TYPICAL JI PROJECTS IN UKRAINE: THREE CASE STUDIES

The document examines the Ukrainian Joint Implementation (JI) portfolio as of December 2007, which included 19 projects expected to reduce emissions by 49.8Mt of CO2e. Through three case studies—the Podilsky cement plant, the ISTIL steel mill, and the Zasyadko coal mine—the paper explores how these projects were financed, their lead-times (ranging from 2.5 to 5 years), and the specific institutional and technical hurdles they faced. It highlights that while the Ukrainian approval system is functional, the window for industrial JI projects is closing due to the post-2012 deadline of the first Kyoto commitment period.

• As of December 2007, Ukraine hosted 19 JI projects with a total projected emission reduction of 49.8Mt of CO2e, with coal mine methane (51%) and industrial energy saving/efficiency (40%) being the dominant project types.
• The Podilsky cement plant project, which switches from a wet to a dry production process to reduce energy consumption by 53%, was implemented as an internal corporate project by the Irish company CRH and is expected to reduce emissions by approximately 3 Mt.
• The ISTIL mini-steel mill project focused on four energy efficiency improvements and is projected to reduce emissions by 350,750 t CO2e; it was largely funded by a €66.6 million loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
• The Zasyadko coal mine project utilizes collected methane to produce electricity, heat, and fuel, with projected emission reductions of 10.7 Mt during the first commitment period and an internal investment of €40 million.
• Project lead-times in Ukraine varied significantly between 2.5 and 5 years, creating a risk that new projects may not generate emission reductions before the end of the first commitment period.
• Different barriers were identified across the cases: the Podilsky project faced a lack of existing JISC and Ukrainian approval systems at its start; the ISTIL project encountered technical complexity and data gaps for the electricity baseline; and the Zasyadko project was hindered by a lack of national legislation on the ownership and transfer of ERUs.

APA

Korppoo, A. (2008). TYPICAL JI PROJECTS IN UKRAINE: THREE CASE STUDIES. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ua-case-study-final.pdf

Chicago

Korppoo, Anna. TYPICAL JI PROJECTS IN UKRAINE: THREE CASE STUDIES. Climate Strategies, 2008. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ua-case-study-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Korppoo |first1=Anna |title=TYPICAL JI PROJECTS IN UKRAINE: THREE CASE STUDIES |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=1 January 2008 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ua-case-study-final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{korppoo2008typical, author = {Korppoo, Anna}, title = {{TYPICAL JI PROJECTS IN UKRAINE: THREE CASE STUDIES}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2008}, month = jan, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ua-case-study-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }