Complying with the Kyoto Protocol Requirementsdocuments.rec.org/publications/Complying_with_Kyoto_July... · 2012-06-18 · CAPACITY NEEDS FOR MEETING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL COMPLYING

Complying with the Kyoto Protocol Requirements:Capacity Needs in Central and Eastern Europe

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

Written byANDREW BUCHMAN, KEVIN BAUMERT AND FRANCESCO RIZZO

Szentendre, HungaryJULY 2001

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

Complying with theKyoto Protocol Requirements:

Capacity Needs inCentral and Eastern Europe

WOR L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E

About the REC

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is a non-partisan, non-advocacy,not-for-profit organization with a mission to assist in solving environmental problems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The

Center fulfils this mission by encouraging cooperation among non-governmental organizations,governments, businesses and other environmental stakeholders, by supporting the free exchange of information

and by promoting public participation in environmental decision-making.

The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, the European Commission and Hungary. Today, the REC islegally based on a Charter signed by the governments of 27 countries and the European Commission, and on an

International Agreement with the Government of Hungary. The REC has its headquarters in Szentendre, Hungary, andlocal offices in each of its 15 beneficiary CEE countries which are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Yugoslavia.

Recent donors are the European Commission and the governments of the United States, Japan, Austria,Canada, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland and

the United Kingdom, as well as other inter-governmental and private institutions.

The entire contents of this publication are copyright©2001 The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

No part of this publication may be sold in any form or reproduced for salewithout prior written permission of the copyright holder

ISBN: 963 8454 94 6

Published by:The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

Ady Endre ut 9-11, 2000 Szentendre, HungaryTel: (36-26) 504-000, Fax: (36-26) 311-294, E-mail: [email protected], Website: http://www.rec.org/

Printed in Hungary by ProTertia

This and all REC publications are printed on recycled paper or paper producedwithout the use of chlorine or chlorine-based chemicals

TAB L E OF CONTENTS

COMPLYING WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS: CAPACITY NEEDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 3

Acknowledgements 5

Capacity Needs for Meeting the Kyoto Protocol 7

Building a Kyoto Protocol infrastructure 9National systems: inventory preparation, management, and reportingExpert reviewInfrastructure and regulations for participation in the Kyoto MechanismsElements for participation in the mechanismCapacity for entity and project participation

Common regional capacity needs 22National systems: inventory preparation, management, and reportingExpert reviewInfrastructure and regulations for participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms

Country specific capacity needs 23BulgariaThe Czech RepublicHungaryPolandRomaniaSlovenia

Conclusion 34

Bibliography 37

Appendix I: Survey 39

Appendix II: Capacity Building Efforts 49

Global initiatives 49United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

Regional initiatives 50World BankOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)United States Country Studies ProgramCapacity for Climate Protection in Central and Eastern Europe Project

Appendix III: National Systems for Inventory Preparation, Management and Reporting 55

ACRONYMS AND ABBREV IAT IONS

COMPLYING WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS: CAPACITY NEEDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE4

AAU Assigned Amount Unit

BU Bulgaria

CCAP Center for Clean Air Policy

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CEE Central and Eastern Europe

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CH4 Methane

CHMI Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (Czech Rep.)

CIE Information Center for Energy Sector in Warsaw(Poland)

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COP Conference of the Parties

CORINAIR Coordination Information Air

CZ Czech Republic

DESA United Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs

EIONET European Environment Informationand Observation Network

EIT Economies in Transition

ERU Emission Reduction Unit

ET Emission Trading

EU European Union

FEWE Foundation for Energy Efficiency in Katowice(Poland)

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GUS Main Statistical Office (Poland)

HEEA Hungarian Energy Efficiency Agency (Hungary)

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

HU Hungary

ICIM Research and Engineering Institute for Environment(Romania)

IDR In-Depth Report

IET International Emission Trading

IGNiG Institute of Oil and Gas Research in Warsaw(Poland)

IL Aviation Institute in Warsaw (Poland)

INSSE National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies(Romania)

IOS Environmental Protection Institute (Poland)

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISPE Institute of Power Studies and Design (Romania)

ITS Institute of Road Transport in Warsaw (Poland)

JI Joint Implementation

KGI Hungarian Institute for Environmental Management

(Hungary)

LUCF Land Use Change and Forestry

MoEW Ministry of Environment and Water (Bulgaria)

MS Ministry of Environment (Poland)

MWFEP Ministry of Water Forest and Environmental

Protection (Romania)

N2O Nitrous oxide

NC National Communication

NCCC National Commission on Climate Change (Romania)

NFOS National Fund for Environmental Protection and

Water Management (Poland)

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NOX Nitrogen oxide

NSI National Statistical Institute (Bulgaria)

PFC Perfluorocarbon

PGNiG Polish Oil and Gas Company in Warsaw (Poland)

PL Poland

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

SI Slovenia

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SORS Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia

UNFCCC United Nation Framework Convention on

Climate Change

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors thank Fiona Mullins of EnvironmentalResources Management, for her background research andwriting, without which this report would not have beenpossible. We also are grateful to those at the WorldResources Institute (WRI): Dr. Elena Petkova for herinvaluable contributions to this report; Jim Perkaus andFrances Seymour for their valuable insights and sugges-tions. We are also grateful for the advice and guidance ofDr. Zsuzsanna Iványi, as well as other Regional Environ-mental Center staff who made significant contributions.We must acknowledge our indebtedness to Center forEnergy Efficiency — EnEffect (Bulgaria), Center forTransport and Energy (Czech Rep.), Center for Environ-mental Studies (Hungary), Institute for Sustainable Devel-opment (Poland), Terra Millennium III (Romania), Sloven-ian E-Forum (Slovenia), as well as to the survey respon-dents, who provided us with the insights that make up thecore of this work. We are grateful for the comments, sug-gestions, and information provided by the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development’s StéphaneWillems and Diana Barbu, the Center for Clean Air Policy’sEllina Levina, and the U.S. EPA’s Bill Irving and JeremySchreifels. We thank Carollyne Hutter for her careful edito-rial review and suggestions. We greatly appreciate the finan-cial support provided by the Italian Ministry of Environ-ment, Department for Global, Environment, International

and Regional Conventions.The information in the paper is drawn from surveys of

countries currently participating in the joint program Capacityfor Climate Protection in Central and Eastern Europe led bythe Regional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope and the World Resources Institute. Non-governmen-tal organization (NGO) partners in each of these countriesworked with staff in both government and non-governmentalinstitutions to obtain responses to a survey that provided thebasis for information presented in this report. Respondentsincluded the following: staff of national statistical offices,national focal points for the UNFCCC Secretariat, membersof National Commissions on Climate Change, staff ofprivate companies, researchers at private environmental orga-nizations, members of various ministries (including staffinvolved in national inventory preparation), and academics.

About the AuthorsAndrew Buchman is the Communications Coordinator

for the WRI’s Institutions and GovernanceProgram, and Kevin Baumert is an Associate in WRI’s Cli-mate, Energy and Pollution Program. Francesco Rizzo is aProject Officer in the Climate Change Program at the Region-al Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe.

Acknowledgements

COMPLYING WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS: CAPACITY NEEDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE6

C A PAC I T Y N E E D S F O R M E E T I N G T H E K YOTO P R OTO C O L


Capacity Needs for Meeting the Kyoto Protocol

In December 1997, the third Conference of theParties to the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) met in Kyoto, Japan to nego-tiate limits to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Twomain features of the Kyoto Protocol, if it enters intoforce, are (1) legally binding commitments by Annex I1

countries to collectively reduce GHG emissions by morethan five percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12, and (2)a set of mechanisms — including international emissionstrading and joint implementation — to help countriesachieve their commitments at the lowest possible cost.

While not as high profile as the emission commit-ments and trading provisions, the Kyoto Protocol alsocontains critical provisions for emission monitoring,government reporting, and review of information.These functions are needed to ensure that countriesare complying with the treaty’s emission reductioncommitments.

Specifically, Article 5 of the Protocol requirescountries to develop a ‘national system’ for estimatinggreenhouse gas emissions by sources and removalsby sinks. Article 7 builds on the existing reportingobligations under the Climate Convention by requir-ing annual submissions of greenhouse gas invento-ries; more thorough but periodic national communi-cations; and any ‘supplemental information’ that maybe required to demonstrate fulfillment of the Kyotocommitments. Finally, Article 8 requires countries toavail themselves to independent auditing and reviewby ‘expert review teams.’

Furthermore, additional requirements are likely forcountries that wish to participate in international emis-sions trading and joint implementation. Countries mustestablish registries to track emissions transfers andintroduce regulations to enable participation in theKyoto Mechanisms.

Economies in transition, including the six Centraland Eastern European (CEE) countries examined in thisreport, have identified the above issues as priority areasfor capacity building.2 The challenge of building capac-ity in these areas is particularly daunting for CEE coun-tries, whose limited resources are currently stretched inmanaging the transitions to a market economy and, forsome, achieving the political objective of joining theEuropean Union.

Official submissions by economies in transition tothe Climate Convention Secretariat reflect that “Parties

perceive capacity building not only as a process inwhich individuals and institutions increase their abilitiesand competencies to understand and deal with climatechange ... it is viewed as an investment in people, insti-tutions, information and knowledge, and technologies... that together enable EIT Parties to fulfill their com-mitments under the Convention and the KyotoProtocol.”3 Countries have identified major capacitybuilding issues related to climate protection, including:4

1. Lack of information on and awareness of climatechange issues.

2. Lack of regular opportunities to exchange informa-tion among other Parties.

3. Limited number of institutions, organizations, andexperts involved and capable of carrying out thenecessary research, analysis, estimates, projections,assessments, studies, and verification and monitor-ing in the area of climate change.

4. The relatively low priority of climate change as com-pared to the economic, social, and other moreimmediate issues faced by economies in transition.

From these general needs, more specific require-ments emerge in the context of implementing the KyotoProtocol, including improving the quality of green-house gas inventories and formulating policies toreduce emissions.5

CEE countries have already made substantialprogress in building capacity to fulfill some KyotoProtocol requirements, including their national systemsfor inventory preparation. Increasingly, they are makingefforts to clearly identify institutional and regulatorygaps. This is especially important because CEE coun-tries are, for the most part, in a unique position relativeto other industrialized Parties. They have the potentialto realize benefits from coupling strong domesticactions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with partic-ipation in the Kyoto Mechanisms.

First, emission levels are already far below base yearemissions for most of the economies in transition (SeeTable 1). The decline in emissions is primarily a resultof the severe economic recession in the early 1990s, andmarket reforms introduced over the last decade thathave improved energy efficiency in some countries.Second, international emissions trading (IET) and joint


8 COMPLYING WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS: CAPACITY NEEDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

TABLE 1

Bulgaria (1988) 157,090 83,671 -46.7% -8%

Czech Republic (1990) 189,837 147,777 -22.2% -8%

Hungary (1985-87) 101,633 82,725 -18.6% -6%

Poland (1988) 564.286 402,477 -28.7% -6%

Romania (1989) 264,879 164,026* -38.1% -8%

Slovenia (1990) 19,212 n/a n/a -8%

Greenhouse gas emission, six CEE countriesMillion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

Base year emissions 1998 Change KP target 2008-12Country (base year)

* Most recent available data for Romania is for 1994.

Source: UNFCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Database. Available online <http://62.225.2.23>.

BOX 1

Report findingsCEE countries need to make significant progress in implementing national systems for inventory compilation,management and reporting, and participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms. Considerable capacity for implementingthese national systems does exist in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.Researchers recently surveyed these six countries to assess compliance ability and capacity building progress andchallenges. However, there remain priority areas for capacity building in these countries, representing significanthurdles that should be met by joined, concerted efforts from the governments of these countries and the internationalclimate community. Areas requiring significant capacity building efforts include the following:

Building and adjusting legal and institutional frameworksIn several of the surveyed countries, the responsibilities for carrying out key aspects of national inventory compilationand management are not clearly assigned; clarification of roles and obligations (accompanied by authorizing mandateand appropriate resources) is required. In some cases, the legal frameworks necessary to undertake several aspects ofinventory management and mechanism participation are inadequate or missing altogether. In particular, a lack of legalaccess to emissions data ( which are currently confidential) must be corrected by introducing, strengthening, orclarifying regulatory confidentiality provisions. These institutional and legal constraints represent barriers that must beovercome by national governments’ political will, accompanied by guidance from the international community.

Strengthening the ability to collect and use national emissions dataAll of the surveyed countries identified areas in which staff capacity would strongly benefit from expert assistance inestablishing and using methodological best practices (e.g., calculation of emissions factors, evaluation of inventoryuncertainty, quality control procedures, and establishment of a national registry). The international community shouldcontinue and increase its efforts to provide for the sharing of knowledge and expertise. Funding assistance for CEEstaff attendance at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert meetings is crucial, as are thecontinuation and increase of regional, topic-specific forums for information and experience sharing.

Increasing financial resources The surveyed countries have invested considerable resources in creating the institutions and systems necessary forsuccessful implementation of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. Nonetheless, current levels of government funding forcarrying out the myriad responsibilities associated with compliance are inadequate. Strong, government-led reformprocesses, increased country investments in building capacity, and international aid are vital if the economies intransition are to meet their obligations under the climate convention.



implementation (JI) could help translate reductionopportunities into substantial economic, environmen-tal, and financial benefits. Combining strong domesticaction with participation in the Kyoto Mechanismscould deliver substantial benefits to CEE countries,including upgraded technological capacity; improvedenergy efficiency, better air quality and health, andfinancial flows from the West.

Recognizing the potential benefits of the KyotoProtocol, along with the needed capacity improvements,is a first step toward forming strategies to enable CEEcountries to meet their commitments. The next step is tomove from these general priorities to specific, targetedactions to meet specific capacity needs. This paper provides a detailed analysis of capacity needs in six sur-veyed countries — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia — for estab-lishing national systems and preparing supplementaryinformation, and implementing the Kyoto Mechanisms— the general priority areas identified above.

Section I of the paper outlines the specific elementsof an implementation framework required for compli-ance with the Kyoto Protocol. This section also assessesthe capacity each country has to perform these require-ments, and ranks current capacity as high, medium, orlow. Section II identifies the challenges and capacitydeficits common to the six CEE countries surveyed forthis report. In so doing, the section presents areaswhere countries can collaborate to meet common goals.Section III presents priority capacity needs by country.This section offers recommendations for country invest-ment in specific areas and identifies where nationalpolitical will and donor support is needed. The paperconcludes with a review of regional progress, chal-lenges, and next steps for national CEE governmentsand the international climate community.

The information in the paper is drawn from surveysof countries currently participating in the joint programCapacity for Climate Protection in Central and EasternEurope led by the Regional Environmental Center forCentral and Eastern Europe and the World ResourcesInstitute. Non-governmental organization (NGO) part-ners in each of these countries worked with staff in bothgovernment and non-government institutions to obtainresponses to a survey (attached as Appendix I) that pro-vided the basis for information presented in this report.Respondents included the following: staff of national sta-tistical offices, national focal points for the UNFCCCSecretariat, members of National Commissions onClimate Change, staff of private companies, researchersat private environmental organizations, members of vari-ous ministries (including staff involved in national inven-tory preparation), and academics. Appendix II presents amatrix of the responses to the survey. A first attempt atmapping current international efforts to build capacity in

the region and priority needs is provided in Appendix III. The material in this paper reflects the views of the

individuals who were interviewed and does not representofficial government positions. Survey questions werebased on the draft national systems guidelines document.6

Building a Kyoto Protocolinfrastructure7

Effective implementation of the Kyoto Protocol willrequire countries to build capacity in several importantareas:

• national systems for inventory preparation, manage-ment and reporting,

• expert review, and

• participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms.

This section addresses these areas and includesassessments regarding each country’s state of readinessand potential quality of implementation. Several elements of a Kyoto infrastructure build on existingrequirements found in the Climate Convention, includinggreenhouse gas inventories, reporting, and in-depthreviews.

National systems: inventory preparation,management, and reporting

Article 5 of the Kyoto Protocol requires each AnnexI country to have a ‘national system’ for greenhouse gasemission estimation in place no later than 2007. TheParties have since elaborated draft guidelines that state:

A national system includes all institutional, legal andprocedural arrangements made within a Partyincluded in Annex I to the Convention for estimatinganthropogenic emissions by sources and removalsby sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled bythe Montreal Protocol, and for reporting and archiv-ing inventory information.8

UNFCCC draft guidelines for national systems areheavily informed by the IPCC Good Practice Guidanceand Uncertainty Management in National GreenhouseGas Inventories,9 which emphasizes procedures toensure that inventories are high quality and free of sys-tematic bias.

Accordingly, the three important national systemselements include:

1. Inventory compilation,

2. Quality control, and

3. Information management.

These elements are central to assessing whether acountry is in compliance with its greenhouse gas emis-



TABLE 2

Capacity to meet inventory preparation and management requirementsH=high; M=medium; L=low

ALREADY DOING THIS

QualityH M LLikely national systems requirements

Estimate inventory uncertainty CZ BUPO SIHU

Compile national inventory in accordance with the common reporting format HU BU ROPO CZ

Apply general inventory level quality control (Tier 1) PO BU HUCZ

Annual checks of data and calculations related to identified key sources HU BUPO CZ

Quality control (QC) procedures applied for (source category-specific Tier 2 QC) (i) Individual key emission source categories (i.e., the most importantcategories)

PO BU

(ii) Emission source categories in which significant methodological and data revisions have taken place

PO BU

Expert review: review of the inventory by personnel that have not beeninvolved in its development, preferably an independent third party

PO CZ BUSI

Timely information on adjustments: inform the expert review team within fourweeks whether your country accepts any adjustment that is made by the team

BUPO

Archiving: archive inventory information for each year (including documentation of quality assurance (QA)/quality control activities — Article 8 external review reports)

HU BU ROCZ SIPO

Develop confidentiality provisions for any archived information that isconfidential and provide access on that basis

SI BU ROPO

Response to requests from review team, including timely clarification ofinventory and national system information.

PO BU ROCZHU

Carry out expert peer review and/or audits as additional QA procedures. CZ BUPO

Adapted from a white paper on CEE Kyoto Protocol capacity by Fiona Mullins.Key to abbreviations of country names appears on page 4.

* With provided assistance. ** Under the question on ‘expert review’ some respondents, including Hungary, answered concerning the in-depthreview (IDR) process rather than independent national expert review.



POSSIBLY WITH EXISTINGCAPACITY

HIGH QUALITY POSSIBLE WITH ASSISTANCE

HIGH QUALITY POSSIBLE BY 2005

Expected qualityH M L

Likely Not likely- -


PO BU ROCZHU

BU HUCZPORO

BU*CZ RO

SI

BU ROCZHU

BUCZ HU

RO

BU* ROCZSI

BU HUCZ ROSI

BUCZ

RO HUSI

BU*CZ RO

SI

HU BU ROCZ

BUCZROSI

BU*CZ SI

BU RO BUHUROSI

BU*CZSI

BU BUHU RO

SI

BU*

HU CZ BURO

BUHU**CZRO

BU ROCZSI

BURO

BUROSI

BU* RO

HU BU ROPO PO

BUCZPORO

BU* ROCZ

PO BU ROHU

BU HUROSI

BU*RO

BUCZHURO

BUCZ HU

ROSI

BU* ROCZ

PO CZ BUHU RO

BUCZ HU

ROSI

BU*CZ RO

sions obligations, and are examined in the followingthree subsections.

Table 2 summarizes the survey responses on nationalcapacity to meet inventory preparation and managementand reporting requirements. For each of the subtasks —estimating inventory uncertainty, compilation in commonreporting format, application of general-inventory-levelquality control, annual checks of data and calculations,facilitating expert review, and archiving — the respon-dents’ assessments of potential performance quality isindicated.

Inventory compilationProtocol inventory requirements build on the Climate

Convention reporting requirements. In fulfilling theserequirements, the surveyed countries, as well as otherAnnex I Parties, have years of experience compiling andmanaging greenhouse gas emission inventories. Thecountries surveyed have all made great improvements intheir inventory preparation since submitting their firstnational communications. Thus, existing experience provides a strong base of expertise. However, most coun-tries still face difficulties.

Inventory compilation requires many steps as well asadherence to common methodologies (IPCC) and reportformats (UNFCCC). In considering these, we examine sur-vey responses concerning national capacity for: collectingdata, using emissions factors, following the inventoryguidelines, reporting inventory emission estimates, updat-ing the national inventory, and assigning institutionalresponsibility for inventory preparation.

Collecting dataInventory compilation begins with collection of

basic activity data, such as the amounts of various fuelsconsumed or extracted. Although different types ofinstitutions are responsible for data collection withinthe countries surveyed, each country has a singlenational organization that is responsible for compilingnational activity data.

In the Czech Republic, overall responsibility lies withthe Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute (CHMI), whichmonitors and prepares statistical documents for theMinistry of the Environment. This is the least complexorganizational structure of all the countries surveyed.Similarly, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania each have asingle organization responsible for preparing nationaldata. However, they also draw on other supplementarysources to provide local or sector specific information.Hungary’s Institute for Environmental Management(KGI), Bulgaria’s National Statistical Institute (NSI), andRomania’s Research and Engineering Institute for Environ-ment (ICIM) are the main organizations with nationaldata collection duties in their respective countries.

Romania operates a two-step process for its data collection, with local environment agencies takingresponsibility for collation of local level information.These data are reported to local environmental protec-tion agencies and to the National Institute of Statistics andEconomic Studies (INSEE). These institutes provide sectoral and national data to the institution (ICIM), whichis responsible for compiling the inventory.

Of the countries surveyed, Poland has the mostcomplex system of data collection. Because Poland’sMain Statistical Office provides a central collectionpoint for statistical data at a national level, compilationof the statistical data occurs at a single central location.However, 18 different institutions contribute to the collation of national statistical information. For some ofthe main sources of emissions, different institutions collect the activity data: the Aviation Institute in Warsaw(IL) prepares data on air transport; the Institute of Oiland Gas Research in Warsaw (IGNiG) collects and analyzes data on oil and gas extraction and use; and theInstitute of Road Transport in Warsaw (ITS) is responsi-ble for data on energy use in the transport sector.Several of these institutes gather similar information,although with slight differences in content.11

The main difficulties in data collection, whichextend to some degree to all surveyed countries,include confidentiality, lack of regulatory authority, andinstitutional capacity. In Romania, the lack of a regula-tory mandate and a general lack of transparency hin-ders institutions responsible for the collection of data.One of the primary difficulties is that private companiesare not legally required to disclose the emissions infor-mation needed by the institutions that collect the data.Similarly, official institutions have a limited mandate torequest or obtain data.

In Bulgaria, the activity data of the main emissionsources (large monopolies) is protected as confidentialunder Bulgarian law. There is no single national institu-tion vested with the responsibility for data collection ofgases. The Bulgarians can obtain data from the nationalstatistical institute, but are not yet able to obtain ade-quate bottom-up data at the plant level. Similarly, inHungary, environmental inspectorates are not autho-rized to collect CO2 data, because it is not classified asharmful. Data confidentiality problems also exist inRomania. Structural reform in these sectors further com-pounds these difficulties.

Other more specific problems plague one or moreof the countries surveyed:

• lack of adequate equipment for data collection;

• breakdowns in the exchange and transfer of datawithin and among organizations;

• mismatches between the data collected and the datarequired by the IPCC methodology (Romania);



• differences in the methodologies used for data col-lection and data processing, resulting in variations inbasic data and calculated indicators (Bulgaria);

• difficulty estimating specific gases, such as methane(Hungary);

• problems with data flow management, measurementhardware, and data collection procedures (Poland);

• data collection gaps (Slovenia);

• inconsistencies in data from different sources, such asagriculture, waste and land-use change and forestry(Bulgaria); and

• complications due to the transition to recording sta-tistics in line with European requirements. DifferentEU reporting categories for emissions distort time-series data, making it difficult to analyze trends.

Using emission factorsEmission factors allow the activity data to be converted

into actual greenhouse gas emission estimates. A widevariety of default emission factors are provided by theIPCC for those unable to calculate actual factors.

In most of the countries, the organizations responsiblefor emission factors are independent institutes, such asthe Research Institute for Environmental Engineering(ICIM) in Romania, the Czech Hydro MeteorologicalInstitute (CHMI), and the Institute for EnvironmentalManagement (KGI) in Hungary. In Bulgaria and Poland,the organizations that calculate emissions factors are sep-arate from those that collect activity data. In Bulgaria,Energoproect (a scientific research institute in the energyfield) calculates the emissions factors for the Ministry ofEnvironment and Water. In Poland, a non-governmentalbody, FEWE (Foundation for Energy Efficiency), calcu-lates the emissions factors and also has full responsibilityfor ensuring the methodological integrity of the invento-ry, although other organizations also contribute to the cal-culations. In Slovenia, the Slovenian Institute of Energy, aprofessional non-government institute, carries out the cal-culation of emission factors.

All of the countries surveyed have the capacity to calculate some emission factors. Some respondentsreport success in improving the accuracy and availabilityof emissions reports (e.g., Bulgaria and Poland), as wellas improvements in expertise in estimating emission fac-tors. Yet concerns with data quality prevent some of thecountries from estimating their own emission factors. Forexample, in Hungary IPCC default factors are usedbecause of the lack of resources to address the compli-cations associated with data interpretation, from the agri-culture and transport sectors, among others.

Following the inventory guidelinesThe countries surveyed have inventory experts

familiar with the inventory guidelines. The staff respon-

sible for preparing the inventories are generally wellaware of the UNFCCC inventory requirements, althoughowing to a lack of funding they have been unable toparticipate in the inventory-related meetings organizedby the IPCC.

Since submitting their first national communications,all of the countries surveyed have made progress inimproving their inventories. Some countries still requiresignificant capacity development (e.g. Romania andBulgaria) and expect to face difficulties in preparing goodquality inventories for their third national communication.

Updating the national inventoryDue to delays in publishing official data, all Annex I

Parties experience considerable problems updating theirinventories. Updating problems due to time lags werereported in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, andPoland. Generally, these difficulties are exacerbated inEITs by funding and data collection capacity constraints,described above.

The Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary have allupdated their inventories annually, although for severalyears Hungary updated its inventory on a biennial basisto minimize costs. Romania’s most recent annual updateis currently delayed because of difficulties implement-ing the revised IPCC inventory guidelines. For the firsttime in 2000, Bulgaria updated its national inventory forthe years 1988, the base year, to 1995.

Timing of updates is another challenge faced bycountries. Bulgaria, Slovenia, Poland, and Hungary donot appear to have the capacity to report the annualgreenhouse gas inventory in November for the yearprior to submission (a possible requirement under theArticle 8 review process) because of time lags, whilerespondents in Romania and the Czech Republicbelieve that they do have such capacities. In Bulgaria,data from the National Statistical Institute are compiledwith a time delay of about 21 months. In Slovenia, addi-tional funds and training are needed if this is to beachieved.

Assigning institutional responsibility forinventory preparation

UNFCCC draft guidelines state that “as part of itsinventory planning, each Annex I Party shall designatea single national entity with overall authority for thenational inventory.” Most of the surveyed countrieshave clear definitions of responsibility for the nationalinventory, with a single authority possessing overallresponsibility.

In Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, and Hungary, theEnvironment Ministry is in charge of the inventory. ThePolish Statistical Office (GUS) has overall responsibilityfor the Polish inventory. However, in Poland there areplans to make the Center for Inventory of Emissions at



the Environmental Protection Institute (IOS) responsiblefor the national inventory. The Czech Republic assignsresponsibility for all aspects of preparation and coordi-nation of its inventory to the Hydro-MeteorologicalInstitute (CHMI).

Slovenia, however, has not yet decided which institution will be in charge of establishing the nationalsystem for emission monitoring, inventory preparation,and reporting. The two possibilities are the Hydro-Meteorological Institute and the Environmental Agency(to be established in the future). The Ministry of Environ-ment and Spatial Planning’s Hydro-MeteorologicalInstitute are performing activities related to inventorypreparation on a temporary basis. Slovenian state agen-cies are predominantly bodies with a low level of inde-pendence, which have restricted direct use of budgetexpenditures. Better distribution of tasks and responsibil-ities and improved organization of labor is needed inaddition to extra financial support.

Quality control and quality assuranceAs noted, the UNFCCC draft guidelines stress the

importance of quality assurance and quality control.13

Quality control (QC) is a system of routine technicalactivities to measure and control the quality of theinventory as it is being developed. QC includes activi-ties such as accuracy checks on data acquisition andestimating uncertainties. Quality assurance (QA) activi-ties, on the other hand, include a planned system ofreview procedures conducted by personnel not directlyinvolved in the inventory.14 Elements related to QA/QC,and the associated capacities of surveyed countries, arereviewed in this section.

Data verification and quality control measuresSome of the countries surveyed already have some

form of verification and quality control for their inven-tories. Bulgaria carries out quality control on its energy-sector estimates, the most important emission source.Independent experts review estimates prepared by theScientific Council of Energoproect. The estimates andthe independent review are submitted to the HighEnvironmental Council in the Ministry of Environmentand Water (MoEW). Government staff from MoEW, theNational Statistical Institute and independent nationalexperts all review the estimates. Bulgarian respondentscited the need for an agreed methodology for evaluatinginventory uncertainties and for QA. However, the mostdifficult challenge, as noted above, is the confidentialityprovisions in Bulgaria that limit access by independentexperts to the necessary data.

Polish quality assurance is evolving and will requireincreased staff capacity. Currently, quality assurancetakes place during final approval of the inventory. Aspecial committee, which was established by the Polish

Ministry of the Environment, is responsible for this pro-cedure. Poland conducts consultations and discussionsthroughout the preparation of the inventory and invitesexperts to give their opinion before final acceptance ofthe report.

Slovenia is unable to implement QC procedureswithout additional funding. Similarly, Hungary currentlyhas the capacity to compile the inventory but not todevelop any further QC systems, without additionalfinancial resources.

Romania lacks the appropriate institutions and legaland regulatory frameworks required to apply QC measures. However, Romania does double-check itsestimates using data from two different sources as amethod of verification. Without additional administra-tive capacity and funding, Romania faces considerabledifficulties in establishing QA procedures for any of theemission source categories. One way to increase capacityis through funding for attendance at IPCC workshops, aneed shared by several surveyed countries.

Estimation of inventory uncertaintyEstimating inventory uncertainty is a key QC com-

ponent and the recent subject of a series of IPCC expertmeetings. The Convention Parties have endorsed theresulting guidelines and recommend their use in inven-tory preparation.15

Implementing these guidelines in the surveyedcountries will require additional funding and staff time,as well as sharing relevant experiences across countries.Some respondents (e.g., Romania) cited assistance inincreasing the accuracy of emissions estimation as a pri-ority. In Poland, uncertainty estimates are carried outbut additional assistance is needed to improve the qual-ity of data in specific sectors, such as energy, industrialprocesses, waste, and sewage. The same general prob-lems of lack of finance, staff time, and expertise make itdifficult for inventory experts in these countries toassess the levels of uncertainty in the inventory.

Official approval processesIn Romania, both the inventory and the national

communication are sent to the National Commissionon Climate Change (NCCC) for validation prior to submission to the UNFCCC. The High EnvironmentalCouncil in the MoEW has to approve the Bulgarianinventory. The Council then decides which commentsand suggestions to take into account and submits thefinal version of the inventory to the UNFCCC. In theCzech Republic, the Inter-Ministerial Commission onClimate Change plays a key role in approval of both theinventory and the national communication. InHungary, the Commission on Sustainable Develop-ment receives the inventory for final review andapproval, but this is not a formalized process.



In Poland, an acceptance committee meeting takesplace prior to submitting the inventory. The committeeconsists of experts nominated by the Ministry ofEnvironment. It decides whether to approve or reject thereport and may also request additional clarification onspecific issues. Once the committee accepts the inventory,it is published and made available to the public.

In Slovenia, the inventory is sent to the following min-istries for confirmation: the Ministry of Economic Affairs;the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; the Ministry ofthe Environment and Spatial Planning; and the Ministry ofTransport and Communication. Prior to its submission tothe UNFCCC secretariat, the National Committee forClimate Change Issues15 revises the inventory.

Expert reviewPeer review by independent national experts is essen-

tial to an effective QA program. This, however, does notcurrently take place in most of the countries surveyed.Bulgaria and Poland conduct expert reviews, althoughBulgaria’s procedures are still at an early stage of devel-opment because many of the auditors are not yet expertsin IPCC methodology. Slovenia and Hungary do not carryout expert reviews because of financial constraints.

Hungary, Slovenia, and Romania did not report anyform of third-party or independent peer review of theinventory. Respondents in Hungary cited insufficientcapacity for implementing quality assurance proceduresbut believe that the costs of involving a third party in theprocess will probably not be high and should not pre-sent an insurmountable difficulty in the future. TheCzech Republic ensures that at least one person notinvolved in the inventory preparation regularly reviewsits inventory.

The effective implementation of peer reviews is apossibility in all of the countries, but in some a lack offunding may limit the extent to which this is possible.Lack of expert staff with relevant experience is the mainconstraint for Bulgaria. Additional funding and assis-tance could help the overall development of a morecomprehensive and structured system of peer review.

Information managementThe third key aspect of inventory compilation is

information management. Archiving and public accessi-bility of information are the main subtasks of informa-tion management.

ArchivingUNFCCC draft guidelines call on countries to archive

information for each year in accordance with decisionstaken by the Parties. This information needs to includeactivity data, emission factors, and documentation onmethodologies and QA/QC procedures.16

Respondents in Poland and Bulgaria considerarchiving to be satisfactory. In Bulgaria, all availabledata relating to the inventory is currently available,including all of the intermediate steps taken to calculatethe estimates. Both the MoEW and the ExecutiveEnvironmental Agency are responsible for retaining thearchived information; the information is expected to bemade available on request.

In Poland, five different organizations are responsiblefor archiving data (FEWE, GUS, MS, NFOS and CIE-Information Center for Energy Sector) on an annualbasis. The documented information is available in theform of printed reports and on computer files, but thereis no single, central computer database. In Hungary,inventory data is archived in both electronic and printedformats. Better hardware and software for storing thedata and the allocation of responsibility to an individualwithin the appropriate institute would greatly improvethe quality of archiving inventory information inRomania.

Public accessibility of informationSome countries may require assistance in order to

make inventory information comprehensively andwidely available. Romania and Slovenia, in particular,cited the need for assistance. In Bulgaria, it is alreadypossible to send information about the national inven-tory, the national communication, and the country’s cli-mate change activities to any interested party, organi-zation, or person on request by email or post.However, Bulgarian respondents consider internation-al assistance extremely important for developing a sys-tematic information-sharing system. In the CzechRepublic, the improvement of reporting and informa-tion-sharing depends upon international assistance(e.g., funding, expertise) and national finance.

Table 3 summarizes national capacity to meet variousstandards for information sharing and the anticipatedquality levels with and without assistance.

None of the countries surveyed has an officialgreenhouse gas website. Survey responses indicate thatsome countries may find it difficult to develop a websiteowing to a lack of funding or expertise.

Despite the lack of a specific website, severalcountries have set up internet links to facilitate accessto emissions information. Bulgaria has a link with theUNFCCC website where all of Bulgaria’s official inven-tory and national communications information is avail-able. In Hungary and Romania, the existing websitesof the environmental ministries have links to some relevant information. In all of the countries, providingcontact information for the national entity responsiblefor the inventory is a small requirement that can bemet within existing capacity.



Expert reviewNational systems must, according to UNFCCC draft

guidelines, ‘facilitate the review of information’ submit-ted by Parties. Building on the Climate Conventionrequirements for review of information, Article 8 of theProtocol calls on ‘expert review teams’ (ERTs) to reviewgreenhouse gas inventories and other reported material.These in-depth reviews (IDRs) are facilitated by theUNFCCC Secretariat and are available to all Parties andthe public upon completion. The following section ana-lyzes national capacity for hosting reviews and respond-ing to requests from review teams.

Capacity for hosting reviewsThere are no set criteria for the type of capacity that

is needed for hosting a review. In general, in-depthreviews (IDR) undertaken under the Climate Conventionwork well when there is a central person who is familiarwith the national communications process and theUNFCCC requirements. This person needs to have thetime and authority to coordinate the review and toensure that all topics can be covered while the reviewteam is in the country.

Each country is different, but an IDR typicallyinvolves one week of meetings between the five to sixmember review team (made up of experts from othercountries and a staff member of the UNFCCC

Secretariat) and staff of the institutions involved inpreparing the inventory and national communication.The host country coordinator needs to have the mandate, along with sufficient authority, to arrangethe participation of staff from other governmentdepartments and independent institutions involved inpreparing the inventory and the national communica-tions. Business and environmental non-governmentinstitutions are also usually invited to provide theirviews to the review team. The coordinator has toaddress questions from the review team both beforeand after the visit, forwarding the questions to the relevant expert when necessary. The coordinatorshould ensure that a response is made to theSecretariat within a reasonable time frame.

Bulgaria, Romania, and the Czech Republic believethat they have the capacity to host at least one in-countryreview during the 2008-2012 commitment period. A respondent in Bulgaria remarked that the schedule ofthe expert review visits must be announced well inadvance. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland andHungary17 also consider that they have the capacity tohost additional in-country visits, if recommended by thereview team.

It has not been decided yet whether Slovenia willhost a review during the commitment period or anyadditional country visits, should the review team recommended this. Funds would be needed to ensure



TABLE 3

Likely national systems requirements for reporting and information sharingH=high; M=medium; L=low

ALREADY DOING THIS

QualityH M LInventory reporting and information sharing

Develop a national GHG website and make inventory information available on it,including the inventory report and data in the common reporting format

CZ

Make available the postal and electronic addresses of the national entityresponsible for the inventory

HU BU

Make available to any interested party, organization, or person the informationdescribed in the present table in either printed or electronic format, uponrequest

CZ

Adapted from a white paper on CEE Kyoto Protocol capacity by Fiona Mullins. Key to abbreviations of country names appears on page 4.

that appropriate staff were available to support thesereviews.

Appropriate response to requests from the in-depthreview team, called for by Article 8, is also likely torequire that the review team’s questions areanswered, with additional information provided with-in agreed time limits. At any stage in the reviewprocess, the Secretariat or ERT may raise questions tothe Party. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland believe thatthis would not pose problems and Romania does notreport any particular difficulties in this area. InSlovenia, responses to requests from the review teamand expert peer review will be possible, with assis-tance, but the time frame for these activities has notyet been determined because of lack of staff andfunds. However, additional funds, and in some casesadditional training, may be needed to allow questionsfrom the review team to be answered, or additionalinformation provided, within agreed time limits (e.g.,in Slovenia and Romania). Stronger commitmentsfrom the relevant ministries would improve capacityto respond to review questions promptly.

Article 8 may also require Parties to correct problemsthat are identified within agreed time limits in consulta-tion with the expert review team. Bulgaria, Hungary,and Romania confirm their ability to fulfill this require-ment. Romania has not experienced many questionsfrom the review teams to date and so there has been noreason to develop specific response procedures.

Infrastructure and regulations forparticipation in the Kyoto Mechanisms

Market-based regulatory approaches have largepotential to improve environmental performance andreduce compliance costs.18 The Kyoto Protocol containsseveral such mechanisms, including international emis-sions trading (IET) and joint implementation (JI).19 EITshave strong incentives to participate in JI and CDM.Successful participation could result in the generationof revenue, as well as the introduction of new, moreefficient technologies. Policymakers in the surveyedcountries recognize these potential benefits. Accordingto respondents, all of the countries surveyed are plan-ning to participate in JI, and most are planning to par-ticipate in IET.

But Parties will likely be required to demonstrateadherence with UNFCCC provisions in order to be eligible for participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms. Forexample, the initial privilege to participate in IET maybe made contingent upon the achievement of workingnational systems for inventory compilation, manage-ment, and reporting, as detailed in the preceding sections. For JI, the Protocol already provides somedirection. According to Article 6.4, if the compliance ofa Party is found to be questionable, the Party acquiringJI credits cannot use them to fulfill its obligations untilthe question of compliance is resolved. Whatever spe-cific eligibility requirements are decided upon for each



POSSIBLY WITH EXISTINGCAPACITY

HIGH QUALITY POSSIBLE WITH ASSISTANCE

HIGH QUALITY POSSIBLE BY 2005

Expected qualityH M L



PO BU ROCZHU

BU CZROSI

HU

BUCZ ROSI

SI BUPO ROHU

BURO

BU* ROSI

PO BU ROCZ

BUHUCZROSI

BUCZROSI

mechanism, these issues underscore the great impor-tance of effective national infrastructure.

As with the demonstration of compliance with commitments, participation in the Kyoto Mechanismswill depend on the existence of regulatory and institutional frameworks. The following sectionreviews the objectives of the frameworks likely to berequired. After the review of objectives is a moredetailed look at the specific elements of infrastructure(e.g., registries) and regulation, and the preparationand capacity levels of the surveyed countries formeeting these likely requirements.

Objectives of Kyoto Mechanism frameworksNational frameworks for the Kyoto Mechanisms will

serve several objectives. Governments will use them tosupport domestic emissions trading and joint imple-mentation programs. The mechanism frameworks willalso support international trading by the governmentand companies. In addition, they will provide the infor-mation to the international community required forcompliance assessment under the Kyoto Protocol.National frameworks for international and domestictrading will be closely interrelated and in many casesthe functions required for domestic and internationaltrading will be exactly the same.

To support entity participation in the Kyoto Mecha-nisms, Parties will need the following:

• baseline-setting processes for joint implementationprojects;

• regulatory frameworks for gathering emissions datafrom entities and projects;

• entity and project-reporting requirements;

• monitoring, verification, and enforcement processes;

• national registries that track government and entitytransactions and that provide information for entityand national compliance assessment.

Estimating emissions from projects will require expertjudgment in many cases. This will be a major undertak-ing for government departments. For JI, it is likely thatspecialist agencies will be accredited to validate projects,verify baselines, and certify emission reductions. Govern-ment departments will need to define the extent to whichthey authorize projects, baselines, and emission reduc-tions, and to require certain methodologies to be used(although internationally accepted methods are likely tobe available).

Countries are likely to implement different domesticemissions trading systems, depending on their institu-tional capacity and policies. While some harmonizationamong these systems will be needed (e.g., registries anddefinition of tradable units), Parties will retain the scopeto set up the national infrastructure most appropriate totheir circumstances.

Elements for participation in themechanism

The remainder of this section will examine the specific elements and capacities likely to be prerequisitesfor successful participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms.The major infrastructural requirement — national registries — will be reviewed first, and followed by ananalysis of the regulatory frameworks necessary for entity and project participation. Both sections also detailthe reported national capacity to complete and operatethese frameworks.

National registriesSubmissions to the UNFCCC on registries (summarized

in Box 2) make it clear that the main purpose of registriesis to record and track the initial assigned amount20 and anyadjustments from transfers and aquisitions.

To ensure that the market functions smoothly, registrieswill need to:

• record assigned amounts held by legal entities;

• record transfers and aquisitions;

• make transfers between accounts quickly; and

• provide a publicly accessible interface that allows any-one to query and view non-confidential information.

The information needed to account for the changes toassigned amounts and to assess compliance will comefrom national registries. This information will include thetotal assigned amount in the national registry at the startof the year, any transfers and aquisitions, any unitsretired during the year, and the total assigned amount inthe national registry.

National registries will have to be compatible, butnot necessarily uniform. A national registry could be asimple searchable database, using a database tool, suchas Microsoft Access, or it could be a more complexinteractive web-based system. The registries need to beeffective, simple (non-bureaucratic), and transparent,allowing third party inspection to make sure that trading is occuring without fraud or mistakes. There isstrong support for registries to be publicly accessible.Registry data is the likely source of some of the ‘supple-mental information’ called for under Article 7 that coun-tries will be required to support. Table 4 summarizesthat information, and the predicted provision qualitylevels of countries surveyed, based on current capacityand capacity with assistance.

Some countries are already considering the mostappropriate institutions for maintaining the registry. Forexample, in Bulgaria, a unit at MoEW is considered tobe the most appropriate agency to do so. It is also pos-sible that the existing Executive Environmental Agency,under the MoEW, could be authorized to maintain aregistry. The Czech Republic envisages that its Hydro-Meteological Institute will fulfil this task. In Poland,



either NFOS or MS is likely to be selected. According toa governmental resolution in Hungary, the agency thatwill have responsibility for maintaining the national reg-istry will be decided by June 30, 2001. The most appro-priate agency is likely to be the Hungarian EnergyEfficiency Agency (HEEA). There is currently no singleinstitute within Romania that has the capacity to fulfillthis role.

Slovenia has not yet decided which agency would bemost appropriate to maintain a national registry and trackchanges in assigned amount. Possibilities include estab-lishing an office for the Kyoto Mechanisms or the upgrad-ing of existing systems for collection of CO2 tax into anational registry system (the current system for collectionof CO2 tax maintains data on all fossil fuel use in order totrack the legal entities that are eligible for CO2 tax exemp-tion). A database could be made available throughEIONET (a project of the European EnvironmentalAgency). Slovenian respondents believe that their countrywill require assistance to provide the supplementaryinformation needed from a registry.

Although Hungary is intending to incorporate reg-istry development into its 2002 budget, for many coun-tries financial constraints are a significant problem.Another difficulty in Romania, Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, and Hungary is a shortage of qualified per-sonnel or lack of experience with registry development.In addition to these problems, Romania’s weak legaland institutional framework may hinder establishmentof a national registry. Slovenia is also likely to experi-ence institutional difficulties.

Capacity for entity and projectparticipation

Successful participation in the Kyoto Mechanismswill require specific capacities, including for authoriz-ing which domestic ‘legal entities’ can participate andunder what conditions, setting project baselines andentity emissions targets, and monitoring and enforcingemission limits.

Authorizing legal entitiesThe Kyoto Protocol envisions the participation of

the private sector in JI and IET. However, because gov-ernments, not companies, are responsible for treatyadherence, private entities participation must be autho-rized and regulated by governments.

Many of the respondents had views on the likelyoutcome of decisions regarding authorizing entities intheir country to participate in emissions trading.However, no official decisions on this issue have as yetbeen made in any of the countries surveyed. Bulgariaand the Czech Republic both consider it likely that theywill authorize legal entity participation. Bulgaria envis-ages the MoEW being responsible for authorizing legalentities. The Inter-Ministerial Committee for ClimateChange of Bulgaria will probably decide on the proce-dures for authorizing legal entities.

In Hungary, some enterprises could potentially beinvolved in big emission reduction projects. A govern-mental institution will provide the ‘rules of the game’



BOX 2

Excerpts from parties’ submissions on national registries• The main purpose of registries is to record and track the initial assigned amount and any adjustments from

transfers and acquisitions (EU and umbrella).

• A registry must be in the form of a compatible computer database (umbrella), a standard electronic reportingformat (Canada), a computerized accounting system (EU), or computer databases (Costa Rica) to ensure accurateaccounting of assigned amount and to track changes to the Party’s assigned amount.

• The format of the databases should be internationally compatible.

• National registries must include accounts for legal entities (umbrella and EU).

• Each unit must be held in only one account in one national registry (umbrella and EU).

• Transactions must be ‘instantaneous’ (umbrella) or ‘near real time’ i.e. within one working day (EU).

• Registries should be publicly accessible-including minimum data elements, e.g., account holdings, name, and address of account reps (EU, umbrella, Costa Rica, India).

• Transactions should be dated and records of each transaction should be kept (umbrella, EU, Costa Rica).

• An agency (government or private) must be identified that is responsible for the registry in each Party(umbrella, EU, Costa Rica).

• There must be unique serial numbers for each unit of assigned amount (umbrella, EU).

Note: Names in parenthesis pertain to countries making the submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. ‘Umbrella’ includes countries such asUnited States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Japan, and Russia.

(probably the HEEA) and authorize legal (and opera-tional) entities. New laws will be needed to regulate firms.

The process in Romania is at such an early stage thatdecisions on legal entity participation are not yet envis-aged. The Ministry of Waters, Forest, and EnvironmentalProtection, the National Commission on ClimateChange, or the Unit for Implementation of the KyotoProtocol Mechanisms could take responsibility forauthorizing legal entities. A change in the legal frame-work is needed in Romania to facilitate institutional, regulatory arrangements for participation by entities inthe Kyoto Mechanisms.

Slovenia has not yet decided whether to authorizelegal entities to participate in the Kyoto Mechanisms,whether the government or a designated agency will setbaselines or set obligations on entities to limit theirgreenhouse gas emissions, or how the legal entities willbe included in a process. However, relevant state offi-cials and policymakers are aware of the importance ofestablishing a system that will assure compliance withKyoto Protocol obligations.

Setting baselines and entity emission targetsTo enable private sector participation in JI and IET,

national governments will have to set emission targetsfor entities, allocate emission permits, (and issue or auc-tion a limited amount of permits) and approve baselinesfor JI projects.

Domestic or international emissions trading arederived from government imposed environmental oblig-ations — responsibilities to limit emissions to a specificlevel within a specific time period. Governments issuetradable licenses, or permits, that authorize the holder toemit a certain amount of greenhouse gases (e.g., one tonof CO2 equivalent) during that time period.21 Entities thatreduce their emissions below this level can sell excessemission permits. Those that find it too expensive toreduce their emissions can buy emission permits fromother firms in order to comply with their emission con-straint. JI projects, on the other hand, must establish abaseline, or reference case, against which emissionreductions can be assessed. Credits are likely to be issuedin proportion to a project’s emission reductions.

Any leniency in setting entity emissions targets orproject baselines will create domestic distortionsbecause other sectors of the economy will have to domore for the country to meet its national target. Overlytough emission constraints or project baselines willincrease the cost of compliance for the entities or pro-jects on which they are imposed. It is, therefore, impor-tant for governments to set realistic and fair emissiontargets and project baselines.

Frameworks for setting entity emission constraintsand project baselines are essential for those countries thatwish to allow entity and project participation in emission

trading and joint implementation (whether domestic,international, or both). The ‘national system’ for settingentity emissions constraints is often a negotiationbetween the government (e.g., industry, environmentand finance ministries) and industry associations, or largeindividual companies.

The cost burden of negotiating emission constraints ishigh at the beginning, but once the emission constraintshave been agreed upon they should not need to be rene-gotiated very often. Ideally, entity emission constraintsshould remain the same for a decade or two to allowindustry to plan its investment and maintenance cost-effectively. The cost burden for setting project baselinesis likely to be lower than for setting entity emission con-straints initially, but will remain fairly constant. Althoughthe process will become smoother over time as experi-ence with setting project baselines is gained, thisincreased ease could be offset by increased applicationsfor project baselines, if the program is successful.

CEE countries face many difficulties regarding settingemission constraints. Romania lacks experience in emis-sion registration and has no local companies or expertscurrently able to make calculations related to JI projects.Respondents in Hungary identified an extensive list ofchallenges, including the following: lack of humancapacity; difficulties with collecting data; disagreementover institutional responsibility; lack of awareness of theimportance of public-government partnerships; and dif-ficulty in finding the appropriate balance betweenencouraging companies to set up JI projects and restrict-ing JI activity to ensure that only real emission reduc-tions are sold.

Bulgaria states that new legislation will be neededbefore it can set baselines and emission targets. There aresome NGOs and a limited number of companies thathave the capacity to develop baselines for certain energyand energy efficiency projects in Bulgaria. Slovenia, likeothers, has not yet made any decisions about who will beresponsible for setting baselines or obligations.

In Hungary, the state currently has a supervisory roleand cannot set obligations on entities. Thus, at least in thenear term, the focus will probably be on JI projects.There are currently insufficient financial and humanresources to facilitate project participation. For JI projectsin Hungary, one respondent envisioned having the hostand donor prepare a feasibility study (including baselines). These entities would submit their study to anoperational entity (akin to bodies envisioned for theCDM), which will control the project. The HungarianEnergy Efficiency Agency might carry out both emissionsmonitoring and entity authorization.

Countries are also likely to be required to report JIproject information internationally. Table 5 summarizesthe existing capacity of the countries surveyed to pro-vide this information.



Slovenia will require assistance to provide other sup-plementary information related to Kyoto Mechanisms(e.g., baseline, calculation methods for projects).

Regulating entity emission limitsThe regulatory framework for domestic emissions

trading will need to include monitoring, reporting, andcompliance assessments.

In emissions trading systems, monitoring andreporting of emission sources is needed to ensure thatevery increase in emissions above an emission con-straint in one company is matched by a correspondingdecrease in emissions elsewhere. The entities autho-rized to meet their commitments through emissionstrading tend to be those entities that are most easilymonitored. For large stationary sources of emissions,the national systems for monitoring emissions are nomore complex than systems that exist for monitoring

compliance with obligations for other pollutants, suchas SO2 and NOx. However, new regulations are requiredstipulating the data that must be collected and reportedby the entity, the measurement equipment that shouldbe used (if measurements are feasible), and verificationprocesses. Finally, emissions trading systems must havean ending date, where accounts are reconciled and reg-ulators can determine whether the participating entitiesare complying with their emission targets. At this time,all participating entities must hold permits that are equalto, or in excess of, their actual greenhouse gas emis-sions. Well designed systems will impose financial orother penalties to non-complying entities to ensureenvironmental integrity and a reliable trading market.

JI will also require monitoring and reporting. Tostreamline the system, accredited third-party verifierscould be used for checking the emissions data from pro-jects, since each project may have special circumstancesto take into account that require expert judgment.



TABLE 5

Supplementary information requirements for Article 6 projectsH=high; M=medium; L=low

Possible with existing

capacity

High quality. Possiblewith assistance

High quality.Unlikely to be

possible by 2005Type of supplementary information

Adapted from a white paper on CEE Kyoto Protocol capacity by Fiona Mullins.

Information related to Article 6 projects,including baseline and emission reductioncalculation methods for each project.

M (BU) (PO)L (CZ) (RO)

H (BU) (RO) (HU)M (CZ)

H (BU) (RO) (PO)M (CZ)

TABLE 4

Supplementary information requirements for national registriesPossible

with expandingcapacity

High quality. Possiblewith assistance

High quality.Unlikely to be

possible by 2005Type of supplementary information

Adapted from a white paper on CEE Kyoto Protocol capacity by Fiona Mullins.

Supplementary registry information: totalassigned amount held in its national registryat the start of the year [i.e., serial numbers ofassigned amount units (AAUs), emissionreduction units (ERUs), and certified emissionreductions (CERs)].

Serial numbers of AAUs, ERUs, and CERstransferred to or acquired from another Party’snational registry and identification of theacquiring Party(ies).

L (BU) (CZ) (RO)M (PO)

H (BU) (RO) (SI) (PO) (HU)

H (BU) (CZ) (RO) (PO)

Assigned amount held in national registry atthe end of the year.

M (CZ)

In Bulgaria, the government can exercise controlover both public and private companies within theenergy and industrial sector (including the chemicalindustry, metallurgy, and construction materials). Theexisting laws in Bulgaria related to environmental andair protection provide a good basis for enforcing oblig-ations on legal entities with stationary emitting sources.Capacity building will be needed to amend the existingBulgarian laws and coordinate among the ministriesand agencies responsible for specific sectors.

In Romania, the regional environment and waterinspectorates can monitor and control entity emissionlimits. The government of Romania also reports that ithas the technical capacity to enforce obligations. TheMinistry of Water, Forests and Environmental Protection,or other governmental agencies could carry out moni-toring and enforcement. However, the inadequacy ofthe present legislation is an impediment to entity andproject participation in the Kyoto Protocol. The first stepshould, therefore, be having the present legislationmatch EU policy.

In Hungary, the network of inspectorates for envi-ronment and nature conservation will need to bestrengthened (financially and technically) for it to con-tinuously monitor and assess the self-reporting by enti-ties. Changes in regulation will be needed: for example,the inspectorates do not control CO2 emissions becausethe emissions are not classified as harmful.

Common regional capacity needsMany of the capacity needs described in Section I

are common to the countries surveyed, as well as othereconomies in transition. This section offers a regionalsummary of the current ability and common capacityneeds in the surveyed countries for implementingnational systems for inventories (preparation, reporting,and review) and for the Kyoto Mechanisms.

National systems: inventory preparation,management, and reporting

All of the countries surveyed have improved theirinventories since submitting their first national commu-nications and continue to improve them over time.Preparing inventories and national communicationsand in-depth review visits over the second half of the1990s has fostered this progress. The surveyed coun-tries have inventory experts with a great deal of experi-ence in preparing and updating their national inventoryto meet UNFCCC reporting obligations. Most countrieshave continuity in key staff involved. It is clear thatprogress has already been made on preparing invento-ries according to the common reporting format.

All of the surveyed countries face difficulties, to vary-ing degrees, in the areas of data collection, estimating

inventory uncertainty, using QA/QC systems, and estab-lishing confidentiality provisions for entity-level andmonopoly data. Several of these inventory-related diffi-culties stem from inadequate legal frameworks.Regulators must be vested with the necessary authority tocollect inventory data. Legal provisions must be estab-lished that define what data is publicly accessible andwhat is to be kept confidential by regulators. Such frame-works are inadequate in all EIT countries — a problemthat will take sustained effort over time to address.

Institutional frameworks must also be improved.According to the respondents, all of the countries havea single government ministry that has overall responsi-bility for the national inventory. However, inventory-related institutions in several countries have unclearmandates and responsibilities, leading in some cases toduplication of efforts and time delays. Typically, theinventory depends on data from different organizations,and a range of independent institutions prepare theinventory estimates, making consistency and timelinessof the data a problem. Clear distribution of tasks andresponsibilities and improved organization of labor,could significantly improve capacity for national sys-tems. If governments placed a higher priority onincreasing internal staff capacity, redistributing tasksand responsibilities within ministries and national insti-tutions, and aligning mandates with the treaty commit-ments (e.g. to ensure coverage of all relevant sectorsand gases), some of the problems could be solved inter-nally. However, the surveyed CEE and other EIT gov-ernments clearly have far fewer resources than otherAnnex I Parties and have to address many problemsraised by the transition process. Funding and expertassistance could assist the overall development of insti-tutions and national systems for inventory preparation,quality control, and reporting.

Human resource constraints were also reported in allsurveyed countries. Staff shortages and lack of trainingcontribute to difficulties with inventory preparation.These difficulties include both lack of administrativecapacity and an overall lack of staff with the appropriateskills (for example, in the energy, agriculture, and LUCFsectors in the Czech Republic). As a result of these constraints, all surveyed countries need funding forattendance at IPCC expert meetings. This will increaseinventory expertise on such questions as methods forestimating uncertainty.

Clearly, several of the above difficulties are linkedto funding issues. Inconsistencies of funding, as well asinsufficient funding levels, are the biggest problemsreported in the survey responses. Without adequateand consistent funding from year-to-year, it is extreme-ly difficult to provide the staff training and equipmentneeded for efficient production of emission invento-ries. With the exception of the Czech Republic, funding



levels are reported to suffer wide fluctuations fromyear-to-year for all of the countries. Lack of equipmentand software is another frequently cited difficulty thatis associated with financial constraints. In some cases,this results in the omission of important data. More reli-able funding could also improve the timely provisionof national statistics (thereby reducing inventorydelays), speed the development of national GHG web-sites, and support regional information and experiencesharing among CEE countries.

Expert review All of the countries surveyed have already hosted at

least one, and in some cases two, In-Depth Report (IDR)country visits. The IDR process under the UNFCCCprovides a solid foundation of experience on which tobuild the review process under the Kyoto Protocol.Most of the countries would be able to host at least oneIDR visit during the commitment period, but concernwas expressed regarding resource constraints shouldtoo many visits be required. Generally, addressing thecapacity deficits related to inventories and informationmanagement will also better equip countries to host in-country reviews.

Infrastructure and regulations forparticipation in the Kyoto Mechanisms

National infrastructure and regulation requirementsfor the Kyoto Mechanisms will be as crucial as accurateinventories for compliance assessment, since transac-tions under the mechanisms will alter Annex I Parties’assigned amounts.

Compared to the requirements for national invento-ries, there is less understanding of Kyoto Mechanismrequirements among the surveyed countries. Therewere many comments in the survey responses that indi-cated lack of capacity when the skills seem likely toexist, for example, for establishing registries (perhapsusing another country’s registry as a model).

All of the countries appear to be taking steps towardsusing the JI model for participation in the KyotoMechanisms. Some Memoranda of Understanding withfuture buyers of emission reductions (such as the Dutchgovernment) are already in place and establishment of JIoffices is well underway.

There appears to be far less comfort in the countriessurveyed with the institutions, legislation, and processesinvolved in authorizing entities to participate inInternational Emissions Trading (IET). In contrast withprogress on JI, it appears that these countries have not yetdecided how or even whether they will proceed withentity authorization for IET, although it is already clear tothem which sectors are likely candidates for participationin emissions trading (i.e., energy and industry). However,

this has to be considered in the context of the negotiationson the mechanisms. Most Annex I Parties will not seri-ously consider processes for entity participation until theKyoto Mechanisms rules have been clarified.

As with inventory-related requirements, financialconstraints, shortage of qualified personnel, and inade-quate legal and institutional frameworks could hamperthe establishment of a national registry and other likelyJI and IET eligibility requirements. With respect to theauthorization of ‘legal entities,’ no formal decisionshave been made yet in any of the countries. Most of thecountries surveyed do not feel that they have adequatecapacity for setting baselines and obligations on entitiesto limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

Country specific capacity needsFollowing is a presentation of priority capacity needs

on a country-by-country basis. By analyzing how welleach country is able to meet the national system andKyoto mechanism requirements discussed in Section I,this section offers the authors’ recommendations forinvestment in specific areas. The authors identify wherenational political will is required to address issues, andwhere donor support is needed.

BulgariaSurvey responses for Bulgaria indicate experience in

emissions data collection and inventory preparationand reporting. But Bulgaria faces significant institution-al, human resource, knowledge, and financial capacityrestraints. Table 6 below provides a summary analysisof these capacity barriers, based on the most significantchallenges to compliance and participation, as identi-fied by the survey respondents.

Although Bulgaria has had success in data collection,further improvements in inventory preparation are hindered by weaknesses at the institutional level.Limited administrative capacity is a significant constraint.Like the other surveyed countries, Bulgaria lacks neces-sary equipment for data collection. In addition, there isno mandate for the collection of information on lesscommon gases (PFCs, HFCs, SF6). A weak regulatorymandate currently leads to lack of business disclosure,as data are confidential by law. The country needs legaland institutional arrangements to ensure the timely distribution of information.

Staff capacity for obtaining source-specific emissionsis developed for the energy sector and for industry, butfurther capacity building is needed for the other sources(i.e. agriculture, LUCF and waste sectors). The Ministry ofEnvironment and Water — which would benefit fromdeveloping internal staff capacity and expertise in theprocesses of managing inventory preparation, reporting,





and assuring verification and quality control — has diffi-culties in raising the necessary funding. Continued andincreased support is needed to broaden and increaseinstitutional capacity and strengthen institutional planningfor new requirements, guidelines, and methodologies.

Bulgaria, as with most of the surveyed countries,reports delays in data availability and difficulty inobtaining disaggregated information. In addition,resources are needed to conduct the experiments andfield tests necessary to establish emission factors fornew gases. Both the data and methodologies used varywithin and among institutions, decreasing inventoryaccuracy. This indicates a need for strengthened staffcapacity (knowledge) as well as political action toensure timely publication of national statistical data.

The survey responses also indicate that institutionalcapacity building is required to support Bulgarian par-ticipation in the Kyoto Mechanisms. Existing legislationdoes not allow for the setting of baselines at projectlevel. Respondents indicated that foreign assistancewould be instrumental in supporting institutional andlegislative changes, establishing institutional systems forproject preparation, and creating a national registry.

Additional resources are also needed to take advan-tage of IPCC training opportunities. A problem exists withthe continuity of the inventory-related activities, as thereis a need for a permanent inventory staff that could oper-

ate on a stable basis in the field of inventory developmentand improvement. Such a team could be also responsiblefor emission reduction certification, if needed, at a futurestage of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The respondents strongly urged international sup-port to assist Bulgaria in creating the necessary method-ological frameworks for QA/QC, and for establishing anational registry.

RecommendationsThe Bulgarian government, and members of the

international climate community, can take specific stepsto increase Bulgaria’s capacity for compliance with theUNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and for participation inthe Kyoto Mechanisms.

Specific steps that the Bulgarian government can taketo increase capacity for compliance and participationinclude the following:

• passing legislation that requires business disclosureof emissions data (with appropriate confidentialityprovisions);

• increasing staffing levels and assigning governmentinstitutions more active roles in inventory compila-tion and reporting, and quality control;

• ensuring timely publication of national emissionsstatistics, made available at disaggregated level;

TABLE 6

B U I L D I N G A K YOTO P R OTO C O L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

Capacity needs: BulgariaInstitutional capacity

No national institution for collection of information on theless common GHGs, PFCs, HFCs, SF6.

Limited regulatory mandate leads to lack of businessdisclosure; data confidential by law.

Lack of overall administrative capacity.

Difficulties in gathering data.

Labs and equipment needed.International assistance needed to strengthen reviewresponse.

No current experience in confidentiality regulation,assistance needed to define provisions.

No current GHG website, due to limited resources.

Currently no national registry center or institutionalexperience.

Existing legislation without capacity to set baselines atproject level.

Compiling the national inventory

Quality assurance and quality control

Information management

Systems to support particiption in Kyoto Mechanisms



• incorporation of less common gases into data collec-tion systems.

Bulgaria would benefit from international provision of:

• expert assistance in creating appropriate legislativeand regulatory frameworks, especially confidentialityprovisions;

• expert assistance in the establishment and use ofmethodological best practices (e.g. emissions factors,uncertainty evaluation, peer review, and quality control procedures);

• guidance in the creation of a national registry;

• financial assistance for the purchase of data collec-tion equipment; and

• financial assistance for staff to take advantage ofIPCC training opportunities.

The Czech RepublicSurvey responses for the Czech Republic indicate

capacity to estimate and report greenhouse gas emis-sion inventories, to report national communications,and to facilitate review processes. The Czech Republicfaces institutional, human resource, and financialcapacity restraints. Table 7 provides a summary analy-sis of these restraints, based on the most significantchallenges to compliance and participation as identi-

fied by the survey respondents.The Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (CHMI)

is responsible for overall data collection and analysis,inventory preparation, and communication. Surveyresponses from the CHMI and the Ministry of Environ-ment indicate that strengthening and defining a frame-work of institutional responsibilities will allowimprovements in emission factor calculations andinformation reporting and sharing. This may also helpsolve the common problem of a significant delay indata availability.

As with most of the surveyed countries, the CzechRepublic reported a lack of skilled staff for collectingactivity data. In addition, resources are needed to pro-vide training in UNFCCC common reporting formatand to allow staff to participate in IPCC meetings.

RecommendationsThe Czech government, and members of the

international climate community, can take specificsteps to increase the Czech Republic’s capacity forcompliance with the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol andfor participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms. Actions atthe government level might include the following:


Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologies

Shortage of staff, more regular training needed.

Need for participation in IPCC meetings, training.

Methodologies, data vary within and among institutions.

No available data in disaggregation level.

Long delay in data availability.

Resources needed for experiments, field tests, establishmentof emission factors for new gases.

Reliance on IPCC default factors.

Permanent expert personnel needed.

International experience sharing needed.

Reviewers need training in IPCC methodologies.

Methodology needed for quality activity data, uncertaintyevaluation.

Quality control measures have not been applied.

Review process in place, but of low quality.No current experience in expert peer review, assistanceneeded.

Staff lack capacity, experience in registry cost estimation.



TABLE 7


Capacity needs: Czech RepublicInstitutional capacity

Institutional responsibilities not systematically defined.

Limited regulatory mandate to obtain industrial data.

More resources needed for research and implementation of key source emission factors.

Improvement in reporting and information sharingdependent upon assistance in building expertise.

No estimation of costs to build registry.




TABLE 8


Capacity needs: HungaryInstitutional capacity

Limited regulatory mandate to collect data leads to relianceupon voluntary company ‘confession.’

Recommends delaying, resetting final submission date.

Inspectorates not authorized to collect CO2 data.

No current system for verification of data.

Comprehensive updating, compilation and checks notcurrently feasible.

No authorized organization in charge of approving inventory.





Currently no GHG inventory website.

No confidentiality provisions currently in use.

Lacking clear strategy for registry; institutional disagreements.


Agencies need to be established to register internationalaccounts and monitor emissions.

State has supervisory role, but currently cannot set obligations— clear regulations needed for project participation.



Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologiesShortage of technical and human resources for collection ofactivity data.

Need for participation in IPCC meetings.

Capacity and training needed in UNFCCC commonreporting format.

Extent and quality of data not systematically defined.

Delay in data availability, which diminishes capacity.

No current experience in expert peer review, assistance needed.

Shortage of technical, financial, and human resources for building registry.

Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologiesLimited staff capacity in collection of data and calculating factors.

Two-year lag in data availability.

Tendency to resort to use of IPCC default numbers.

Only energy-related factors currently calculated.

Current methane emissions estimates ‘very uncertain.’

Lack of current staff capacity. Quality of source data is limited.

Staff needs assistance to develop confidentiality provisions;separate GHG site.

Lack of current staff capacity for establishing/maintainingregistry.

Lack of awareness of importance of public-governmentpartnerships.

Anticipated difficulty in collecting creditable data.

• systematically defining institutional responsibilities fornational inventory compilation and quality control;

• increasing staff numbers and financial resource levelsfor the collection of activity and sector emissions data;

• ensuring timely publication of national emissionsstatistics.

The Czech Republic would benefit from internationalprovision of:

• expert assistance in creating appropriate legislativeand regulatory frameworks, especially confidentialityprovisions;

• expert assistance in the establishment and use ofbest practices for reporting, information sharing,and use of UNFCCC common reporting format;

• guidance and financial assistance for the creation ofa national registry; and

• financial assistance for staff to take advantage of IPCCtraining opportunities.

HungarySurvey responses indicate that institutional changes

have allowed increasing transparency in aspects ofinventory preparation and that significant capacityexists for the estimation and reporting of greenhousegas emissions, reporting and national communications,and facilitation of review processes. However, there are

many significant institutional, human resource, knowl-edge, and financial capacity restraints facing Hungary.A summary analysis of these capacity barriers, based onsurvey responses is presented in Table 8 below.

The Hungarian Ministry of Environment faces thedifficulty of a limited mandate to obtain data, com-pounded by the lack of clarity regarding the confiden-tiality of emissions data and by a reliance on voluntaryreporting by companies. Likewise, environmentalinspectorates are not authorized to collect CO2 data, asit is not regarded as a harmful substance. There is cur-rently a long delay in providing national statistical data,and uncertainty in data quality. Respondents cited staffcapacity as a limiting factor for data collection and veri-fication, emissions factor calculation, the developmentof confidentiality provisions, and the establishment of anational registry.

Limited financial resources at the institutional level(Ministry of Environment) impede necessary capacitybuilding and strengthening of legal and institutionalframeworks. Yet not all difficulties can be attributedsolely to a lack of financial resources. Third-partyreview, a cost-effective means of quality assurance, isnot currently used. The need for institutional capacity isalso reported as a significant barrier to participation inthe Kyoto Mechanisms. Hungary's current institutionalframeworks do not include a clear strategy for registryestablishment and for the setting of obligations and reg-ulations for project participation.



TABLE 9


Capacity needs: PolandInstitutional capacity

Despite consistent improvement in data collection,continued problems with data collection, measurement,management, hardware.

Difficulties caused by printing cycle of statisticalpublications.



Information management Data is archived, but not in a single database.

Procedures of access to confidential data need elaboration,revision.

Currently no GHG inventory website (capacity does existfor creation).

Systems to support particiption in Kyoto Mechanisms No institutional estimation made of costs to build registry.

RecommendationsThe Hungarian government, and members of the

international climate community, can take specific stepsto increase Hungary’s capacity for compliance with theUNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and for participation inthe Kyoto Mechanisms.

Specific steps that the Hungarian government cantake to increase capacity for compliance and participa-tion include the following:


• passing legislation mandating the collection of CO2 data;

• establishing quality assurance and control proce-dures and authorize an appropriate institution to bein charge of approving the national inventory;

• forming a cohesive strategy for participation in theKyoto Mechanisms, including establishing new insti-tutions (or adjusting the mandates of existing insti-tutions) to be responsible for the creation of anational registry, registration of internationalaccounts, and monitoring of emissions;

• creating a legislative framework that addresses therequirements of Kyoto mechanism participation(particularly regarding the regulations needed forproject preparation, the setting of obligations, andproject-level baselines);

• increasing staffing levels and prioritizing theimproved collection of emissions data (particularlymethane) and calculation of emissions factors;

• institutionalizing the use of third-party inventoryreviews as a means of quality assurance; and

• ensuring timely publication of national emissions statistics.

Hungary would benefit from the international provision of:

• expert assistance in creating appropriate legislativeand regulatory frameworks, especially those includingconfidentiality provisions and regulations for KyotoMechanism project participation;

• expert assistance in the establishment and use ofmethodological best practices (e.g. methane emis-sions data collection, calculation of emissions factors,data verification, quality assurance and control procedures, and inventory approval processes);

• guidance in the creation of a national registry; and


PolandSurvey responses for Poland indicate long experi-

ence in emissions data collection and inventory prepa-ration and reporting. Polish experts actively cooperate



Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologiesDelay in data availability.

Data for some sources (landfills, sewage) not entirelydependable.

Hardware acquisition needed.

Funding needed for IPCC workshop attendance. Technical assistance needed for improved quality ofuncertainty estimates.

Official statistics quality needs to be improved in specificsectors (energy, waste, industrial processes).

Financial assistance would be valuable in field of statisticaldata collection.

with international organizations and are able to providetechnical assistance to other countries. Nonetheless,Poland does face institutional, human resource, knowl-edge, and financial capacity restraints. Table 9 belowprovides a summary analysis of these capacity barriers,based on the most significant challenges to complianceand participation identified by the survey respondents.

Respondents indicate that while there have been con-sistent improvements in data collection, typical problemswith measurement, management, and hardware indicatean area in which Poland would benefit from building fur-ther capacity. The surveys indicate a need for both finan-cial and technical assistance for statistical data collection.The printing cycle of statistical publications complicatesdata management, as does the lack of a single, centraldatabase for archiving purposes. In addition, the revision(and elaboration) of regulations regarding access to con-fidential data is necessary to improve the institutionalframework for information management.

A lack of funding, especially for emissions researchand factor calculation, constrains methodological capacityin Poland. Although the core team responsible forpreparing national inventories is knowledgeable about

UNFCCC requirements and IPCC guidelines, Polandwould benefit from additional financial resources to trainstaff at IPCC workshops.

RecommendationsTo increase Poland’s capacity for compliance with

the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and for participationin the Kyoto Mechanisms, there are specific steps thatPolish government, and members of the internationalclimate community, can take.

Actions needed at the government level include:

• continuing to invest in hardware and staff capacityfor data collection, measurement and management,with an aim to improve quality of emissions data forlandfills, sewage, and industrial processes;

• ensuring the timely publication of national emissionsstatistics;

• revising legislation and regulations regarding accessto confidential monopoly and entity-level emissionsinformation;

• issuing a mandate for single database archive of emis-sions data to be created in an appropriate institution;



TABLE 10


Capacity needs: RomaniaInstitutional capacity

Lack of administrative capacity, transparency, regulatoryframework (e.g., no regulation regarding data confidentiality),adequate equipment.

Annual updating not taking place (because of revisions in IPCC guidelines).

Critical institutional funding problems.

Lack of processes for quality control — major administrative changes needed.

Currently no assessment of inventory uncertainty.





New legislative framework is necessary, currently allinformation confidential.

Allocation of archiving responsibility needed withinappropriate institution.


Need for increased capacity for electronic and printinformation provision.

Inadequate legal and institutional framework for establishingregistry.

No current agency able to maintain registry, no estimation of costs to build registry have been made.

• constructing national GHG inventory website; and

• creating a strategy and budget for the constructionof a national registry.

Poland would benefit from international provision of:

• expert assistance for the revision of regulationsregarding confidentiality of emissions data;

• expert and financial assistance for better use of method-ological best practices for statistical data and emissionsfactor calculation and uncertainty evaluation;



RomaniaRomanian survey responses report that a core team

possesses significant knowledge regarding the require-ments and challenges of implementing the KyotoProtocol. However, Romania faces major institutional,human resource, knowledge, and financial capacityrestraints. Table 9 provides a summary analysis.

The Romanian institutions charged with compilingthe national inventory, managing information, and creating systems for participation in the KyotoMechanisms are severely hampered by a number ofdifficulties. The lack of administrative capacity, trans-parency, and adequate regulatory framework (current-ly all information is confidential) impede most aspectsof compliance and participation. This is compoundedby insufficient funding levels that fluctuate yearly. As aresult of these difficulties, annual updating is prob-lematic, and assessment of inventory uncertainty is notundertaken. Surveys indicate that revising the currentlegal framework to approximate international policy— an area requiring high political prioritization — iscrucial for the facilitation of Romania's future partici-pation in the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Romanian institutions have an inadequate supply ofdata collection equipment, a shortage of trained staff,and frequent personnel turnover. The staff responsiblefor inventory preparation are also charged with fulfill-ing other obligations; hence, the inventory is a ‘supple-mental duty.’ These human resource capacity deficitshave led to correlating gaps in knowledge, available



Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologiesShortage of trained staff, adequate equipment for datacollection.

Frequent personnel turnover and discontinuity ofpreparation hinder emission factor calculation.

Inventory not compiled in accordance with commonformat.

Mismatch between data collected and data needed for IPCC methodology.

Reliance on IPCC default factors, activity data, becausemuch domestic data missing.

Lag in data availability.

Lack in real measurement for the energy sector.Lack of trained personnel, hardware, software to applyquality control measures.

Additional staff capacity, hardware and software required to carry out quality archiving.

Need for increased staff capacity for electronic and printinformation provision.

Lack of staff experience in emission registration, registrydevelopment.

information, and methodological practice. Currently,the Romanian inventory is not compiled in accordancewith IPCC specifications. Financing constraints alsoimpede training and acquisition of vital skills.

RecommendationsThe Romanian government, and members of the

international climate community, need to take specificsteps to increase Romania’s capacity for compliancewith the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and for participa-tion in the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Specific steps that the Romanian government cantake to increase capacity for compliance and participa-tion include the following:

• passing legislation that mandates and regulates busi-ness disclosure of emissions data (confidentialityprovisions);

• creating an institutional and legal framework andprocesses for inventory quality assurance and control;

• creating a legislative framework that addresses therequirements of Kyoto mechanism participation;

• increasing staffing levels to increase administrativecapacity;

• increasing resources (including salaries, training,data collection equipment, equipment for provisionof information in electronic, and print format) avail-

able to staff tasked with all aspects of national inven-tory compilation, management, and reporting;

• ensuring timely publication of national emissionsstatistics; and

• allocating responsibility for archiving data to an appro-priate institution.

Romania would greatly benefit from internationalprovision of:

• expert assistance in creating appropriate legislativeand regulatory frameworks, especially including con-fidentiality provisions;

• expert assistance in the establishment and use ofmethodological best practices (e.g., data collection,calculation of emissions factors, inventory uncer-tainty evaluation, peer review, and quality controlprocedures);

• guidance in the necessary legal and institutionalframeworks required for the creation of a nationalregistry;

• financial assistance for the purchase of equipment,software, and associated training for factor calcula-tion, quality control measures, archiving, and inven-tory information provision (electronic and print);




TABLE 11


Capacity needs: SloveniaInstitutional capacity

Experience limited, continuity of work not yet established.

Institutions have not set long-term obligations or financialschemes for preparation.

System of monitoring and reporting not in place yet; noclear allocation of responsibility.



Information management Current data archiving quality needs improvement.


Need for increased capacity for electronic and printinformation provision.

Systems to support particiption in Kyoto Mechanisms Proper agency to establish registry not yet determined.


Process for authorizing legal entities has not been determined.

Process for setting baselines or obligations has not beendetermined.

Expert reviews not currently carried out because of lack of funding.

Not decided whether Slovenia will host in-depth reviewsduring commitment period.

SloveniaIn Slovenia only a few government employees

currently work on activities related to the UNFCCC andKyoto Protocol. Survey responses indicate that work currently being carried out for UNFCCC compliance isin preliminary stages. Systems for national inventorycompilation and communication are not yet firmlyestablished. As continuity of work is not yet in place,analysis of institutional, human resource, and knowl-edge capacity needs must be considered preliminary.Table 11 provides a summary analysis of these capacitybarriers, based on the most significant challenges tocompliance and participation as identified by the surveyrespondents.

Slovenian institutions have yet to set long-termobligations and financial structures for national inven-tory preparation. There is no clear allocation ofresponsibility for (the creation of systems for) moni-toring and reporting. A lack of funding has hamperedthe creation and implementation of a system for expertreviews. And while Slovenia intends to participate inthe Kyoto Mechanisms, the current legal and institu-tional framework is considered inadequate. Respon-dents reported that international expertise and fundingassistance are important for future strengthening of insti-tutional capacity.

Survey respondents indicated that although thereare relatively few staff members working on climate

issues, the number of staff members does not neces-sarily need to be dramatically increased. Rather, themajor capacity restraint is one of lack of training andexpertise. Slovenia would benefit from financialresources to train staff at IPCC workshops. Surveyrespondents characterized human resource capacity as‘potential,’ but in need of funding and training to learnmethodology, annually update inventories, implementquality assurance measures, and conduct and hostexpert reviews.

Slovenia faces difficulties in data collection, as wellas the common regional problem of significant delays inpublication of statistical data. A lack of funding foremissions research (particularly factor calculation) con-strains methodological capacity; both financial andtechnical assistance would be valuable.

RecommendationsThe Slovenian government, and members of the

international climate community, can take specific stepsto increase Slovenia’s capacity for compliance with theUNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and for participation inthe Kyoto Mechanisms.

Potential actions at the government level include thefollowing:

• making a long-term political commitment to fulfill-ing the Kyoto Protocol obligations;



Human resource development Knowledge, information and methodologiesDifficulties in data collection.

Delay in data availability.

Capacity needed to calculate local emission factors.

National inventories not compiled in common format.

Additional staff and training needed.

IPCC workshop attendance needed to help assure quality.

Staff need to learn how to use methodology.

Lack of extensive experience, training needed.

Proper data model needs to be defined.

• allocating responsibility for monitoring and report-ing GHG emissions;

• creating a legislative framework that addresses therequirements of Kyoto Mechanism participation;

• increasing funding levels to allow for staff training,emissions and factor calculation research, the cre-ation and implementation of systems for expertreview, and the improvement of archiving quality;

• ensuring timely publication of national emissionsstatistics, made available at disaggregated level; and

• creating a national GHG website.

Slovenia would benefit from international provision of:

• expert and financial assistance in the establishmentand use of methodological best practices (e.g., cal-culation of emissions factors, uncertainty evaluation,expert review, and quality control procedures);

• expert assistance in creating appropriate legislativeand regulatory frameworks, especially including reg-ulations for Kyoto Mechanism project participation;



ConclusionThis report has attempted to detail the progress of

six Central and Eastern European countries — Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, andSlovenia — in building the infrastructure needed toimplement the Kyoto Protocol of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change. Upon rati-fication (and entry into force) of the Kyoto Protocol,these countries (and all Annex I Parties) will face legal-ly binding commitments to reduce emissions to target-ed levels. Although significant progress has been madeby all countries and preliminary indications suggest thatCEE Parties will be able to reach their targeted emissionreduction levels, it is less clear that they will be able tocomply with other Protocol provisions and participatein the Kyoto Mechanisms.

The problems and challenges identified in this reportare not confined to the survey countries, or even to EITs.All Parties to the Convention face implementation chal-lenges, especially if they seek to participate fully in theKyoto Mechanisms. However, CEE countries, still under-going economic and political reform processes that placeextra burden on their institutions, have less resourcesavailable to meet these challenges of compliance.

There is a considerable range of current capacitiesamong the surveyed countries. Although one country isjust beginning its efforts to address its commitments, sev-eral others show sophisticated knowledge and advanced

institutional arrangements. Yet, there are several signifi-cant problems common to all six countries: building andadjusting legal and institutional frameworks; strengthen-ing the ability to collect, manage, and report nationalemissions inventories; and increasing human and finan-cial resources. Concerted efforts from both national gov-ernments and the international climate community canhelp countries over these hurdles. Given the commonrelevance of these priority areas, countries, donors, andinternational experts should work together and sharecommon experience regarding national inventory quali-ty assurance and control procedures, legal confidentiali-ty provisions for emissions data, and the creation ofnational registries for emissions trading.

Many of the difficulties identified by the surveyedexperts can be resolved by national legal and institu-tional reform. But successful reform will depend uponthe strength of local, national, and international con-stituencies. Reform can, and should, be supported bydonors willing to target investment towards the prepa-ration for such reform.

Endnotes1 Annex I includes 24 original OECD members, the European Union,and 14 countries with economies in transition.

2 FCCC/SB/2000/INF.2, May 19, 2000, pp. 4-5.

3 FCCC/SB/2000/INF.2, May 19, 2000, pp. 4-5.

4 Submissions were submitted by EIT countries and compiled in a syn-thesis paper, FCCC/SB/2000/INF.2, May 19, 2000. Submissions werereceived from Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia,Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovenia,and the Ukraine.

5 See Note 3 (FCCC/SB/2000/INF.2, May 19, 2000, p. 5).

6 Report of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and TechnologicalAdvice on its Twelfth Session, 12-16 June 2000. FCCC/SBSTA/2000/5.Annex I. This Annex will be referred to repeatedly in this report as‘UNFCCC draft guidelines on national systems.’ Available online at:<http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/ 2000/sbsta/05.htm>.

7 This section, and its accompanying tables, is based on backgroundresearch and a white paper by Fiona Mullins.

8 UNFCCC draft guidelines on national systems. See earlier footnote.

9 Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories, J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S. Emmanul, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T. Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa and K. Tanabe (Eds), IPCC NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories Program. May 2000. Available online at:<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/guide.htm>. Referred to as ‘IPCC good prac-tice guidance.’

10 For example, IGNiG and the Polish Oil and Gas Company inWarsaw (PGNiG) both compile information on the extraction and useof oil (the former collects and analyzes data on oil and gas extractionand use; the latter collects data on mining and use of oil, gas, coke-oven gas, and city gas.

11 UNFCCC draft guidelines on national systems. See earlier footnote.

12 As derived from IPCC good practice guidance.



13 These definitions and examples are taken from the UNFCCC draftguidelines for national systems, cited above.

14 See FCCC/SBSTA/2000/5.

15 The National Committee consists of representatives of relevantministries, business, and research institutions and NGO representa-tives. The Committee provides comments and suggestions on alldocuments related to climate change.

16 See UNFCCC draft guidelines on national systems, page 31.

17 Hungary is prepared to host additional visits only if the need is‘reasonably established.’

18 For background, a good selection of papers is available from theOECD on market-based mechanisms for climate change. See<http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/freedocs.htm#emis>. In the context of

EITs, see <http://www.rec.org/climate/index.html>.

19 On JI, see Making Joint Implementation Work: Lessons From Centraland Eastern Europe, Elena Petkova And Kevin A. Baumert (WashingtonDC: World Resources Institute, 2000). See <http://www.wri.org/cdm/pdf/ji_note.pdf>.

20 According to Article 3 of the Protocol, Annex I countries are‘assigned’ an amount of emissions that they are allowed to emit during the 2008-2012 period. Poland’s initial assigned amount, forexample, is its base year emissions (1988), multiplied by five (for thefive year commitment period), multiplied by 0.94 (since Poland hasa six percent reduction requirement).

21 For the 2008-2012 period, those permits are likely to derive froma country’s assigned amount, as stipulated in Article 3 and Annex B ofthe Protocol.



A P P E N D I X I I I : N AT I O N A L S Y S T E M S F O R I N V E N TO R Y P R E PA R AT I O N , M A N AG E M E N T A N D R E P O R T I N G


Appendix III: National Systems for InventoryPreparation, Management and Reporting

TABLE 1

Compiling the national inventoryInstitutional

capacityHuman resource

developmentKnowledge, information

and methodologiesCollecting data Lack of administrative capacity

[BU, RO].

Limited regulatory mandate toobtain data [BU, HU, RO],(industrial process ) [CZ].

Lack of transparency [RO].

Time lag in data availability [BU, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

No national institutionresponsible for collection ofinformation on PFCs, HFCs, SF6 [BU].

Shortage of trained staff [HU, RO], (agriculture, LUCF,and waste ) [BU], (energy,agriculture, and LUCF ) [CZ].

Expert estimates are needed[BU].

Discontinuity of inventoryrelated activities [BU].

Methodological inconsistencyin data collection andprocessing among institutions[BU].

No availability ofdisaggregated data [BU].

Lack of adequate equipment[RO].

Inadequate procedures forcollection and managementof data [PL].

Need for hardware acquisition[PL].

Laboratories and equipmentneeded for data collection ofPFCs, HFCs, SF6 [BU].

Poor accuracy of data [SI],(waste ) [PL].

Work discontinuity [SI].Calculatingemission factors

Regularly updating and refiningall the country specificemission factors [BU].

Inadequate procedures forcollection and management ofdata [PL].

Lack of administrative capacity[RO].

No data for calculatingemission factor (wastemanagement). Difficulties inprojection (agriculture) [RO].

Lack of human [HU] andtechnical resources [RO, CZ].

Tendency to use IPCC defaultnumbers [HU].

Limited resources for researchand implementation [CZ].

Work discontinuity [RO, SI].

Inadequate equipment [RO].

Hardware acquisition [PL].

Continued overleaf

B I B L I O G R A P H Y


Bibliography

Baumert, Kevin, Elena Petkova, and Diana Barbu.Capacity for Climate: Economies in Transition afterKyoto. Szentendre, Hungary: WRI and REC, June 1999.

Center for Clean Air Policy. Website on Climate ChangeProgram, Economies in Transition Program, available at<http://www.ccap.org/p-clim.htm>.

Cozijnsen, Jos. Capacity for Joint Implementation in theContext of the European Climate Change Programme: A Survey of Opportunities for Financial Incentives andStreamlining for Capacity Building and Private SectorInvolvement. Prepared for Workshop of the EuropeanClimate Change Programme JI and CDM Working Group.Brussels: March 22-3, 2001.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. CapacityBuilding: Capacity Building in Countries with Economiesin Transition. Compilation and synthesis of informationon capacity building needs and priorities of parties includ-ed in Annex I to the Convention but not included in AnnexII, FCCC/SB/2000/INF.2. May 19, 2000.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. CapacityBuilding: Capacity Building in Countries withEconomies in Transition. Framework. FCCC/SB/2000/CRP.9. September 12, 2000.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. CapacityBuilding: Report on the Progress in the Review by theGlobal Environment Facility of its Enabling Activities,its Capacity Building Activities in its Normal WorkProgramme, its Country Dialogue Workshops and itsCapacity Development Initiative, FCCC/SB/2000/INF.4.May 18, 2000.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. CapacityBuilding: Submissions from Parties Included in AnnexI but not Included in Annex II to the Convention,FCCC/SB/2000/INF.7. May 5, 2000.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. CapacityBuilding: Submissions from Relevant IntergovernmentalOrganizations on their Ongoing Capacity BuildingActivities, FCCC/SB/2000/INF.9. May 9, 2000.

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report ofthe Subsidiary Body for Scientific and TechnologicalAdvice on its Twelfth Session, FCCC/SBSTA/2000/5.Bonn: June 12-16, 2000.

Global Environment Facility and United Nations Develop-ment Programme. Capacity Development Initiative:Country Capacity Development Needs and Priorities.A Synthesis. GEF and UNDP, October 2000.

Guziova, Zuzana, Jaroslav Marousek and Valery Neronov.Capacity Development Initiative: Country CapacityDevelopment Needs and Priorities. Report for EasternEurope and Central Asia. Global Environment Facilityand United Nations Development Programme, September2000.

J. Penman et al., Eds. Good Practice Guidance andUncertainty Management in National Greenhouse GasInventories. Available at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/guide.htm>. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas InventoriesProgramme. May 2000.

Lafontaine, Alain. Capacity Development Initiative:Assessment of Capacity Development Efforts of OtherDevelopment Cooperation Agencies. Global EnvironmentFacility and United Nations Development Programme,July 2000.

Mugabe, John. Capacity Development Initiative:Scientific and Technical Capacity Development, Needsand Priorities. GEF and UNDP, October 2000.

Nichols, David, and Eric Martinot. Measuring Results fromClimate Change Programs: Performance Indicators forGEF. Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 4.Washington: GEF, September 2000.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment. Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC: Reportfrom the Meeting held in Paris on 8-9 March, 2001,available at <http://www.oecd.org//env/cc>.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment. Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC: Workshopon International GHG Emission Trading, Szentendre,Hungary: April 17-18, 1997.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment. Donor Support for Institutional Capacity Develop-ment in Environment: Lessons Learned. Paris: OECD,2000.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment and International Energy Agency. Key Features of

Domestic Monitoring Systems under the Kyoto Protocol,COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2000)4. Paris: OECD, January2001.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment and International Energy Agency. TransitionCountry Perspectives on the Kyoto Protocol: WorkshopReport and Results from a Questionnaire on CapacityBuilding Needs and Hurdles. Paris: OECD, October 2000.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment. Website on Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC,available at <http://www.oecd.org//env/cc/eit_support.htm>.

Regional Environmental Center and World ResourcesInstitute, Activities Implemented Jointly: Case Studiesfrom Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland andSlovenia. Szentendre, Hungary: REC, June 2000.

United States Country Studies Program. Website, avail-able at <http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/>.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y


A P P E N D I X I : S U R V E Y


Appendix I: Survey

Survey on Capacity for NationalSystems for the Kyoto Protocol(Article 5, 7 and 9)Background information

This survey seeks to assess the capacity of six AnnexI Parties that are undergoing the process of transition to amarket economy to meet likely Kyoto Protocol require-ments for Articles 5, 7, and 8. This survey is part of theRegional Environmental Center’s program on Capacityfor Climate Protection in Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries. The countries that are included in this phaseof the program are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary,Poland, Romania, and Slovenia.

This survey examines the current state of prepared-ness of these countries for meeting the key KyotoProtocol requirements that have been indicated to date.The focus of the survey is on national systems require-ments for emission inventories and systems related tothe Kyoto Mechanisms. The survey covers:

• capacity to estimate and report greenhouse gasemissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6)from all sources, and sinks;

• capacity to report in national communicationsreporting;

• capacity to facilitate and participate in reviewprocesses; and

• domestic systems that may be needed for the KyotoMechanisms.

The information from this survey will form the basisof a background paper that will be released at UNFCCCCOP6. CEE negotiators may use this paper in consulta-tions related to UNFCCC negotiations and to informOECD/IEA Annex I Expert Group work on these issues.

This survey is designed to complement and buildon other exercises related to capacity building forArticles 5, 7, and 8. UNFCCC submissions on capacitybuilding (FCCC/SB/2000/INF.7), the UNDP/GEF surveyon capacity needs, and the OECD survey on theseissues have been compiled and used to inform the survey design. The summaries of existing informationon capacity needs can be made available to surveyrespondents as background information.



Industrialprocesses Agriculture LUCF** WasteCountry (base year)

* Estimations from stationary and mobile fuel combustion, including fugitive fuel emissions.** Land use change and forestry.

Energy*a) Institutions involved in activity data

collection(b) Institutions involved in calculating

emissions factors

c) Institutions involved in preparing the inventory emission estimates

d) Institutions involved in reporting the inventory emission estimates

Current experienceQuestion 1a) Which institutions are involved in inventory preparation? In the table below, please name the institutions for each key

source/sector and for each function.

b) Are the responsibilities of the institutions listed in the table above clear? Please elaborate on responsibilities for eachcategory of institution (a) to (d) from the table above.

(a) Institutions involved in activity data collection

(b) Institutions involved in calculating emission factors

(c) Institutions involved in preparing the inventory emission estimates

(d) Institutions involved in reporting the inventory emission estimates

c) Is there a central entity that is clearly responsible for the overall inventory?

❏ Yes ❏ No If so, please name it

d) Please describe any difficulties and/or success stories that these institutions have experienced in carrying out theirfunctions for each category of institution (a) to (d) from the table above.

(a) Institutions involved in activity data collection

(b) Institutions involved in calculating emission factors

(c) Institutions involved in preparing the inventory emission estimates

(d) Institutions involved in reporting the inventory emission estimates

e) Does the staff preparing the inventories change frequently? Are there wide fluctuations in the funding levels forinventory preparation from year to year? Is the staff developing the national inventory generally knowledgeable about UNFCCC inventory requirements? Please elaborate.



Question 2Does the government have problems producing annual emissions inventory according to existing reporting requirements (i.e., the 1996 revised IPCC inventory guidelines)?

In the table below, please mark the key source/sector for which there are difficulties providing inventory information. Pleaseadd other columns if necessary (e.g., for solvents). Refer to the IPCC reporting instructions for inventories <www.ipcc.ch>.

Industrialprocesses Agriculture LUCF** WasteQuestion


Energy*a) Institutions involved in activity data

collectionb) Institutions involved in calculating

emissions factors

c) Institutions involved in preparing the inventory emission estimates

d) Institutions involved in reporting the inventory emission estimates

Please describe any difficulties, such as lack of regulatory mandate to obtain data, unclear responsibilities, time delays, lack of staff with appropriate skills, resources, time, or lack of equipment. Please explain the major difficulties here (use asmuch space as necessary for your responses).

Industrialprocesses Agriculture LUCF** Waste


Energy*Time lag (months)

Question 3a) At what time intervals is the national inventory updated?

b) How long is the time delay between actual emissions and availability of activity data to the people in charge of inventorypreparation for each key source/sector?



Question 4a) What data verification and quality control measures are carried out to ensure the accuracy of your country’s greenhouse

gas emission inventory?

b) Is there a third party or independent peer review of the inventory before submission to the Secretariat? Please describethe current quality assurance process.

c) Do you foresee any difficulties in establishing quality assurance objectives and processes for activity data, emissionfactors, and inventory methodologies? Please specify these difficulties.

Policies and measures

Energy

Transport

Industry

Domestic

Services/commercial

Agriculture

Waste

Projections

Question 6a) Please describe the official approval processes for the inventory prior to its submission (e.g., cabinet committee,

interministerial committee for climate change).

b) Please describe the official approval processes for the national communication prior to its submission (e.g., cabinetcommittee, interministerial committee for climate change) and any difficulties with this (e.g., time frame for approval, lowpriority given to the issue).

Question 5a) Is there a central/designated agency responsible for national communications reporting? Please name it.

b) For each sector, please name the agency or agencies that are involved in preparation of information on policies andmeasures and emission projections for the national communication in the table below (e.g., experts, scientific institutes,ministries, and intraministerial bodies).

c) Please note the key difficulties that were raised in the most recent UNFCCC in-depth review of your countries’ nationalcommunication. (NGOs should provide the list of key difficulties from the IDR report to assist the respondents). How canthese difficulties be addressed in future national communications?



Inventory FunctionsQuestion 7

Which of the following inventory preparation functions can your country meet? Please summarize national capacity to meetthem in the table below.

Already doing this

(Quality: H/M/L)

Possible withexisting capacity(Quality: H/M/L)

High quality possible with

assistance

High quality unlikely to be

possible by 2005a) Estimate inventory uncertainty

b) Compile the national inventory: in accordance with the commonreporting format

c) Apply general inventory levelquality control (Tier 1)d) Annual checks of data andcalculations related to key sourcese) Apply quality control (sourcecategory-specific Tier 2 QC)procedures for:

(i) Individual key emissionsource categories (i.e. the mostimportant categories)

(ii) Emission source categories in which significantmethodological and datarevision have taken place

f) Expert review: review of theinventory by personnel that have notbeen involved in its development,preferably an independent third partyg) Timely information onadjustments: inform the expertreview team within four weekswhether your country accepts anyadjustment that is made by theindependent review team

Please explain your answers for items a) to g), detailing the capacity that already exists, the institutions that are responsible foreach function, and any difficulties, particularly whether international assistance may be required and what type of assistance(e.g., funding, expertise). Please use as much space as necessary for your responses.

Inventory preparation and reporting functions


Question 8Which of the following inventory management functions can your country meet? Please summarize national capacity to meetthem in the table below.

Already doing this

(Quality: H/M/L)



assistance


possible by 2005a) Archiving: archive inventoryinformation for each year, (includingdocumentation of qualityassurance/quality control activities.Article 8 external review reports)b) Develop confidentialityprovisions: for any archivedinformation that is confidential andprovide access on that basis

c) Response to requests from reviewteam: including timely clarificationof inventory and national systeminformation

d) Carry out expert peer reviewand/or audits as additional QAprocedures

Please explain your answers for items a) to d), detailing the capacity that already exists, the institutions that are responsible foreach function, and any difficulties, particularly whether international assistance may be required and what type of assistance(e.g., funding, expertise). Please use as much space as necessary for your responses.

Inventory management




Question 9Which of the following reporting and information sharing functions can your country meet? Please summarize nationalcapacity to meet them in the table below.

Already doingthis

(Quality: H/M/L)



assistance


possible by 2005a) Develop a national GHG websiteand make inventory informationavailable on it, including theinventory report and data in thecommon reporting formatb) Make available the postal andelectronic addresses of the nationalentity responsible for the inventoryc) Make available to any interestedpart, organization or person, theinformation described in paragraph(a) of this table in either printed orelectronic format, upon request

Inventory reporting and information sharing

Please explain your answers for items (a) to (c), detailing the capacity that already exists, the institutions that are responsible foreach function, and any difficulties, particularly whether international assistance may be required and what type of assistance(e.g., funding, expertise). Please use as much space as necessary for your responses.



Article 7.1 and 7.2Supplementary information

Question 10Which of the following supplementary information could your country provide? Please summarize national capacity toprovide this information in the table below.



assistance


possible by 2005Supplementary registry information

Total assigned amount held in its national registry atthe start of the year, i.e. serial numbers of assignedamount units (AAUs), emission reduction units(ERUs), and certified emission reductions (CERs)

Supplementary information

Serial numbers of any AAUs, ERUs, and CERs thathave been moved into the Party’s retirement account

Serial numbers of AAUs, ERUs, and CERstransferred to or acquired from another Party’snational registry and identification of the acquiringParty(ies)

Assigned amount held in national registry at theend of the year

Other supplementary information related to Kyoto Mechanisms

Information related to Article 6 projects — includingbaseline and emission reduction calculation methodsfor each project



Functions to support participation in Kyoto Mechanisms

Question 11This question focuses on capacity to maintain a national registry and track changes in assigned amount as a result of transfersand acquisitions. (A registry is a database of information on transfers and acquisitions by the Party and by entities. It could be a simple searchable database e.g., using Microsoft Access, or a more complex interactive web based system.

a) Is the country planning to participate in International Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism?

b) Which agency/ies would be most appropriate to maintain a registry?

c) Is the country planning to build a national registry system? Has it already estimated associated costs and identifiedrevenues or allocated a budget to build the system?

d) Please specify any difficulties that are envisaged with establishing and maintaining a national registry.

Question 12This question focuses on capacity for entity and project participation in the Kyoto Mechanisms (should the country choose toauthorize this).

a) Does the country expect to authorize ‘legal entities’ to participate in the Kyoto Mechanisms?

b) Does the government or a designated agency have the capacity to set baselines or set obligations on entities (e.g., firms)to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to monitor entity emissions?

At the project level? Please specify which sectors.

At the entity level (i.e. companies)? Please specify types of firm (e.g., sector, size).

Which agency/ies would fulfil this function?

Please specify any difficulties that you foresee with the institutional, regulatory arrangements for entity and projectparticipation.

c) Does the government or a designated agency have the technical capacity to enforce obligations placed on entities (e.g., firms) to limit their greenhouse gas emissions?

Please specify types of firm (e.g., sector, size).

Which agency/ies would fulfil this function?

Please specify any potential difficulties.

d) How will your country authorize legal entities? Which agency/ies could be responsible for this?

Article 8Question 13

Does your country have capacity to:

a) Report the annual GHG inventory in November for the year prior to submission?

b) Host at least one in-country review during the commitment period, in conjunction with the in-country visit for itsnational communication review?

c) Host additional in-country visits if recommended by the review team in accordance with the guidance below and withthe consent of the Party concerned?

d) Answer questions that the review team or the Secretariat may raise for the Party, or provide additional informationwithin agreed time limits at any stage in the review process?

e) Correct identified problems within agreed time limits in consultation with the expert review team? Please elaborate anypotential difficulties.



A P P E N D I X I I : C A PAC I T Y B U I L D I N G E F F O R T S


Appendix II: Capacity Building Efforts

There are currently a number of on-going effortsbeing carried out to provide regional and country-specific capacity building support to the Annex ICentral and Eastern European Economies in Transitionfor implementing specific UNFCCC elements ofnational systems for inventory preparation and partic-ipation in the Kyoto Mechanisms. The following sum-mary of such activities represents a preliminaryattempt to capture the scope of such endeavors, howthey address identified capacity deficits, and wherefurther or new activities are called for. It is the hope ofthe authors that this compilation will, with assistancefrom implementing agencies and recipient countries,be updated and used to strategically target futurecapacity building work.

EIT Parties have identified the following as criticalareas for capacity building:

• Establishing national systems for the estimation ofGHG emissions;

• Preparing supplementary information for the pur-poses of ensuring compliance with Article 3 of theKyoto Protocol;

• Implementing mechanisms: JI projects and emissionstrading.1

The UNFCCC Secretariat received (prior to its May 9,2000 publication) 15 submissions that comprised thenote, Capacity Building: Submissions from RelevantIntergovernmental Organizations on their CapacityBuilding Activities. The following summaries are basedon selected submissions to the note and on project summaries provided by agency officers. The first group,global initiatives, reports on activities planned or takingplace in multiple countries worldwide. These sum-maries provide relatively less information on the specif-ic or potential impacts in the six countries surveyed, butdo represent activities likely to benefit the climate agen-das of the CEE Annex I Parties. The second group ofactivity summaries, regional initiatives, reports on workbeing carried out specifically in CEE. More detailed pro-ject information in this group includes information oncapacity building related to the needs identified by theParties in their submissions to the UNFCCC and theneeds reviewed in this report.

Global initiativesUnited Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs (DESA)

As part of its Global Energy Efficiency Programme,UN DESA reports on one on-going project and onplanned activity, both of which potentially address CEEcapacity needs.

The Energy Standards and Labeling Programme,expected to run from May 2000 to December 2001, is aUSD 1.6 million global project. Taking place in Poland,as well as in selected countries in Asia, the MiddleEast, and Central America, the program supports activ-ities to provide:

• Training and support for setting and enforcingenergy standards;

• Dissemination of tools and information, includingan Energy Standards Guidebook, and a web-basedinformation toolkit.

Although the available information on the EnergyStandards and Labelling Programme information didnot indicate the specific capacity needs it will address,the program may aid countries in assessing (and perhaps lowering) energy sector specific emissions.

The Global Initiative on Transport Emissions isplanned to take place from June 2000 to December2003. The USD 4 million World Bank-funded program isalso global in scope, with plans to implement two mainactivities:

• Transport Emissions Knowledge Initiative (emissiondata and indicators);

• Partnership for Vehicle and Fuels Technology Moder-nization (cleaner technology transfer).

It is unclear, based on available information, whichcountries will take part in the Global Initiative onTransport Emissions. However, the Transport EmissionKnowledge Initiative may result in increased capacity toacquire accurate emissions data (in the transport sector),calculate emissions factors, and, in the case of thePartnership for Vehicle and Fuels Technology Moder-nization, decrease national emissions.

Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO)

The FAO has established an Interdepartmental ad hocWorking Group on Climate and has reviewed the areasin which the FAO mandate is directly relevant to currentinternational climate discussions. The following areas ofwork are specifically relevant within the FAO mandate:

• Assessment of the agricultural sources of green-house gases;

• Formulation of programs and policies which canreduce emissions and assist countries in complyingwith UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol commitments;

• Collection and maintenance of relevant datasets.

The FAO identified for itself useful roles in:

• Formulating appropriate agricultural statisticalmethods to enable the COP to verify compliancewith commitments;

• Standardizing observation techniques and dataexchange;

• Formulating regional and national policies.

Starting in 1999, the FAO has implemented the Roleof Land Use (LU) and Land Use Change and Forestry(LUCF) Activities for Climate Change Mitigation projectat the global, regional, and national level. Designed topromote the active participation of forestry and agricul-ture agencies in climate change discussion, the programconducts policy development and awareness raisingactivities and prepares specialized studies in key areasof interest.

Available information does not list the countries cur-rently active in the program. The program may increasecountry capacity to acquire quality emissions data andcalculate accurate factors for the LUCF sector.

United Nations Institute for Training andResearch (UNITAR)

Since 1998, UNITAR has used its Programme ofTraining for the Application of International Environ-mental Law: Capacity Building Activities related toClimate Change to offer training, research, policy devel-opment, and awareness raising regarding internationalUNFCCC obligations. The program targets governmentofficials, with the ultimate objective of helping Parties toimplement their international obligations by assisting inthe identification of national legal gaps, obligations, andimplementation needs. The training program consists ofcorrespondence instruction complemented by five-dayworkshops.

UNITAR’s program description does not indicatewhich countries are taking part. Given the generaldescription of its instruction topics, the program may

address the CEE EIT need to build or adjust legal andinstitutional frameworks, especially legal confidentialityprovisions for emissions data.

Regional initiativesWorld Bank

Begun in 1997 with support from Switzerland (andlater Germany, Australia, Finland, and Canada), the WorldBank’s on-going Program of National Clean Develop-ment Mechanism/Joint Implementation (CDM/JI) StrategyStudies (NSS Program) is a USD 6 million national andglobal initiative designed to provide capacity buildingassistance to CDM/JI host countries. Activities includecountry studies, strategy and policy development, aware-ness raising, and developing institutional frameworks.Specific activities are designed with the aim of:

• Compiling or updating of national greenhouse gasinventory,

• Identifying and addressing CDM barriers, andassessing legal, regulatory, and institutional needs toovercome these barriers,

• Developing national strategy regarding the CDM/JI,and

• Establishing a pipeline of potential CDM/JI projects.

As of May 2000, the program had completed activitiesin the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and was preparingstudies for Hungary and Romania. The NSS programaddresses the CEE EIT needs for increased capacity fornational inventory compilation, management and report-ing, and the creation of the national frameworks and reg-ulations necessary for emissions trading.

Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD)Annex I Expert Group (AIXG)

The Annex I Expert Group is an ad hoc group of gov-ernment officials from environment, energy, and foreignaffairs ministries from countries that are listed in Annex Ito the UNFCCC and those that have acceded to Annex Icommitments. The OECD and International EnergyAgency (IEA) carry out analytical work for this Group,both to support national climate change policy develop-ment and to support Annex I countries in the UNFCCCnegotiations. The AIXG’s work includes the following:analyzing policy; advising on options to advance theKyoto Mechanisms; monitoring, reporting, and review-ing approaches to ensure compliance; and assessingprogress under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

An important part of the Annex I Expert Group'swork is to support Annex I transition countries in their



efforts to address climate change, by providing anopportunity for exchange among government officialsand national experts, and by providing information andraising public awareness of climate change. Becausetransition countries are part of the Annex I ExpertGroup, all of the Group's work reflects their concerns.Two government delegates from each transition countryreceive financial support to attend Annex I ExpertGroup meetings. In addition, the Annex I Expert Groupholds workshops and seminars in transition countries toraise public awareness and to enable more transitioncountry participants to attend. For example, in 1995, in ajoint effort with the Polish Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection, Natural Resources and Forestry, the U.S.Country Studies Program, and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), the AIXG sponsored a work-shop entitled Methods for Assessing GHG Mitigation forCountries with Economies in Transition. A Workshopentitled International GHG Emission Trading was held inSzentendre, Hungary, in April 1997. Participants includ-ed Annex I delegates, industry representatives, environ-mental nongovernmental organizations, and academics.

In May 2000, the AIXG held a workshop in Bratislava,Slovakia, to identify the capacity building needs of EITcountries, with particular emphasis on activities underArticles 5, 6, 7, and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol. Building onthe results of a survey of EIT governments, the workshophad three sections:

1. Perspectives and issues : capacity needs related toreporting emissions, to identifying, approving, andaccepting JI projects, and to emissions trading;

2. National systems for inventory preparation : assess-ing the policy, resource, and management develop-ments that are likely to be required to establishnational systems for inventory preparation;

3. The Kyoto Mechanisms : outlining EIT experience with‘activities implemented jointly,’ Joint Implementation/Emissions Trading (JI/ET) issues, general functions ofnational systems for emissions monitoring.

In response to the issues raised at the May 2000workshop, and in recognition of the necessity that theinternational climate community provide a coordinatedcapacity building response to the needs of EIT coun-tries, the AIXG is currently implementing a new project:Supporting countries with Economies in Transition inimplementing the Kyoto Protocol. The project has twospecific objectives:

1. To provide targeted analyzes of existing initiatives,experiences, and practices in selected EIT countriesfor implementing the Kyoto Protocol. This would beundertaken through a series of case studies;

2. To exchange information among countries on exist-ing and new efforts to implement the Kyoto Protocoland on capacity building needs. This would be done

through a series of roundtables and the setting up ofa dedicated website.

The work under this project aims to cover the mainaspects of the Kyoto Protocol domestic implementationprocess. Priority areas include the following:

• Systems for the development of national inventoriesand GHG projections;2

• National registry systems;

• Domestic institutions and procedures for JI, includ-ing project registration procedures, national guide-lines on baselines and monitoring, rules for issuingemissions reduction units (ERUs);

• Domestic institutions and procedures for emissionstrading (including emission permit allocation, mar-ket rules, and national guidelines for monitoring, aswell as verification and enforcement systems);

• Other policies and measures (e.g., through a sec-toral approach), possibly drawing on the existingwork within the AIXG on domestic policies andmeasures.

The project will produce the following:

1. Case studiesThe bulk of the work is undertaken through a series

of case studies, drafted in cooperation with EIT countries.The studies take as a starting point existing initiatives,experiences, or practices with respect to implementingthe Climate Convention/Kyoto Protocol in the priorityareas identified above.

Each case study will focus on a specific issue withinone (or possibly two) of the above mentioned priorityareas, identified by the target country as being relevantto national circumstances. The outline of each casestudy would comprise:

• A review of relevant national circumstances, in par-ticular with respect to the development of climatechange strategies;

• A clear description of the country’s initiative, expe-rience, or practice;

• An evaluation of the country’s initiative, experience,and practice, identifying successful and less suc-cessful elements;

• Recommendations for next steps, including sugges-tions for capacity building efforts that might be nec-essary to take additional action.

2. Annex I Expert Group (AIXG) roundtablesAs part of this project, specific (one-day) roundtables

would be held at future AIXG meetings. They would pro-vide an opportunity for the participants to discuss keyresults from the case studies and to exchange informa-



tion and to share experiences on implementing strategiesin EIT countries, including capacity building programs.

3. Dedicated websiteA dedicated website will be developed to allow for

a widespread and timely dissemination of information,as well as for efficient communication with the targetedaudience (EIT representatives and international com-munity). The website will provide:

• Links to all documents resulting from this project(analytical papers, case study reports, proceedingsof the roundtables);

• Links to a database for country-specific contactinformation of the main climate change players inthe target countries;

• An email discussion list to support informationexchange among AIXG delegates and selected EITexperts. Unlike the main website, access to the dis-cussion list would be restricted. The discussioncould be moderated, depending on the frequency ofthe postings.

The website will serve as a testing instrument untilthe Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7). Furtherdevelopment will depend on additional funding andcommitment from the EIT countries to maintain andimprove its content.

4. Possible follow-up activitiesAdditional project activities may include the following:

• Translation of documents produced into local languages for distribution among policymakers andstakeholders in targeted countries;

• Presentation of results at seminars organized by EITgovernments for in-country dissemination, as wellas at international conferences and workshops; and

• Linkage of results to next steps under UNFCCCprocess for EIT capacity building.

It is hoped that the targeted analyzes of the project willhelp participating countries improve their implementationstrategies and needs assessments, and that the exchange ofinformation will help encourage good practices.

The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)CCAP is a nonprofit think tank, specializing in ener-

gy and environmental policy. CCAP works with govern-ments of several Eastern European countries to assistthem in developing climate change strategies andenhance their understanding of emissions trading.Currently, CCAP is working with Slovakia, Poland, theCzech Republic, and Ukraine. Although only Polandand the Czech Republic were included in the capacityneeds survey presented in this report, CCAP's activities

in Slovakia and Ukraine provide information and analy-sis that is relevant throughout the region. Even thoughspecific plans have not been made to expand the scopeof these projects outside of the above-listed countries,should other countries express interest (and donor sup-port be evident) CCAP may begin similar programs inother CEE EITs.

SlovakiaWith support from the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, CCAP is currently assisting theSlovakian Ministry of Environment in designing adomestic CO2 trading system. This work includes analy-sis of Slovakia GHG emissions data, sectoral analysis ofemissions, identification of participating sectors in emis-sions trading, establishment of sectoral CO2 caps, devel-opment of recommendations for allowances allocationmethods, and assistance with the trading system design.In addition to conducting analysis and preparing policyrecommendations, the project has organized two work-shops with the Slovak government and industry repre-sentatives. The project has also organized a study tour tothe United States for five Slovak climate change stake-holders. Future activities include the following:

• Developing recommendations on allocation meth-ods, monitoring, reporting and verification require-ments, enforcement mechanisms, CO2 trading system design and implementation, and GHG datasystems improvements;

• Conducting a third stakeholder workshop with representatives of the government, industry, NGOs,and academia to discuss the results of analysis;

• Work directly with key industries to enhance theirunderstanding of emissions trading; and

• Provide assistance to the Ministry of Environment indeveloping trading rules and regulations

PolandIn Poland, CCAP is working to enhance the Polish

government's understanding of emissions trading andjoint implementation and it is assisting the governmentin building the necessary expertise and institutionalframework. In partnership with the Polish National Fundfor Environmental Protection and Water Management,CCAP has accomplished a number of tasks, including:

• Conducted analysis of Polish energy consumptionand GHG data;

• Developed GHG projections by sector for 2000-12;

• Organized workshops on JI, climate change strategy,and domestic trading;

• Identified and prepared preliminary caps for fiveindustrial sectors for inclusion in a possible domes-tic CO2 trading system.



Future project activities include:

• Conducting an educational workshop for industryrepresentatives to discuss challenges and opportuni-ties pertaining to climate change mitigation efforts;

• Conducting a round-table meeting with industryrepresentatives to present monitoring and reportingguidelines;

• Meeting with government representatives to discussemissions trading design issues;

• Developing policy papers making recommenda-tions on emissions trading system design.

Czech RepublicCCAP is launching a new technical assistance pro-

gram to help the government of the Czech Republicdevelop a domestic GHG trading system. The goals forthe project, in addition to the creation of a domesticGHG cap and trade system, are to build capacity foranalyzing and designing emissions trading programs,and to analyze and demonstrate to stakeholders how adomestic GHG cap and trade regime can be integratedwith an international JI and trading strategy.

The activities to be carried out in this project willbuild on the lessons and methodology developed fromCCAP’s similar efforts in Slovakia and Poland.

United States Country Studies ProgramBegun in 1993, the U.S. Country Studies Program

(USCSP) provides financial and technical assistance todeveloping and transition countries for climate changestudies. The program provides technical assistance tocountries through workshops, guidance documents, analytical tools, and consultations with technical experts.

The objectives of the program are to assist countriesas they:

• Establish processes for developing and implement-ing national policies and measures, including for-mulation of national communications;

• Develop information to further national and interna-tional discussions; and

• Support principles and objectives of the U.N. Frame-work Convention on Climate Change.

The participating countries are developing inven-tories of their anthropogenic emissions of greenhousegases, assessing their vulnerabilities to climate change,evaluating response strategies for mitigating andadapting to climate change, formulating national cli-mate change action plans, and performing technologyassessments.

In response to requests for financial and technicalsupport from developing and transition countries, the

U.S. Government initiated an activity to assist countrieswith the development of their climate change actionplans. Support for National Action Plans (SNAP) builton the current U.S. Country Studies Program, whichsupports climate change country studies in 56 develop-ing and transition countries. SNAP provides financialand technical assistance to help countries use the resultsof their climate change country studies and to developaction plans for implementing a portfolio of mitigationand adaptation measures. Eighteen countries, includingBulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, andRomania participated in the SNAP phase of the USCSP.

The objectives of the SNAP phase are:

• To assist countries in preparing climate changeaction plans that may form the basis for their nation-al communications:

• To promote diffusion of mitigation and adaptationtechnologies by assisting countries with assessmentsof needs and opportunities for technology exchangeand diffusion; and

• To enhance support for the objectives and principlesof the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Capacity for Climate Protection inCentral and Eastern Europe Project

The Regional Environmental Center for Central andEastern Europe (REC) and the World Resources Institute(WRI) have formed a partnership to address climatepolicy issues in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Theprimary goal of this partnership is to help Annex I CEEEITs to 1) find less emission intensive developmentpaths and 2) create policy and institutional environ-ments to support compliance with the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.In support of these overarching goals, WRI and REChave created the Capacity for Climate ProtectionProject, which has the following specific objectives:

• Build a constituency for policy and institutionalreform in Annex I EITs to meet the commitmentsand respond to the opportunities of the climate con-vention;

• Build the infrastructure for more active participationby EIT countries in the global climate policy process;

• Provide information on development options andinstitutional needs.

The Capacity for Climate Protection Project under-takes activities in the following areas:

• Providing analysis and information for decisions;

• Involving CEE NGOs in policy analysis and outreach;

• Promoting dialogues among governments, businesses,and NGOs within the countries;



• Informing and influencing discussions at the COPs;

• Facilitating information exchange at the regional andglobal level; and

• Increasing understanding of the institutional needsof the countries in transition for emissions reporting,implementation of flexibility mechanisms, and goodpractices on policies and measures for UNFCCCimplementation.

The project also supports an Advisory Board ofdecisionmakers from CEE, the EU, and the UnitedStates to share successes and identify steps that theirgovernments can undertake to implement flexibilitymechanisms and achieve compliance.

The project's regional approach seeks to provideinformation to all EITs in CEE. It is expected that thiswill increase understanding of the opportunities underthe climate convention and will increase compliance

with commitments. However, the principal work is tar-geted towards six countries (Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia).

WRI, the REC, and regional partners have published aseries of papers, available on the project website<http://www.rec.org/climate/index.html>. These papersinclude analyzes of regional Activities Implemented Jointly(AIJ) experience and the opportunities presented to CEEEITs by the Climate Convention and Kyoto Protocol.

Endnotes1 These critical areas form the basis of a Framework for CapacityBuilding in Countries with Economies in Transition, circulated at thethirteenth session of SBSTA, in Lyon on September 11-15, 2000. See FCCC/SB/2000/CRP.9/Rev.1, September 12, 2000, available at<http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/2000/sb/crp09r01.htm>.

2 In collaboration with UNITAR and UNFCCC.





Appendix III: National Systems for InventoryPreparation, Management and Reporting

TABLE 1

Compiling the national inventoryInstitutional



and methodologiesCollecting data Lack of administrative capacity

[BU, RO].

Limited regulatory mandate toobtain data [BU, HU, RO],(industrial process ) [CZ].

Lack of transparency [RO].

Time lag in data availability [BU, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

No national institutionresponsible for collection ofinformation on PFCs, HFCs, SF6 [BU].

Shortage of trained staff [HU, RO], (agriculture, LUCF,and waste ) [BU], (energy,agriculture, and LUCF ) [CZ].

Expert estimates are needed[BU].

Discontinuity of inventoryrelated activities [BU].

Methodological inconsistencyin data collection andprocessing among institutions[BU].

No availability ofdisaggregated data [BU].

Lack of adequate equipment[RO].

Inadequate procedures forcollection and managementof data [PL].

Need for hardware acquisition[PL].

Laboratories and equipmentneeded for data collection ofPFCs, HFCs, SF6 [BU].

Poor accuracy of data [SI],(waste ) [PL].

Work discontinuity [SI].Calculatingemission factors

Regularly updating and refiningall the country specificemission factors [BU].

Inadequate procedures forcollection and management ofdata [PL].

Lack of administrative capacity[RO].

No data for calculatingemission factor (wastemanagement). Difficulties inprojection (agriculture) [RO].

Lack of human [HU] andtechnical resources [RO, CZ].

Tendency to use IPCC defaultnumbers [HU].

Limited resources for researchand implementation [CZ].

Work discontinuity [RO, SI].

Inadequate equipment [RO].


Continued overleaf



TABLE 1 continued

Institutional capacity

Human resource development

Knowledge, information and methodologies

Preparinginventory emissionestimates

Difficulties in gathering data[BU, PO], and in organizationand management of data [PL].

Discontinuity of work [RO, SI].

Need for participation in IPCCmeetings (and others) oninventories [BU, CZ].

Personnel shortage andinadequate equipment [RO].

Use of IPCC default emissionfactors [BU].

Difficulties in estimation ofmethane [HU] emissions, andof emission factors [SI].



Technical problems in datacollection (waste andindustrial process) [SI].

Reportinginventory emissionestimates

Collection procedures andmanagement of data [PL].

Capacity building in thecommon reporting format[CZ].

No compilation in thecommon reporting format[RO, SI].

Discontinuity of work [SI].


Updating thenational inventory

Time lag data availability forinventory preparation [BU, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

Limited capacities in collectingdata and in calculatingemission factors [HU].

Additional training required[SI].

Difficulties created by printing cycle of statisticalpublications [PL].

Mismatch between collecteddata and data for IPCCmethodology [RO].

Verifying data,QC measures

System of verification andquality control measures is notcompletely determined [SI], orto be established [HU].

Lack of appropriate institutionaland regulatory framework[RO].

Additional trained personnel tocheck estimations andprojections of emissions [RO].

Estimatinginventoryuncertainty

Assistance to improve current estimation ofinventory uncertainty [BU].

International experiencesharing [BU].

Capacity building forassessing inventoryuncertainty [RO, SI].

No methodology forevaluation of uncertainties[BU].

Technical support to improvethe quality of data collection[PL].



TABLE 2

Quality assurance and quality controlInstitutional



and methodologiesVerifying data, QC measures


Lack of appropriateinstitutional and regulatoryframework [RO].

Additional trained personnelto check estimations andprojections of emissions [RO].


Assistance to improve currentestimation of inventoryuncertainty [BU].


Capacity building for assessinginventory uncertainty [RO, SI].



Performing annual checks of data andcalculations relatedto identified keysources

Comprehensive updating,compilation and checks notcurrently feasible [HU, RO].

Need for trained personnel[RO].

Need for hardware andsoftware [RO].

Following source category-specificQC procedures (Tier 2)

Need of institutional capacitybuilding [BU].

Existing capacity not enough toprovide QC procedures [HU].


Need for assistance [BU, SI], inform of hardware and software[RO].

Establishing QA objectives and processes


Poor administrative capacitiesto develop QA process [RO].

Confidentiality provisions limitaccess to information [BU].

Permanent and expertisedpersonnel needed [BU].

Lack of current staff capacities[HU].

Additional assistance todevelop existing QAprocedures [PL, SI].

Funding needed for IPCCworkshops attendance [SI, PL].

No methodology for qualityactivity data [BU].










Providing expert review(third partyvalidation)

Lack of institutional capacity;inadequate legal framework[RO].

Poor quality of reviews due toscarce familiarity with IPCCmethodologies [BU].

Lack of expertise in certifyingdata accuracy [RO].

Existing capacity not enough toidentify reviewers [HU].

Need for assistance [SI].

Continued overleaf



TABLE 2 continued




Hosting in-depthreviews

Need for additional resourcesfor hosting IDR [SI].

Responding to in-depth reviews

Strengthen current capacity[BU].

Stronger institutional support[RO].

Time frame needs to be set [SI].

Lack of resources [RO]. Additional training to respondto answers [SI].

TABLE 3

Information managementInstitutional



and methodologiesArchiving Staff enlargement to further

develop present archiving ofinventory information [RO].

Technical support to increasequality of present activities [PL, RO, SI].

Establishingconfidentialityprovisions

Procedures for access toconfidential data need to berevised [BU, HU, PL, RO].

Experience sharing [BU].

Providinginformation

Provisions for public access to information need to bereconsidered; develop presentinstitutional capacity [RO].

Currently no specific web-site on GHG [BU, HU, PL, RO, SI].

Difficulties in informingabout public access toinventory information [BU].



TABLE 5

Systems to support participation in the Kyoto MechanismsInstitutional



and methodologiesNationalregistries

Lack of capacity for costestimation [BU].

Shortage of qualified staff[RO]. Need for capacitybuilding [CZ, HU].

Additional training required[BU]. Difficulties in collectingcreditable data [HU].

No estimation of associatedcosts to build up registry [BU,CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

No institutional experience[BU, RO].

Inadequate legal andinstitutional frame [RO].

Insufficient fund allocation[RO].

Need to define a proper datamodel [SI].

Projectparticipation

Institutional capacity building[BU, HU, RO].

Inadequate regulatory frame[BU, CZ, HU, RO].

No rules for entities’participation [CZ, HU].

Capacity building [BU]. Limited awareness raising of importance for private-governmentpartnership [BU, HU].

Poor accuracy in data records[RO].

Establishment ofobligations

No coordination betweenresponsible ministries andagencies [BU].

Additional [BU] capacitybuilding for setting obligation[HU].



TABLE 1 continued




Preparinginventory emissionestimates

Difficulties in gathering data[BU, PO], and in organizationand management of data [PL].


Need for participation in IPCCmeetings (and others) oninventories [BU, CZ].

Personnel shortage andinadequate equipment [RO].

Use of IPCC default emissionfactors [BU].

Difficulties in estimation ofmethane [HU] emissions, andof emission factors [SI].



Technical problems in datacollection (waste andindustrial process) [SI].

Reportinginventory emissionestimates

Collection procedures andmanagement of data [PL].

Capacity building in thecommon reporting format[CZ].

No compilation in thecommon reporting format[RO, SI].

Discontinuity of work [SI].


Updating thenational inventory

Time lag data availability forinventory preparation [BU, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

Limited capacities in collectingdata and in calculatingemission factors [HU].

Additional training required[SI].

Difficulties created by printing cycle of statisticalpublications [PL].

Mismatch between collecteddata and data for IPCCmethodology [RO].

Verifying data,QC measures


Lack of appropriate institutionaland regulatory framework[RO].

Additional trained personnel tocheck estimations andprojections of emissions [RO].


Assistance to improve current estimation ofinventory uncertainty [BU].


Capacity building forassessing inventoryuncertainty [RO, SI].





TABLE 2

Quality assurance and quality controlInstitutional



and methodologiesVerifying data, QC measures


Lack of appropriateinstitutional and regulatoryframework [RO].

Additional trained personnelto check estimations andprojections of emissions [RO].


Assistance to improve currentestimation of inventoryuncertainty [BU].


Capacity building for assessinginventory uncertainty [RO, SI].



Performing annual checks of data andcalculations relatedto identified keysources

Comprehensive updating,compilation and checks notcurrently feasible [HU, RO].


Need for hardware andsoftware [RO].

Following source category-specificQC procedures (Tier 2)


Existing capacity not enough toprovide QC procedures [HU].


Need for assistance [BU, SI], inform of hardware and software[RO].



















Providing expert review(third partyvalidation)

Lack of institutional capacity;inadequate legal framework[RO].

Poor quality of reviews due toscarce familiarity with IPCCmethodologies [BU].

Lack of expertise in certifyingdata accuracy [RO].

Existing capacity not enough toidentify reviewers [HU].

Need for assistance [SI].

Continued overleaf



TABLE 2 continued




Hosting in-depthreviews

Need for additional resourcesfor hosting IDR [SI].

Responding to in-depth reviews

Strengthen current capacity[BU].

Stronger institutional support[RO].

Time frame needs to be set [SI].

Lack of resources [RO]. Additional training to respondto answers [SI].

TABLE 3

Information managementInstitutional



and methodologiesArchiving Staff enlargement to further

develop present archiving ofinventory information [RO].

Technical support to increasequality of present activities [PL, RO, SI].

Establishingconfidentialityprovisions

Procedures for access toconfidential data need to berevised [BU, HU, PL, RO].

Experience sharing [BU].

Providinginformation

Provisions for public access to information need to bereconsidered; develop presentinstitutional capacity [RO].

Currently no specific web-site on GHG [BU, HU, PL, RO, SI].

Difficulties in informingabout public access toinventory information [BU].



TABLE 5

Systems to support participation in the Kyoto MechanismsInstitutional



and methodologiesNationalregistries

Lack of capacity for costestimation [BU].

Shortage of qualified staff[RO]. Need for capacitybuilding [CZ, HU].

Additional training required[BU]. Difficulties in collectingcreditable data [HU].

No estimation of associatedcosts to build up registry [BU,CZ, HU, PL, RO, SI].

No institutional experience[BU, RO].

Inadequate legal andinstitutional frame [RO].

Insufficient fund allocation[RO].

Need to define a proper datamodel [SI].

Projectparticipation

Institutional capacity building[BU, HU, RO].

Inadequate regulatory frame[BU, CZ, HU, RO].

No rules for entities’participation [CZ, HU].

Capacity building [BU]. Limited awareness raising of importance for private-governmentpartnership [BU, HU].

Poor accuracy in data records[RO].

Establishment ofobligations

No coordination betweenresponsible ministries andagencies [BU].

Additional [BU] capacitybuilding for setting obligation[HU].

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE (REC) is a non-partisan,non-advocacy, not-for-profit organisation with the mission to assist in solving environmental problems inCentral and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Center fulfills its mission through encouraging cooperation amongnon-governmental organisations, governments and businesses, supporting the free exchange of informationand promoting public participation in environmental decision-making.

The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, the European Commission and Hungary. Today, theREC is legally based on a Charter signed by the governments of 27 countries and the European Commission,and on an International Agreement with the Government of Hungary. The REC has its headquarters inSzentendre, Hungary and Local Offices in each of its 15 beneficiary CEE countries, which are: Albania,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYRMacedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Yugoslavia.

Recent donors are the European Commission and the governments of the United States, Japan, Austria, Canada,Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,Slovakia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, as well as other intergovernmental and private institutions.

THE WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI) is an independent center for policy research and technicalassistance on global environmental and development issues. WRI’s mission is to move human society tolive in ways that protect Earth’s environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations ofcurrent and future generations.

Because people are inspired by ideas, empowered by knowledge and moved to change by greater under-standing, the Institute provides — and helps other institutions provide — objective information and prac-tical proposals for policy and institutional change that will foster environmentally sound, socially equi-table development. WRI’s particular concerns are with globally significant environmental problems andtheir interaction with economic development and social equity at all levels.

The Institute’s current areas of work include economics, forests, biodiversity, climate change, energy, sus-tainable agriculture, resource and environmental information, trade, technology, national strategies forenvironmental and resource management, business liaison, and human health.

In all of its policy research and work with institutions, WRI tries to build bridges between ideas andaction, meshing the insights of scientific research, economic and institutional analyses and practicalexperience with the need for open and participatory decision-making.

WRI-REC PARTNERSHIP The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe and theWorld Resources Institute have formed a partnership to assist Central and Eastern Europe and the NewIndependent States in reforming their policies and institutions to comply with commitments and respondto opportunities for infrastructure development created by the Framework Convention on Climate Changeand the Kyoto Protocol.

Documents

Complying with the Kyoto Protocol Requirementsdocuments.rec.org/publications/Complying_with_Kyoto_July... · 2012-06-18 · CAPACITY NEEDS FOR MEETING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL COMPLYING