CLIMATE NEUTRAL UNFCCC MEETINGS

1
CLIMATE NEUTRALUNFCCC MEETINGS

• Iulian Florin Vladu and John Henssen
• UNFCCC Secretariat

Bonn, Germany
2
OBJECTIVE

• The objective of this initiative is to
  neutralize the emissions of greenhouse gases
  (GHG) associated with conducting sessions of the
  Conference of the Parties and subsidiary bodies
  through climate change mitigation measures
  elsewhere

3
BACKGROUND

• At COP 9, the Kyoto Club, an Italian non
  governmental organization (NGO), volunteered to
  estimate and offset the GHG emissions of the
  session. The estimated 8,000 tonnes of CO2
  equivalent were offset by emissions credits for
  two years of operation of a biomass-fired boiler
  for district heating in Hungary
• In 2004 the secretariat started to work on making
  COP and SB sessions climate neutral. The
  Government of the Netherlands provided support
  for this initiative

4
BACKGROUND

• At COP 10, the secretariat organized a side event
  to discuss an initiative to make the subsidiary
  body and COP sessions climate neutral, to present
  estimates of the GHG emissions associated with
  the COP 10, and to share experiences and exchange
  views with Parties and other stakeholders on
  methodological aspects and options for offsetting
  these emissions
• To further advance this initiative, the
  secretariat has prepared the document
  FCCC/SBI/2005/9 to seek views and get guidance
  form of Parties on this issue

5
APPROACH (I)

• Step 3 - Communicating, exchanging views and
  cooperating with relevant actors on this
  initiative

6
APPROACH (II)

• The guiding principle for implementing this
  initiative is to keep it simple, in order to
  reduce transaction costs
• Therefore, REDUCING, which is an important step
  between step 1 (MONITORING) and step 2
  (OFFSETTING) is not considered in the document
• Ways and means to induce behavioural changes of
  the participants to UNFCCC meetings, selection of
  the venue based on green considerations, and
  green travelling of the participants, are not
  addressed, but, if needed, could be dealt with in
  future

7
STEP 1 - FIND OUT HOW MUCH (MONITORING)

• Identify and review methodologies for calculation
  of greenhouse gas emissions associated to hosting
  meetings
• Select/develop a methodology and perform an
  initial calculation of the emissions associated
  with hosting COP10/SB 21 and SB 22 to get a
  better understanding of the order of magnitude of
  these emissions and the significance of different
  type of activities that may be considered
• Compare results with other methodologies and
  validate the methodology. Calculate the
  emissions associated with hosting COP11

8
IDENTIFY AND REVIEW METHODOLOGIES

• Existing methodologies take into account carbon
  emissions from
• Travel of participants (air, train, car)
• Energy consumed waste generated at the conference
  venue
• Hotel accommodation and local transportation
• Pre and post activities of the organizers

9
AIR TRAVEL TOP-DOWN METHODOLOGIES (I)

• Top-down methodologies use average emission
  factors and clusters the flights in groups based
  on the flight distance (e.g., short, medium and
  long haul)
• WRI short 1,600 km
• Renewable 2004 1,000 km
• Atmosfair 1,000
  km

10
AIR TRAVEL TOP-DOWN METHODOLOGIES (II)

• CO2 emissions arising from air flights are
  calculated using publicly available information
  (e.g., British Airways)
• CO2 emissions were estimated as 200 grams of CO2
  per passenger mile. Direct CO2 emissions per
  passenger for a particular air flight is
  calculated as the total distance flown for that
  air flight (in miles) multiplied by CO2 emissions
  per passenger mile
• A more conservative approach is to calculate
  emissions per revenue passenger miles because it
  means that emissions from empty seats and non
  fare-paying passengers are incorporated in the
  calculation
• Most passenger aircraft also carry cargo (not
  associated with the passengers) and, emissions
  per passenger should be reduced to reflect this.
  This impact of cargo varies by aircraft type and
  route, and for the purpose of this calculation, a
  figure of 15 is used

11
AIR TRAVELBOTTOM-UP METHODOLOGIES (I)

• Bottom-up methodologies uses different emission
  factors based on real types of planes
  occupation of flights flight altitudes and
  stopovers

Source Atmosfair
12
AIR TRAVEL BOTTOM-UP METHODOLOGIES (II)

• Flight route identify airports (start and
  termination of the flight, consideration of
  stopovers) and distance between airports
• Aircraft model type and version (e.g.,
  B-747-100/400), engine version, number of seats
• Average utilization of aircrafts
  intercontinental - 80, continental 60
• Fuel consumption depends on the flight distance
  and phase (taxi, take-off, climb, cruise,
  descent, landing)
• Calculate emissions 3.155 kg CO2 per kg kerosene
• Distance between the airport and the
  home/hotel/event venue should be considered in
  calculations

13
AIR TRAVEL

• Side by side comparison of tools for estimating
  emissions from air travels from Bonn to Milan
  (COP9) Buenos Aires (COP10) and Montreal
  (COP11)

NotesAtmosfair doesn't provide values for
flight distances. For Milan the value was given
because the model recommended to take a
train.500ppm calculates a very high carbon
emission for the travel to Buenos Aires The value
of 1 ton of carbon differs significantly between
models. In some cases over 50 per cent is
associated with costsfor running the web sites
14
PROTOTYPE CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM
15
PROTOTYPE ALGORITHM

• Extract participants data (if participant's town
  exists then use it, otherwise use the town of
  his/her organization)
• Find the airport for the participant's town (use
  distances, default airport, preferred airport)
• Calculate the flight distance and decide the
  flight type (short-, medium-, long-haul).
  Calculate distances to and from airports
• Repeat the above steps for all participants
• Summarize the flight distances by type of flight
  and group of participants
• Multiply the sums with the corresponding emission
  factors and sum the results

16
PROTOTYPE ALL PARTICIPANTS AT SB 22

• Get participants from the Registration database
  and group the participants by locations

17
PROTOTYPE DATABASES (II)

• Constructed interfaces to import airports
  coordinates from the Great Circle Mapper web site

18
PROTOTYPE DATABASES (III)

• Established a database of airports and geographic
  coordinates of each airport ( 6,200 entries)

19
PROTOTYPE CALCULATE TRALVE DISTANCES (I)

• Algorithm to calculate the distance between the
  origin and destination of the flights

20
PROTOTYPE CALCULATE TRAVEL DISTANCES (II)

• Some examples

21
PROTOTYPE GHG EMISSIONS FOR SB 22
22
PRELIMINARY GHG EMISSIONS FOR SB 22
23
PROTOTYPE ALL PARTICIPANTS AT COP 10

• Parties and observer States make up only 35 per
  cent of the participants at COP sessions and
  about 60 per cent at subsidiary bodies sessions

24
PROTOTYPE PRELIMINARY GHG EMISSIONS FOR COP 10

• Only for 5,700 participants registered by the end
  of first week (6,197 final figure)
• Includes the travels of UNFCCC staff?
• Exclude emissions from delegations that are
  already offsetting them?

25
FINAL GHG EMISSIONS FOR COP 10
a Estimated considering air travel to generate
98.5 per cent of emissions from total transport
and transport to generate 97.5 per cent of total
emissions
26
REMARKS ON STEP 1 (I)

• Review of methodologies most of the existing
  tools are dealing with individual emissions. For
  large meetings such as Renewable 2004 and WSSD to
  calculate flying distances the participants were
  grouped by regions and significant errors were
  made in estimating their GHG travel emissions.
  The approach proposed is much more accurate
• Final results cannot be obtained during COP/SB
  meetings

27
REMARKS ON STEP 1 (II)

• Some organizations and delegations are already
  offsetting their emissions. As these emissions
  are considered as part of the GHG emissions of
  the session they may be offset twice.
  Nevertheless, the identification of these cases
  and the assessment of the way the emissions are
  estimated and neutralized may become a resource
  intensive activity that may not be justified by
  the value of the emissions that are counted twice

28
REMARKS ON STEP 1 (III)

• The carbon footprint of COP and SB meetings is
  relatively small and can offset only a part of
  the emission reductions from one small- or
  medium-scale project. It is therefore possible
  to select the project before the final figure for
  emissions is available
• Should we consider COP and SBs meetings together
  or separately? (e.g, run calculations at SB and
  COP but offset at COP)
• For COP meetings the secretariat is making
  bookings only for some 260 participants
  (including staff travel). Therefore, offsetting
  the emissions through a travel agent will not
  solve the problem for COP/SBs

CDM small-scale projects non-energy 15,000
tCO2 (total emissions) afforestration - 8,000
tCO2 /year
29
REMARKS ON STEP 1 (IV)

• Since the estimation tool was developed very
  small resources are needed to estimate the GHG
  emissions of a session
• For example, for SB 22 one half day staff was
  needed to perform the preliminary estimations.
  One and a half day will be needed to finalize them

30
STEP 2 - OFFSET EMISSIONS

• Issues for offsetting
• Estimate funds needed
• Potential sources for funding
• Options for offsetting activities
• Previous experience on offsetting

31
ISSUES FOR OFFSETTING
32
ESTIMATE FUNDS NEEDED (I)

• Point carbon - 8 February 2005, EUA 2005
  (/tCO2)  7.17?-0.03 (23 May 2005 18.59)
• WB 3-5 /tCO2 for PCF 5-6 /tCO2 for the Dutch
  fund

• For CDM projects the carbon value is the result
  of a negotiation (unknown)
• 10 could be considered a reasonable planning
  value (half of the non-compliance costs)

33
ESTIMATE FUNDS NEEDED (II)

• A little more than EUR 180,900 (using 7.17
  /tCO2) would be required to neutralize COP 10
  emissions
• If COP 10 had been held in Bonn or in Montreal,
  the offsetting costs would have been EUR 79,500
  for Bonn and EUR 109,800 for Montreal
• For COP 10 the estimated voluntary contribution
  by each participant is an average of EUR 29,
  rather high and hence is not a preferred option
  for this initiative
• Considering the above, it is recommended that the
  most of the funding for this initiative should be
  drawn from sponsors
• If sponsorship will be accepted as a source of
  funding, criteria and the process for acceptance
  should be based on UNFCCC practice for working
  with sponsors and on United Nations guidelines on
  this matter

34
POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING (I)

• Funding options for offsetting the carbon
  emissions associated with COP and SB sessions
• Contributions from sponsors (e.g., private
  sector, foundations)
• Contributions from delegations
• Contributions from IGOs and NGOs
• Contributions from the host country (COPs, SBs?)
• Contributions from Parties to the UNFCCC
• Individual staff/delegates voluntary contributions

35
POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING (II)

• WSSD experience
• Climate Legacy Certificates available for sale
  from 10 for individuals and from 1,000, 10,000
  and 100,000 in Bronze, Silver and Gold
  categories for corporations
• 7 Government delegations, which have gone Carbon
  Neutral by committing a total of 80,000 to the
  JCL. These are Austria, Canada, Monaco, Norway,
  Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
• 5 IGO delegations have gone Carbon Neutral
  contributing a total of 50,000 including World
  Bank, UNDP, GEF, UNEP, and IUCN-The World
  Conservation Union
• 31 corporations and business organizations
  including ICI, Shell, TEPCO and the Warehouse
  Group have contributed a total of 185,000
• NGOs have contributed 5,000. This includes the
  support of the Heinrich Böhl Foundation
• 1,000 individuals have collectively made personal
  contributions totaling 7,605

36
OPTIONS FOR OFFSETTING (I)

• Several options exists such as purchasing
  emission credits from climate projects (CDM or
  non-CDM), from a carbon fund, or form an emission
  trading scheme
• Regardless of the vehicle for offsetting,
  preference should be given to offsetting
  activities in developing country Parties to
  maximize the use of resources by creating
  ancillary social and economic benefits in these
  countries

37
OPTIONS FOR OFFSETTING (II)

• Renewables 2004
• Specific single project on solar-driven community
  kitchen in India
• Gold Standard project
• CER and CDM project development funded completely
  by Ministry of Environment
• Project developer GTZ and Gadhia Solar, India
• GTZ
• Framework conditions for the offset project
• CDM project in the vicinity of GTZ activities
• Support in the project development (50-70 of
  costs)
• If possible SSP and Gold Standard
• Project type renewables, energy efficiency or
  methane utilization
• ERPA with payment on delivery
• Internal development project (Env. manager CaPP)
• 3 projects for final selection in Algeria - wind
  power, India - hydro power, Thailand - methane
  recovery from waste water treatment in palm oil
  industry

38
STEP 3 - COMMUNICATE RESULTS

• An important activity, to be conducted in
  parallel with the two steps described above, is
  to communicate and exchange views with relevant
  actors on this initiative
• A good communication strategy is a key element
  for the successful implementation of this
  initiative
• The communication with Parties and potential
  contributors and sponsors was already initiated
  at the side event held at COP 10. On that
  occasion, the initiative was well received and
  the participants encouraged us to continue this
  work

39
NEXT STEPS

• Views and guidance from Parties is needed
• Some concerns expressed at the SBI plenary
• Will increase in the incremental costs to be
  supported by host countries. Would that change
  their willingness to host COPs?
• Climate costs can be minimized as well as
  neutralized (meetings at a greater interval, in
  places that will result in lower emissions)
• Will limit the participation of other groups than
  Parties and observers to reduce environmental
  costs after making so many efforts to promote
  inclusiveness in the Convention process
• Can we really compensate for the CO2 emitted
  through mitigation measures elsewhere?

40
Thank you!