The United Kingdom’s Experience and Perspective The Way Forward on Registries Martin Hession International Climate Policy DEFRA UK

The Way Forward on Registries Pt 1 Timetable and Milestones for UK Pt 2 UK Experience and Lessons

ERT Review 16 months ITL and Data Exchange Specs Dec 2003 Working ITL By Nov 2004 National Registry Development and Testing Dec July 2006 Possibility to Rectify Problems Transfers of AAU, ERU, and CERs The Way Forward - A Tight Timetable ? Submission of initial report to establish the AA Prior to 1 st January 2007 July 2006 Jan 2008 Feb 2003

Kyoto compliant National Registry – 16 months after submission of initial report Assigned Amount Units EU compliant registry July 2004-Jan 2005? EU ETS Allowances UK ETS registry Jan 2001-April UK ETS Allowances UK ETS Credits Euro- ITL 2004? Kyoto ITL 2004? Issues: CDM,Upgrade, Links, and Units ? CDM Registry ? CERS

☑ UK ETS Registry – Working from Apr 2002 ☑ COP 8 Technical Standards - Nov 2002 ☐ EU Technical Specification EU ITL Sept 2003 ☐ UN Technical Spec Data and ITL Dec 2003? ☐ UN - CDM Registry Jan 2004? ☐ EU ETS Registry Regulation Spring 2004 ☐ Test Version EU ITL (From)July 2004? ☐ Test Version UNFCCC ITL (From)Nov 2004? ☐ EU ETS Trading and CDM Link Jan 2005 ☐ Para 6 Report (latest)July 2006  Eligibility to Trade (latest)Dec 2007 Milestones - Administrative Checklist

 Designed for the UK ETS  Generic issues:  Formats,Records/Serial No’s -Marrakech  Availability, Efficiency, Security  Reliability, Resilience and Adaptability.  UK specific issues:  Gateway mechanism for the absolute and relative sectors UK Starting Point – the ETS Registry

 Time to ETR.1  Specification - consultants - 6 months  Development – in house - 9 months  Money  Hardware – secure server only - 100k  Development - 600k  Further ETR.2 ETR.3  Development Since ETR1  Upgrade to EU and UN Requirements ? UK Development Logistics

 UK ETS Registry a registry and not a trading platform  Around 1500 registrations, and some 3000 Accounts (Trading and Compliance) Some thousands of transactions to date of which there have been trades  Many trade off-line and reconcile registry accounts later  Volume 28mt of which 1.5 mt CO2e has been traded  Peak in activity in run up to compliance (now)  Small Businesses particularly need user support UK Experience - 10 months since April 2002

UK Outline Strategy on Registries  Many Decisions still to be made ☑ Work Co-operatively with others on development of international registry systems - options ☑ Continue to share expertise  Consider selling/joint venture our registry  Consider offering registry services to others  Plan for and resource EU Compliant Registry for start of EU ETS Trading  Plan for and Resource UN Compliant Registry for international trading in time for submission of paragraph 6 report

Conclusions  Tight timetable for EU and International Trading  Secretariat lead on ITL needs proper resources  Facilitating EU linking and Fast Track CDM needs some careful thought  Need to plan and dedicate significant resources national now (EU and outside)  Complex coordination questions need to be resolved with EU

EU Emissions Trading Scheme 1 Jan 2005 UK Emissions Trading Scheme April International Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation Clean Development Mechanism UK NR NR CDM-R 2004/5 EU ITL End 2004 NR ITL 2004/5 The Way Forward : A Complicated Future

 Flexibility - Future Inter-Compatibility of Systems  XML Language  Balance Security and Transparency  Internet, SSL, Encryption, Secure/Non Secure Elements  Availability, Reliability and Resilience, Efficiency  Internet, 24/7, Backup, Secure/Non-Secure Elements  Flexibility and Upgrade  Modular design  Usability System and User Support  Simplicity Proved important in Practice Initial Design Questions: Answers

For Data Exchange between Registry Systems –Includes National Registries, the ITL and the CDM Registry –Applies to Registries operation Three Levels of Detail for Registries –General Design Requirements – the Decision –Detailed Functional Specification –Detailed technical Specification Timetable – Experts and Intersessionals Committee of NR Administrators for continuing cooperation Decisions on Technical Standards COP 8

–Architecture : the hub principle –General Principles for Implementation –Security Measures –Data Consistency –Availability –Minimum message sequences and content Message to ensure ability of buyer to avoid buyer liability – EU had to insist on Flag of Invalid Units –internal procedures to prevent problems including internal registry checks COP 8 Decision Clarifies

–Specific Common Language Formats –Specific Encryption Techniques –Precisely when a Transaction is Final - Finality –When a message in a message sequence –times out and queuing COP 8 Leaves for Technical Specification

Para 5. Principles for elaboration and implementation facilitate the mechanisms and the accounting of assigned amounts allow the independent design of individual registry systems consistent with the technical standards promote efficiency in transaction procedures; promote the maximum resilience and availability of registry systems; COP 8 Principles for Standards – “promote”

Para 5. Principles for elaboration and implementation ensure the accuracy of data and of the exchange of data; ensure the security of data storage and data exchange; ensure the transparency and auditability of transaction processes; ensure the transparency of non-confidential information; COP 8 Principles for Standards – “ensure”

Registries and Data Exchange measures to ensure (a) Confidentiality: data to be encrypted so as to be unreadable by any other party (b) Authentication: registries to be uniquely and securely identified and identifiable. (c)Non-repudiation: a single full and final record of all actions so that actions cannot be disputed or repudiated; (d) Integrity: data exchanged shall not be modifiable by any other party (e) Auditability: a full audit trail for each message and message sequence to document all processes, actions, messages and when they occurred. COP 8 Security Measures for Registries

 ITL to act as the central reference database for authentication information 20(b)  ITL to maintain a publicly accessible list of units, and transaction records, that are subject to un resolved discrepancy  Daily reconciliation's to establish whether there are inconsistencies  Registry systems: to keep scheduled downtime of shall to a minimum.  Registry systems: To have systems in place to isolate problems and minimize the interruption of functions. COP 8 -System Architecture

 Registry system shall implement measures, including automated internal checks, to  Prevent inconsistencies and,  Halt transactions until the inconsistencies have been resolved  Prevent discrepancies from occurring.  Ensure data records and transactions are accurate;  Ensure that it has robust systems for safeguarding data and recovering data and registry service in the event of a disaster;  data are protected against unauthorized manipulation  it is protected against exposure to security compromises COP 8 - Preventative Measures