MLF climate impact indicator

844
-1

Published on

Prioritisation of projects for Multilateral Fund funding: the MLF Climate Impact Indicator (MCII) by Etienne Gonin.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
844
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MLF climate impact indicator

  1. 1. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Prioritisation of projects for Multilateral Fund funding: the MLF Climate Impact Indicator (MCII) Etienne GONIN, project coordinating consultant Seoul, Republic of Korea, Low GWP HCFC replacements - Asia Foam Workshop, 7 May 2010
  2. 2. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Roadmap  Source of MCII and references  Objective  Principles  In concrete  Incentives  Climate funding  Role of Jumpstart
  3. 3. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Source  Decision XIX / 6 of MOP 19, para. 11b: “The ExCom should give priority to cost- effective projects and programmes that focus on, inter alia, substitutes and alternatives that minimise other impacts on the environment, including on the climate, taking into account GWP, energy use and other relevant factors”
  4. 4. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Source Decision XIX / 6 of MOP 19, para. 11b:  “To be applied to the development and application of funding criteria for cost- effective projects and programmes”  Request for prioritisation led to developing the MCII by the MFS  An alternative to a “undesired technology list”
  5. 5. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Reference documents  MOP 19 report, esp. Decision XIX/6  ExCom Decisions and Documents:  ExCom Doc 55/47  ExCom Doc 57/59  ExCom Doc 59/51 : prioritisation approach and examples (Add. 1)  ExCom Doc 60/50 : incentives associated with MCII
  6. 6. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Objectives  Scope: only applied to conversion of manufacturing capacity  Only for activities in consumption sector  Will assume the possibility of aggregating several activities  sector or country-wide climate impact  Comparison on the basis of the annual production of refrigeration systems
  7. 7. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Basis  Creation of a scientific simulation model  Minimise the data inputs needed (based on significant background data)  Aiming at an:  activity-specific indicator  with fair and equitable results between alternatives  Meant to guide funding decisions of ExCom
  8. 8. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Typical Inputs  Number of Units produced annually  Type and amount of ODS used per unit  Basic characteristics (e.g: foam thickness, cooling capacity)  Share of exports  Alternatives to HCFCs to be used
  9. 9. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Fair technology comparison  Comparing climate impact of various alternatives to HCFCs, for a specific replacement activity, to the baseline of the climate impact for HCFCs  Including both:  Direct impact (based on GWP of alternative)  Indirect Impact (associated electricity use)
  10. 10. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Specificity of the Indirect Impact  Energy efficiency comparisons harder than direct emissions comparisons  These are country-specific (sources of energy determine CO2 emissions)  Comparisons assume similar effort for energy efficiency improvements for ALL alternatives (otherwise biased)  Assumption: Similar quality of components for HCFC and replacements
  11. 11. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch In Concrete...  A model and software developed by the MFS with support from experts  To be used to evaluate alternative technologies considered in conversion projects  Different profiles developed:  AC / commercial cooling / commercial freezing; factory assembled / on site assembled  For foams, 2 subcategories: • Building insulation • Insulation of refrigerated space
  12. 12. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Information generated  Identification of the alternative with minimum climate impact  Caution: climate can only be ONE of the parameters in choosing replacement technologies  Other: economic, availability of components, market penetration and acceptance, maintenance…
  13. 13. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Quantification of the climate Impact  Possible aggregation at sector or country level  MFS will use the MCII to inform the ExCom on proposed projects’ impact  Will report on test period at ExCom 62 (end of 2010)  Potential to use results to apply for co- funding from energy- efficiency and climate change funding facilities
  14. 14. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Specificity of the use in the foam sector (test analysis)  In many applications: the indirect impact does not apply (for ex. thermoware) or can not be determined (for ex. buildings)  In that case, GWP is only criteria for comparing climate impacts  For insulation for refrigeration systems: comparison includes energy efficiency
  15. 15. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Comparison of MCII with other evaluation methods  In comparison with other climate evaluation methods (TEWI, LCCP…), MCII:  is a forecast on equipment that does not exist yet (no prototypes!)  is based on minimal, standardised input data  Does not apply to destruction activities
  16. 16. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Replacement technologies considered  HFCs and HFC mixtures with GWP > or = to HCFCs  Reduced HFC-content technology (esp. for foam)  HFC-134a  Hydrocarbons  Ammonia, CO2 and HFO to be added
  17. 17. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Remaining disincentives to conversions away from HCFCs  In many cases still no barriers to use HCFCs in developing countries  For companies: perceived higher-risk potential of alternatives in comparison to HCFCs  Lack of knowledge and practice of alternatives  Limited commercial availability  Eligibility of future conversion projects away from HFCs in carbon markets
  18. 18. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Beyond the MCII  Incentives to encourage selection of alternatives with low climate impact:  improving knowledge level in companies during the conversion process (training modules, particularly on safety)  Providing up-front funding for energy efficiency improvements  Encourage submission of HPMPs in order to have more complete picture of the national HCFC uses
  19. 19. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Examples of climate funding component  25% additional cost – new ExCom guidelines - Funding of up to a maximum of 25 per cent above the cost effectiveness threshold would be provided for projects when needed for the introduction of low global warming potential (GWP) alternatives
  20. 20. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Examples of possible complementary climate funding  MLF Special Funding Facility? (in discussion)  GEF Projects (cf. energy efficiency enhancements)  Specific funds: Climate Investment Funds (World Bank)  Bilaterals  Voluntary Carbon Markets (pres’n on banks yesterday)
  21. 21. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch Role of Jumpstart project  Contribute to increasing incentives to move rapidly away from HCFCs  Disseminate information on the MCII and evolution of its principles, its use by the ExCom, relevance for developing countries  Propose climate evaluation tools (MCII, TEWI, LCCP,…) for specific applications  Highlight financing opportunities  Presenting case studies, background documents
  22. 22. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Branch CONCLUSION  MCCI:  ex-ante evaluation of climate impact of various alternatives for a specific project  assessing climate benefit compared to HCFC-based baseline  will be assessment tools for ExCom projects

×