1. Sellers’ strategies regarding Joint Implementation Company Perspective
Anna Pasławska, EPA sp. z o.o.,
UNFCCC TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON JOINT IMPLEMENTATION,
Bonn, February 2007

2. EPA sp. z o.o. Polish private company. Established in 1988.
Fields of activities: wind power, maritime electronics, satellite communications, service of shipborne electronic devices.
Experience in JI procedure:
since 2002,
as technical advisor involved in: preparation of documentation + approval process + negotiations of ERPA + monitoring,
Wind Farm Projects: Zagórze, Tymien, Lake Ostrowo, Duninowo, Karnice, others.

3. Sellers’ strategies regarding Joint Implementation
To find a partner – the ERUs Buyer - interested in their projects:
so first they check Buyers’ requirements regarding the project host or the project itself, tenders’ deadlines, ect.
To maximize the profit:
to sell ERUs at the highest price on the market.
To limit the risk:
get projects approved in the easiest/ fastest way,
check the ERUs Buyer (financial standing, track record),
verify terms of ERPA (terms of payment, penalties, ect.).

4. Determinants of selection of the ERUs Buyer
Price: high, fixed price paid on delivery or guaranteed minimum price + the percentage share in the increase in the reference market price.
Financial construction: Upfront payments + financial support for preparing the documentation.
Track record in Poland.
Financial standing of the Buyer.
Buyer’s additional requirements: types of projects accepted, minimum number of ERUs delivered annually, extra documentation required, penalties for not delivering, ect.).
Deadlines for submission of documents (dates of tenders).

5. JI status quo in Poland
8 approved projects: PL-NL Biomass Project Jelenia Góra, PL-CAN hydropower plant Leszno Górne, PL-DK Wind Farm Zagórze, PL-NL Landfill Project Konin, PL-DK Landfill Project Zakopane, PCF Geothermal Power Plant in Stargard Szczeciński, PL-DK Landfill Project in Warmia-Mazury region, PL-DK Lake Ostrowo Wind Farm.
Joint Implementation seen as a supporting mechanism, especially by RES-E producers.
Sellers cooperate mainly with governmental carbon funds.
Great interest – dozens of PINs, several PDDs.

6. Country risk - Poland
Approval of JI projects unofficially suspended in November 2005.
No formal deadlines for issuing LoE, LoA.
Works on the new Act on EU ETS, AAU, ERU, CER, VER and „accumulation certificates”.
Plans to set additional requirements for JI projects – being innovative, performed in accordance with BAT.
Plans for introduction of the CO2 absorption system.
Unknown amount of allowances reserved for JIs within NAP II.

7. Negative factors – national level
No legal regulations of JI procedure + delays in works on the new Act.
Unclear division of tasks between: Ministry of Environment, National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management and National Administration of the Emission Trading Scheme.
No implementation of the Linking Directive (deadline - November 2005).
Unclear position of Polish government regarding realization of JIs in Poland.
Polish Minister of Environment against setting binding targets for the Post-Kyoto period in 2007.
Climate policy combined strictly with protection of biodiversity and forestry.

8. Negative factors - international background
Decision on double counting – the limitation or the end of JIs in EU Member States?
Dramatic fall in prices of EU ETS allowances!
Unclear situation with NAPs II.
Very unclear policy after 2012.

9. „Technical” issues to be cleared
Should the DNA have the right to share credits between host country and the project host? Based on what criteria?
Do we need country specific rules for preparing documentation? To what extend can national standards for preparing documentation differ from JISC guidelines?
Should there be any separate, national lists of companies entitled to determine projects – both PDDs and emissions (national list of AIE)?
Should the realization/ construction of the project eliminate the possibility to get project approved as JI? What if the DNA is at fault?
What with determination of early projects (validated and approved before 2006)? Should they undergo determination according to new standards?
When determination of emission reductions should take place – after first year of crediting period? Should generation of AAU be determined?

10. Thank you for your attention!
Anna Pasławska,
Project Manager