1 / 28

michaelowa@perspectives perspectives

Southeast Asia: Lessons learnt from CDM experience in the region Oxford Fellowships Oxford, August 28, 2006 Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives GmbH michaelowa@perspectives.cc. michaelowa@perspectives.cc www.perspectives.cc. Background. Goals:

eraap
Download Presentation

michaelowa@perspectives perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Southeast Asia: Lessons learnt from CDM experience in the region Oxford Fellowships Oxford, August 28, 2006 Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives GmbH michaelowa@perspectives.cc michaelowa@perspectives.cc www.perspectives.cc

  2. Background • Goals: • Draw lessons from promotion of CDM outside the rapidly industrialising countries • Develop recommendations to enhance opportunities for poorer developing countries to benefit from the CDM • Surveyed countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam • Involved Institutions: • Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI) • PT Pelangi Energi Abadi Citra Enviro (Peace Reasearch and Advisory)

  3. Structure of presentation • Theoretical CDM potential in ASEAN • Theoretical scope of emission reductions • Country business climate • Country CDM institutions and CDM project experience • ASEAN‘s share in the CDM • Procedures, resources and outreach of DNAs in ASEAN • CDM Capacity Building in ASEAN • Recommendations for promoting CDM participation of low-income countries

  4. Potential supply • Cambodia and Lao PDR: • Potential for small scale CDM projects like mini- and micro hydro, small municipal and agricultural waste, as well as energy efficient appliances • Vietnam • Only limited number of projects with high quality and quantity CERs (EE in industry, power and households as well as RE) • Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, • Singapore and Thailand • High potential in energy and energy efficiency sector • Indonesia ranking first before Malaysia and Thailand • All countries except for Singapore are developing countries and are still far from sustainable development practices

  5. Country investment climate • FDI Inflows • Cambodia: heavily reliant on foreign assistance, impossibility to attract FDI (unreliable local government) • Laos: totally dependent on foreign aid, extremely difficult to attract FDI (poor investment climate, primitive infrastructure), but FDI in sector for hydropower schemes likely • Vietnam: high ability to attract/utilise relatively large amounts of FDI and ODA, but obstacles remain (inadequate infrastructure, slow privatisation process, lack of administrative capacity...) • Analogy FDI inflows – CDM investment? • Prerequisites that drive the flows of traditional FDI are likely to be dynamic driving factors for distribution of CDM •  Unfavourable outlook for Cambodia and Laos, much better for Vietnam

  6. CDM institutions • Host country CDM institutions • Malaysia, Vietnam: DNA formally operational for several years but number of approvals limited compared to CDM leaders (India, Brazil, China) • Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines: DNA only formally set up recently, no experience how efficiently it works • Laos: Main functions and set-up of institutions are still under discussion (DNA not operating yet) • Thailand: Strong bureaucracy, decisions on a case-by-case basis at the cabinet level prohibit efficient approval • Singapore: Still premature process (no DNA)

  7. CDM project experience Registration and submission for registration • Most active country: Malaysia with 12 projects (5 registered, 4 renewable energy, 1 manufacturing ind; 3 under review, 4 submitted – all ) • Vietnam: 2 registered (1 renewable, 1 gas flaring reduction), 4 submitted (3 renewable energy, 1 energy efficiency, 1 gas capture) • Indonesia: 2 registered projects (energy industry), 2 submitted ones (energy industry, waste mgmt.) • Cambodia:1 registered project (renewable electricity) • 2 projects (1 renewable electricity, waste mgt) submitted from the Philippines • Lao, Singapore, Thailand: no projects submitted yet

  8. Country CDM competitiveness ranking

  9. Share of CDM projects submitted to the UNFCCC Total: 695 projects

  10. Share in CERs generated until 2012 of submitted project activities Total: 613 Million CERs

  11. ASEAN CDM projects submitted to the UNFCCC by country

  12. ASEAN CDM potential • On global scale, ASEAN CDM projects are increasing, nevertheless... • ... Their share is still rather low • ... They need to work on the establishment of favourable approval processes and consultancy sector, support project development • ... Real breakthrough for a considerable share on the CDM market not likely due to lack of large CDM potential • ASEAN likely to attract “niche investment” • ... But will not be able to play in “CDM Champions League”

  13. DNA structures: Strengths & Weaknesses High number of ministries involved, dominating role of governments StrengthsWeaknesses Relatively strong unanimous endorsement of CDM mgmt. activities + proposed projects Low risk of blocking of projects due to conflicts of interest Poor involvement of other stakeholders Bureaucratic, less flexible to adapt to changes in CDM procedure/markets Core budget secured by higher number of ministries Staff less motivated than in mixed governmental-NGO model Efficiency inside DNA board rises with position of host ministry in the governmental politic system

  14. DNA assessment: Implementation and external affairs • Approval Process • Not specified in CDM rules, each country decides on its own set-up of process • Transparent & simple rules attract more investors • Criteria for Sustainable Development • Each country has total freedom of decision on how to assess a project’s contribution to sustainable development • No standardised criteria or indicators • Other criteria • DNA‘s activities in improving the competitiveness of the host country and mobilising CDM capital flow into the country • Information dissemination and outreach

  15. Duration of approval process • Indonesia • Theoretically fastest DNA with 30 days, but rounds • Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam • 1.5 months (latter has only 3 rounds per year!) • Philippines and Thailand • About 2 months • Philippines: Difficult to obtain approval due to emphasis in consultation and intervention of NGOs • Thailand: difficult process of approval • Malaysia • 2.5 months • Most active to produce LoA and most successful one to have projects registered with EB

  16. Assessment of criteria for Sustainable Development - Cambodia (I) • Use of local businesses • Reduction of import of fossil fuels Economic development • Poverty alleviation • Creation of jobs • Sound stakeholder consultation Social development • Reduction of pollution • Biodiversity conservation • Sustainable use of resources Environmental sustainability • Transfer of technology • Capacity Building Technological development

  17. Assessment of criteria for Sustainable Development - Cambodia (II) • Development criteria and indicators based on South-South-North/Gold Standard Approval Process • Each indicator is scored from -3 to +3 (with -3 stating serious negative impact, 0 no impact) • Dilemma • Very modest CDM potential in combination with comprehensive list of sustainable development criteria • If used in a relaxed manner, low quality CDM projects can get be approved • If used very strictly, only a few high quality projects can be realised

  18. Assessment of criteria for Sustainable Development – Other countries • Indonesia • list of criteria includes environmental, economic, social, and technological sustainability (project-based indicators) • Philippines and Thailand • No information on sustainability criteria available • General problems • Lack of project-specific assessment/methodologies to evaluate project’s contribution to Sustainable Development • Criteria not “translated” into sectoral indicators or specific quantitative standards

  19. DNA assessment: Summary • CDM is about projects • Host country with modest CDM potential should establish a DNA in close contact with existing bodies dealing with climate change • Small and medium sized CDM countries: DNA should focus on mandatory tasks (leave judgement of feasibility and additionality to DOEs) and promotion • Not ideal models, but... • Cambodia and Vietnam DNAs are in place and improving • Lao PDR faces a critical year to finalise structure and operation before de-facto deadline of CDM projects for 2008-12 is gone • More assistance needed • ...in specific issues (legal and financial) and strengthening involvement of private, consulting sectors

  20. Examples of Capacity Building Programmes (I) ID: Indonesia, MY: Malaysia, SG: Singapore, TH: Thailand, and PH: the Philippines

  21. Examples of Capacity Building Programmes (II) • Cambodia • Activities: Workshops, focus on waste mgmt., renewable energy, small scale projects • Target group:Public and private sector • Lao PDR • Activities: Support establishment and full operation of DNA • Target group:Central and local government authorities • Vietnam • Objective: Evaluation of CDM potential in industrial sector • Target group:Industrial sector • Indonesia • Objective: Functional DNA • Target group:Ministry of Environment

  22. Capacity Building Tools • Workshops and stakeholder dialogue • Deemed useful by 64% (UNITAR survey) • Common feature of all programmes • Problem: skimming of attendance fees by ever the same government officials (Indonesia) • General public training • Also popular with governmental audiences • Relatively high costs • Background papers • Widely used, but limited impact due to restricted dissemination, unadjusted material for different target groups • Booklets and brochures published: Cambodia (>10), Vietnam (>15), Lao (1) with basic information on UNFCCC, Kyoto and CDM modalities

  23. Lessons learned • Avoid replication in scope and content • Linksufficiently with results of previous projects • Define specific target groups, focus on previously poorly involved groups like private and financial sector • Start programme with general information on climate change • Cut down on workshops aiming at general public awareness rising, but focus on on-the-job/sectoral trainings to transfer skills • Concentrate research on sectoral level for information on CDM potential and “state of the art“ technologies for project developers

  24. Current distribution of CDM activities Data source: CD4CDM, Jun. 2006 LDCs and LICs account for a very minor share – only 4% of total projects developed (5.6 % of total expected CERs)

  25. Types of CDM projects developed in the LICs Data source:UNFCCC website as of June 2006

  26. Current trend of CDM investment flows (I) • Vicious circle • Developing (middle-income) countries with high CDM potential •  attract more and more CDM projects accumulate more experience by project implementation •  strengthen their competitiveness •  likely attract more investment • …at disadvantage of LICs • Investors look for low marginal costs and low project risk • Investors search for short-term rapid generation of CERs, but project types in LICs are mainly in renewables and A/R (lower emission reduction over a long time period) • Small projects imply higher transaction costs

  27. Mobilising CDM investment into the LICs (I) Need of an effective DNA in host countries is over-riding factor for facilitating CDM activities Main challenges for effectiveness and sustainability of DNAs are shortage of finance and human resources for a long period

  28. Mobilising CDM investment into the LICs (II) • Establish transparent, quick approval processes, mainstreaming of CDM into other policies • Have a realistic view of abatement potential and costs (avoid concentration on non-attractive areas, address additionality issues proactively) • Support reliable local consultants (reduces the transaction costs, minimises consulting fees flowing to international consultants) • Promote proactive industrial associations and private sectors to find viable CDM ideas • Promote local DOE offices (reduce transaction costs for developing CDM projects) •  LIC opportunity: Expeditious registration of small-scale projects and support for bundled projects with high sustainability value

More Related