Date post: | 29-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | nooone |
View: | 311 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1
Amit Bando Ankara, TurkeyMarch 23, 2010
National Carbon Registry
A Proposal for Turkey
22
Agenda
The Current Situation in TurkeyThe Current Situation in Turkey
Essential Features of a Carbon Registry
The Proposed Turkish Carbon Registry
33
The Current Situation in Turkey
The Turkish private sector is an active participant in Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs)
100% of Turkey’s carbon projects are designed for VCMs VCMs account for less than 1% of Global Carbon Markets 63% of all VCM wind projects are of Turkish origin Strong renewable energy potential - currently, out of 64 projects, there are 34
wind, 22 hydro, 2 geothermal and 2 landfill gas projects Estimated emissions reductions of 22.6 MtCO2e by 2012 Projects worth US$ 220 million by 2012 (Ecosystem Market Place, 2008)
VCMs are defined by a lack of regulatory drivers Operate alongside their regulated market cousins
Heavily influenced by them
44
The Current Situation in Turkey (continued)
Most Turkish VCM projects have used the Gold Standard High level of market credibility ensures high value for the verifiable emissions
reductions (VER) certificates Very similar to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) standards
Turkey is an Annex-1 (non Annex-B) country under the UNFCCC Faces no legally binding emissions reduction targets Cannot participate in the largest global compliance carbon markets Cannot use the Kyoto “Flexibility Mechanisms” that include:
Emissions trading, Joint Implementation (JI), and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Turkey is negotiating for EU accession Not ready to curb economic targets to voluntarily cut GHG emissions
Likely starting point for all negotiations with the EU Will shape Turkey’s general strategy in her accession negotiations and in
negotiations for post-2012 climate regime
55
The Current Situation in Turkey (continued)
Turkey’s private sector has evolved in the VCMs through” learning by doing”
Lack of government rules and regulations Lack of institutional support mechanisms Lack of information on carbon markets at the government level
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) is key agency involved in carbon markets
Also the focal point for the European Environmental Agency Responsible for harmonizing national environmental laws with EU norms Several departments in charge of sectoral emissions control, EIAs, etc.
National Coordination Board on Climate Change (NCBCC) is responsible
for overall climate change policies Established in 2001 and revamped in 2004 (through Prime Minister’s Circular
Number 25377)
66
The Current Situation in Turkey (continued)
Some key concerns exist
The average reported value of US$ 9.4/tCO2e for Turkey’s VCM credits is about one quarter to one half of the potential value in compliance market
Turkey is an Annex 1 country poised for EU accession – both paths potentially lead towards a future emissions commitment
Undervaluation of carbon assets places nation at a long-term disadvantage because it is selling off its carbon assets at low prices
Especially true for projects that could have strategically delayed carbon reductions to maximize life cycle value (e.g., efficiency enhancement projects with a time frame of 30-50 years)
77
The Current Situation, Though in a Flux, Provides Immense Opportunities
As part of a National Carbon Management Authority, a Carbon Registry can help
Build on momentum provided by private sector participation in the VCMs
Increase the value of Turkey’s carbon assets
Provide an institutional base on which to build a compliance based carbon regime in the future
Turkey is poised to “seize the day”
88
Agenda
The Current Situation in Turkey
Essential Features of a Carbon Registry Essential Features of a Carbon Registry
The Proposed Turkish Carbon Registry
9
Carbon Project Registries: Tracking the Trades
Registries provide a host of market services Tracking credit sales and ownership Increasing market efficiency through information sharing Protecting against “double counting.”
Registries are typically classified into two categories Emissions tracking registries
Track buyer entities’ emissions and reductions Establish baselines and account for emission reductions Critical tool for cap-and-trade systems
Carbon credit accounting registries Report on transactions of credits, allowances, and offsets Create a “substantial new commoditized, fungible asset class”
10
Carbon Project Registries: The Architecture
Most registries Are public or semi-public databases and transparent Depend on third party standards to screen and classify credits Impose some level of legal liability on registrants
Third party verification is not required - but 87% of all credits in the voluntary OTC market are third party verified
Several standards are popular VCS -- used by 24% of organizations Gold Standard -- used by 18% VER+ -- used by 10% CCSB -- Used by 10%
11
Carbon Project Registries: The Cost
The cost of listing credits on an OTC registry varies widely Difficult to pin down - registries bundle their services differently.
Environmental Resources Trust (ERT)’s GHG Registry charges $2,000 - $6,000 for opening an account annual renewal fee of $1,500 to $5,000 $.035/ tCO2e administrative transaction and software system fee.
New Zealand-based Registry Company (known as “Regi”) account registration for buyers/sellers is free per-project verification costs are $149 transaction fees around $0.23 per credit transferred $0.04 for each credit retired (fixed cost of $1.12 for each transfer)
ERT services can include third party verification, whereas Regi only accepts
credits that have already passed inspection by a certification service.
12
Carbon Project Registries: Usage Data
Several registries are being used CCX -- 12% Blue Registry -- 13% CDM/JI -- 18% Gold Standard Registry -- 4% Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) -- 5% US Department of Energy -- 4% California Climate Accounting Registry (CCAR) -- 2% New South Wales -- 2% Bank of NY -- 0.08% Other --14% Retailers’ own specific registry -- 26%
13
Exchange, Standard, Verifier and Supplier Registries: Examples
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) Registry An accounting system for the CCX’s cap- and-trade scheme Suppliers seeking to include their credits in the registry must be members Offsets need approval of CCX Committee on Offsets
Assigns serial numbers to ensuing third party-verified credits Registry is both an emissions reductions tracking program and a carbon
credit accounting system Somewhat transparent, providing publicly-available information regarding
the offset provider/aggregator, project type and location, as well as transaction volume.
14
Newer Registries: Example
Gold Standard Registry for VERs - 2008 Gold Standard Foundation and APX created registry Creates, tracks, and enables the transfer of Gold Standard certified VERs,
ERUs, and CERs Low-cost and transparent electronic database Registered users can access information on the status of credits (such as
whether they are re-sellable or retired) Serialization of each Gold Standard VER credit Double-entry accounting framework Full ownership and transaction tracking for VERs, ERUs, and CERs
1515
Agenda
The Current Situation in Turkey
Essential Features of a Carbon Registry
The Proposed Turkish Carbon RegistryThe Proposed Turkish Carbon Registry
16
Investments through VERs are viable options for Turkey under the UNFCC
To promote economic development goals, the nation needs to attract additional foreign direct investment (FDI)
The VER market is growing rapidly with active VER registries in Europe, Australia and the US -- market expected to grow rapidly
The VER market analysis suggests that Turkey should focus on certain key sectors to develop attractive projects
17
Proposed Carbon Market Registry will Enhance Investments through VERs
Initially, Turkey’s Carbon Market Registry should serve as a project registry
The Registry should keep the costs of registration low to encourage universal project registration
The Registry should use internationally accepted standards to screen credits
For example, Turkey has had considerable success using the Gold Standard Allows for compatibility with the CDM and potential fungibility between VERs
and CERs
18
Proposed Carbon Market Registry will Enhance Investments through VERs (continued)
The Carbon Market Registry should keep its data partially public This will enhance the credibility of the system at the outset Increase investor confidence in the system Overtime, database could be opened up for public scrutiny and greater
transparency
Eventually, in anticipation of a future compliance regime, the Registry could Develop its own monitoring, reporting, and verification procedures patterned after
EU and other internally acceptable guidelines Be prepared to ensure compliance through the deduction of allowances from
accounts in the registry equal to verified emissions reported for each installation Be prepared to specify compliance penalties
19
Proposed Carbon Market Registry - Physical Infrastructure
Initially, the Registry could be a three-person unit within the MoEF
The Head of the Carbon Registry could be “seconded” by the MoEF
A mid-level technical specialist should also be assigned to the Registry
An administrative staff-member should complete the unit
This structure is likely to ensure support for the fledgling Registry
20
Proposed Carbon Market Registry - Physical Infrastructure (continued)
MoEF line-item budget allocations should finance the Registry for at least two years
Registry is expected to operate with considerable autonomy with regards to registering carbon projects
Will need to leverage existing government, private sector and academic resources. Should establish a physical and on-line presence with active legal, financial and
institutional support Over time, the Registry will improve its own capacity as well as that of
MoEF, other government agencies and project developers to support the nation’s participation in the VCMs
Many of its services could be rendered on a “fee for service” basis This will ensure that Registry is able to generate revenue streams in
addition to the project-registration fees
21
Proposed Carbon Market Registry - Online System Features
At the outset, the Carbon Registry should invite uniform membership for the sole purpose of registering Turkey’s carbon projects
Carbon Registry members should be able to register online via a
secure portal Manage accounts in the secure environment and navigate through the
Registry’s website All applications, reviews and approvals should be handled electronically Approved projects should be listed online
The website should be user-friendly and informative The online services should include information and guidance documents
for potential project developers and the general public
22
Proposed Carbon Market Registry - Online System Features (continued)
Eventually, in anticipation of a compliance regime (e.g., as part of EU accession) the Registry should aim for three levels of membership
Full Members who are entities with significant direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions who have committed to reducing their emissions a certain percent per year from a baseline determined by their average emissions over a specified period of time
Associate Members who are entities with negligible direct GHG emissions, such as office- based institutions, businesses, and service organizations. Associate Members should commit to report and fully offset 100% of their indirect emissions associated with energy purchases and business travel from year of entry through a certain date in the future
Participant Members who are project developers, offset providers, offset aggregators, and liquidity providers