T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT UNFCCC W ORKSHOP : S TANDARDS FOR BASELINE SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION AND BASELINE EMISSION CALCULATIONS M ARCH 2011 P RESENTATION BY F ELICITY S PORS (F WORLDBANK. ORG )F WORLDBANK. ORG

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Contents Purpose of the tools Assessment of the tools Exploration of alternatives for LDCs and underrepresented countries Recommendations for way forward

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Purpose of the three tools 3 proposed Baseline tools: a) baseline identification, b) emission calculation and c) determination of most attractive alternative of a CDM project component 1.Guidelines for methodology development? 2.Basis to assess methodologies and standardized baselines? 3.Framework for standardized baselines development? GOAL: increase the transparency of meth process and its predictability

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Useful for clarifying if some issues addressed (see input): Must ensure consistency with past decisions. Specific examples from input: - General editing and consistency check with CDM glossary - MABS – new term appears unnecessary. -not clear why in cases where additional demand is met in part by the CDM project activity and in part by other market activities it should always be assumed that those other activities are first in displacing historical consumption -An overly conservative 'minimum approach' is introduced - Relation of tool determining most attractive alternatives to investment analysis is not clear. Less useful : Oppose requirement that the approaches are mandatory. Therefore would have minimal use as a basis for assessing methodologies. Highly questionable: A standardized baseline is: A baseline established for a Party or a group of Parties to facilitate the calculation of emission reduction and removals and/or the determination of additionality for clean development mechanism project activities, while providing assistance for ensuring environmental integrity (-/CMP.6, paragraph 44). Standardized baselines are not established project by project. None of the 3 tools address additionality and therefore they cannot form a suitable framework for standardized baselines. Assessment of Draft tools As guidelines (i.e. voluntary) for CDM Meth Development Basis for assessing methodologies. Framework for standardized baselines

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Proposed tools do move towards standardizing baseline selection and therefore can greatly assist in development of new methodologies. Tools do not appear to be able to define standardized approaches nor to deliver in areas and sectors most critical to under- represented countries (i.e. industrial energy efficiency, buildings, transport, household energy consumption). Other tools could be more useful: a. Default energy saving values, b. Benchmarks, c. Positive additionality lists d. Addressing suppressed demand using defaults Exploration of alternative options for supporting LDCs or underrepresented host countries

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Possible way forward 1 Consider development of tools as voluntary guidance for meth developers. Correct drafts in response to inputs. 2 Evaluate effectiveness of alternative approaches for establishing standardized baselines (i.e. automatic additionality list, benchmarks etc). 3 Encourage practical implementation – pilot studies with projects in order to evaluate results. 4 Evaluate outcomes of studies and make proposal.

T HE W ORLD B ANK C ARBON F INANCE U NIT Thanks for listening