2. Experiences with JI in Germany
Dr. Karsten Karschunke
„Designated Focal Point / Designated National Authority“
German Emissions Trading Authority
Domestic Offsetting Workshop
Dublin, 27th of May 2011

3. JI in Germany – Status Quo
Status (10/05/2011) No. of projects Expected
Emission Reductions
t CO2- equivalents
Approved (LoA) 23 16,8 Mio.
Endorsed (LoE) 13* 2 Mio.
*Projects endorsed and approved are only counted once
Projects

4. JI in Germany – status quo II
12
10
8
6 LoE
LoA
4
2
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

5. JI in Germany – prefered project categories
Industrial gases - N2O, PFC, CH4 (Coal Mine Methane)
– Large Volume of ERU,
– few operators of large point sources
– Calculation of the Baseline may be difficult – BAU versus BAT
– Inclusion in the EU ETS after 2012 (N2O, PFC)
Energy Efficiency / Biomass heating – Programmatic Approach
– PoA participants are mainly SME or private households
– For some activities, other funding schemes exist
JI can better address the target group
– Small volume of ERU but large potential for replication

6. Approved JI projects
Status (10/05/2011) No. of projects Expected Issued
Emission Reductions Emission Reductions
t CO2- equivalents t CO2- equivalents
Industrial gases - 11 15,2 Mio. 2,2 Mio.
N2O, PFC, CH
Energy efficiency / 12 1,6 Mio. 0.02 Mio.
Biomass heating
Total 23 16,8 Mio. 2,2 Mio.

7. JI in Germany – Challanges and need for coordination
National Policy
– Existing feed-in tariffs
– Existing funding schemes
– Assessment of Additionality according to AT from CDM
– Accounting of electricity from the EU ETS (emission factor 0)
– Accounting of biomass / leakage (emission factor > 0 unlike to EU ETS)
European Level
– Interpretation of „Acquis Communautaire“ according to Art. 11 b (EU ETS Directive)
– Competition issues in Europe: Baseline under JI versus Benchmarks in EU ETS

8. Joint Implementation after 2012
Present situation
– The German „Projekt-Mechanismen-Gesetz“ limits crediting until 2012
Gesetz“
– Project developers hope for extension of the crediting period (esp. for PoA)
– Without extension, we do not expect any new projects before 2012
Proposals for Germany
– Extension of the crediting period only for the programmatic projects
– Standardised approaches to baseline setting and additionality determination should
be preferred choice
– No new JI-Projecs after 2012 / replacement by DOP ?
Projecs

9. Potential for offset projects after 2012
Building sector
– JI-PoA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of heating installations and to
rising the use of biomass
Industrial sector
– In the 3rd phase of the EU ETS JI will only be able to adress SF6 and some
fluorinated Hydrocarbons
Agriculture sector
– Additional reduction potential which could be addressed with JI

10. Expectations for Domestic Offset Projects
Extending the spectrum of policy intruments
– DOPs are complementary to
– EU ETS,
– funding schemes and
– other legal instruments.
– Incentives for the private sector to look for new and innovative activities
Recommendations based on experiences
– Assessment of Additionality
– Development of Methodologies
– Verification by an independent entity
– Basic design features – like JI Track 1 without investor country

11. Proposals for Domestic Offset Projects
Idea: Positive list
– Ex-ante definition of eligible project categories
ante
– Clear definition of additionality and direction of investment towards certain sectors
– Positive list can be open for innovative projects – search function of the market
Idea: Negative list
– E.g. avoid transfer / leakage of emissions into the ETS
Idea: Harmonisation of Baseline and Crediting
– Maximum Baselines on the basis of European BAT
– „Benefit Sharing“ between project developer and public authority / national inventory
– Fixed project crediting time (e.g. 5 years) offer more security to the project developer

12. Options for a „Pay for Performance“ mechanism
Continuation of JI (as we know it)
– A multilateral agreement is needed with new AAU/ERU, (e.g. KP 2nd C.P.)
Domestic Offset Projects
– Further guidance / rules / harmonisation are needed based on Art. 24 a of EU ETS Dir.
Domestic Pay – for – Performance Mechanism
– Offering money instead of credits (AAU/ERU/EUA…)
– Quantifiing the emission reduction by methodologies and independent verification
– Project selection in a bidding procedure (cost
(cost-benefit and additional criteria)
Conclusion
– A fast outcome needs money
– A cheap outcome needs time

13. Thank you for your attention !
Dr. Karsten Karschunke
E-Mail: German.DNA.DFP@uba.de
Mail:
Internet: www.uba.de/emissionshandel