The first regional workshop on GHG inventories and accounting took place at the 5th Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) hosted by ADB and USAID on June 21, 2010 in ADB’s headquarters in Manila. GHGMI’s Gao Pronove presented at the workshop and shared GHGMI’s experience as the leading training provider for GHG accounting, verification, and management. The ACEF website features all of the presentations, including GHGMI’s.

The workshop was organized by USAID and ADB and recognizes “the critical role that greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and accounting play in formulating and supporting effective policies for mitigating climate change” and promoting clean energy. The workshop followed two main themes: understanding the roles of different stakeholders, including manufacturers, utilities, civil society, and national, regional, and local governments; and sharing experience with approaches for developing GHG programs (both internationally and within Asia) that build on existing systems where possible and create new systems where needed.

GHGMI was very pleased to share its experience offering certificate training programs in –

• GHG Accounting
• Organizational GHG Management
• GHG Accounting and Verification
• GHG Offset Projects
• Advanced GHG Accounting
• Advanced GHG Offset Projects

GHGMI also shared its experience in developing professional certification standards for individual GHG professionals. The importance of developing a global workforce that is qualified and well-trained was discussed during the workshop.

Institute Dean and Executive Director Michael Gillenwater will give a presentation on corporate emissions measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) at this year’s June 8-9th Carbon Finance North America conference in New York City.

Michael will be speaking about the practical considerations when developing, reporting, and verifying a corporate inventory with specific reference to the necessary supporting infrastructure and capacity. To see Michael in New York, please visit the conference website by clicking on the conference banner (above) and quoting CFNA10/GHGMI/10 to claim your 10% discount.

Agreement Signed to Upskill Australian Greenhouse Professionals

NCS International (“NCSI”) has signed a content licensing partnership agreement with the US-based Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (“GHGMI”) in a bid to build the capacity of Australian industry as it struggles to cope with the growing demand for greenhouse gas services.

GHGMI, an internationally-recognized leader in training climate change professionals, was founded as a non-profit organization in 2007 to train and support a global community of qualified professionals to work on GHG measurement, accounting, auditing and management.

The content licensing partnership will see a number of training courses built on GHGMI content and delivered in a bid to fulfill the emerging demand for competent and credible climate change professionals with training, skills and expertise in greenhouse accounting, reporting, auditing and compliance.  According to the Managing Director of NCSI International, Mr. Greg Jewson, “The need to up-skill professionals to deliver greenhouse services is an issue that is not limited to Australia.”

“A recent GHGMI survey of more than 700 key industry professionals, scientists and organizational leaders from around the world found that 83.9% of respondents believed there was a shortage of qualified greenhouse gas staff and experts to undertake current needs and planned initiatives,” said Mr Jewson.

NCSI’s Environment and Sustainability Manager responsible for Climate Change services, Mr. Nav Brah, confirmed the company’s alignment with GHGMI’s mission to develop and train a worldwide community of  GHG management experts: “Our partnership will help corporations, governments and organizations build capacity to adapt to emerging carbon markets and comply with a range of greenhouse regulations including the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) legislation, the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and the National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS).”

“In partnering with GHGMI, we will be providing Australian industry with the necessary greenhouse skills training it requires to meet the growing demand for effective greenhouse gas measurement, accounting, auditing and management,” said Mr. Brah.

In welcoming the partnership with NCS International, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, Mr Michael Gillenwater, said: “The role of qualified personnel in greenhouse gas management cannot be understated. From assuring the accuracy of the data underpinning carbon markets to ensuring an inventory can stand up to scrutiny, skilled experts are fundamental to addressing the challenge of climate change.”

“We are excited to partner with NCS International, one of Australia’s leading certification and training organizations, to deliver internationally recognised greenhouse management skills Australian industry needs,” said Mr. Gillenwater.

The first public GHGMI course being offered in Australia is the foundational course, Basics of Organizational GHG Accounting. It is based on the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and ISO 14064: Part 1, the International Standard for preparing corporate greenhouse gas emission inventories. In addition, NCSI will also offer a further course covering reporting under NGER.  These courses will provide a robust foundation for a wide range of professionals working for, or providing services to, organizations with a mandatory requirement to report under NGER or to corporations voluntarily reporting their carbon footprint.

The agreement also comes following the announcement last month by The Department of Climate Change inviting applications from individuals who would like to register as greenhouse and energy auditors. A register of appropriately qualified and experienced greenhouse and energy auditors is being established under the NGER Legislation.  These auditors will need enhanced qualifications, knowledge and expertise in order to verify and ensure greenhouse emissions and energy consumption data reported by corporations are complete, accurate, reliable and transparent.

Around one thousand (1,000) Australian companies are expected to exceed greenhouse gas emission and energy reporting thresholds set by NGER Legislation by 2012.  Many of these companies will have to report their emissions and energy data and have it independently audited by October this year. Corporations must report their greenhouse gas emissions if they emitted more than 87,500 tonnes CO₂ or if any facility controlled by the corporation emitted more than 25,000 tonnes CO₂.

According to Mr. Brah: “Taking a pro-active approach to greenhouse gas reporting is not just good business, it’s prudent corporate governance. Now is the time to ensure professionals involved in greenhouse gas emissions compliance or preparing reports for carbon disclosure have the appropriate skills and expertise.”

To register for the first GHGMI course or for further information please visit www.mygreenaudit.com or call NCS International at +61 1300 856 554.

Media Inquiries

Nav Brah – NCSI: +61 0419 226 238 – nav.brah@ncsi.com.au

Tom Godfrey – Bell George PR: +61 0449 681 282 – tom@bellgeorge.com

NCS International is one of Australia’s leading independent auditing and verification certification bodies and one of the largest providers of management systems auditing to the Australian utilities and resources sectors. NCS International was the first certification organization in Australia to deliver independent third party certification against ISO 14064.

The Greenhouse Gas Management Institute is a registered nonprofit organization that trains, certifies and networks a global community of experts that account, audit and manage GHG emissions based on world-class training and professional standards. The Institute’s membership includes individuals and organizations, from beginners to professionals, working on all aspects of climate change. Founded in 2007 through a partnership between ClimateCHECK, the GHG Experts Network and GoVida e-Learning, the Institute works with the World Resources Institute, the World Bank, the United Nations, the Carbon Disclosure Project, Point Carbon, Harvard University Extension School and a globally distinguished faculty on training and professional development programs utilizing innovative Internet tools to ensure that professionals will be available to support future market mechanisms and other policy responses to climate change.

For more information, please visit ghginstitute.org or email media@ghginstitute.org

###

• Michael Gillenwater, Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
• Dr Amit Garg, Indian Institute of Management, India
• Dr Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives/University of Zurich, Switzerland
• Jeroen Kruijd, PricewaterhouseCoopers, The Netherlands
• Dr Greg Norris, Sylvatica/Harvard School of Public Health, USA
• Justin Goodwin, Aether, UK

The journal is actively seeking submissions for its first issue, aiming to publish in November 2010. Authors are encouraged to submit original research papers, short communications/case studies, opinion pieces/commentaries, book reviews and meeting reports.

Areas covered include:

• Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) – challenges in, and experiences with, the design and/or application of MRV approaches in developed and developing countries;
• Quality assurance/Quality control – establishing and enhancing QA/QC procedures, including verification of GHG emissions, removals and storage;
• Best practices – identification of, and experiences with the use of, good practices in measuring GHGs, collecting activity data and identifying appropriate emission factors;
• Market-based mechanisms – experiences with the use of market-based mechanisms (including the Kyoto Mechanisms – Emissions trading, Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation) and with the development of reliable project-specific GHG inventory data;
• Accounting – practices relating to accounting for the effects of mitigation measures and determining compliance with specific requirements at all levels; and
• Corporate disclosure and community right to know – risks and opportunities associated with governance issues relating to the management of GHGs.

For full details of the journal, please visit http://www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/GHGMM

Contact:

Papers and articles should follow the journal’s submission guidelines, and be sent to “the Editor” at journals@earthscan.co.uk.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Climate Registry and GHG Management Institute to develop next generation of carbon experts

Leading organizations combine expertise to deliver online training in carbon accounting

(March 16, 2010 – New York and Washington, DC) The Climate Registry, a nonprofit organization that operates the leading voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) registry in North America, and the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (GHGMI), a nonprofit organization building a global professional society of GHG experts, announced today that they are partnering to provide online training courses on GHG accounting and verification.

The training courses build on GHGMI’s rigorous curriculum and e-learning capabilities and incorporate The Registry’s expertise in helping companies measure and report their carbon footprints. Coursework will cover the basics of GHG accounting and reporting to The Registry as well as GHG verification for inventories, ensuring that a new generation of sustainability professionals has the skills necessary to prepare companies for the future. The GHGMI training is a key component of The Registry’s future blended learning program, which will combine online courses with in-person training. Utilizing online learning, this coursework provides access to world leading GHG management curriculum and faculty, while simultaneously avoiding the costs and emissions associated with travel.

“We support hundreds of organizations that are voluntarily reporting and reducing their emissions.  Accounting for carbon credibly is a ‘must have’ skill set in a carbon constrained world,” said Diane Wittenberg, Executive Director for The Registry. “Offering an intensive carbon accounting program through GHGMI will benefit companies, and give necessary information to investors and customers.”

Individuals who successfully complete the online and in-person courses will be awarded a certificate of training by The Climate Registry, and can be confident that they have been trained in line with international standards.

“The role of qualified personnel in GHG management cannot be understated. From assuring the accuracy of the data underpinning carbon markets to ensuring an inventory can stand up to scrutiny, skilled experts are fundamental to addressing the challenge of climate change,” said David Sigler, Managing Director of GHGMI. “We are excited to partner with The Registry, a program synonymous with high quality and integrity, to develop a class of competent professionals to reinforce rigorous reporting.”

Training courses commence on May 1, 2010, and interested parties can register online by going to ghginstitute.org and registering for the Organizational GHG Accounting course.  You may also pre-register for the Verification course, which requires successful completion of the Organizational GHG Accounting course.

About The Climate Registry

The Climate Registry is a non-profit organization that operates the only North American voluntary GHG registry. Governed by states, provinces, territories and tribes, The Climate Registry helps hundreds of public and private organizations measure, report and reduce their carbon emissions with integrity.

The Registry is partnered with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to administer the accreditation of Verification Bodies for The Registry’s Voluntary Reporting Program. The accreditation process is based on the internationally-recognized ISO 14065 standard. All Verification Bodies seeking to conduct verification activities for The Registry’s Voluntary Reporting Program must be accredited by this standard.  There are also provisions for accredited Verification Bodies to subcontract work to competent individuals.

For more information, please visit www.theclimateregistry.org.

About the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

The Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, a registered nonprofit organization, trains, certifies and networks a global community of experts that account, audit and manage GHG emissions based on world-class training and professional standards. The Institute’s membership includes individuals and organizations, from beginners to professionals, working on all aspects of climate change. Founded in 2007 through a partnership between ClimateCHECK, the GHG Experts Network and GoVida e-Learning, the Institute works with the World Resources Institute, the World Bank, the United Nations, the Carbon Disclosure Project, Point Carbon, Harvard University Extension School and a globally distinguished faculty on training and professional development programs utilizing innovative Internet tools to ensure that professionals will be available to support future market mechanisms and other policy responses to climate change.

For more information, please visit ghginstitute.org or email media@ghginstitute.org

###

This training course provides instruction related to the review of Annex I Parties’ greenhouse gas inventories.  The curriculum consists of online (e-learning) modules, followed by a training seminar and examination, taking place in Bonn, Germany, from 12 to 14 April 2010.

The following lessons are now offered as a part of this programme:

1. Improving Communications and Facilitating Consensus in Expert Review Teams
2. Overview of UNFCCC Review Process and General IPCC Inventory Guidance
3. Agriculture
4. Industrial Processes
5. Waste
6. Energy – Fugitive Emissions
7. Energy- Fuel Combustion
8. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
9. Application of Adjustments
10. Modalities for the Accounting of Assigned Amounts under Article 7.4
11. National Systems
12. Review of National Registries and Information on Assigned Amounts
13. Review of Activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Kyoto Protocol

These lessons are delivered online and involve over 100 people participants from around the world. For more information on this programme click here or contact the UNFCCC Secretariat at GHGTraining@unfccc.int.

The recent suspension of a leading CDM verification company has highlighted the need to ‘professionalise’ the auditors of greenhouse gas emissions, say Tim Stumhofer and Michael Gillenwater.

For the full story, please see the December 2009/January 2010 print edition of Environmental Finance:

http://www.environmental-finance.com/2009/0912dec/features.htm#nf3

December 14, 2009 11:41 p.m. EST – From CNN.com

(CNN) — Carbon trading — with its mix of free-market principles and government regulation — holds global appeal as a way for businesses to reduce emissions. But lack of a global market for carbon trade and questions over surveillance and accounting for pollution offsets raises questions about its viability.

The factors complicating accurate carbon-trading reportage begins with the “product” — in this case the absence of an invisible gas. Adding to the intangibility is the crediting of businesses for projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the article in its entirety - http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/14/carbon.trading.explainer/

LONDON, Nov 19 (Reuters) – An injection of U.S. talent into the $6.5 billion market in carbon offsets would help clear bureaucratic bottlenecks, making way for increased investment in clean energy, the CEO of a $310 million environmental fund said.Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an emissions trading scheme governed by the Kyoto Protocol climate change pact, companies can invest in low-carbon projects in emerging countries. In return they receive offsets that can be used towards greenhouse gas targets or sold for profit.

But long delays in approving projects and issuing offsets have forced many investors to the sidelines in the past year.

The U.S. decided not to ratify Kyoto in 2001 so its participation in the CDM has been minimal, even though the first emissions trading schemes were engineered by Americans.

“You basically have a global regulatory system staffed without the world’s most talented human resource pool, and it’s a big problem,” Assaad Razzouk, head of Sindicatum Carbon Capital, said this week.

“What the CDM needs is 20,000 products of the U.S. education system … You’ve got Europeans regulating a cap-and-trade system which was essentially invented by Americans.”

Razzouk said the United States, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China, is not represented according to its size as an emitter and as a global economic and regulatory force.

“The transfer of knowledge capital did not occur, and as a result the U.S. is not represented in this market according to their weight,” Razzouk added. “We will have a system that works much better when they are involved.”

Through a fund of $310 million, London-based Sindicatum has developed an investment portfolio of 20 projects, 80 percent of which are in Asia and the remainder in the United States.

The projects, some of which are CDM registered, capture greenhouse gases emitted by coal mines, landfills and livestock.

The fund profits both through offset sales as well as by selling power generated by the projects. It is now 85-90 percent committed, prompting Razzouk to consider Sindicatum’s next step.

He told Reuters it is considering four options: start a second fund, raise private equity capital, publicly list in the U.S. and/or Singapore, or simply continue reinvesting revenues.

Razzouk said a decision will be made in the new year, at which point the company will relocate its headquarters to Singapore and move its European office to Cyprus.

“We’ve got to take a long-term view. We have no footprint in Europe, most of our projects are in Asia and more than 80 percent of our investors are U.S. institutions,” he added.

COPENHAGEN

A U.N.-sponsored climate summit in Copenhagen next month is expected to address CDM reform by attempting to streamline processes, which could result in shorter delays.

It was hoped that the talks would agree a successor to Kyoto, which expires in 2012, but there is a growing consensus that only a political agreement will be reached in the Danish capital, postponing a full treaty until 2010 at the earliest.

Razzouk said expectations of a deal at the Copenhagen meeting had always been unrealistic.

“I don’t know what people were smoking. I think expectations were wrongly raised for politicians to save us, and I think people should know better,” Razzouk said.

“There are 190 governments trying to negotiate a single treaty. My bet is they’ll agree at midnight on Dec. 31, 2012.”

Razzouk said Copenhagen was irrelevant to his company, and that it would benefit from a number of possible outcomes.

“Unlike many other companies, we’re not sitting being anxious about what happens in Copenhagen. I don’t care what happens and we can’t afford to build a business that cares.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

UNITED NATIONS — As some 15,000 people gather in Copenhagen for a high-profile effort to create a follow-up treaty to the Kyoto Protocol agreement, some of the delegates will be absorbed in a more mundane, but important task. They must figure out how to reform of the Clean Development Mechanism, one of the protocol’s most visible and controversial parts.

But with so much emphasis placed on merely getting a new agreement, and with time carved out for high-level events, CDM watchers expect little in the way of progress to come out of the discussions.

“In terms of CDM reform, it’s mostly going to be on process side and Executive Board side,” said John Romankiewicz, an analyst at New Energy Finance. “We’re really not expecting major changes yet in the way CDM works.”

The managers of the Clean Development Mechanism, a group called the Executive Board, have been taking steps to improve and speed up the process, following requests issued from earlier meetings. But nations are now discussing the option to radically alter the very structure of the CDM after the Kyoto Protocol’s first compliance period ends in December 2012.

The biggest proposal on the table so far is to move away from the current project-by-project-based system to a more “sectoral” approach as touted by the European Union, setting up a system whereby emission offsetting is targeted at entire industrial sectors. Observers say E.U. officials are strongly pushing the idea on China, India, Brazil and other large developing nations — the hosts of the majority of CDM projects that industrial nations pay for as a cheaper way to achieve their emissions reductions.

The plan would give more substance to recent promises by India and China to reduce the “carbon intensity” of their economies as they become more energy efficient. Under the European Union’s proposal, nations would calculate what emissions from a certain industry would be under a business-as-usual scenario. The large developing states would be committed to keeping emissions under a certain level as their economies grow, but could earn CERs or other types of credits if industries perform even better than expected.

‘A radical rethinking’ under way

It’s a radical rethinking of the CDM that “would basically put all the weight on the host government,” Romankiewicz said. It would also take years to work out the details and would almost surely meet with resistance from those who are already critical of carbon offsetting.

If any reforms come out at all from this latest round of negotiations, they will likely be much more incremental than the creation of a sectoral CDM, experts say.

CDM reform efforts, now dragging on for years, are becoming increasingly bitter as the Executive Board gets more stringent in doling out millions of dollars’ worth of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), the United Nations’ official carbon offset credit. As investor frustration builds and developing nations grow fearful of the possible end of the CDM, what was once a quiet discussion on the sides of climate change talks is now turning into a virtual shouting match.

The issue of CDM reform was brought to the fore last week after it was announced that the Executive Board is rejecting 10 wind-power projects in China on the grounds that they violate the CDM’s “additionality” requirement, the controversial rule that offset projects must prove they wouldn’t have happened without the opportunity to earn CERs. It’s a decision that’s groundless, emissions trading experts say.

“I honestly do not understand it,” said Kim Carnahan, an official with the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) who is in Copenhagen this week to press for CDM reform. “I do not understand why you would disincentivize something that is obviously beneficial as wind power.”

Carnahan says that the rejection of the wind projects brings to light just how arbitrary and unpredictable Executive Board decisions are. Her criticism echoes numerous other complaints by CDM critics that the Executive Board seems to keep changing the rules as it goes. Project developers, this argument goes, have no recourse and can’t appeal rejections; meanwhile, the process is bogged down with applications easily taking a year or more to get through the system.

A Chinese puzzle

“As the Executive Board undertakes reforms to incorporate more objective, standardized criteria into additionality determinations, it will be possible to create a program that both ensures offset quality and is not overly burdensome or administratively complex,” conclude researchers with the Offset Quality Initiative (OQI), a coalition of six climate change organizations.

The China wind dispute is only the latest in a series of Executive Board decisions that have riled project developers and carbon traders. Observers note that in the past two years, the board has greatly increased the number of projects it pulls aside for review. The rate of rejections is also increasing as board members work to dispel concerns that illegitimate projects are being awarded lucrative carbon credits.

Last Friday, IETA issued a report heavily critical of the CDM as it is now run, detailing its concerns and recommendations on how to improve them. Citing an “enduring lack of predictability and consistency,” the trade group warned that would-be offset project investors are now pulling back in droves. The decision on Chinese wind will only fuel this trend unless reforms are immediately carried out, it said.

“We’re not kidding. Investors are pulling away, and they’re pulling away fast,” said Carnahan in an interview. “These messages that I’ve already gotten are stop investing in wind projects, and not just in China, either. It sends a negative message to all other countries that might be thinking about putting in a feed-in tariff.”

Shortly after launching its report, IETA issued a statement loudly condemning the Executive Board’s decision on Chinese wind producers. Board members say they have uncovered evidence that authorities in Beijing are deliberately adjusting the subsidies to wind projects to make sure to keep them eligible to receive CERs.

How do you define and enforce ‘additionality’?

The CDM office in Bonn, Germany, defended the board’s decision, insisting that it is limited to this particular case, as the projects owe their existence to Beijing’s feed-in tariffs for wind and not to CER revenue. The decision doesn’t effect other wind projects that may still be eligible, the office said.

“Projects must produce emission reductions that are additional to what would have occurred without the project,” CDM officials said in a note. “These so-called tariffs are revenue for the projects and, as such, factor in the financial viability of the projects, and thus the determination of additionality.”

Still, investors are demanding more transparency and clarity in CDM board decisions. Greater standardization of the process of project approval and rejection is also needed, and proponents of reform want the delegates in Copenhagen to finally allow carbon capture and storage projects. Traders also desperately want nations to set up an appeals process, independent of the Executive Board, and other strict guidelines to correct “a glaring neglect of administrative due process rules to ensure basic procedural fairness” that IETA and others see.

Michael Gillenwater, director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, believes that much of the problems that plague the CDM could be due to a simple lack of expertise. Carbon calculating, offset project decisions and emissions trading are all relatively new fields still being developed. Project design, auditing and approval could be enhanced and streamlined with just better training, he said, pointing to a need for some sort of professional accreditation procedure.

“The analogy would be passing the bar, the medical board, or becoming a CPA [certified public accountant],” said Gillenwater. “Professional certification is a very common format for industries throughout the economy … and as the carbon market grows, part of the problem is that we need a clear pathway for people to get into the field.”

But the way changes are now moving forward — at a snail’s pace — isn’t working for carbon traders. IETA wants delegates at Copenhagen to appoint a separate body that would meet year-round and devote itself exclusively to enhancing the program. Simply forwarding yet another set of recommendations to the Executive Board isn’t sufficient, it says.

“Last year, they had over 40 different things they asked the EB to do, and the EB is so busy doing their daily work that they get around to doing almost none of them,” said Carnahan. “This is the kind of process that’s been going on the past four years.”