[Stoves] CDM decisions update

[Roger Samson]

July 11, 2006


Here is an update (below) of the current status of CDM and stoves by Mark
Purdon. Slowly the CDM small scale panel seems to be coming around to the
idea that we need a special status for stoves as they are used so
intermittently and mostly in a simmering mode. REAP-Canada’s recent
methodology submission for creating a stoves specific category (that was not
based on the number of stoves rather than the 45 MW maximum heat output) was
rejected at the last meeting in June. However the proposed new
microtechnology approach now under discussion at the July meeting may
accomplish the same feat, that is to pull cookstoves out of the thermal
energy for the user category and create a new category that will work for
CDM stove project developers.  


 

 

Roger Samson


 


Recent Decisions Affecting the Treatment of Biomass Projects Under the CDM


UNDP-GEF Briefing Note by Mark Purdon


 


Introduction


Until 2005 it was possible to develop small-scale projects that reduced
consumption of non-renewable sources of biomass through renewable energy
technologies, such as improved biofuel stoves. Recall that at COP8,
simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale project activities were
set forth in Appendix B: Indicative simplified baseline and monitoring
methodologies for selected small-scale CDM project activity categories.[1]
Under these categories, biomass projects were possible under “I.C.: Thermal
energy for the user” where renewable energy technologies “displaces fossil
fuel or non-renewable sources of biomass”.[2] In particular, Appendix B
indicated that the simplified baseline would be based on “the non-renewable
sources of biomass consumption of technologies times an emission coefficient
for the non-renewable sources of biomass deplaced.”[3] Recent decisions
taken by the CDM Executive Board have reduced the potential of realizing
such small-scale projects, much of which is due to complications linked to
previous decisions pertaining to the role of forests in the CDM. 

 


Deletion of Use of Non-Renewable Biomass Baseline


At EB20 (July 2005) it was suggested that non-forestry small-scale projects
that directly or indirectly result in a net increase in carbon pools should
not receive CERs for such an increase.[4] Reinforcing this decision, at EB21
(Sept 2005) it was formally decided to remove non-renewable biomass as a
baseline methodology in Appendix B.[5] Credits resulting from increased
carbon pools are only possible if a project is managed as an
afforestation/reforestation project.[6] However, at the present time there
is no consolidated methodology for combined forest and biomass energy
projects.[7]


 


Proposed Methodologies for Switching from Non-Renewable Biomass Fuels


Also at EB21, the SSCWG was called up to develop revised methodologies
proposing the switch from non-renewable biomass.[8] This has resulted in the
formal recommendation of two new small-scale project categories by the
SSCWG[9] which will be considered at the upcoming EB25 (July 2006):

*         SSC Category I. E. - Switch from non-renewable biomass for thermal
applications

“This category comprises of small appliances involving the switch from
non-renewable biomass to renewable sources of energy. These technologies
include biogas stoves, use of solar cookers and measures that involve the
switch to renewable biomass.”

*         SSC Category II. G. - Energy efficiency measures in thermal
applications of nonrenewable biomass

“This category comprises of small appliances involving the efficiency
improvements in the thermal applications of non-renewable biomass. These
technologies and measures include high efficiency cook stoves and ovens
using non-renewable biomass. Project activities, which also involve the
switch to renewable biomass, shall apply using category I-E.”

Baselines for both new small-scale project categories is to based on locally
available fossil fuels:[10]

“It is assumed that in the absence of the project activity, the baseline
scenario would be the use of fossil fuels commonly observed with local
consumers, for meeting similar thermal energy needs.”


Criticitisms of the Proposed Methodologies


The above methodologies have been criticized at three levels, particularly
from the perspective of their application towards household cookstove
improvement projects.[11] 

*         First, the insistance on a fossil fuel baseline reduces the scope
of such projects to areas where fossils fuels are locally available. In many
of the least developed regions of the world, this is not the case. As such,
the new methodologies tend to award a switch from biomass fuels to fossil
fuels. 

*         Secondly, a fossil fuel baseline may significantly discount the
amount of CERs generated. Fossil fuel stoves are inherently more efficient
than traditional biomass stoves. As a result, it has been estimated that a
small-scale project methodology utilising a fossil fuel baseline might only
generate 13-36% of the CERs that were available through the previous
non-renewable biomass baseline.[12]

*         Leakage considerations embedded in the proposed methodologies
might also adversly impact the economics of such small-scale projects.[13] 

 


Next Steps


The EB will be making decisions on the adoption of the above new
methodologies at its 25th meeting later this month (July 19-21). Is it
possible for the UNDP-GEF to submit a commentary on the implications of
these recent decisions on biomass as they pertain to development,
particularly in the least developed countries? Possible avenues to explore
might include: 

*         promoting methodological linkages between
afforestation/reforestation and bioenergy projects, which would imply
working in conjunction with the CDM Meth Panel, Small-Scale Working Group
and Afforestation/Reforestation Working Group. 

*         Assisting in the development of “micro-scale” energy systems which
are only beginning to be considered by the SSCWG in response to the call of
the EB to reconsider the definition of small-scale CDM project
activities.[14]

*         Promoting other an alternative small-scale CDM category in order
to accommodate the particular methodological uses of cookstove projects.[15]

 

 


  _____  

[1] Appendix B to Decision 21/CP.8 Annex 3

[2] Ibid., para 15

[3] Ibid., para 19

[4] Report of CDM-EB20, Annex 8 at para 3(b)

[5] Report of CDM-EB21, para 55 and Annex 22

[6] Ibid., para 3(c)

[7] See Dutschke, M., Kapp, G., Lehmann, A., and Schäfer, V. (2006) Risks
and Chances of Combined Forestry and Biomass Projects under the Clean
Development Mechanism. Hamburg: UNEP & HWWA Hamburg.

[8] Report of CDM-EB21, para 55 and Annex 22

[9] Report of CDM-SSCWG5, Annexes 5 & 6

[10] Report of CDM-SSCWG5, Annexes 5 & 6 at para 3

[11] See public comments posted by Ecosecurities, Climate Care and the World
Bank in response to a call for input announced at EB23 on the proposed new
methodologies:
<http://cdm.unfccc.int/public_inputs/meth_ssc_bio/index.html>
http://cdm.unfccc.int/public_inputs/meth_ssc_bio/index.html.

[12] Proposed Agenda and Annotations for CDM-EB25, para 66

[13] Ibid.

[14] Report of CDM-SSCWG6, para 21(a)

[15] See Report of CDM-SSCWG6, para 21(b)