Objective: This screening tool is intended to be used to structure project concept assessment to quickly determine project eligibility for registration

Objective:

This screening tool is intended to be used to structure project concept assessment to quickly determine project eligibility for registration for the pilot phase of MDG Carbon, and to identify areas of concern.

The screening tool only addresses aspects related to 'carbon', and does not address other important project issues such as project proponent solvency, project financing etc. These must be addressed separately.

The tool is divided into 9 simplified assessment flowcharts. The assessment is not intended to be exact, but requires some interpretation:

•All screens give ‘A’ = A – looks good.

•1 ‘B’ = B, 1 ‘C’ = C, but several ‘B’s will result in a ‘C’

• 1 ‘C’ = C, but several ‘C’s means the project is going to be difficult (ie- ‘D’)

• Any ‘D’ = D – unlikely to be eligible.

Assessment for a project concept may result in ‘A – B’ for projects that receive mostly A ratings, but have 1 or 2 parts that could be rated B pending further information.

Some project concepts will have one aspect that is critical and rates a C or even D, though all other screens rate A. In such cases, the overall ranking would be ‘C’ or ‘C-D’, but the user may choose to follow up on the critical rating to see if this can easily be resolved to improve the overall rating to ‘A’.

Note that the tool is intended to structure thinking – it assists, but does NOT REPLACE GOOD JUDGEMENT.

Screening Tool for Pilot MDG Carbon projects

How to use:

A

B

C

D

If the flowchart leads to an 'A' result, proceed to the next chart. Projects that result in 'A' on all charts should be considered as having no impediments (from 'carbon' perspective) to registration with MDG Carbon.

If the flowchart leads to any 'B' rating, this issue is a significant (but not major) concern. Users of the tool should continue through the screens to determine whether there are other areas of concern (ie more than one 'B' result).

If the flowchart leads to any 'C' result, this issue is a major concern. Users should continue through the screens, however if the flowchart leads to two or more 'C' results it may be difficult to overcome all of these major concerns.

If the flowchart leads to a 'D' at any point the project is unlikely to be eligible and the project should probably not be pursued as a 'carbon' project.

Notes to assist users are provided at the end of the screens, however where sufficient information is not available to answer a question in the screens, users should follow both paths (ie take 'yes' and 'no' paths) to ascertain the potential impact of the uncertainty. If either path results in a 'C' or 'D' result, this information is critical and should be sought before investing any further resources in project development.

Screening Tool for MDG Carbon projects

Does project reduce, prevent or mitigate the release of 1 or more of the Kyoto gases [See appendix 3]?

Does the project remove CO2 or other GHGs from the atmosphere?

Are reductions based on nuclear power, decrease in production/ project activity level or force majeure [1]?

Does project contravene or work against other international, regional or national treaties [2]?

Have project activities already started [3]?

Is loan finance used in any of the parts listed in [5]?

Are any grants included in the project financing for tasks other than those listed in [7]

Are any loans provided by International Finance Institutions [6]?

Are loans concessional and/or underwritten by ODA?

Does grant include ODA or IFI loan underpinned by ODA?

NO NO

YES

Is Official Development Aid (ODA) used in implementation of the project [5]?

START

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

NO

NO

NO NO

Project not relevant

Project not eligible

Project unlikely to be approved

Project unlikely to be eligible – see note [4].

Project not eligible for some buyers & unattractive to MDG Carbon

Are reductions based on avoided deforestation?

YES

NO

A

NO

A

D

D

D

D

D

go to sequestration page

X

Screen 1: General eligibility for CDM

Does the donor provide clear documentation that they do not have, and will not make any claim to the emission reductions?

NO

B Usage of this finance (& all project financing) will require very clear & careful analysis & tracking to ensure it is not used in contravention of the Kyoto Protocol or the donor’s documented intent.

YES

Continue screening

Is project in an Annex I country (see Appendix 2 for list of countries)?

Is the project in an Annex II country (see Appendix 2 for list of country)?

YES YES

NONO

Project not eligible for CDM in this country

START

Has the host country ratified the Kyoto Protocol [See Appendix 2 for list of countries]?

Project is not eligible for CDM but may be eligible for JI

Does host country have an operating DNA [1]; [See Appendix 2]?

YES

Unlikely CDM project will be successful in this country

NO Is ratification planned to be completed by 1/1/2008?

NO

YES

Unlikely project will be approved soon enough to be viable

NO Is a DNA in the process of being established now?

NO

YES

Will DNA be functional for approval before 1/1/2008?

NO

YES

Does the DNA currently operate effectively [2]?

YES

DNA high risk of being impediment to project development

NO Is the DNA likely to be able to operate effectively & efficiently by 1/1/2008 [2]?

NO

YES

YES

Need to work with host government to build DNA capacity

Will the project likely satisfy the stated host country sustainable development policies and/or is host government actively supportive of project type?

YES

NO

Is project type likely to be accepted/incorporated into host governments sustainable development policies?

Project will not achieve DNA approval

NO

Need to work to make project attractive to host government’s SD policies

UNKNOWNYES

Consult with host government on sustainable development policies

B

BA

C

C

C

D

D

D

C

Screen 2: Host country eligibility and approval of projects for CDM

JI

Is the project required by federal, state or municipal legislation or regulation?

Can it be clearly demonstrated that non-compliance with these laws is widespread?

YES NO

NO

Not eligible

START

Are there relevant national or regional sectoral policies that give comparative advantage to higher emitting technologies (E+) [1]?

NO

Were these policies implemented after 11 December 1997?

YES

Is overcoming this policy an important part of showing additionality?

YES YES Unlikely to be additional

NO

Baseline establishment and additionality cannot include these policies

Are there relevant national or regional sectoral policies that give comparative advantage to lower emitting technologies (E-) [2]?

Were these policies implemented after 11 November 2001?

YES

Is excluding this policy an important part of showing additionality?

NO YES Unlikely to be additional

NO

Is the project the least cost option [3]?

Are there other barriers to project implementation [4]?

YES NO Unlikely to be eligible

NO

YES

Is the project common practice in the country?

YES

YES

Can project conservatively and transparently demonstrate barriers?

NO OR UNKNOWN Unlikely to be eligible

YES

Is project common practice in the region?

YES Not eligible

Are there particular circumstances for this project that can clearly show why this project is different to local conditions?

NO

Significant risk this project will be rejected unless particulars of the project are clearly unique

YESCan project clearly demonstrate differences between national and local conditions, and that the project is not common practice locally?

NO

Can project clearly show this?

Need to demonstrate that the project is not common practice

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

B

B AA

D

D

D

D

C

C

C

-B

NO BBaseline establishment and additionality cannot exclude these policies

Screen 3: Additionality

Has the project identified relevant sources of emissions in the project [1]?

Identification of sources is required before assessment of project viability can be made

START

Costs of monitoring will need to be carefully examined & strictly controlled

BA

Has the project determined a credible baseline scenario (ie an objectively reasonable description of what would happen in the absence of the project)?

Has the project identified relevant sources of emissions in the baseline [1]?

Has the project identified an Approved Methodology that is applicable? (see Appendix 4)

Does the project have relevant historical, market &/or sectoral data required for the baseline?

Can emissions be monitored and verified using data generated from measurements of project fundamentals [3]?

B

YES

NO

Identification of a baseline scenario is required before assessment of project viability can be made

BNO

BNO

NO Is an applicable methodology confidently expected to be approved before 1 June 2007?

C

Is the required baseline data easily and cheaply attainable [2] ?

NOC

B

NO

YES

Are monitoring devices specifically for emissions available cheaply “off-the-shelf” in the host country [3]?

Can project &/or location specific monitoring devices be developed and implemented at reasonable cost and time [4]?

CNO

YES

NONO

YES

Screen 4: Baselines

Identification of baseline sources is required before assessment of project viability can be made

Any further delay in methodology approval will seriously threaten project viability

Project should attain this data before committing extensive resources

Reliable data can be difficult to attain, and this may prove a significant obstacle to baseline approval

Costs of monitoring may be higher than income created.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

Has the project selected a particular site/region for implementation?

Not possible to assess project viability without further site specific information

START

A

B

YES

NO

Screen 5: Ownership & Stakeholder engagement

Is project a generic, national approach/strategy that does not apply to a particular site [1]?

NO

Does project have reliable up to date information from recent feasibility studies?

YES

YES

This will be necessary to determine implementation times and stakeholder engagements

BNO

Has initial stakeholder consultation been undertaken?

Stakeholder support is essential for registration

YES

NO

Does project have reliable information from local sources to indicate stakeholders views on the project [2]?

NO

Are stakeholders supportive of the project?

Project will not be eligible without stakeholder support

YES

NOCan stakeholder concerns be reasonably addressed with changes to project and/or other measures?

NO

YES

C-B

C D-

Adjust or redesign project to address concerns

BYES

Are there comparable projects that set a precedent for resolving competing ownership claims for the project?

Are there, or could there be, competing ownership claims?

Are there comparable projects that set a precedent of ownership for the project?

Has the project identified & documented ownership of emission reductions?

Have potential claimants (including governments) waived ownership claims?

B

B

C

Ensure the precedent is applicable & confirm undisputed ownership of ERs

Competing ownership claims can quickly ruin a project. This should be addressed before any significant investment.

Project should confirm ownership using precedent as soon as possible.

Ownership can be an intractable issue & should be addressed before any significant project investment

C

YES

YES

YES

YES

NONO

NO

NONO

YES

Can project be implemented by 1/1/2008 [1]?

Project only likely to be viable with functional voluntary market and/or post-2012 policy certainty

START

A

YES

NO

Screen 6: Implementation time and emission reductions

Can project be implemented by 1/1/2009?

NO

YES

Can project be implemented by 1/1/2010?

NOC D-

NO

YES

Are average project emission reductions > 25 ktCO2e/year?

D

Any time delay or delivery failure likely to result in project failure unless post 2012 or voluntary market established


C

NO

YES

Are average project emission reductions 5 -25 tCO2e/year?

D



C


YES

NO

BAny time delay may imperil project viability

YES


Are average project emission reductions 5-25 ktCO2e/year?

Are average project emission reductions 1 – 5 ktCO2e/year?

D Not viableNO NO NO

B CDelivery failure may imperil project viability


YES YES YES

Does project remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sequestration?)

Methodologies have not been approved and considerable administrative and political hurdles remain

START

NO

Screen 7: Sequestration

Is project based on avoided deforestation?

YESIs project based on capture and storage technologies [1]?

NOC

D Project not easily defined as a sequestration project

NO

Is project based on avoided deforestation that is currently occurring to supply thermal energy for users?

Are average project emissions < 15ktCO2/year and <15MW capacity (where electricity is part of project?

Can the project clearly demonstrate that deforestation will be avoided?

DThis is not an eligible CDM project. However project may be an eligible JI project if undertaken in Annex 1 country

NO

D Project not eligible

DProject not eligible

NO

These project types are difficult to demonstrate clear baselines and extensive monitoring will be required. No projects of this type have been validated as of 1/6/2006

C-B

Is project based on afforestation or reforestation [2]?

Is project based on revegetation or forest/ cropland/ grazing land management?

DThese are not eligible projects for CDM but may be an eligible JI project if undertaken in and Annex 1 country

YES

DOther project types are not eligible for CDM or JI

Was land unforested on 31/12/1989? D Project is not

eligible

C- BEven where projects are clearly eligible, substantial difficulties remain, in particular: complexities in quantification and monitoring, permanence of removals, time lag between project commencement and significant removals occurring – significant removals unlikely to occur before 2012 and hence financial and political risks. See also [Z]

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Important – see note [Z] before screening sequestration projects.

Principle 1: The project respects internationally proclaimed human rights NONot eligible

START

DYES

A

Screen 8: Safeguard Principles

Does the project adhere to the following 13 safeguard principles?

Principle 2: The project is not complicit in human rights abuses

Principle 3: The project respects dignity, human rights, cultural property and uniqueness of indigenous peoples

Principle 4: The project does not involve involuntary resettlement

Principle 5: The project respects employees´ freedom of association and their right to collective bargaining

Principle 6: The project does not involve any form of forced or compulsory labor

Principle 7: The project does not employ any form of child labor

Principle 8: The project does not involve any discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation

Principle 9: The project provides workers with a safe and healthy work environment

Principle 10: The project takes a precautionary approach in regard to environmental challenges

Principle 11: The project does not involve significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats

Principle 12: The project does not involve corruption at any level

Principle 13: The project does not involve the alteration, damage or removal of any critical cultural heritage

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

NONot eligibleD

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

How does the project impact MDG 1 (“Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” [1])?

Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?

NEGATIVE NONot eligible

START

D

C-B Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated

How does the project impact MDG 2 (“Achieve universal primary education” [2])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 3 (“Promote gender equality and empower women” [3])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 4 (“Reduce child mortality” [4])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 5 (“Improve maternal health” [5])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 6 (“Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases” [6])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 7 (“Ensure environmental sustainability” [7])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

How does the project impact MDG 8 (“Develop a global partnership for development” [8])?


NEGATIVE NOD

C-B

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL

A

Not eligible

Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated

Not eligible


Not eligible


Not eligible


Not eligible


Not eligible


Not eligible


Screen 9: MDG screen- Precluding significant negative impacts

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

1. References on General Eligibility

1 Decrease in production: A project cannot claim CERs for emission reductions that were achieved by decreasing production. If e.g. a coal power plant produces 700,000 MWh monthly and reduces its electrical output to 500,000 MWh per month, no CERs can be claimed for the avoided 200,000 MWh.

Force Majeure: Force Majeure literally means "greater force“ and excludes emission reductions that were caused by an unforseen event beyond the control of the project. Typically, force majeure cases include natural disasters, war, or the failure of third parties--such as suppliers and subcontractors--to perform their obligations to the contracting project.

2 Treaties include e.g. Montreal Protocol, UN-ECE POP (persistent organic pollutants) protocol, Convention on Long-Range Transboundry Air Pollution, UN Convention to Combat Desertification and UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

3 A project activity is a measure, operation or an action that aims at reducing GHG emissions. The Kyoto Protocol and the CDM modalities and procedures use the term ‘project activity’ as opposed to ‘project’. A project activity could therefore be a component/aspect of a project undertaken/planned.

4 In cases where a project is expected to be registered prior to 31 December 2006, it may be possible to obtain an exception to this. The conditions for exception include that:

1) project activities started after 1 January 2000;

2) official, legal or corporate documents showing that CDM incentives were considered and decisive in project planning were available to credible 3rd parties at the time of project activity start;

3) the above 2 conditions can be objectively and convincingly demonstrated.

Note that “3rd party” refers to an independent organization that has no financial relationship or other conflict of interest with the project activity which could influence or have the appearance to influence decisions. E.g. if the project was assessed by an independent auditor or accountant, this would be considered as “3rd party review”.

5 ODA can NOT be used for: Purchase of (new) technology; validation, monitoring, quantification, reporting, verification or certification of emission reductions; Installation costs; running costs; general project investments outside CDM component

ODA may be used for: With respect to general project investment costs, ODA can only be used to cover costs prior to the implementation of the project. When a new methodology is being submitted, ODA may be used to support the preparation of the PDD. ODA may also be used for the installation and operating costs of a wider project of which the CDM project activity is a part. For example: a hospital & 3 schools are built by an ODA underwritten IFI loan. A mini-hydro project providing renewable energy to these facilities can be a CDM project, providing the IFI loan is not funding the construction of the mini-hydro.

6 IFIs include: World Bank, IMF, regional development Banks, UN, etc

7 A grant is money given to a individual or an organization that does not hold an obligation of repayment. In that respect, it differs from a loan, and does not incur any debt or interest.

Appendix 1: References

2. References on host country eligibility and approval

1 The rules which govern the CDM require a letter from the Designated National Authority (DNA) of the Host Country which authorizes the Project as a CDM project and provides the Project Participants with the confirmations required under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol. A list of DNAs is included in Appendix 2 and is updated at http://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA.

2 An effective DNA is one that has clear legal mandate to authorise a Letter of Acceptance and other documents on behalf of the host government.

An efficient DNA is one that completes relevant processes expeditiously. Examples of effective DNA operation are the issuance of initial ‘letter of no obligation’ at PIN stage within 6 weeks of submission; the provision of ‘final approval’ within three months of PDD submission (or at an earlier stage); etc.

A track record of trouble free project approvals is usually the best indicator of effective and efficient DNA operation.

3 Examples of negative or perceived negative impacts could include:• displacing local people• propagating unsustainable practices such as natural resource depletion• significant changes to local geography, e.g. through deforestation, damming water sources etc.

Refer also to the safeguard principles (screen 8) and MDG screen (screen 9).

3. References on Additionality

1 Such policies are referred to as E+ (i.e. emitting more) and include for example tax rebate policies for coal mining, diesel rebates for off-grid electricity production etc.

2 Such policies are referred to as E- (i.e. emitting less) and include for example tax rebates for wind or solar electricity supply.

3 “Least cost option” in comparison to baseline scenario(s) may be demonstrated by

i) CER sales being the only revenue from project

ii) Financial indicators such as internal rate of return

iii) Financial benchmarks such as governmental bond rate

Further information is available at http://cd4cdm.org/Publications/UNEP_CDM%20Baseline%20Meth%20Guidebook.pdf0, page 40/41.

4 Such barriers may include:

• Investment barriers, other than the economic/financial barriers, for example:

- Real and/or perceived risks, associated with the technology or process, are too high to attract investment.

- Funding is not available for innovative projects.

• Technological barriers, for example:

- Skilled and/or properly trained labor to operate and maintain the technology is not available, which could either lead to equipment disrepair and malfunctioning or higher cost of maintenance and operation.

• Barriers due to prevailing practice, for example:

- Developers lack familiarity with the technology and are reluctant to use them.

• Other barriers, for example:

- Management lacks experience using the state-of-the-art technology, so that the project receives low priority by management.

Appendix 1: References (Cont.)

http://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA

4. References on Baselines

1 Identifying relevant sources of emissions should be done in a structured, documented manner. This may be through the use of ISO14064-2, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol for Project Accounting or other recognised approaches. Where projects very closely match existing registered CDM projects, the identified sources of those preceding projects will be useful.

2 If an historical baseline is proposed relevant historic data is essential - this may be difficult or expensive to back-cast or replicate if relevant data has not been collected over time. Market or sectoral data may be readily and freely available (for eg, government websites/reports on national electrical grid supply), but if it is not, it may be expensive to undertake sectoral analysis etc. and may not be possible if data is confidential. In these cases the project monitoring may need to be redesigned using alternate data sources and monitoring techniques.

3 Most emission estimates use proxies from data that is already recorded, such as fuel use. Where calculations are not able to use already recorded data, additional monitoring equipment is often readily and cheaply available in developed economies, but these may not be useful in areas where supporting infrastructure (eg stable grid voltage, internet etc) cannot be relied on.

4 Monitoring costs should not be material – if implementation and operation of monitoring systems are more than 10% of capital and operating costs respectively, they need to be seriously reconsidered as to their appropriateness. Well integrated and efficient monitoring procedures should be less than 1% of CER income generated.

5. References on Ownership & Stakeholder Engagement

1 Some projects may not be tangible to a particular site, e.g. low-emitting vehicles. In this case the “site” may be a state, province or country, and stakeholder engagement is not practical with individual vehicle owners. Stakeholder engagement may be sought with automobile associations and relevant government departments.

2 Reliable information indicating stakeholder views could include petition or requests from local stakeholders, similar projects that have received broad support or opposition in the region, government policies linked to internationally accepted and locally supported measures such as a tailored national MDG strategy.

6. References on Implementation Time and Emission Reductions

1 The project ‘implementation’ date refers to the date when first GHG emission reductions are achieved.


7. References on Sequestration

Z General Note:

Sequestration projects very often have considerable co-benefits, in particular relating to biodiversity, water, adaptation, desertification, reversing land degradation and community development. Further, the policies and discussions relating to sequestration are developing and changing rapidly at the international level (UNFCCC) as well as within UNDP, and the development of a more integrated approach to environmental finance.

While sequestration projects may not appear immediately attractive from a pure carbon market perspective, individual projects may warrant further attention due to these broader considerations. It is recommended that users of this tool who are screening sequestration projects should also discuss the broader issues around the project with their regional centre technical staff.

1 Capture and storage technologies could include sour gas reinjection, capture of stack emissions from power plants with transport and geosequestration, ocean sequestration etc.

2 Afforestation is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years into forested land through planting/ seeding.

Reforestation is in the first commitment period (2008-2012) limited to lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989.

Note that the definition of ‘forest’ may vary between countries (relating to crown cover, spacing etc), and needs to be clarified with the host government. Further, the definition of ‘degraded land’ is not clear, and needs clarification.

8. References on 10 principles “no harm” screen

1 For further details on the Global Compact’s 10 principles please see http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html

9. References on MDG screen

1 Indicators include e.g. ‘people whose income is less than $1 a day’ and ‘people who suffer from hunger’. Positive project impacts are e.g. increase in local income. Further information is available http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal1.shtml.

2 Indicators include e.g. ‘net enrolment ratio in primary education’ and ‘literacy rate of 15-24 year olds’. Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal2.shtml.

3 Indicators include e.g. ‘ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education’ and ‘share of

women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector’.

Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal3.shtml.

4 Indicators include e.g. ‘under-five mortality rate’ and ‘proportion of 1 year old children immunized against measles’. Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal4.shtml.

5 Indicators include e.g. ‘maternal mortality ratio’ and ‘proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel’. Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal5.shtml.

6 Indicators include e.g. ‘contraceptive prevalence rate’ and ‘prevalence and death rates associated with malaria’. Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal6.shtml.

7 Indicators include e.g. ‘proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source’, ‘land area protected to maintain biological diversity’ and ‘proportion of people with access to improved sanitation’ . Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal7.shtml.

8 Further information available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal8.shtml.


Country

Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II

Least Developed Country

Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Afghanistan x x

Albania x x x

Algeria x x

Angola x x

Antigua and Barbuda x x x

Argentina x x x

Armenia x x x

Australia x x

Austria x x x x

Azerbaijan x x x

Bahamas x x

Bahrain x x

Bangladesh x x x x

Barbados x x x

Belarus x x

Belgium x x x

Belize x x x

Benin x x x x

Bhutan x x x x

Bolivia x x x

Bosnia and Herzegovina x

Botswana x x

Brazil x x x

Bulgaria x x

Burkina Faso x x x x

Burundi x x x

Cambodia x x x x

Cameroon x x

Canada x x x x

Cape Verde x x x

Appendix 2: Country status(as of 1 June 2006)

Country



Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Central African Republic x x

Chad x x

Chile x x x

China x x x

Colombia x x x

Comoros x x

Congo x

Cook Islands x x

Costa Rica x x x

Côte d'Ivoire x

Croatia x

Cuba x x x

Cyprus x x

Czech Republic x x

Democratic People's Republic of Korea x x

Democratic Republic of the Congo x x x x

Denmark x x x x

Djibouti x x x

Dominica x x

Dominican Republic x x

Ecuador x x x

Egypt x x x

El Salvador x x x

Equatorial Guinea x x x

Eritrea x x x

Estonia x x

Ethiopia x x x x

Fiji x x x

Finland x x x x

France x x x x

Appendix 2: Country status (Cont.)(as of 1 June 2006)

Country



Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Gabon x

Gambia x x x

Georgia x x x

Germany x x x x

Ghana x x x

Greece x x x

Grenada x x

Guatemala x x x

Guinea x x x x

Guinea Bissau x x x

Guyana x x x

Haiti x x x

Honduras x x x

Hungary x x

Iceland x x x

India x x x

Indonesia x x x

Iran (Islamic Republic of) x x

Ireland x x x

Israel x x x

Italy x x x x

Jamaica x x x

Japan x x x x

Jordan x x x

Kazakhstan x

Kenya x x x

Kiribati x x x

Kuwait x x

Kyrgyzstan x x

Lao People's Democratic Republic x x x x

Latvia x x

Lebanon x x x


Country



Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Lesotho x x x

Liberia x x x x

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya x

Lichtenstein x x

Lithuania x x

Luxembourg x x x

Madagascar x x x x

Malawi x x x x

Malaysia x x x

Maldives x x x x

Mali x x x x

Malta x x

Marshall Islands x x

Mauritania x x x

Mauritius x x x

Mexico x x x

Micronesia (Federated States of) x x

Monaco x x x

Mongolia x x x

Morocco x x x

Mozambique x x x

Myanmar x x x

Namibia x x

Nauru x x

Nepal x x x x

Netherlands x x x x

New Zealand x x x x

Nicaragua x x x

Niger x x x x

Nigeria x x x

Niue x x

Norway x x x x


Country



Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Oman x x

Pakistan x x x

Palau x x

Panama x x x

Papua New Guinea x x x

Paraguay x x x

Peru x x x

Philippines x x x

Poland x x

Portugal x x x

Qatar x x x

Republic of Korea x x x

Republic of Moldova x x x

Romania x x

Russian Federation x x

Rwanda x x x x

Saint Kitts and Nevis x

Saint Lucia x x x

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines x x

Samoa x x x

San Marino x

Sao Tome and Principe x x

Saudi Arabia x x

Senegal x x x x

Serbia and Montenegro x x

Seychelles x x

Sierra Leone x x

Singapore x x x

Slovakia x x x

Slovenia x x x

Solomon Islands x x x

South Africa x x x


Country



Non Annex 1

Established DNA

Spain x x x x

Sri Lanka x x x

Sudan x x x

Suriname x

Swaziland x x

Sweden x x x x

Switzerland x x x x

Syrian Arab Republic x x x

Tajikistan x

Thailand x x x

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia x x

Togo x x x

Tonga x

Trinidad and Tobago x x x

Tunisia x x x

Turkey x

Turkmenistan x x

Tuvalu x x x

Uganda x x x x

Ukraine x x

United Arab Emirates x x x

United Kingrom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland x x x x

United Republic of Tanzania x x x x

United States of America x x

Uruguay x x x

Uzbekistan x x

Vanuatu x x x

Venezuela x x

Viet Nam x x x

Yemen x x x x

Zambia x x x

Zimbabwe x x


Gas Chemical Formula IPCC 1996Global Warming Potential

Carbon dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 21

Nitrous oxide N2O 310

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

HFC-23 CHF3 11,700

HFC-32 CH2F2 650

HFC-41 CH3F 150

HFC-43-10mee C5H2F10 1,300

HFC-125 C2HF5 2,800

HFC-134 C2H2F4 (CHF2CHF2) 1,000

HFC-134a C2H2F4 (CH2FCF3) 1,300

HFC-143 C2H3F3 (CHF2CH2F) 300

HFC-143a C2H3F3 (CF3CH3) 3,800

HFC-152a C2H4F2 (CH3CHF2) 140

HFC-227ea C3HF7 2,900

HFC-236fa C3H2F6 6,300

HFC-245ca C3H3F5 560

Hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)

HFE-7100 C4F9OCH3 500

HFE-7200 C4F9OC2H5 100

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

Perfluoromethane (tetrafluoromethane)

CF4 6,500

Perfluoroethane (hexafluoroethane) C2F6 9,200

Perfluoropropane C3F8 7,000

Perfluorobutane C4F10 7,000

Perfluorocyclobutane c-C4F8 8,700

Perfluoropentane C5F12 7,500

Perfluorohexane C6F14 7,400

Sulphur hexafluoride SF6 23,900

The six greenhouse gases addressed by the Kyoto Protocol are: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane

(CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur

hexafluoride (SF6).

The table below provides Kyoto gases and their GWPs for a 100-year time horizon published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 1996 reporting guidelines for national GHG gas inventories (www.ipcc.ch).

Appendix 3: Kyoto Gases and Global Warming Potentials

Appendix 4: Approved methodologies(as of 1 June 2006)

Meth. Number

Methodology Title (including baseline and monitoring methodologies)

Approved Large Scale Methodologies

AM0001 Incineration of HFC 23 Waste Streams --- Version 3

AM0002 Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfill gas capture and flaring where the baseline is established by a public concession contract --- Version 2

AM0003 Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects --- Version 3

AM0006 GHG emission reductions from manure management systems

AM0007 Analysis of the least-cost fuel option for seasonally-operating biomass cogeneration plants

AM0009 Recovery and utilization of gas from oil wells that would otherwise be flared --- Version 2

AM0010 Landfill gas capture and electricity generation projects where landfill gas capture is not mandated by law

AM0011 Landfill gas recovery with electricity generation and no capture or destruction of methane in the baseline scenario --- Version 2

AM0012 Biomethanation of municipal solid waste in India, using compliance with MSW rules

AM0013 Forced methane extraction from organic waste-water treatment plants for grid-connected electricity supply --- Version 2

AM0014 Natural gas-based package cogeneration

AM0016 Greenhouse gas mitigation from improved animal waste management systems in confined animal feeding operations --- Version 3

AM0017 Steam system efficiency improvements by replacing steam traps and returning condensate --- Version 2

AM0018 Steam optimization systems

AM0019 Renewable energy project activities replacing part of the electricity production of one single fossil-fuel-fired power plant that stands alone or supplies electricity to a grid, excluding biomass projects

AM0020 Baseline methodology for water pumping efficiency improvements

AM0021 Baseline Methodology for decomposition of N2O from existing adipic acid production plants

AM0022 Avoided Wastewater and On-site Energy Use Emissions in the Industrial Sector --- Version 2

AM0023 Leak reduction from natural gas pipeline compressor or gate stations

AM0024 Methodology for greenhouse gas reductions through waste heat recovery and utilization for power generation at cement plants

AM0025 Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment processes --- Version 3

AM0026 Methodology for zero-emissions grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources in Chile or in countries with merit order based dispatch grid

AM0027 Substitution of CO2 from fossil or mineral origin by CO2 from renewable sources in the production of inorganic compounds

AM0028 Catalytic N2O destruction in the tail gas of Nitric Acid Plants

AM0029 Methodology for grid connected electricity generation plants using natural gas.

AM0030 PFC emission reductions from anode effect mitigation at primary aluminium smelting facilities.

Appendix 4: Approved methodologies(Cont.) (as of 1 June 2006)

Approved Consolidated Large Scale Methodologies

ACM0001 Consolidated methodology for landfill gas project activities --- Version 2

ACM0002 Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources --- Version 5

ACM0003 Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels in cement manufacture --- Version 2

ACM0004 Consolidated methodology for waste gas and/or heat for power generation --- Version 2

ACM0005 Consolidated Methodology for Increasing the Blend in Cement Production --- Version 2

ACM0006 Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from biomass residues --- Version 2

ACM0007 Methodology for conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power generation

ACM0008 Consolidated methodology for coal bed methane and coal mine methane capture and use for power (electrical or motive) and heat and/or destruction by flaring

ACM0009 Consolidated methodology for industrial fuel switching from coal or petroleum fuels to natural gas

Small Scale Methodologies

AMS-I.A. Electricity generation by the user

AMS-I.B. Mechanical energy for the user

AMS-I.C. Thermal energy for the user

AMS-I.D. Grid connected renewable electricity generation

AMS-II.A. Supply side energy efficiency improvements – transmission and distribution

AMS-II.B. Supply side energy efficiency improvements – generation

AMS-II.C. Demand-side energy efficiency programmes for specific technologies

AMS-II.D. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities

AMS-II.E. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings

AMS-II.F. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for agricultural facilities and activities

AMS-III.A. Agriculture

AMS-III.B. Switching fossil fuels

AMS-III.C. Emission reductions by low-greenhouse gas emitting vehicles

AMS-III.D. Methane recovery

AMS-III.E. Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through controlled combustion

AMS-III.F. Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through composting

AMS-III.G. Landfill methane recovery

AMS-III.H. Methane recovery in wastewater treatment

AMS-III.I. Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of anaerobic lagoons by aerobic systems

Approved Afforestation/Reforestation Methodologies

AR-AM0001 Reforestation of degraded land

AR-AM0002 Reforestation of degraded lands through afforestation/reforestation.

AR-AM0003 Afforestation/reforestation of degraded land through tree planting, assisted natural regeneration and control of animal grazing.

Documents

Objective: This screening tool is intended to be used to structure project concept assessment to quickly determine project eligibility for registration