Role of Parties involved in JIprojects: Sweden
Background:
Sweden’s commitment is 104% according to the EU burden sharing
agreement
Sweden expects to be fully eligible for participation in the mechanisms
in 2008
Swedish government participates in JI as buyer through the Baltic Sea
Regional Co-operation Testing Ground Facility, the Prototype Carbon
Fund, and SICLIP (purchase programme administered by the Energy
Agency)
Sweden as Host Country
EU ETS limits the scope for JI in the CO2 sector in EU member
states (as hosts)
EU ETS allows entities to use ERU for their compliance, number of emitting
installations relatively low, in particularly in power sector
What is a reasonable institutional preparation for JI
in a party that does not expect to host projects and
where the number of potential project participants is small?
Keep it simple and put main focus on
authorisation of project participants
Approval Process Project Participant 1
General approach in legislation: any entity should be able to
trade and possess any type of Kyoto unit
DFP requires:
PDD and Pre-determination report
DFP makes no qualified additional review of the project:
Work of AIE (Accredited Independent Entity)
Track 1 projects also eligible (independent entity or the like)
Exception: large-Scale hydropower (dam), unless
AIE has included WCD-guidelines in determination
Approval Process Project Participant 2
• Entities need to confirm their identity, Swedish companies: easy
check in national company registry, foreign applicants need to
submit a document supporting they are who they say they are
• Currently no fees
+ contribution to administration costs
-
Additional administration needed
Trend in Sweden is not to ask for fees, e.g. when applying for local
extensions of power grids
Approval Process Host Country
• Expect only – if at all - projects in non EU ETS sectors, non C02projects
• If C02-projects, emissions will be reduced in Sweden?
• difficult to estimate number of projects, as a matter of principle,
policy decision to open up for JI in Sweden
• Applies Track 2: difficult to argue for set up of national
determination and verification rules when scale is unknown
Experiences from creation of DFP
• Timing of LoA
Approving a project, or authorising a project participant: it would
have been nice to do that after independent and international
assessment has been made. Track 2 requires LoA before
finalisation of determination. Compare CDM.
• Development of JISC-procedure and host country procedures
All details of flow of information not known
• Memorandum of Understanding
Some agreed at very early stage, may need update, needed for
entity trade with AAU according to legislation