Verification of Sinks and Bio-Energy Projects by Société Générale de Surveillance

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