John Drexhage, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), described Canada’s unique situation and sensitivities with regards to the post-2012 dialogue, detailing Canada’s high rates of population and economic growth compared to rest of the G8.

Deborah Murphy, IISD, introduced “A way forward: developing an effective Post-2012 climate regime,” which outlines five scenarios: daughter of Kyoto; back to UNFCCC; contraction and convergence; global tax; and anarchy reigns. She highlighted Canadian stakeholders’ rating of each scenario for addressing environmental integrity and economic development.

Christian Egenhofer, Centre for European Policy Studies, noted that while economic growth is flat within the EU as a group, some new member States have higher growth. He explained that the bubble scheme enables member States to share the collective mitigation burden and stressed the growing emissions from freight transport.

Hironori Hamanaka, Institute for Global Environment Strategies, related some challenges in reconciling economic growth and emissions mitigation in Asia, including: the low priority of reducing emissions; availability of low quality fossil fuels; growing middle class; and weak institutions. He also stressed the need for investment in research and development, flexibility of intellectual property rights and technology deployment.

Jiahua Pan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, underscored developing countries’ concerns, stressing that high economic growth is transitional. He advocated: increasing energy efficiency; using renewable energy; reducing deforestation; and ensuring the growing middle class does not follow the West’s high consumption patterns. He highlighted industrial relocation of high energy production to developing countries and the need to pay attention to non-climate policies. He suggested progressive taxation on per capita emissions above basic needs.

Matthew Bramley, The Pembina Institute, noted other considerations in allocating emission targets, including: the equity principle; per capita rights to emit; ability to pay; and historical responsibility. He said Canada’s recent position on post-2012 targets was “unhelpful and unfair” and stressed the need to acknowledge national differences.

Rob Bradley, World Resources Institute, outlined why the US will still account for major growth in emissions and called for a change to clean technologies in major economies.

Participants discussed: the contraction and convergence scenario; high energy intensity of oil production in Alberta’s tar sands; and the embedded emissions in China’s exports. They contrasted the US transport emissions with China’s industry intensive emissions.

Christian Egenhofer, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA), introduced key elements of the European Climate Platform’s paper “Low-carbon technologies in the post-Bali period: accelerating their development and deployment.”

Thomas Brewer, Georgetown University, emphasized the need to remove trade and investment barriers to transfers of climate-friendly technologies, and highlighted the growing importance of South-North and South-South technology transfer.

Robert Dixon, Executive Office of the President, USA, underscored the paper’s finding that domestic responses will be the backbone of an overall approach to climate change. He noted the supporting role of international cooperation and outlined progress in the Major Economies Process, led by the US.

Christopher Dodwell, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, argued that both “technology push” and “market pull” factors are needed to facilitate technology transfer. He suggested that different solutions are required for different technologies and levels of deployment.

Ichimura Tomoya, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan, introduced his country’s “Cool Earth 50” proposal to halve GHG emissions by 2050 through the identification of 20 innovative energy technologies and the formulation of “technology roadmaps” for them.

Jean-Yves Caneill, Electricité de France, provided examples in which capacity building and appropriate institutional frameworks can facilitate technology transfer to developing countries.

Participants discussed: underinvestment in infrastructure to support primary technologies; opportunities for bundling UNFCCC initiatives on technology; and domestic policies as barriers to technology transfer.

Angie Dazé, Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) Canada, observed that adaptation is now recognized as a fundamental component in the response to climate change and requires action at multiple levels. She highlighted that vulnerable communities are not involved in the adaptation process.

Kate Raworth, Oxfam, outlined four types and levels of adaptation: infrastructure reinforcement; integration in national planning; research and technology; and community-based planning. She presented Oxfam’s indices to determine which countries are most responsible and capable of providing financing for adaptation.

Kit Vaughn, World Wide Fund for Nature, observed the links between poverty, environment and climate change. He described the current funding for adaptation under the UNFCCC and highlighted that the Adaptation Fund should not be considered as part of Official Development Assistance.

Charles Ehrhart, CARE International, highlighted the need for: results-orientated principles; guidelines and support; and appropriate international frameworks and institutions.

Participants discussed: mechanisms that should be included in a post-2012 framework to ensure sufficient funds for adaptation; the development and implementation of governance principles for the Adaptation Fund; and factors for ensuring effective delivery of adaptation funding to the most vulnerable people. They also addressed: timing and scales; difficulties in accessing existing resources; and links between risk reduction and adaptation.

Hironori Hamanaka, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), explained that IGES has been carrying out a stakeholder consultation since 2005 aimed to promote constructive thinking in the Asia Pacific region and contribute to the post-2012 regime.

Ancha Srinivasan, IGES, outlined the results of the IGES stakeholder consultation, highlighting that it had identified shared interests across Asia, including the need to: streamline market mechanisms; facilitate technology development and transfer; increase the focus on adaptation; and consider climate change in a development context.

John Drexhage, IISD, underscored that financing and investment are the most critical components of the future climate regime in order to get China and India on board.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, highlighted some conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report, such as irreversible sea level rise and the threat of water scarcity, which could lead to conflict and major displacements.

Akio Morishima, Japan Climate Policy Center, noted that Japan possesses highly energy efficient technology and is willing to build capacity in developing countries.

Noting the role of forest exploitation in poverty eradication, Masnellyarti Hilman, Ministry of the Environment, Indonesia, called for compensation of avoided deforestation.

Toshiro Kojima, Vice-Minister, Japan, listed the outcomes from the ECO Asia Summit, held in September 2007 in Japan, including a call for a low carbon society and co-benefits approaches.

Participants discussed: “green jobs;” energy security and its link to climate change mitigation; the need for a bottom-up approach; and regional cooperation in Asia.

Sarah La Trobe, Tearfund, presented the recommendations of the Working Group on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction, including that: adaptation be a pillar of any post-2012 agreement; disaster risk reduction and climate risk management be core elements of adaptation; mechanisms for funding adaptation and disaster risk reduction be established; and immediate action be taken to implement risk reduction measures between 2008-2012.

In the ensuing discussion, participants were generally supportive of the recommendations, but emphasized: the need to be more specific, action-oriented and proactive; the importance of NGOs in the process; and the need to scale-up efforts. There was a consensus that many development activities that fall under “adaptation” have been employed for a long time, and that existing efforts must be recognized and built upon.

Reid Basher, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), moderated a discussion between representatives from members of the Working Group involved in creating linkages between disaster risk reduction and adaptation, including: Ibrahim Thiaw, UNEP; Bo Lim and Cecilia Ugaz, UNDP; Silvia Llosa, UNISDR; Kris Ebi, WHO; Amir Delju, WMO; John Harding, World Bank; Madeleen Helmer, Red Cross; Antonio Hilber, Oxfam International; Adotei Akwei, CARE International; Tom Mitchell, Institute of Development Studies; Marcus Moench, Institute for Social and Environmental Transition; and Paula Clifford, Christian Aid.

Björn Stigson, Centre for European Policy Studies taskforce, introduced their interim report “Testing global sectoral industry approaches to address climate change,” outlining reasons for increased interest in these approaches.

Rick Bradley, International Energy Agency, stressed that a successful sectoral approach must be fair and equitable, as well as environmentally and cost effective, and urged questioning how it might fit into long-term carbon management strategies and over what timeframe.

Christian Egenhofer, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, said the role of sectoral approaches post-2012 will depend on their ability to: address practicalities, including data collection and verification; provide incentives to developing countries; and meet governance challenges.

Patrick Verhagen, Holcim, emphasized that a sectoral approach is a transitional step towards a global agreement.

Hombu Kazuhiko, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Japan, presented on the Asia-Pacific Partnership, which is building energy technology cooperation in eight sectors to cope with: increasing energy needs; energy security; and climate change.

Jiahua Pan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, highlighted factors to consider for a successful sectoral approach, including the need to: recognize different economic structures of countries at different stages of development; consider a restructuring of the world economy; and address barriers, including lack of physical and institutional infrastructures.

Participants discussed: technology transfer versus cooperation; targeting domestic versus international sectors; and the lack of international fora in which to develop strong industry-government cooperation.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, presented on aspects of the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report relevant to China. He noted that climate change is likely to compound existing water stresses and lead to extreme precipitation events and coastal vulnerability. He said local-level benefits and increased energy security from decreased consumption will determine China’s actions towards reducing emissions.

Su Wei, National Leading Group on Climate Change, China, described his country’s new climate change strategy, noting that carbon intensity per unit GDP is declining. He outlined sector-specific strategies to reduce emissions and highlighted the emissions savings created by China’s strict population controls.

Lu Xuedu, CDM Executive Board, emphasized that technological research and development is key to China’s climate change strategy. He noted that consumption levels in China remain far below those of developed countries.

Khalid Malik, UNDP, highlighted the work of the China Climate Change Partnership Network, which involves collaboration between nine UN agencies to encourage Chinese development along a low-carbon pathway. He described the Partnership’s activities, including: support and capacity building; technology transfer; and greening of investments.

Thomas Heller, Stanford University, emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach to addressing climate change in China, based on a firm grasp of the Chinese context, noting that engaging with a rapidly expanding economy requires flexibility. He stressed the importance of partnerships and working with governments at the local level.

Participants discussed: prioritizing the issue of climate change while addressing more pressing concerns such as water quality and quantity; the role of Hong Kong; and China’s willingness to accept emission reduction targets.

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin on the side (ENBOTS) © <enb@iisd.org> is a special publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This issue has been written by Alice Bisiaux, Suzanne Carter, Alexandra Conliffe and Peter Wood. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Soledad Aguilar <soledad@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for the publication of ENBOTS at the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali is provided by UNDP and UNEP. The opinions expressed in ENBOTS are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and funders. Excerpts from ENBOTS may be used in non-commercial publications only with appropriate academic citation. For permission to use this material in commercial publications, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>. Electronic versions of issues of ENBOTS from the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali can be found on the Linkages website at <http://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop13/enbots/>. The ENBOTS Team at the United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali can be contacted by e-mail at <alice@iisd.org>.