Objective:

1
Screening Tool for Pilot MDG Carbon projects
Objective
This screening tool is intended to be used to
structure project concept assessment to quickly
determine project eligibility for registration
for the pilot phase of MDG Carbon, and to
identify areas of concern. The screening tool
only addresses aspects related to 'carbon', and
does not address other important project issues
such as project proponent solvency, project
financing etc. These must be addressed
separately. 

• The tool is divided into 9 simplified assessment
  flowcharts. The assessment is not intended to be
  exact, but requires some interpretation
• All screens give A A looks good.
• 1 B B, 1 C C, but several Bs will
  result in a C
• 1 C C, but several Cs means the project
  is going to be difficult (ie- D)
• Any D D unlikely to be eligible.
• Assessment for a project concept may result in A
  B for projects that receive mostly A ratings,
  but have 1 or 2 parts that could be rated B
  pending further information.
• Some project concepts will have one aspect that
  is critical and rates a C or even D, though all
  other screens rate A. In such cases, the overall
  ranking would be C or C-D, but the user may
  choose to follow up on the critical rating to see
  if this can easily be resolved to improve the
  overall rating to A.
• Note that the tool is intended to structure
  thinking it assists, but does NOT REPLACE GOOD
  JUDGEMENT.

2
Screening Tool for MDG Carbon projects
How to use
If the flowchart leads to an 'A' result, proceed
to the next chart. Projects that result in 'A' on
all charts should be considered as having no
impediments (from 'carbon' perspective) to
registration with MDG Carbon.
A
If the flowchart leads to any 'B' rating, this
issue is a significant (but not major) concern.
Users of the tool should continue through the
screens to determine whether there are other
areas of concern (ie more than one 'B' result).
B
If the flowchart leads to any 'C' result, this
issue is a major concern. Users should continue
through the screens, however if the flowchart
leads to two or more 'C' results it may be
difficult to overcome all of these major
concerns.
C
If the flowchart leads to a 'D' at any point the
project is unlikely to be eligible and the
project should probably not be pursued as a
'carbon' project.
D
Notes to assist users are provided at the end of
the screens, however where sufficient information
is not available to answer a question in the
screens, users should follow both paths (ie take
'yes' and 'no' paths) to ascertain the potential
impact of the uncertainty. If either path results
in a 'C' or 'D' result, this information is
critical and should be sought before investing
any further resources in project development.
3
Screen 1 General eligibility for CDM
START
Does project reduce, prevent or mitigate the
release of 1 or more of the Kyoto gases See
appendix 3?
Project not relevant
Does the project remove CO2 or other GHGs from
the atmosphere?
NO
NO
D
YES
YES
Are reductions based on avoided deforestation?
? go to sequestration page
YES
X
NO
Project not eligible
Are reductions based on nuclear power, decrease
in production/ project activity level or force
majeure 1?
YES
D
NO
Does project contravene or work against other
international, regional or national treaties 2?
YES
Project unlikely to be approved
D
NO
Project unlikely to be eligible see note 4.
Have project activities already started 3?
YES
D
NO
Project not eligible for some buyers
unattractive to MDG Carbon
Does the donor provide clear documentation that
they do not have, and will not make any claim to
the emission reductions?
Is Official Development Aid (ODA) used in
implementation of the project 5?
YES
D
NO
NO
YES
B
Usage of this finance ( all project financing)
will require very clear careful analysis
tracking to ensure it is not used in
contravention of the Kyoto Protocol or the
donors documented intent.
Continue screening
Is loan finance used in any of the parts listed
in 5?
Are loans concessional and/or underwritten by ODA?
Are any loans provided by International Finance
Institutions 6?
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Are any grants included in the project financing
for tasks other than those listed in 7
Does grant include ODA or IFI loan underpinned by
ODA?
YES
YES
NO
NO
A
A
4
Screen 2 Host country eligibility and approval
of projects for CDM
START
Project not eligible for CDM in this country
Is project in an Annex I country (see Appendix 2
for list of countries)?
Is the project in an Annex II country (see
Appendix 2 for list of country)?
YES
YES
D
NO
NO
Project is not eligible for CDM but may be
eligible for JI
JI
Unlikely CDM project will be successful in this
country
Has the host country ratified the Kyoto Protocol
See Appendix 2 for list of countries?
NO
Is ratification planned to be completed by
1/1/2008?
NO
D
YES
YES
NO
Does host country have an operating DNA 1 See
Appendix 2?
Is a DNA in the process of being established now?
NO
C
Unlikely project will be approved soon enough to
be viable
YES
YES
Will DNA be functional for approval before
1/1/2008?
NO
C
YES
DNA high risk of being impediment to project
development
Is the DNA likely to be able to operate
effectively efficiently by 1/1/2008 2?
Does the DNA currently operate effectively 2?
NO
NO
C
YES
YES
Need to work with host government to build DNA
capacity
B
Project will not achieve DNA approval
NO
D
Is project type likely to be accepted/incorporated
into host governments sustainable development
policies?
Will the project likely satisfy the stated host
country sustainable development policies and/or
is host government actively supportive of project
type?
NO
Need to work to make project attractive to host
governments SD policies
C
YES
YES
UNKNOWN
B
A
Consult with host government on sustainable
development policies
5
Screen 3 Additionality
START
Can it be clearly demonstrated that
non-compliance with these laws is widespread?
Is the project required by federal, state or
municipal legislation or regulation?
YES
NO
D
Not eligible
NO
YES
Were these policies implemented after 11 December
1997?
Is overcoming this policy an important part of
showing additionality?
Are there relevant national or regional sectoral
policies that give comparative advantage to
higher emitting technologies (E) 1?
Unlikely to be additional
YES
YES
YES
C
Baseline establishment and additionality cannot
include these policies
NO
NO
NO
B
Were these policies implemented after 11 November
2001?
Is excluding this policy an important part of
showing additionality?
Are there relevant national or regional sectoral
policies that give comparative advantage to lower
emitting technologies (E-) 2?
Unlikely to be additional
YES
NO
YES
C
Baseline establishment and additionality cannot
exclude these policies
NO
NO
B
YES
Are there other barriers to project
implementation 4?
Is the project the least cost option 3?
Unlikely to be eligible
YES
NO
D
NO
YES
Can project conservatively and transparently
demonstrate barriers?
Unlikely to be eligible
NO OR UNKNOWN
YES
D
Are there particular circumstances for this
project that can clearly show why this project is
different to local conditions?
Is project common practice in the region?
Is the project common practice in the country?
YES
Not eligible
YES
NO
D
NO
NO
YES
Significant risk this project will be rejected
unless particulars of the project are clearly
unique
Can project clearly demonstrate differences
between national and local conditions, and that
the project is not common practice locally?
-
C
B
YES
Can project clearly show this?
YES
NO
NO
B
A
A
Need to demonstrate that the project is not
common practice
6
Screen 4 Baselines
START
Identification of sources is required before
assessment of project viability can be made
Has the project identified relevant sources of
emissions in the project 1?
NO
B
YES
Identification of a baseline scenario is required
before assessment of project viability can be made
Has the project determined a credible baseline
scenario (ie an objectively reasonable
description of what would happen in the absence
of the project)?
NO
B
YES
Identification of baseline sources is required
before assessment of project viability can be made
Has the project identified relevant sources of
emissions in the baseline 1?
NO
B
YES
Any further delay in methodology approval will
seriously threaten project viability
Has the project identified an Approved
Methodology that is applicable? (see Appendix 4)
Is an applicable methodology confidently expected
to be approved before 1 June 2007?
NO
NO
C
YES
YES
Reliable data can be difficult to attain, and
this may prove a significant obstacle to baseline
approval
Does the project have relevant historical, market
/or sectoral data required for the baseline?
Is the required baseline data easily and cheaply
attainable 2 ?
NO
NO
C
YES
YES
Project should attain this data before committing
extensive resources
B
Can emissions be monitored and verified using
data generated from measurements of project
fundamentals 3?
Are monitoring devices specifically for
emissions available cheaply off-the-shelf in
the host country 3?
Can project /or location specific monitoring
devices be developed and implemented at
reasonable cost and time 4?
Costs of monitoring may be higher than income
created.
C
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
B
A
Costs of monitoring will need to be carefully
examined strictly controlled
7
Screen 5 Ownership Stakeholder engagement
START
Not possible to assess project viability without
further site specific information
Is project a generic, national approach/strategy
that does not apply to a particular site 1?
Has the project selected a particular site/region
for implementation?
NO
NO
B
YES
YES
Ownership can be an intractable issue should be
addressed before any significant project
investment
Are there comparable projects that set a
precedent of ownership for the project?
Has the project identified documented ownership
of emission reductions?
C
NO
NO
YES
YES
Project should confirm ownership using precedent
as soon as possible.
B
Competing ownership claims can quickly ruin a
project. This should be addressed before any
significant investment.
Are there comparable projects that set a
precedent for resolving competing ownership
claims for the project?
Have potential claimants (including governments)
waived ownership claims?
Are there, or could there be, competing ownership
claims?
YES
NO
C
NO
YES
NO
Ensure the precedent is applicable confirm
undisputed ownership of ERs
YES
B
Does project have reliable up to date information
from recent feasibility studies?
This will be necessary to determine
implementation times and stakeholder engagements
NO
B
YES
Does project have reliable information from local
sources to indicate stakeholders views on the
project 2?
Stakeholder support is essential for registration
Has initial stakeholder consultation been
undertaken?
NO
NO
-
C
B
YES
YES
Project will not be eligible without stakeholder
support
Can stakeholder concerns be reasonably addressed
with changes to project and/or other measures?
Are stakeholders supportive of the project?
-
NO
NO
C
D
YES
YES
Adjust or redesign project to address concerns
B
A
8
Screen 6 Implementation time and emission
reductions
START
Project only likely to be viable with functional
voluntary market and/or post-2012 policy certainty
Can project be implemented by 1/1/2008 1?
Can project be implemented by 1/1/2009?
Can project be implemented by 1/1/2010?
NO
NO
NO
-
C
D
YES
YES
YES
Are average project emission reductions gt 25
ktCO2e/year?
Project only likely to be viable with functional
voluntary market and/or post-2012 policy certainty
NO
D
YES
Any time delay or delivery failure likely to
result in project failure unless post 2012 or
voluntary market established
C
Are average project emission reductions 5 -25
tCO2e/year?
Project only likely to be viable with functional
voluntary market and/or post-2012 policy certainty
Are average project emission reductions gt 25
ktCO2e/year?
NO
NO
D
YES
YES
Any time delay or delivery failure likely to
result in project failure unless post 2012 or
voluntary market established
C
Any time delay may imperil project viability
B
Are average project emission reductions gt 25
ktCO2e/year?
Are average project emission reductions 5-25
ktCO2e/year?
Are average project emission reductions 1 5
ktCO2e/year?
D
NO
NO
NO
Not viable
YES
YES
YES
A
B
C
Delivery failure may imperil project viability
Any time delay or delivery failure likely to
result in project failure unless post 2012 or
voluntary market established
9
Screen 7 Sequestration
Important see note Z before screening
sequestration projects.
START
Methodologies have not been approved and
considerable administrative and political hurdles
remain
Does project remove CO2 from the atmosphere
(sequestration?)
Is project based on avoided deforestation?
Is project based on capture and storage
technologies 1?
NO
YES
NO
C
NO
Project not easily defined as a sequestration
project
YES
YES
D
Is project based on avoided deforestation that is
currently occurring to supply thermal energy for
users?
This is not an eligible CDM project. However
project may be an eligible JI project if
undertaken in Annex 1 country
D
NO
YES
Are average project emissions lt 15ktCO2/year and
lt15MW capacity (where electricity is part of
project?
D
NO
Project not eligible
YES
Project not eligible
Can the project clearly demonstrate that
deforestation will be avoided?
D
NO
YES
These project types are difficult to demonstrate
clear baselines and extensive monitoring will be
required. No projects of this type have been
validated as of 1/6/2006
-
C
B
Is project based on revegetation or forest/
cropland/ grazing land management?
These are not eligible projects for CDM but may
be an eligible JI project if undertaken in and
Annex 1 country
Is project based on afforestation or
reforestation 2?
YES
D
NO
YES
NO
Other project types are not eligible for CDM or JI
D
Was land unforested on 31/12/1989?
Project is not eligible
NO
D
YES
Even where projects are clearly eligible,
substantial difficulties remain, in particular
complexities in quantification and monitoring,
permanence of removals, time lag between project
commencement and significant removals occurring
significant removals unlikely to occur before
2012 and hence financial and political risks. See
also Z
-
C
B
10
Screen 8 Safeguard Principles
START
Does the project adhere to the following 13
safeguard principles?
Principle 1 The project respects internationally
proclaimed human rights
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
NO
D
Principle 2 The project is not complicit in
human rights abuses
Not eligible
YES
NO
D
Principle 3 The project respects dignity, human
rights, cultural property and uniqueness of
indigenous peoples
Not eligible
YES
NO
D
Principle 4 The project does not involve
involuntary resettlement
Not eligible
YES
Principle 5 The project respects employees
freedom of association and their right to
collective bargaining
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 6 The project does not involve any
form of forced or compulsory labor
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 7 The project does not employ any form
of child labor
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 8 The project does not involve any
discrimination based on gender, race, religion or
sexual orientation
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 9 The project provides workers with a
safe and healthy work environment
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 10 The project takes a precautionary
approach in regard to environmental challenges
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 11 The project does not involve
significant conversion or degradation of critical
natural habitats
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 12 The project does not involve
corruption at any level
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
Principle 13 The project does not involve the
alteration, damage or removal of any critical
cultural heritage
NO
D
Not eligible
YES
A
11
Screen 9 MDG screen - Precluding significant
negative impacts
START
How does the project impact MDG 1 (Eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger 1)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
-
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
YES
C
B
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 2 (Achieve
universal primary education 2)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
-
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
YES
C
B
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 3 (Promote
gender equality and empower women 3)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
-
C
B
YES
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
Not eligible
How does the project impact MDG 4 (Reduce child
mortality 4)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
-
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
YES
C
B
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 5 (Improve
maternal health 5)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
-
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
YES
C
B
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 6 (Combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 6)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
-
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
C
B
YES
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 7 (Ensure
environmental sustainability 7)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
NEGATIVE
D
Not eligible
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
-
YES
C
B
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
How does the project impact MDG 8 (Develop a
global partnership for development 8)?
Can this impact be mitigated or compensated?
NO
Not eligible
NEGATIVE
D
-
YES
C
B
Eligible if impact sufficiently mitigated
POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
A
12
Appendix 1 References
1. References on General Eligibility 1. References on General Eligibility
1 Decrease in production A project cannot claim CERs for emission reductions that were achieved by decreasing production. If e.g. a coal power plant produces 700,000 MWh monthly and reduces its electrical output to 500,000 MWh per month, no CERs can be claimed for the avoided 200,000 MWh. Force Majeure Force Majeure literally means "greater force and excludes emission reductions that were caused by an unforseen event beyond the control of the project. Typically, force majeure cases include natural disasters, war, or the failure of third parties--such as suppliers and subcontractors--to perform their obligations to the contracting project.
2 Treaties include e.g. Montreal Protocol, UN-ECE POP (persistent organic pollutants) protocol, Convention on Long-Range Transboundry Air Pollution, UN Convention to Combat Desertification and UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
3 A project activity is a measure, operation or an action that aims at reducing GHG emissions. The Kyoto Protocol and the CDM modalities and procedures use the term project activity as opposed to project. A project activity could therefore be a component/aspect of a project undertaken/planned.
4 In cases where a project is expected to be registered prior to 31 December 2006, it may be possible to obtain an exception to this. The conditions for exception include that project activities started after 1 January 2000 official, legal or corporate documents showing that CDM incentives were considered and decisive in project planning were available to credible 3rd parties at the time of project activity start the above 2 conditions can be objectively and convincingly demonstrated. Note that 3rd party refers to an independent organization that has no financial relationship or other conflict of interest with the project activity which could influence or have the appearance to influence decisions. E.g. if the project was assessed by an independent auditor or accountant, this would be considered as 3rd party review.
5 ODA can NOT be used for Purchase of (new) technology validation, monitoring, quantification, reporting, verification or certification of emission reductions Installation costs running costs general project investments outside CDM component ODA may be used for With respect to general project investment costs, ODA can only be used to cover costs prior to the implementation of the project. When a new methodology is being submitted, ODA may be used to support the preparation of the PDD. ODA may also be used for the installation and operating costs of a wider project of which the CDM project activity is a part. For example a hospital 3 schools are built by an ODA underwritten IFI loan. A mini-hydro project providing renewable energy to these facilities can be a CDM project, providing the IFI loan is not funding the construction of the mini-hydro.
6 IFIs include World Bank, IMF, regional development Banks, UN, etc
7 A grant is money given to a individual or an organization that does not hold an obligation of repayment. In that respect, it differs from a loan, and does not incur any debt or interest.
13
Appendix 1 References (Cont.)
2. References on host country eligibility and approval 2. References on host country eligibility and approval
1 The rules which govern the CDM require a letter from the Designated National Authority (DNA) of the Host Country which authorizes the Project as a CDM project and provides the Project Participants with the confirmations required under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol. A list of DNAs is included in Appendix 2 and is updated at http//cdm.unfccc.int/DNA.
2 An effective DNA is one that has clear legal mandate to authorise a Letter of Acceptance and other documents on behalf of the host government. An efficient DNA is one that completes relevant processes expeditiously. Examples of effective DNA operation are the issuance of initial letter of no obligation at PIN stage within 6 weeks of submission the provision of final approval within three months of PDD submission (or at an earlier stage) etc. A track record of trouble free project approvals is usually the best indicator of effective and efficient DNA operation.
3 Examples of negative or perceived negative impacts could include displacing local people propagating unsustainable practices such as natural resource depletion significant changes to local geography, e.g. through deforestation, damming water sources etc. Refer also to the safeguard principles (screen 8) and MDG screen (screen 9).
3. References on Additionality 3. References on Additionality
1 Such policies are referred to as E (i.e. emitting more) and include for example tax rebate policies for coal mining, diesel rebates for off-grid electricity production etc.
2 Such policies are referred to as E- (i.e. emitting less) and include for example tax rebates for wind or solar electricity supply.
3 Least cost option in comparison to baseline scenario(s) may be demonstrated by i) CER sales being the only revenue from project ii) Financial indicators such as internal rate of return iii) Financial benchmarks such as governmental bond rate Further information is available at http//cd4cdm.org/Publications/UNEP_CDM20Baseline20Meth20Guidebook.pdf0, page 40/41.
4 Such barriers may include Investment barriers, other than the economic/financial barriers, for example - Real and/or perceived risks, associated with the technology or process, are too high to attract investment. - Funding is not available for innovative projects. Technological barriers, for example - Skilled and/or properly trained labor to operate and maintain the technology is not available, which could either lead to equipment disrepair and malfunctioning or higher cost of maintenance and operation. Barriers due to prevailing practice, for example - Developers lack familiarity with the technology and are reluctant to use them. Other barriers, for example - Management lacks experience using the state-of-the-art technology, so that the project receives low priority by management.
14
Appendix 1 References (Cont.)
4. References on Baselines 4. References on Baselines
1 Identifying relevant sources of emissions should be done in a structured, documented manner. This may be through the use of ISO14064-2, WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol for Project Accounting or other recognised approaches. Where projects very closely match existing registered CDM projects, the identified sources of those preceding projects will be useful.
2 If an historical baseline is proposed relevant historic data is essential - this may be difficult or expensive to back-cast or replicate if relevant data has not been collected over time. Market or sectoral data may be readily and freely available (for eg, government websites/reports on national electrical grid supply), but if it is not, it may be expensive to undertake sectoral analysis etc. and may not be possible if data is confidential. In these cases the project monitoring may need to be redesigned using alternate data sources and monitoring techniques.
3 Most emission estimates use proxies from data that is already recorded, such as fuel use. Where calculations are not able to use already recorded data, additional monitoring equipment is often readily and cheaply available in developed economies, but these may not be useful in areas where supporting infrastructure (eg stable grid voltage, internet etc) cannot be relied on.
4 Monitoring costs should not be material if implementation and operation of monitoring systems are more than 10 of capital and operating costs respectively, they need to be seriously reconsidered as to their appropriateness. Well integrated and efficient monitoring procedures should be less than 1 of CER income generated.
5. References on Ownership Stakeholder Engagement 5. References on Ownership Stakeholder Engagement
1 Some projects may not be tangible to a particular site, e.g. low-emitting vehicles. In this case the site may be a state, province or country, and stakeholder engagement is not practical with individual vehicle owners. Stakeholder engagement may be sought with automobile associations and relevant government departments.
2 Reliable information indicating stakeholder views could include petition or requests from local stakeholders, similar projects that have received broad support or opposition in the region, government policies linked to internationally accepted and locally supported measures such as a tailored national MDG strategy.
6. References on Implementation Time and Emission Reductions 6. References on Implementation Time and Emission Reductions
1 The project implementation date refers to the date when first GHG emission reductions are achieved.
15
Appendix 1 References (Cont.)
7. References on Sequestration 7. References on Sequestration
Z General Note Sequestration projects very often have considerable co-benefits, in particular relating to biodiversity, water, adaptation, desertification, reversing land degradation and community development. Further, the policies and discussions relating to sequestration are developing and changing rapidly at the international level (UNFCCC) as well as within UNDP, and the development of a more integrated approach to environmental finance. While sequestration projects may not appear immediately attractive from a pure carbon market perspective, individual projects may warrant further attention due to these broader considerations. It is recommended that users of this tool who are screening sequestration projects should also discuss the broader issues around the project with their regional centre technical staff.
1 Capture and storage technologies could include sour gas reinjection, capture of stack emissions from power plants with transport and geosequestration, ocean sequestration etc.
2 Afforestation is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years into forested land through planting/ seeding. Reforestation is in the first commitment period (2008-2012) limited to lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989. Note that the definition of forest may vary between countries (relating to crown cover, spacing etc), and needs to be clarified with the host government. Further, the definition of degraded land is not clear, and needs clarification.
8. References on 10 principles no harm screen 8. References on 10 principles no harm screen
1 For further details on the Global Compacts 10 principles please see http//www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html
9. References on MDG screen 9. References on MDG screen
1 Indicators include e.g. people whose income is less than 1 a day and people who suffer from hunger. Positive project impacts are e.g. increase in local income. Further information is available http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal1.shtml.
2 Indicators include e.g. net enrolment ratio in primary education and literacy rate of 15-24 year olds. Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal2.shtml.
3 Indicators include e.g. ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education and share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector. Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal3.shtml.
4 Indicators include e.g. under-five mortality rate and proportion of 1 year old children immunized against measles. Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal4.shtml.
5 Indicators include e.g. maternal mortality ratio and proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel. Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal5.shtml.
6 Indicators include e.g. contraceptive prevalence rate and prevalence and death rates associated with malaria. Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal6.shtml.
7 Indicators include e.g. proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, land area protected to maintain biological diversity and proportion of people with access to improved sanitation . Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal7.shtml.
8 Further information available at http//www.undp.org/mdg/goal8.shtml.
16
Appendix 2 Country status (as of 1 June 2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Afghanistan       x x  
Albania x     x x
Algeria x     x  
Angola       x x  
Antigua and Barbuda x     x x
Argentina x     x x
Armenia x     x x
Australia   x x    
Austria x x x   x
Azerbaijan x     x x
Bahamas x     x  
Bahrain x     x  
Bangladesh x     x x x
Barbados x     x x
Belarus x x      
Belgium x x x    
Belize x     x x
Benin x     x x x
Bhutan x     x x x
Bolivia x     x x
Bosnia and Herzegovina       x  
Botswana x     x  
Brazil x     x x
Bulgaria x x      
Burkina Faso x     x x  x
Burundi x     x x  
Cambodia x     x x x
Cameroon x     x  
Canada x x x   x
Cape Verde x     x x  
17
Appendix 2 Country status (Cont.) (as of 1 June
2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Central African Republic       x x  
Chad       x x  
Chile x     x x
China x     x x
Colombia x     x x
Comoros       x x  
Congo       x  
Cook Islands x     x  
Costa Rica x     x x
Côte d'Ivoire       x  
Croatia   x      
Cuba x     x x
Cyprus x     x  
Czech Republic x x      
Democratic People's Republic of Korea x     x  
Democratic Republic of the Congo x     x x x
Denmark x x x   x
Djibouti x     x x  
Dominica x     x  
Dominican Republic x     x  
Ecuador x     x x
Egypt x     x x
El Salvador x     x x
Equatorial Guinea x     x x  
Eritrea x     x x  
Estonia x x      
Ethiopia x     x x x
Fiji x     x x
Finland x x x   x
France x x x   x
18
Appendix 2 Country status (Cont.) (as of 1 June
2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Gabon       x  
Gambia x     x x  
Georgia x     x x
Germany x x x   x
Ghana x     x x
Greece x x x    
Grenada x     x  
Guatemala x     x x
Guinea x     x x x
Guinea Bissau x     x x  
Guyana x     x x
Haiti x     x x  
Honduras x     x x
Hungary x x      
Iceland x x x    
India x     x x
Indonesia x     x x
Iran (Islamic Republic of) x     x  
Ireland x x x    
Israel x     x x
Italy x x x   x
Jamaica x     x x
Japan x x x   x
Jordan x     x x
Kazakhstan       x  
Kenya x     x  x
Kiribati x     x x  
Kuwait x     x  
Kyrgyzstan x     x  
Lao People's Democratic Republic x     x x x
Latvia x x      
Lebanon x     x x
19
Appendix 2 Country status (Cont.) (as of 1 June
2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Lesotho x     x x  
Liberia x     x x x
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya       x  
Lichtenstein x x      
Lithuania x x      
Luxembourg x x x    
Madagascar x     x x x
Malawi x     x x x
Malaysia x     x x
Maldives x     x x x
Mali x     x x x
Malta x     x  
Marshall Islands x     x  
Mauritania x     x x  
Mauritius x     x x
Mexico x     x x
Micronesia (Federated States of) x     x  
Monaco x x     x
Mongolia x     x x
Morocco x     x x
Mozambique x     x x  
Myanmar x     x x  
Namibia x     x  
Nauru x     x  
Nepal x     x x x
Netherlands x x x   x
New Zealand x x x   x
Nicaragua x     x x
Niger x     x x x
Nigeria x     x x
Niue x     x  
Norway x x x   x
20
Appendix 2 Country status (Cont.) (as of 1 June
2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Oman x     x  
Pakistan x     x x
Palau x     x  
Panama x     x x
Papua New Guinea x     x x
Paraguay x     x x
Peru x     x x
Philippines x     x x
Poland x x      
Portugal x x x    
Qatar x     x x
Republic of Korea x     x x
Republic of Moldova x     x x
Romania x x      
Russian Federation x x      
Rwanda x     x x x
Saint Kitts and Nevis       x  
Saint Lucia x     x x
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines x     x  
Samoa x     x x  
San Marino       x  
Sao Tome and Principe       x x  
Saudi Arabia x     x  
Senegal x     x x x
Serbia and Montenegro       x x
Seychelles x     x  
Sierra Leone       x x  
Singapore  x     x  x
Slovakia x x     x
Slovenia x x     x
Solomon Islands x     x x  
South Africa x     x x
21
Appendix 2 Country status (Cont.) (as of 1 June
2006)
Country Ratified Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Annex II Least Developed Country Non Annex 1 Established DNA
Spain x x x   x
Sri Lanka x     x x
Sudan x     x x  
Suriname       x  
Swaziland x     x  
Sweden x x x   x
Switzerland x x x   x
Syrian Arab Republic x     x x
Tajikistan       x  
Thailand x     x x
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia x     x  
Togo x     x x  
Tonga       x  
Trinidad and Tobago x     x x
Tunisia x     x x
Turkey   x      
Turkmenistan x     x  
Tuvalu x     x x  
Uganda x     x x x
Ukraine x x      
United Arab Emirates x     x x
United Kingrom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland x x x   x
United Republic of Tanzania x     x x x
United States of America   x x    
Uruguay x     x x
Uzbekistan x     x  
Vanuatu x     x x  
Venezuela x     x  
Viet Nam x     x x
Yemen x     x x x
Zambia       x x x
Zimbabwe       x x
22
Appendix 3 Kyoto Gases and Global Warming
Potentials
The six greenhouse gases addressed by the Kyoto
Protocol are Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane
(CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6). The table below provides
Kyoto gases and their GWPs for a 100-year time
horizon published by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 1996 reporting
guidelines for national GHG gas inventories
(www.ipcc.ch).
Gas Chemical Formula IPCC 1996Global Warming Potential
Carbon dioxide CO2 1
Methane CH4 21
Nitrous oxide N2O 310
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
HFC-23 CHF3 11,700
HFC-32 CH2F2 650
HFC-41 CH3F 150
HFC-43-10mee C5H2F10 1,300
HFC-125 C2HF5 2,800
HFC-134 C2H2F4 (CHF2CHF2) 1,000
HFC-134a C2H2F4 (CH2FCF3) 1,300
HFC-143 C2H3F3 (CHF2CH2F) 300
HFC-143a C2H3F3 (CF3CH3) 3,800
HFC-152a C2H4F2 (CH3CHF2) 140
HFC-227ea C3HF7 2,900
HFC-236fa C3H2F6 6,300
HFC-245ca C3H3F5 560
Hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)
HFE-7100 C4F9OCH3 500
HFE-7200 C4F9OC2H5 100
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Perfluoromethane (tetrafluoromethane) CF4 6,500
Perfluoroethane (hexafluoroethane) C2F6 9,200
Perfluoropropane C3F8 7,000
Perfluorobutane C4F10 7,000
Perfluorocyclobutane c-C4F8 8,700
Perfluoropentane C5F12 7,500
Perfluorohexane C6F14 7,400
Sulphur hexafluoride SF6 23,900
23
Appendix 4 Approved methodologies (as of 1 June
2006)
Meth. Number Methodology Title (including baseline and monitoring methodologies)
Approved Large Scale Methodologies Approved Large Scale Methodologies
AM0001 Incineration of HFC 23 Waste Streams --- Version 3
AM0002 Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfill gas capture and flaring where the baseline is established by a public concession contract --- Version 2
AM0003 Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects --- Version 3
AM0006 GHG emission reductions from manure management systems
AM0007 Analysis of the least-cost fuel option for seasonally-operating biomass cogeneration plants
AM0009 Recovery and utilization of gas from oil wells that would otherwise be flared --- Version 2
AM0010 Landfill gas capture and electricity generation projects where landfill gas capture is not mandated by law
AM0011 Landfill gas recovery with electricity generation and no capture or destruction of methane in the baseline scenario --- Version 2
AM0012 Biomethanation of municipal solid waste in India, using compliance with MSW rules
AM0013 Forced methane extraction from organic waste-water treatment plants for grid-connected electricity supply --- Version 2
AM0014 Natural gas-based package cogeneration
AM0016 Greenhouse gas mitigation from improved animal waste management systems in confined animal feeding operations --- Version 3
AM0017 Steam system efficiency improvements by replacing steam traps and returning condensate --- Version 2
AM0018 Steam optimization systems
AM0019 Renewable energy project activities replacing part of the electricity production of one single fossil-fuel-fired power plant that stands alone or supplies electricity to a grid, excluding biomass projects
AM0020 Baseline methodology for water pumping efficiency improvements
AM0021 Baseline Methodology for decomposition of N2O from existing adipic acid production plants
AM0022 Avoided Wastewater and On-site Energy Use Emissions in the Industrial Sector --- Version 2
AM0023 Leak reduction from natural gas pipeline compressor or gate stations
AM0024 Methodology for greenhouse gas reductions through waste heat recovery and utilization for power generation at cement plants
AM0025 Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment processes --- Version 3
AM0026 Methodology for zero-emissions grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources in Chile or in countries with merit order based dispatch grid
AM0027 Substitution of CO2 from fossil or mineral origin by CO2 from renewable sources in the production of inorganic compounds
AM0028 Catalytic N2O destruction in the tail gas of Nitric Acid Plants
AM0029 Methodology for grid connected electricity generation plants using natural gas.
AM0030 PFC emission reductions from anode effect mitigation at primary aluminium smelting facilities.
24
Appendix 4 Approved methodologies (Cont.) (as of
1 June 2006)
Approved Consolidated Large Scale Methodologies Approved Consolidated Large Scale Methodologies
ACM0001 Consolidated methodology for landfill gas project activities --- Version 2
ACM0002 Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources --- Version 5
ACM0003 Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels in cement manufacture --- Version 2
ACM0004 Consolidated methodology for waste gas and/or heat for power generation --- Version 2
ACM0005 Consolidated Methodology for Increasing the Blend in Cement Production --- Version 2
ACM0006 Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from biomass residues --- Version 2
ACM0007 Methodology for conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power generation
ACM0008 Consolidated methodology for coal bed methane and coal mine methane capture and use for power (electrical or motive) and heat and/or destruction by flaring
ACM0009 Consolidated methodology for industrial fuel switching from coal or petroleum fuels to natural gas
Small Scale Methodologies Small Scale Methodologies
AMS-I.A. Electricity generation by the user
AMS-I.B. Mechanical energy for the user
AMS-I.C. Thermal energy for the user
AMS-I.D. Grid connected renewable electricity generation
AMS-II.A. Supply side energy efficiency improvements transmission and distribution
AMS-II.B. Supply side energy efficiency improvements generation
AMS-II.C. Demand-side energy efficiency programmes for specific technologies
AMS-II.D. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities
AMS-II.E. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings
AMS-II.F. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for agricultural facilities and activities
AMS-III.A. Agriculture
AMS-III.B. Switching fossil fuels
AMS-III.C. Emission reductions by low-greenhouse gas emitting vehicles
AMS-III.D. Methane recovery
AMS-III.E. Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through controlled combustion
AMS-III.F. Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through composting
AMS-III.G. Landfill methane recovery
AMS-III.H. Methane recovery in wastewater treatment
AMS-III.I. Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of anaerobic lagoons by aerobic systems
Approved Afforestation/Reforestation Methodologies Approved Afforestation/Reforestation Methodologies
AR-AM0001 Reforestation of degraded land
AR-AM0002 Reforestation of degraded lands through afforestation/reforestation.
AR-AM0003 Afforestation/reforestation of degraded land through tree planting, assisted natural regeneration and control of animal grazing.