Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/CP/1996/14
4 June 1996
Original: ENGLISH
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Second session
Geneva, 8-19 July 1996
Item 5 (d) of the provisional agenda
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND
OF DECISIONS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY: ANNUAL
REVIEW
OF PROGRESS UNDER THE PILOT
PHASE
Progress report on activities implemented
jointly(1)
Note by the secretariat
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1 - 9 3
A. Mandate and background 1 - 7 3
B. Scope of this document 8 - 9 4
II. INFORMATION ON AIJ PROJECTS 10 - 16 4
Paragraphs Page
III. REPORTING ON AIJ 17 - 21 6
IV. INFORMATION ON AIJ PROGRAMMES 22 - 24 7
A. AIJ project criteria 22 - 23 7
B. AIJ programme features 24 8
V. PROPOSED WORK PLAN 25 - 35 8
Annex National contact information 11
List of analytical tables on information submitted by
Parties on
activities implemented
jointly(2)
1. AIJ by country Parties 1
2. AIJ project summary 3
3. Consistency of reports with reporting framework
3
4. Project criteria comparison
5
5. National programme features 7
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Mandate and background
1. The Conference of the Parties, at its first session
(COP 1), by its decision 5/CP.1,(3)
decided to established a pilot phase for activities implemented
jointly (AIJ). The criteria for such activities and the principles
governing the pilot phase were defined in the same
decision.
2. By its decision 5/CP.1, paragraph 2 (a), the
Conference decided that a framework for reporting on AIJ under the
pilot phase should be established by the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), in coordination with the
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).
3. The SBSTA, at its first session, considered the
issue and requested the secretariat to prepare proposals on a
reporting framework, taking into consideration views expressed by
Parties and experience gained in activities implemented jointly, for
consideration at its future sessions (FCCC/SBSTA/1995/3, para. 31
(b)).
4. In conjunction with the first session of the
subsidiary bodies, a technical panel discussion was organized by the
secretariat as a side event. It was well attended and was considered
to be a useful opportunity to exchange views on
AIJ.
5. At its second session, the SBSTA considered two
documents containing views by Parties (FCCC/SBSTA/1995/MISC.1,
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/MISC.1) and a note by the secretariat
(FCCC/SBSTA/1996/5).
6. At this session, the SBSTA adopted an initial
reporting framework on AIJ during the pilot phase, and decided to
compile and synthesize, in cooperation with the SBI, and with the
assistance of the secretariat, information transmitted by the Parties
in the form of a report to be considered annually by the Conference
of the Parties (COP), and, based on this information, to develop
suggestions for improving the initial reporting framework and for
addressing methodological issues, as necessary. Furthermore, the
SBSTA invited Parties to identify the relevant governmental authority
or ministry authorized to accept, approve or endorse activities
implemented jointly and to report them to the COP through the
secretariat (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/8, para. 76).
7. At its second session, the SBI took note of the
SBSTA decision and requested the secretariat to prepare a progress
report on activities implemented jointly for its next session to be
held immediately prior to COP 2. Delegations were invited to submit
information to the secretariat in accordance with the SBSTA decision
for inclusion in the report by 1 April 1996
(FCCC/SBI/1996/9).
B. Scope of this document
8. The present document is the progress report
submitted in response to this request by the SBI, and is intended to
assist the SBSTA in preparing, in coordination with the SBI, the
first annual report for consideration by the COP at its second
session. The report contains information on projects undertaken
through AIJ, on the reporting process itself, and on national AIJ
programmes. The document further contains a section responding to the
request of the SBSTA that suggestions for improving the reporting
framework and resolving methodological issues be developed. This
section includes a proposal for a work programme which is intended to
deal with these issues.
9. The SBSTA and the SBI may decide to utilize
information contained in this progress report for the preparation of
their report to the COP. The subsidiary bodies may wish to provide
feedback to the secretariat on the structure and presentation of the
present progress report. Decisions could also be made with respect to
the proposals contained in paragraph 19 on the adoption of a unified
reporting format and in paragraphs 25-35 on a proposed work
plan.
II. INFORMATION ON AIJ
PROJECTS
10. In adopting the initial reporting framework, the SBSTA
specified that "each national Government of Parties involved in
activities implemented jointly should report separately to the COP
through the secretariat on a project-by-project basis, unless
participating Parties agree on a common report on a particular
project". The SBSTA went on to state: "If the Parties choose not to
report jointly, the secretariat will not process information on that
project until reports on that project from all Parties concerned,
particularly developing country Parties, are transmitted to the
secretariat" (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/8, annex IV).
11. In response to the adoption by the SBSTA of the
reporting framework for activities implemented jointly under the
pilot phase, and the invitation to Parties to submit reports on these
activities, reports were received from six Parties (Australia,
Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, United States of America). It
should be noted that the time allowed for submissions in order for
the information contained in them to be included in the present
report was quite short, and therefore not all Parties with current
AIJ efforts were able to meet the deadline. Of the Parties which did
submit reports, Canada reported on the development of its AIJ
programme and project selection criteria, while the other Parties
reported both on their programmes and on specific
projects.
12. Two projects were reported jointly, one by Hungary and
the Netherlands, another by Mexico and Norway. No separate reports
were received from countries hosting AIJ projects, although letters
were forwarded to the secretariat from four host country Parties,
agreeing with the project reports as presented by the reporting
Party. Therefore much of the country and project-specific information
presented in this report should be regarded as tentative and
preliminary, and as subject to subsequent confirmation. At this time
the secretariat has compiled this information primarily for the
purpose of presenting a prototype report in order to comply with the
SBSTA's request that such a report be prepared, and in order to
invite comment and guidance on the structure and presentation of the
progress report itself. Table 1(4) in
the addendum to the present note (FCCC/CP/1996/14/Add.1) identifies
all of the country partners and projects which are the subject of
this report.
13. Thirty-two projects were described, of which
13 were ongoing and 17 were in the planning stage, while two
descriptions did not indicate clearly the implementation status of
the projects; projects were reported to be in 17 countries or
regions. Reported non-governmental project participants were most
frequently energy providers, with some additional industry
participation, as well as participation by research organizations and
environmental non-governmental organizations. Projects reported may
be classified in accordance with the sectors identified by the IPCC
as follows: five in energy efficiency, twelve in renewable energy,
five in fuel switching, five in forest preservation, restoration or
reforestation, four in afforestation, and one in fugitive gas capture
(see table 2). No projects on emissions from industrial processes,
solvents, agriculture, waste disposal or bunker fuels were
reported.
14. Projects are being carried out or have been
proposed in a variety of non-Annex II countries and regions,
including Belize, Bhutan, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Ecuador,
Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Latvia, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Uganda, and the South
Pacific region.
15. With respect to the coverage of all relevant
sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, projects reported
related primarily to CO2, with a limited emphasis on
CH4 and precursors. There was no consistent approach among
reporting Parties to projecting emission reductions. Reductions were
reported variously, on an annual basis both with and without project
lifetimes, and on a total project basis with reductions spread over
varying project lifetimes. Based on the information provided, a
limited number of cautious statements can be made about the
effectiveness of the reported AIJ projects. Where it is possible to
determine the project lifetime and total emission reductions from the
submitted reports, it appears that at least 42,000 gigagrams of
carbon will be removed from the atmosphere over the next 120 years by
the reported projects. Aggregating reported annual emission
reductions where no project lifetime was reported with reductions
which were reported as total reductions over a project lifetime leads
to the conclusion that in an average hypothetical year approximately
1900 gigagrams of carbon will be removed from the atmosphere by the
reported projects. However, differences in reporting, calculation
methodology, and baseline determination make these numbers purely
illustrative; numbers are provided solely for the purpose of
indicating the scale of the reported projects, and to highlight the
difficulties in determining project and programme effectiveness in
the absence of any consistency of calculations and
reporting.
16. Project costs were rarely reported in a manner
permitting cost comparisons and cost effectiveness determinations. It
appears that a number of reported projects were not initiated
exclusively as AIJ projects, and do receive other funding in addition
to the AIJ funding component of the project, but it was not possible
to determine the extent to which this is the
case.
III. REPORTING ON AIJ
17. The reporting framework adopted by the SBSTA specifies
who should report AIJ activities, the frequency of reporting, and the
contents of the reports. In general, reports should contain a full
project description, a discussion of arrangements between the two
countries involved, a description of the benefits to be derived from
the project including supporting calculations, a discussion of
emissions and financial additionality, and a discussion of the
contributions of the project to capacity building and technology
transfer.
18. The designation of official focal points for AIJ
information is an important aspect of the decision by the SBSTA to
adopt the reporting framework, and an official focal point was
designated by each reporting Party. One Party which notified the
secretariat of the designation of an official focal point, did not
submit a report on AIJ activities or programmes (see annex). The
issue of national focal points for the Convention process was taken
up in the note verbale dated 8 May 1996 sent to Parties by the
Executive Secretary.
19. The secretariat has reviewed the submitted reports in
the light of the adopted reporting framework, and a synthesis of the
consistency of the reports received with the reporting framework is
presented in table 3. The national programmes on AIJ are at different
stages of advancement and, given the short time available for
reporting, this may have influenced the ability of Parties to report
in a manner consistent with the recently adopted framework. Table 3
should be read with this in mind.
20. The reporting framework adopted by the SBSTA is a
useful tool which facilitates the analysis and comparison of AIJ
projects and programmes; however, these tasks would be greatly
simplified by the adoption of a uniform reporting format within the
reporting framework. One Party submitted its report in a format which
exactly paralleled that of the adopted reporting framework. This
approach not only serves to simplify the task of analysis, but can
also serve as a checklist for the reporting Party to ensure that all
items in the adopted reporting framework are covered in the report.
With this exception, there was a great variety of reporting formats,
which complicated the comparability of information used in the
preparation of this report. For this reason the SBSTA may wish to
consider adopting a reporting format as a complement to the adopted
reporting framework. Parties could be invited to submit proposals in
that regard or alternatively a technical meeting could be convened to
draft a proposed reporting format.
21. Three reporting Parties submitted calculations
supporting their estimates of benefits derived from the AIJ projects.
Two Parties submitted calculations, assumptions, and calculation
methodology for every reported project, which greatly enhances the
transparency of their reports, as any third party can independently
verify the emission reductions and carbon sequestration claimed.
Emissions additionality often remained unclear, especially in cases
where AIJ was only a portion of an existing or already planned
project.
IV. INFORMATION ON AIJ
PROGRAMMES
A. AIJ project criteria
22. In reviewing the information submitted on national
programmes, it was clear that all reporting Parties had endeavoured
to meet the criteria defined in decision 5/CP.1 to some extent. All
of the reporting Parties have made reference to these criteria.
However, the extent of the reference ranges from the inclusion of
some of them to the verbatim incorporation of nearly all of them.
Project approval criteria are reported in table 4, which is divided
into a comparison of the relationship between the criteria defined by
the COP and the corresponding criteria reported by Parties, and a
section on additional project approval criteria developed by the
reporting Parties for their national AIJ programmes.
23. As table 4 indicates, the criteria defined by the COP
have been generally adhered to in the development of AIJ project
criteria. However, two criteria, those of emissions additionality and
cost-effectiveness, have been much less explicitly adopted.
(Furthermore, there is an issue about how to account for financial
additionality in cases where a project receives a portion of its
funding through the Global Environment Facility or regular official
development assistance):
(a) One reporting Party has as an explicit criterion a
statement that emissions reductions and carbon sequestration must be
additional to those that would have occurred in the absence of the
AIJ project. The other reporting Parties have not indicated that
emissions additionality is a strict criterion in their programmes.
This fact is reflected in project reports, where emissions
additionality is often difficult to determine;
(b) Two Parties mentioned cost-effectiveness in relation
to project criteria, and only one Party provided sufficient
information for the cost-effectiveness of projects to be determined.
In addition, where projects were funded by the private sector, no
information was provided on profits or tax benefits accruing to the
sponsoring company as a result of investment in the project, nor does
decision 5/CP.1 provide guidance on how these factors should be
considered. Furthermore, the decision envisages the
cost-effectiveness of AIJ as a whole, without requiring that
individual projects be cost-effective in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Further consideration of this criterion is necessary to
ensure that this aspect of decision 5/CP.1 is being
implemented.
B. AIJ programme features
24. In addition to the approval criteria for specific
projects, all reporting Parties described their AIJ programmes, which
are in various stages of development. Programme elements which are
intended to guide the direction of AIJ in these reporting country
Parties are presented in table 5.
V. PROPOSED WORK PLAN
25. In adopting an initial reporting framework for AIJ,
the SBSTA held open the prospect of making future improvements to the
reporting framework, as well as of considering methodological issues.
As this progress report has revealed, there are a number of issues
arising from the Parties' approach to decision 5/CP.1, and from
experience gathered in the process of reporting for the first time
under the newly adopted reporting framework, which would benefit from
further attention from the subsidiary bodies. In addition, one Party
suggested that this report contain a draft work plan on
methodological issues to be examined by the SBSTA during the coming
year. The SBSTA may want to consider adopting a systematic approach
to the resolution of these issues, such as the work plan proposed
below.
Time-frame
26. Decision 5/CP.1 also states that the COP shall take
into consideration the need for a comprehensive review of the pilot
phase in order to take a conclusive decision on the pilot phase and
progression beyond that, no later than the end of the present decade.
Given this time-frame of approximately three years to resolve all of
the issues identified above, as well as for consideration of other
issues and arrangements as they arise, an expeditious schedule of
work is necessary in order to ensure that the Conference at its fifth
session will have readily available all of the information it needs
to make a decision regarding progression beyond the pilot phase at
that time.
Workshops on methodological issues
27. A number of important issues have arisen during the
preparation of this progress report, which the SBSTA may wish to
consider. Methodological issues such as the development of
agreed-upon calculations for both emission reductions and
sequestration projects, a uniform approach to baseline
determinations, the assessment of emissions additionality and
financial additionality, cost-effectiveness determinations, project
assessment procedures and reporting transparency are critical to the
success of the pilot phase of AIJ. In addition, the SBSTA may wish to
consider developing an approach to the facilitation of AIJ project
and programme information sharing.
28. With regard to methodological issues such as those
mentioned above, the SBSTA may wish to entrust the secretariat with
the task of convening of expert workshops. Such workshops could
consider, as concrete examples, submissions already made to the SBSTA
for the preparation of this progress report, or could invite
additional submissions from Parties. Such a workshop process could
also take up the issue of minimal institutional arrangements needed
for progressing beyond the pilot phase of AIJ. Such workshops would
bring together a representative mix of experts, with specialized
expertise in the issues on the work programme. Should a roster of
experts be established by the SBSTA, it could be drawn upon for this
purpose. Meetings would be scheduled so as to complete the work
programme before the fifth session of the Conference of the
Parties.
Information, storage and dissemination
29. In order to deal with the collection, storage and
dissemination of information regarding AIJ during the pilot phase,
the secretariat intends to integrate, to the extent feasible,
information reported on AIJ into the CC:INFO database. Progress on
this aspect would be reported to the SBSTA at its fourth session in
December 1996.
30. In addition, through the process of reviewing the
national communications and the AIJ reports, the secretariat has
become aware of Parties wishing to host AIJ projects that have not
yet been able to find sponsors for these projects. The secretariat
intends to include in the CC:INFO database such information about
host country Parties with projects lacking sponsorship.
Compilation report
31. In order to provide an ongoing update of information
related to AIJ, the secretariat could prepare a compilation report
for each of the subsidiary bodies' regularly scheduled meetings, in
addition to the annual progress report to be prepared for meetings of
the COP. These compilation reports could reflect in concise form
information submitted by the Parties related to ongoing or potential
projects and available resources, a bibliography of current printed
material on AIJ, and a directory of electronic sites containing
information on AIJ. Such an interim report would have the advantage
of being available to all interested parties, and would facilitate
the exchange of information on AIJ among Parties and other
participants in the intergovernmental process during the pilot
phase.
AIJ forum
32. With regard to facilitating AIJ project and programme
information sharing, an AIJ forum could be convened. This group would
provide an opportunity for the designated focal points for AIJ of all
Parties participating in, or wishing to participate in, the pilot
phase of AIJ to share views and experience. An AIJ forum could also
consider review procedures, project evaluation processes and other
aspects of programme design and matters related to reporting and
information sharing. Such a body could, for instance, meet once or
twice annually for up to two days in conjunction with regularly
scheduled subsidiary body meetings.
Dissemination of information
33. The SBSTA may also wish to consider issues related to
the dissemination of information on AIJ received by the secretariat.
Clarification could be provided as to (1) whether all information on
AIJ received by the secretariat should be considered to be public
information, or whether any project information may be considered to
be confidential; and (2) whether, in addition to synthesis reports,
there is a need to disseminate information received on projects and
programmes in the form in which it is submitted, bearing in mind the
potential cost of such a process. If requested, the secretariat could
study cost-effective approaches to such dissemination and report its
findings to Parties.
Timing of next reports
34. According to the initial framework, reports on AIJ may
be submitted by Parties at any time. In order for a report to be
taken into account in the synthesis to be prepared for COP 3 it will
need to be submitted by a date to be announced at the fourth session
of the SBSTA in December 1996.
Costs
35. Implementing the above work plan will involve costs
for the secretariat. The core budget provides for staff resources
that could initiate the implementation of such activities.
Supplementary funding would be needed to meet other implementation
costs. Initial interest has been indicated by individual Parties in
providing support for the implementation of methodological workshops
such as those mentioned in paragraph 28 above. The integration of AIJ
information into CC:INFO will require additional supplementary funds.
The cost of convening an AIJ forum of the kind mentioned in paragraph
32 above would depend on whether it could meet during sessions of
subsidiary bodies and on language requirements and any other
conference servicing costs. Depending on the interest expressed by
the subsidiary bodies in the various elements of the work programme,
the secretariat will prepare proposals for supplementary funding.
Annex
NATIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION
The following contact points on activities implemented
jointly have been designated by Parties.
Australia:
Australia's National Program on AIJ
Australian AIJ
c/o Mr Paul Tighe
Assistant Secretary
International Competitiveness Branch
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Parkes ACT 2600 Australia
Canada:
Canadian Joint Implementation Initiative(CJII)
Mrs. Anne Boucher
Natural Resources Canada
CJII office, 19th floor
580 Booth St.
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E4 Canada
Tel: (613) 996-2921
Fax: (613) 947-6799
e-mail: anne.boucher@es.nrcan.gc.ca
(internet).
Germany:
Joint Implementation Coordination Office
The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety
Joint Implementation Coordination Office
Postfach 120629
53048 Bonn, Germany
Netherlands:
The Netherlands' Pilot Phase Program on Joint
Implementation
Mr. Henk Merkus
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment
Directorate General for Environmental Protection
Directorate Air and Energy IPC/640
Climate Change Department
P.O. Box 30945.
2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands
Tel.: (31-70) 339-4440
Fax: (31-70) 339-1310
e-mail: merkus@DLE.DGM.minvrom.nl (internet).
Norway:
National Pilot Phase Programme
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
Amb. Arno B. HØnningstad
P.O. Box 8114
7 Juni-Plasen
N-0032 Oslo Dep
Tel.: (47-2234)-3600
Fax.: (47-2234)-2782
Poland:
The official contact is:
Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources
and Forestry
ul. Wawelska 52/54
PL-00-922 Warszawa
Tel.: (4822) 251133
Fax: (4822) 253972
United States of America:
United States Initiative on Joint Implementation
The official contact is:
USIJI
PO-63
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington DC 20585, USA
Tel: (1-202) 426-1628
Fax: (1-202) 426-1540
Hotline: (1-202) 426-0072
World Wide Web: http://www.ji.org.
- - - - -
1. * All tables referred to
in this document are contained in document
FCCC/CP/1996/14/Add.1.
GE.96-
2. ** See document
FCCC/CP/1996/14/Add.1
3. For decisions adopted by the
Conference of the Parties at its first session, see document
FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1.
4. * All tables
referred to in the present note are contained in document
FCCC/CP/1996/14/Add.1.