social and environmental effects • Forestry projects in the past have had significant negative social and environmental impacts • Host countries may set their own SD criteria; the international community should require no negative impacts as a minimum

  15. Protocol Shortfalls • Rating of emission reduction vs sequestered tonne of carbon: • RMU • TCER • Accounting regimes • Permanence

  16. ERU-PT • 28 projects in 1st ERU-PT tender • 9 projects assessed by independent validators • 5 projects accepted by Dutch Government: ERU’s @ 8 Euro / t CO2

  17. The Project • BTG Biomass Energy Portfolio • 28 smaller projects in the vicinity of Prague, Czech Republic • 24 municipalities, 3 private companies and state owned hospital • Capacity of approx. 130 MWth • Reduction calculated at 1.2 M t CO2 for 1st commitment period

  18. Objectives • Reduction of 1.2 M t CO2 by replacing fossil fuel, mostly brown coal and methane reduction • Know-how transfer • Establishment of firm basis for further investments in bio-energy • Generation of heat/electricity for local heating requirements

  19. Assessment • Checklist reflecting requirements from ERU-PT guidelines, KP and SGS EC • Scientific methodology • Risk and uncertainty assessment

  20. Results • Project complies with mandatory requirements • Project design documentation comprehensive, robust and transparent account on expected number of ERUs • Uncertainty accounted • Highly likely to result in projected emission reductions when implemented

  21. Shortfalls (1)Leakage • No data present on emissions related to transport of biomass or on the construction of new distribution systems

  22. Shortfalls (2)Monitoring • Monitoring to detect changes in land-use practices • Monitoring of environmental impacts, i.e removal of agricultural residues from soils

  23. Shortfalls (3)Other projects • Monitoring overall - training of personnel • Steps have not been taken to identify and analyse the uncertainty associated with the quantification of emission reductions

  24. More information • www.sgs.nl/climatechange: • Eligibility Criteria • Executive summaries • Papers • www.senter.nl/erupt • www.btgworld.com • irma_lubrecht@sgs.com

  25. Uncertainty of methane (1) • Verify how much methane is actually reduced: • On-site monitoring: how often and why • Scientific approach: IPCC values, UK ETS • Instruments: flow meters regularly calibrated by independent party e.g. SGS Redwood • Chemical analysis: approved laboratory otherwise include in the verification assessment

  26. Uncertainty of methane (2) • ERU-PT programme has to accept ERU’s resulting from methane avoidance

More Related