1. Example(s) of JI Track 1 procedures
Zsolt Lengyel
SenterNovem
Carboncredits.nl
UNFCCC Technical Workshop on JI, Bonn, February 2007.

2. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
Outline
Recalling the context of JI Track 1
The Dutch approach
Key questions and alternatives for Track 1 procedures – the Romanian cooperation case
Conclusions
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

3. 1.1. JI Track 1 & 2 – the eligibility
Requirement JI 1st track and ET JI 2nd t.
Party to Kyoto Protocol x x
Assigned amount issued x x
National system (Art. 5.1) x
National registry in place x x
Most recent inventory submitted x
AA information submitted x
A Party involved in an Article 6 project shall inform the secretariat of:
(a) Its designated focal point for approving projects pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1(a);
(b) Its national guidelines and procedures for approving Article 6 projects, including the consideration of stakeholders' comments, as well as monitoring and verification.
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

4. 1.2. JI Track 1 versus Track 2 – costs and benefits
Supplier
Host country
Purchasing entity
Transaction costs
possibly lower
possibly higher
Control
not relevant
much more
Complexity
possibly less
Project scope
possibly more project types
Risks & uncertainties
reduced
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

5. 2.1. A pragmatic approach from the purchaser’s perspective
Strategic focus for investigating and facilitating the Track 1 route in countries where:
the ERU-AAU volumes are high,
where the projects that are at high Track 2 risk
where the preparedness and eligibility for Track 1 JI is at least medium and
where the host country itself is either willing or undecided about Track1.
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

6. 2. 2. Netherlands approach regarding Track 1 and 2
Track 2 is the default option, however some ERPAs and LoAs explicitly include the optional Track 1 route
International workshop(s) initiative in 2005 to attract attention and facilitate cooperation
Technical assistance cooperation with Romania, the first country in the world, to realise the benefits and face the challanges of Track 1 (with CAP SD ( Mark van Wees
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

7. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
3.1. Key questions and alternatives for Track 1 procedures – the challenges
Reducing transaction costs and risks whilst maintaining credibility and ensuring project quality
Streamlining the approval procedures whilst not establishing a preference for Track 1 over Track 2
Establishing the learning ground in Track 1 for the development of a GIS
Enabling projects to go through Track 1 that otherwise will have difficulties (administrative, financial) getting approval via Track 2
Specific eligibility considerations: sectoral preferences (NAPCC), Small Scale Projects, early mover projects
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

8. Track 1 = Track 2 without JISC?!
3.2. Key questions and alternatives for Track 1 procedures – the procedural modality suggestions
The 1188/2006 GD defines the governmental LoA issuance in a two stage (LoE and LoA) approval process for Track 2 projects not restricting “track switching”. Additional action and decision points after the LoA stage for Track 1 projects has to be established, these are as follows:
Review of monitoring and its verification (NEPA/NCCC)
Issuance of ERUs (MEWM)
Track 1 = Track 2 without JISC?!
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

9. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
3.3. Key questions and alternatives for Track 1 procedures – outstanding questions
A one stage approval approach for Track 1 (S: PDD and its determination to be submitted for obtaining the LoA)
The use of templates for project submissions (S: MEWM PIN and JISC PDD form)
Timelines allowed for verification review and issuance of ERUs
Fees (S: no issuance fee charged)
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

10. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
3.3. Key questions and alternatives for Track 1 procedures – outstanding questions cont.
Accreditation of local and international entities for determination (S: DOE/AIEs have automatic accreditation whilst local entity requirements needs to be established)
Additonality definitions (S: some project categories – eg. LFG, renewable heat and power - may have automatic additionality status)
Standardised baselines (S: exemplary projects and their baselines/cefs are selected, EU ETS grid factors used)
Fees (S: no issuance fee charged)
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

11. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
3.3. Conclusions
Track 1 allows for the combination of best practice in Track 2 and the effectiveness ad efficiency of host country JI execution
The eligibility and participation requirements combined with Track 2 quality criteria ensures project credibility
Consensual and consultative Track 1 procedure development results in mutually acceptable systems
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn

12. UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn
Contact details:
Visiting address: Postal address:
Catharijnesingel 59 Postbus 8242
3511 GG Utrecht RE Utrecht
The Netherlands The Netherlands
Zsolt Lengyel
Tel:
Fax:
Homepage:
14 February 2007
UNFCCC technical worskhop on JI - Bonn