Thomas Day from NewClimate Institute presented preliminary results from the CDM supply potential up to 2020 by project vulnerability of discontinuing abatement during the Innovate4Climate conference in Barcelona.

1. Innovate 4 Climate, Barcelona
CDM supply potential up to 2020
by project vulnerability of
discontinuing abatement
(preliminary results)
Thomas Day, NewClimate Institute
22 May 2017

2. 1. How many CERs could be issued from already
registered projects up to 2020 if project owners would
have economic incentives from new demand?
2. How much of this potential CER supply would come
from projects that would continue GHG abatement
even without CER revenues, and how much from
projects that are at risk of discontinuing GHG
abatement without ongoing CER revenues?
22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 2
Research questions

3. Bottom-up model
Key aspects considered
• Implementation and operation status of projects
• Impact of crediting period renewal
• Availability of data to monitor emission reductions
• Project performance
Data sources
• NewClimate Institute survey data on status of implementation
• Bottom-up model for industrial gas projects
• UNFCCC database on projects
• Latest available research on project vulnerability
22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 3
Methodology

4. 22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 4
Status of CDM projects
Project type Share of projects that have ever
been implementeda)
Share of implemented projects
that continue abatementb)
Share of implemented and
abating projects that have a CDM
monitoring system in placec)
Biomass energy: Agriculture and forestry residues 95% 78% 83%
Biomass energy: Bagasse power 97% 58% 29%
Biomass energy: Palm oil solid waste 100% 66% 50%
Cement: Clinker 100% 81% 100%
Coal mine methane 100% 91% 67%
EE households: Stoves 83% 100% 83%
EE households: Lighting 68% 83% 96%
EE Industry 94% 77% 66%
EE own generation: Coke oven gas / iron & steel heat 99% 88% 81%
EE own generation: Cement heat 100% 100% 100%
Fossil fuel switch: Oil to natural gas 100% 81% 80%
Fossil fuel switch: New natural gas plant 100% 87% 87%
Micro hydro (<2MW) 97% 71% 77%
Hydro 2-20MW 98% 99% 95%
Landfill gas: Flaring 85% 55% 82%
Landfill gas: Power generation 93% 78% 83%
Methane avoidance: Flaring 98% 36% 73%
Methane avoidance: Power generation 96% 68% 75%
Methane avoidance: Composting 70% 73% 81%
Etc… … … …
Global average 97% 90% 89%

5. 22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 5
For which period can CERs be
issued?
1. Has the project ever
been implemented?
2. Is the project
continuing GHG
abatement?
9. Could the project still
be implemented with
appropriate incentives?
4. Does the project type
typically have sufficient
monitoring data
available to ensure
continuous monitoring?
5. If a renewal of the
crediting period was due
in the past: have the
necessary administrative
steps for its renewal
been taken in time?
6. Could abatement be
resumed with
appropriate incentives?
G. No issuance potential
F. Potential issuance
from a future point
onwards
B. Potential issuance
from (a) project imple-
mentation until the end
of the crediting period
which has not been
renewed and (b) from a
future point onwards
A. Potential issuance
from project implemen-
tation until the end of the
last crediting period
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
C. Potential issuance
from registration until
abatement or monitoring
was discontinued and no
potential future issuance
D. Potential issuance
from (a) registration
until abatement or moni-
toring was discontinued
and (b) from a future
point onwards
7. Is the project a CPA
under a PoA?
Yes
No
Yes
No
8. Could the CPA accrue
negative emission
reductions?
No
No
Yes
No
5. If a renewal of the
crediting period was due
in the past: have the
necessary administrative
steps for its renewal
been taken in time?
Yes
E. Potential issuance from (a) project implementation until either
abatement or monitoring was discontinued or until the end of the
crediting period which has not been renewed, whatever is the
earliest, and (b) from a future point onwards
No
Not
applicable
Not applicable
Yes
4. Does the project type
typically have sufficient
monitoring data available
to ensure continuous
monitoring?
No
3. Does the project have a
CDM monitoring system
in place?
Yes
No

6. 22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 6
CER supply potential 2013-2020
Total CER supply potential: 4.6 billion
Actual CP2 issuance to date: 337 million
Expected remaining CP2 issuance: 77 million / year
(UNFCCC secretariat)
Billion CERs %
Ex-ante estimates in PDDs 7.67
Contribution of different limitations -3.05 100%
Lower actual issuance -1.90 62%
Non-implementation of projects -0.09 3%
Non-continuation of GHG abatement -0.47 15%
Availability of data to monitor emission reductions -0.32 11%
No administrative steps taken in time
to renew the crediting period
-0.27 9%
CER supply potential 4.61

7. 7
Hydro
Wind
Biomass
N2O
HFCs
Fugitive
CMM
Others
~ 4.6 bn CERs
Total potential CER
supply for 2013 - 2020
Project vulnerability
Generally low
Generally high
Variablevulnerability
Not assessed
CER supply
potential by
project
vulnerability

8. 22/05/2017 www.newclimate.org 8
Why is the share from vulnerable
projects low?
1. Many vulnerable projects already stopped abatement or
monitoring
• Share of vulnerable projects would be twice as high if none of the projects
had stopped abatement or monitoring
2. Methodology revisions to industrial gas projects are
conservative
• Emission reductions from industrial gas projects on average 3.6 times
higher than the amount of CERs being issued
3. Some projects are no longer vulnerable of stopping abatement
due to domestic policies
• E.g. HFC-23 in China, efficient lighting

9. Contact details:
Thank you for your attention!
www.newclimate.org
Thomas Day
t.day@newclimate.org