20 February 1997
ENGLISH ONLY
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
Fifth session
Bonn, 25-28 February 1997
Item 8 of the provisional agenda
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
(SBSTA), at its fourth session, considered the proposed uniform
reporting format contained in annexes I and II of document
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15 and requested the secretariat to prepare a
revision of this format reflecting sections agreed by the contact
group and leaving unchanged sections that could not be addressed
(FCCC/SBSTA/1997/20, para. 74). The revision is contained in document
FCCC/SBSTA/1997/3.
At the same session, Parties were invited to submit views by 15
January 1997 on the unresolved issues related to the proposed uniform
reporting format, namely sections F to H of the aforementioned
annexes, and on methodological issues.
Five such submissions* have been received. In accordance with the
procedure for miscellaneous documents, these submissions are attached
and are reproduced in the language in which they were received and
without formal editing.
FCCC/SBSTA/1997/MISC.3
GE.97-
_____________
* In order to make these submissions available on electronic
systems, including the World Wide Web, these contributions have been
electronically scanned and/or retyped. The secretariat has made every
effort to ensure the correct reproduction of the texts as
submitted.
Paper No. Page
1. Ireland 3
(on behalf of the European Community and its member States)
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY
UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
2. Romania 5
SUBMISSION RELATED TO THE
FEBRUARY-MARCH 1997 MEETINGS
3. Sudan 6
4. United Kingdom 7
COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM
5. United States of America 12
U.S. COMMENTS ON THE UNIFIED REPORTING
FORMAT AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY
JANUARY 15, 1997
6. International Energy Agency 15
COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM 6 OF THE FOURTH
SESSION OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE,
GENEVA, 16-18 DECEMBER 1996
Ireland, on behalf of the European Community and its Member
States, wishes to express its gratitude to the Secretariat for the
proposed initial uniform reporting format in document
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15. This contains - as required by SBSTA at its third
session - suggestions with regard to a uniform reporting format for
activities implemented jointly and for national programmes
respectively. This would provide a very valuable basis for gathering
experience with concrete projects during the pilot
phase.
The EU is of the view that the proposed uniform reporting format
would greatly simplify the analysis and review of AIJ projects and
programmes. The EU believes that all activities reported to date
should to the extent possible be resubmitted, using the new format in
order to ensure transparency and comparability of reports. The
initial uniform reporting format should be further reviewed and
developed over time depending in the results generated by further
methodological work and experience gained.
The EU stresses that the uniform reporting format should be as
detailed as proposed by the Secretariat, while recognising that some
elements of this information may be difficult to provide.
Additionally, it is suggested to include in section A.5 of Annex I of
document FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15 another item which could allow for the
mutually agreed assessment procedures between AIJ-partners to be
carried out by third actors within existing structures.
The EU believes that the COP, no later than the end of the present
decade, should have all necessary information to enable it to take a
conclusive decision on the pilot phase and the progression beyond
that. The EU therefore proposes that the Secretariat should prepare a
workplan for consideration by the SBSTA at its next session which
should focus primarily on those tasks which will be especially
supportive of this decision. These are the evaluation of annual
progress reports based on the adopted uniform reporting format and
the development of criteria needed to implement, monitor and
administer any fully fledged JI system, taking into account the
experience reported from the pilot phase and the results generated by
further methodological work.
The EU suggests that the main issues to be considered in this
context are those identified in FCCC/SBSTA/1996/19 paragraphs 3 (a)
to 3 (g). The EU believes that the methodological issues requiring
special consideration are environmental additionality (including the
baseline definition), financial additionality (for private and public
investments) and the monitoring procedure. The main institutional
issue to be considerate is the verification procedure. Furthermore,
the EU believes that further work should be done on the appropriate
institutional arrangements to implement AIJ. These issues should be
discussed and elaborated on the basis of experience with individual
AIJ projects. On the basis of concepts and theoretical considerations
so far we should now evaluate concrete projects, analyse successes
and failures and build on those experiences to advance our work on
criteria.
In the view of the EU, Joint Implementation may be valuable both
for the implementation and further development of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change and as a contribution to implement the
guiding principle of sustainable development.
The Romanian Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental
Protection is the governmental ministry authorised to accept, approve
and endorse the Activities Implemented Jointly. This Ministry will
report to the Secretariat the progress in the development of these
activities, in order to be presented to the Conference of the
Parties.
Romania is ready to develop and support the Activities Implemented
Jointly with the countries Parties to the UN/FCCC. In this way, the
Romanian experts discuss the possibilities to develop the first
projects. The projects will covers the most attractive options for
the climate change, within the improvement of the energy management,
reforestation, development of the renewable energy sources. The AIJ
are a good opportunity to cooperate in mitigating net GHG emissions,
contributing to support the sustainable development. These
cooperative arrangements can contribute to reduce the GHG emissions
or increase the absorptive capacity of sinks.
It is important to develop a pilot phase and set up common
criteria for quantifying activities which can be implemented jointly.
It is possible that the participating countries will share the
responsibilities based on the common but differentiated
responsibilities and will provide a sound basis for the future
cooperation between the countries. The progress in the development of
these activities and the final outcome will be jointly report to the
Conference of the Parties, in a uniform reporting format to further
decision making.
To The Secretariat
UNFCCC
FAX (49-228) 815-1999
FROM: METEOROLOGICAL AUTHORITY, KHARTOUM, SUDAN
(FAX 24911 771693)
Reference your fax of 2.1.1997 about Submissions from Parties
requested by the subsidiary bodies at their Dec. 1996 sessions, I
should like to inform you that regarding the activities implemented
jointly under the pilot phase, we have no comment to make about the
proposed uniform reporting formats because of lack of experience in
this respect.
The UK supports the statement on AIJ made at SBSTA 4 by Ireland as
Presidency of the European Union. In particular, the UK supports the
view that all activities reported to date should be resubmitted using
the new format, once agreed, in order to ensure transparency and
comparability of reports. The UK also supports the proposal for
section A.5 of Annex I of document FCCC/SBSTA/1996/ 15 that the
mutually agreed assessment procedures between AIJ partners could be
carried out by third actors. At SBSTA 4 there was only limited
discussion of document FCCC/SBSTA/1996/19 on the List of
Methodological Issues. The UK supports the view that the
methodological issues requiring special consideration are
environmental additionality (including the baseline definition),
financial additionality (for private and public investments) and the
monitoring procedure.
In addition, the United Kingdom would like to reiterate the views
expressed in its submission of 6 September 1996 (copy attached). In
particular, it would like to emphasise the need for reporting
information on trends in official development assistance (in Annex I
(F)) and the importance of using common methodologies to make reports
more accessible to those analysing and assessing them.
In the contact group at SBSTA4, we proposed the following
amendment to the table in Annex I (F):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This change is intended to make explicit the difference between
non-additional (e.g. from the Global Environment fund) and additional
funding.
Finally, the UK notes that a contact group will be convened during or in the margins of the fifth session of SBSTA to continue consideration of the above two documents. The UK hopes that it will be possible to agree a uniform reporting format for AIJ under the pilot phase at the fifth session of SBSTA. This will be an essential step towards the assessment of the effectiveness of monitoring and verification arrangements, as a comprehensive review of the pilot phase will be needed in order to take a conclusive decision by the end of the decade.
1. SBSTA 3 in July requested the secretariat to prepare
suggestions with regard to a uniform reporting format for the pilot
phase of activities implemented jointly (AIJ) to promote consistency
of reports with the initial reporting framework, and to prepare an
initial list of methodological issues for consideration at the next
session of SBSTA. Parties were invited by the SBSTA to submit views
on the reporting format and the list of methodological issues by 1
September, in order for them to be reflected in the documentation for
the December session.
2. Annex IV to the conclusions of SBSTA 2 stated that, "It is
expected that subsequent sessions of the COP and its subsidiary
bodies could elaborate further on the framework for reporting, taking
into account the information provided by the initial reports
transmitted to the secretariat or comments expressed by Parties." The
UK associates itself with the statement on AIJ made at SBSTA 3 by
Ireland as Presidency of the European Union, and particularly
reiterates the point that Parties should improve reporting on the
important issues of projected emission reductions and the costs, and
cost-effectiveness of projects.
3. The UK believes that reporting could be improved by
strengthening the initial reporting framework agreed at SBSTA 2 to
include explicit provision for:
- the actual effects and success of a project in terms of emissions limitation or carbon sequestration, including the baseline against which this is being assessed, an assessment of what would have happened in the absence of the project, and evidence that the project is genuinely additional to planned activities;
- the measurements that are necessary to ensure accurate and consistent reporting, and any assumptions and calculations made in respect of these measurements; and
- the way in which all of these aspects are
monitored.
4. Decision L.7 from COP 2 invites Parties to continue to report
in accordance with the initial reporting framework. However, the
reporting framework must ensure that sufficient information is
provided on a comparable basis so that all Parties can use the pilot
phase as a real opportunity to investigate and examine AIJ, and make
a rational judgement about how-or whether-it would be possible to
operate any future scheme of joint implementation under the
Convention effectively and fairly.
5. The analysis and review of AIJ would be greatly simplified by
the adoption of a uniform reporting format. This should assist in
making the information provided comparable, and will help to show
whether enough information is required under the initial reporting
framework to enable a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of AIJ
to be made. The reporting format should follow the reporting
framework as closely as possible (whether this is the initial
reporting framework or an improved framework, as above), as suggested
in the table below:
|
INITIAL REPORTING FRAMEWORK (as agreed at SBSTA 2) |
POINTS WHICH SHOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR A UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT |
|
"The reports should include: |
|
|
a) description of the project (type of the project, identification of all actors involved, institutional arrangements, actual costs to the extent possible, technical data, long-term viability of the project, location, lifetime, mutually agreed project assessment procedures, and so forth); |
There should be agreed categories for "type of project" The roles of the various actors should be distinguished The relevant "technical data" for different types of project need to be defined The project's expected "lifetime" needs to be measured against agreed criteria. |
|
b) governmental acceptance, approval or endorsement; |
A straightforward method for indicating full governmental approval should be devised. |
|
c) compatibility with and supportiveness of national economic development and socio-economic and environment priorities and strategies; |
These priorities and strategies should be those set out in a Party's national climate change communication or sustainable development plan. |
|
d) benefits derived from the project; |
The types of benefits to be included must be defined, including secondary benefits to the environment or economy, and should be measured against agreed criteria. |
|
e) calculation of the contribution of projects that bring about real, measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change that would not have occurred in the absence of such activities; |
A technical formula for this calculation needs to be established, including the element of additionality. For this purpose, a standardised method of calculating a project's baseline is absolutely essential (see below). Calculation of baseline emissions and the impact of the project on emissions needs to be consistent with IPCC emission inventory guidelines. |
|
f) additionality to financial obligations of Parties included in Annex II to the Convention within the framework of the financial mechanism as well as to current official development assistance flows; |
The relevant figures for financial obligations and official overseas development assistance (ODA), including trends in ODA provision, should be included, derived from a similar or common source. |
|
g) contribution to capacity building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how to other Parties; particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention. In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties; |
Specific details (including technical specifications) should be included, and compared wherever possible to information on host country's existing capacity and technological status, based on their national communications or sustainable development plans, wherever available. |
|
h) additional comments if any including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties, effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered." |
This section of the report should include an annual update of any changes from the original projection and/or most recent estimate of climate change benefits, in a form capable of comparison with the earlier projections. |
6. The reporting format should make it clear what type of
information should be provided. It could use questions rather than
headings, and specify the form of answers, e.g. text or numbers, a
descriptive answer or a simple "Yes" or "No". Instructions for the
units of measurement to be used would assist clarity and comparison.
If methods and elements of calculations are not prescribed by the
reporting format, at the very least it should require information
about the methods and calculations used to be provided in
detail.
7. The consistency and comparability of reporting could be greatly
improved by the agreement of methodologies for making measurements
and calculations. Perhaps the most significant area in this respect
is that of baseline determination. Reporting needs to be able to
reflect changes in baseline, and hence in calculations of a project's
effectiveness, over time. The baseline case also needs to be stated
very clearly; in the case of AIJ providing improvements to an
existing installation or process, existing emissions need to be
measured or estimated in order to calculate the improvement; where
AIJ provides for a new installation or process, a baseline needs to
be estimated based on the situation that would have existed without
the AIJ project. Baselines for sequestration projects need to
estimate the sequestration by vegetation (and associated soils) that
would have grown on the project site if the project had not taken
place.
8. Supporting information about the data used (eg figures for
thermal efficiency or rates of vegetation growth) should be provided
in all cases; common methodologies could make such data and
subsequent calculations more readily available to those reporting,
and consequently make the reports more accessible to those analysing
and assessing them.
9. We would not want to make the task of reporting unnecessarily
onerous. However, it is essential for all Parties that sufficient
information is provided for the subsidiary bodies and the COP to be
able to assess both the effectiveness of AIJ projects and the
strictness and effectiveness of monitoring and verification
arrangements (in order to be able to make a judgement about whether
AIJ could ever be an acceptable method for Parties to meet their
emissions targets under the Convention). A uniform reporting format
in a rigorous reporting framework would greatly assist analysis,
assessment and comparison of such projects, and the open collection,
provision and review of information on this basis could also assist
understanding and acceptance of the potential value of
AIJ.
The U.S. would like to thank the Secretariat for its work on AIJ
issues. As we stated in December, the U.S. is a firm supporter of the
pilot phase and of Joint Implementation. We strongly urge that the
contact group which met in December to examine FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15,
the Unified Reporting Format and FCCC/SBSTA/1996/19, Indicative List
of Methodological Issues continue its work at the fifth session of
SBSTA so that the Secretariat may be given direction by the Parties
on this issue. The Secretariat's work on AIJ will provide useful
information that will help inform Parties on its next steps as the
end of the pilot phase approaches.
As requested at the fourth session of the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice, we are providing comments on the
Unified Reporting Format for Activities Implemented Jointly and the
Indicative List of Methodological Issues.
Document 15: Unified Reporting
Format
The U.S. supports the progress made to date on the Unified
Reporting Format and recommends that Parties adopt it with no further
changes. The format provides the basis for countries to submit
credible, efficient and transparent reports on their AIJ projects and
national programs. We believe this initial reporting format will need
revision over time as results are generated by methodological work
and experience is gained in this process. Such revision can only be
developed once the Parties adopt and use the format, and then provide
feedback to the Secretariat on its use; this kind of iterative
process will make clear which areas need refinement or
definition.
With regard to the agreed language of sections A-E of Annex I as
currently drafted, and as already agreed in the contact group, we
strongly urge that the discussion of these section not be reopened.
However, we feel that section A.5 requires some additional
explanation. We suggest that in the future additional language
clarifying what is meant by "mutually agreed assessment procedures"
be provided. This could include information such as who reports, how
it is reported, and who keeps the information in a donor
country.
Following are our specific comments on Annex I Sections F through
H and Annex II of the Unified Reporting Format:
Annex I, Sections F-H
The U.S. would like to suggest that in section F, the sentence
"Please indicate all sources of project funding" be deleted and the
following sentence inserted: "Please indicate all sources of the AIJ
project's funding (including that which was provided for
prefeasibility, implementation and verification) which are derived
from official development assistance, the financial mechanism (the
GEF), and the public sector.
It is our understanding that information provided under this
section is to be used to determine the financial additionality of a
project. Therefore, Parties should only report information relevant
to the section. A comprehensive listing of a Party's financial
contributions under Article 4.5 of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change is currently required by the existing reporting
guidelines for National Communications, and need not be duplicated
here.
Annex II
In the U.S. view, annex II of the Unified Reporting Format is a
necessary element in understanding how projects are developed and
evaluated within a national program. We suggest adding the phrase "on
Activities Implemented Jointly" to the title.
Format
The U.S. endorses the development of an electronic template for
major word-processor software, and suggests that this be made
available to all Parties as soon as possible after the adoption of a
unified reporting format.
Timing of Submissions
To the extend possible, the U.S. suggests that each Party
submitting information use the revised format as a guideline for its
update on AIJ projects and national programs. We recommend that the
revised guidelines be used in Annex I Party National Communications
due April 15, 1997. Countries should also be encouraged to update
their reports prior to COP-3. In our view, as a matter of longer term
timing, subsequent reports on AIJ should be submitted in conjunction
with the annual greenhouse gas inventory.
Document 19: Methodological
Issues
The U.S. commends the Secretariat for the comprehensive list
presented in SBSTA Document 19. We also note with regret the delay in
the development and agreement on guidelines for joint implementation
as stipulated in the Convention. The U.S. believes it is incumbent on
Parties to provide a mandate to the Secretariat so that work may
proceed more rapidly on methodological issues.
Indicative List of Methodological
Issues
- Paragraph 3(a). It is the U.S. view that the primary focus
within this diverse set of issues must be on better understanding of
questions related to the baseline. We believe it is from baseline
issues that the discussion on emissions effects will flow, and the
determination of a baseline underpins the credibility of an AIJ
project.
- Paragraph 3(e). In our view, the emphasis in this set of issues
must first be on transaction costs. Further, we note that the
substantial variability in national and project-specific
circumstances will make it difficult for the Secretariat to consider
the cost-effectiveness of AIJ as a general matter; cost-effectiveness
of AIJ can, ultimately, only be determined by the marketplace. There
is a clear value, however, in understanding some costs associated
with an AIJ project such as administrative costs to the host
government, transaction costs to project implementers, and
assessments of strategies to reduce such costs.
- Paragraph 3(f). We believe that the pilot phase was created to
assess all issues related to AIJ, not just a few. One of the most
critical -- and probably difficult to resolve -- will be that of
crediting. We must therefore begin promptly to address this
issue.
While the issued contained in Document 19 are all important, the
U.S. suggests that the Secretariat prioritize these items in order to
structure its workplan. We would suggest that the most critical
issues for 1997 are those of baselines [3(a)] and measurement and
reporting [3(b)]. To that end, we would like to reiterate our
willingness to host and co-sponsor (along with the Secretariat) a
workshop on baseline issues, to co-sponsor a workshop on measurement
and reporting, and to provide in-kind support for the development of
issue papers relevant to these topics. The U.S. also believes
convening additional experts' meetings to further address
methodological issues and the development of the Secretariats' work
plan would be useful.
Re: Comments on Agenda Item 6 of the Fourth Session of the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice - Geneva,
16-18 December 1996
Ref.: EED(97)07
Dear Mr. Zammit Cutajar,
As you may know, the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat
had an opportunity to address the fourth session of the SBSTA on the
important item of reporting requirements for Activities Implemented
Jointly (AIJ). As mentioned during my intervention, we suggest that
an additional category of information, namely technology
characteristics, be included in the reporting format. Mr.
Faragó noted favourably my intervention and said that we
should work with the UNFCCC Secretariat to have our suggestions
incorporated.
The IEA feels that AIJ projects will serve a valuable role in demonstrating the reliability of various technologies. As such, technology diffusion will be helped if potential users can quickly identify the location of comparable projects. Therefore, we believe the Parties to the Convention may find it helpful to add the following three items to the reporting data in document FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15 in Annex I A) 3) (Activities) and Annex II 1) B)(1)
4) (Summary of activities) to cover technology
characteristics:
- a category which reports on the technology area of an AIJ
project, such as renewable energy technology or clean fossil fuels
technology;
- a category which reports on the type of technology such
as wind energy technology or gas fired boiler technology;
and
- a category which reports on the magnitude of an AIJ
project such as the capacity of a generating unit or the number of
kilowatt-hours saved in an energy efficiency project.
Equivalent information could also be reported on non-energy
projects.
The IEA is of the view that the addition of these categories to
the reporting requirements of AIJ projects will help to enhance the
awareness of climate friendly technologies which are being deployed
in countries both now and in the future, and will help the diffusion
of these technologies.
In addition to these comments on technology types, we would like
to inform you that we have further research underway to address the
methodological issues which are identified in footnote b) in Annex I
A 3) on lifetime of activities and on the methodologies which are
referred to in Annex I E to differentiate a baseline scenario from an
AIJ scenario. We will make this further research available to you
after we have had a chance to refine it to make it more
"user-friendly".
Our research already indicates that AIJ activities also surround
the removal of investment constraints. AIJ could target the financial
engineering or certain capacity building activities which would push
a project into actual realisation. A reporting framework for AIJ
would need to allow the description of such activities as
well.
We appreciate the opportunity to make this technical input and, as
always, look forward to our continued cooperation in support of the
UNFCCC process.