The Registries for GHG in the CEE Countries (The Czech Republic, Hungary,Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia). Maria Khovanskaia Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe 7 June 2003, SB 18, Germany. Main facts about the project.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Registries for GHG in the CEE Countries(The Czech Republic, Hungary,Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia)
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
7 June 2003, SB 18, Germany
I. Kick-off meeting
Authors had to:
II. Interim Meeting.
Participants reported their findings on the already existing environmental
Registries: UK, Denmark, USA as well as summary of UNFCCC and EU
III. Final Meeting.
Poland (ISD – capacity-building approach)
Main questions to answer:
In which direction should the work to establish the Registry proceed?
What may be the nature of its links with the Registries to be established under EU ET scheme and domestic emissions trade in Poland?
Study divided in the following parts:
An assessment of the situation with the climate protection in Poland
The already existing systems
Dilemmas related to the National Registries in Poland
Recommendations to the Government.
(However: the Policy is not yet adopted by the Polish Government)
Entire set of tasks are envisaged, several of which relate directly to the development of the National Registry
At the different level of administration a number of measures are taken to record
and verify data on pollutant emissions including GHG.
data on emission sources and their activities;
estimated emission levels.
The above systems can NOT be sufficient basis for National Registries either for
conducting Emission Trade.
However, they can:
The knowledge of the manner of the opeeration of these systems can be useful when designing the National Registry
2, Integration of the National Registry (to which extent different registries should be integrated in one another):
Latvian Development Agency (LDA) – the same approach
Hungarian Environmental Economics Center – cost assessment approach
Tasks associated with setting up and maintaining a registry system:
Costs of setting up the system come from the following:
Reference cases (both inventories and registries, internet-based, real-time with user access through the user name and password):
Dilemma: to develop tailored to the needs of the developer or to purchase with the further adjustment to the needs of purchaser.
Costs of development:
EATS – between $ 750,000 and 1 million
UK ETR – GBP 800,000 over 18 months
Hungary – since precise description of the registry function has not been decided yet, neither its connection to the other systems, it is difficult to make an estimation. Labor costs will be definitely less.
Costs associated with purchasing a license:
Other interesting findings
Public vs Private Entity to operate Registries. Conclusions: both government institutions and several private companies are able to operate the Registry.
National or consolidated Registries – no specific conclusions.
1. 1. The lack of Climate Change Mitigation Strategy. In some of the CEE countries (for example, Slovenia, Latvia) the Climate Change issues are not on a list of priorities. This results in the absence of Climate Change Mitigation and GHG Abatement Strategies. Poor Registry development and the lack of provisions in the national legal systems are mainly due to the lack of a clear strategy in the field of Climate Change.
2. 2. Upcoming EU Accession and joining EU Emission Trade Scheme. The main discussion went on the issue of consolidate vs. separate national registries. The participants agreed that the time schedule is very tight, and much urgent work has to be done on the hard-and software for the registry/s, including assurance of compatibility through the properly designed communication protocol, and capacity building. Some participants suggested that the transition period should be granted for the accession countries under the EU ET Directive. The participants also investigated whether EU is willing to provide the basic software for its member states since the French software company is contracted to design the Registry architecture for the EU.
Main findings of the final meeting
1. 3.Cooperation with financial institutions. Several times it was pointed out that the Registry is not a simple database, but a database which should be linked to the Internet and this database is to be modified through the web-access instructions. Thus, the experience of the financial system is valuable. However, even if the GHG registry is designed completely separately, the close link to the financial system should remain since the Emission Trade includes also a money transfer.
4. Need for the institutional set-up. The participants expressed several times their concern about the lack of institutions maintaining the Registries. Another question is whether these operators should be public or private. The main conclusion was that the responsibility for the Registry should lie with a government since the government is responsible for the task of meeting Kyoto target of a country. At the same time some tasks could be out-sourced.
1.5. Country-specific needs. The Registry can serve for other country needs, for example, for monitoring if a country is willing to combine monitoring and verification activities with the Registry.
6. National Allocation Plan. It was pointed out that the expensive process of the Registry design should not be started before the final decision on the allocation plan is made.
Among the advantages of the
separate national registries:
Governments will fill more in control;
Capacity building for the individual countries;
Customizing the Registries for the country-specific needs;
National language makes Registries more user-friendly.
Among the advantages of the consolidated registries:
1.1. Fewer costs for the individual countries;
Le2. Lesser risk of confusion between different traded units,
Fr3. Avoid fraud and double-selling;
Le4 Lesser work on the development of the communication protocols.