Coverage of Selected Side Events at the
Lima Climate Change Conference - December 2014

This event, moderated by Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid, addressed some challenges around the scope and operationalization of equity approaches for the assessment and review of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

Tom Athanasiou, Co-Chair, CAN International Equity and Effort Sharing Working Group, and Siddharth Patak, CAN International, provided an overview of the proposed equity reference framework. Noting that the point of departure is that “the INDCs are going to fall far short,” Athanasiou proposed five high-level equity indicators to support a more ambitious and viable climate regime: adequacy, historical responsibility, capability, development need, and adaptation need.

Discussing why developing countries should support the proposed framework, Patak stressed that the absence of proper, science-based assessments will result in self-differentiation and a “pledge and chat” regime that will severely curtail countries’ development options, and will not hold wealthy countries responsible for “doing their fare share” of the transition effort. He said the proposed science-based equity review can help to stabilize the climate system and minimize the developmental differences between countries, while transitioning to a low-carbon and resilient society.

Noting it will not be easy, Athanasiou called for COP20 to close the 2020 ambition gap, primarily by Annex I countries, allow for a two-tiered approach combining mitigation and adaptation efforts, and agree text to safeguard future reviews of INDCs as part of the Paris agreement.

Three negotiators then provided responses to the proposals. Xolisa Ngwadla, South Africa, echoed concerns around self-differentiation in the INDC process, noting the need to include clear mitigation INDCs from Annex I parties, and to recognize aggregate assessments by developing countries. He highlighted an African Group proposal on a principle-based equity assessment, noting it could help close the “means of implementation gap.”

Vicente Yu, the Philippines, speaking in an individual capacity, called for recognition of the “explicit objective” at the heart of the equity discussion, describing this as the need to find compatible ways for bridging the development gap while reducing emissions growth. Discussing approaches to operationalize equity reviews, he noted that a priori conditions or benchmarks based on the Convention could be more palatable to parties.

Everton Frask Lucero, Brazil, called for a more structured debate that recognizes there is already a climate regime in place and that 2015 will not be the one and only opportunity to “kill the beast” but to adopt a strong agreement that can stand the test of time. While welcoming the focus on sustainable development, he questioned the feasibility of agreeing on an equity review framework “in a climate where some governments are questioning whether the outcome of the ADP should be legally binding.” He highlighted Brazil’s alternative proposal for “concentric differentiation” to recognize the mitigation efforts already underway in many developing countries, noting it could help leverage additional investments.

During discussions, participants highlighted the need to, inter alia: promote intergenerational equity; balance top-down and bottom-up approaches in implementation; and further explore the way forward for ex ante reviews.

Participants at this event, moderated by Patrick Wylie, IUCN, considered the TFD Review of Country Options for REDD+ Benefit-Sharing, hearing lessons from stakeholders, and discussing the opportunities for, and challenges to REDD+ benefit sharing. Gary Dunning, Executive Director, TFD, opened the event, describing the work of the Dialogue, noting that it is a multi-stakeholder engagement that encourages solution-based discussions on forest conservation in areas of high deforestation and degradation risk.

Underscoring that benefits from REDD+ are not just environmental, Iwan Wibisono, REDD+ Agency, Indonesia, highlighted sustainable forest management and increasing economic productivity as additional REDD+ benefits. He urged defining the REDD+ beneficiaries as well as the benefits to be shared. Wibisono described land leasing to forest communities in his country, highlighting this as a lesson in co-managing forests with interested stakeholders, including the private sector. 

Sharing that in some places REDD+ implementation is discussed in contexts where forest communities have not been granted rights, Percy Summers, Conservation International, described the process of negotiating conservation agreements with communities in the Peruvian Amazon. He highlighted the main challenges of these negotiations, particularly in managing to strike a balance between not creating a precedent of issuing land titles to communities living in forest protected areas, and assisting them to thrive in the forest while still conserving the environment. 

Christopher Meyer, Environment Defense Fund, urged a broader definition of the private sector in discussions of benefit sharing, noting the importance of local forest enterprises and individual actors. He called for an expanded scope when defining the intangible benefits of REDD+. Meyer highlighted additional benefits of REDD+ including conflict resolution and land titling, drawing attention to the role of the private sector in causing some land disputes.
 
Noting the political will for REDD+ implementation and achieving net-zero deforestation by 2020, Leticia Gutierrez Lorandi, The Nature Conservancy, Mexico, highlighted the country's vision to promote rural sustainable development through integrated landscapes management. She emphasized the need for national safeguard systems, the requisite policy, legal frameworks and financial architecture, and benefit-sharing mechanisms to be embedded in the planning processes. 

Participants then discussed, inter alia, threats to REDD+ implementation including economic development activities in rural areas which involve deforestation; incentivizing forest communities to sign conservation agreements; scaling up REDD+ from pilot projects to national level implementation; and providing alternative livelihood activities to forest communities.

This event, coordinated by Nadia Maïzi, MINES ParisTech, focused on the design of climate-friendly strategies for cities to address climate change vulnerability and promote sustainability. Presenters introduced concrete initiatives, including from academia, local authorities and industry.

On the technological tools to visualize a climate-impacted future, Maïzi emphasized the importance of having scenarios that do not solely rely on prediction, but also on identifying solutions. She stressed the need to develop environmental goals through involving the different sectors of society, including industry, local governance systems and research.

Edi Assoumou, MINES ParisTech, presented on simulating alternative 2050 urban energy strategies, using the city of Bologna as a case study. On the available modeling tools, he identified analytical and numerical models, and called for: an emphasis on transport network analyses; integration of local renewables; and detailed building models. On exploring potential 2050-pathways, he proposed simulating long-term strategies, including through: energy consumption mapping; driving useful energy needs to address future energy service levels; and anticipating technological changes and altered external choices. On the potential range that the research explored, he noted: combining multiple dimensions; the scale of population uncertainty at the urban level by 2050; and achievable mitigation thresholds.

Vincent Mazauric, Schneider Electric, presented on the role of energy management in empowering “wiser” cities. He noted that global energy consumption will double in the next 40 years and electricity consumption will double in the next 20 years, but said that in new economies driven by urbanization, this will occur in just a decade. On the essential steps to addressing these challenges, he urged: constructing flexible buildings that can adapt to an uncertain future; introducing the holistic view of the district; and moving towards an energy-positive district through rebalancing its energy mix.

This side event, moderated by Gabriel Blanco, UNFCCC Chair of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), showcased the accomplishments of the TEC and the CTCN in fulfilling their mandates and facilitating the implementation of the Technology Mechanism. The Technology Mechanism was established by the UNFCCC COP in 2010 to facilitate the implementation of enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation.

Blanco introduced the Technology Mechanism, its mandate and its components, noting that it is fully operational and responds to parties’ needs in technology development and transfer both at the policy and implementation level.

Griffin Thompson, Former Chair of the Advisory Board of the CTCN, highlighted the doubling of activities in the new work programme, the approved budget for technical assistance for developing countries’ capacity building, and the role of National Designating Entities (NDEs) to ensure full engagement of all stakeholders.

Blanco then provided insights on the work of the TEC, including its rolling workplan for 2014-2015, its joint annual report to COP20, key messages on Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs), enabling environments and barriers, technology development for adaptation and mitigation, collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and recommendations to COP on linkages between the technological and the financial mechanisms.

Presenting on CTCN’s mandate and core services, Jukka Uosukainen, CTCN Director, underscored, inter alia: the structure of CTCN and the fact that it is country-driven; that knowledge in the North needs to be adapted to conditions in the South rendering North-South and South-South cooperation essential; the role of NDEs in submitting requests to the CTCN; efforts to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to identify technology options, make choices and operate, and maintain and adapt technology; and the role of the climate technology network.

Asher Lessels, UNFCCC Secretariat, presented the UNFCCC’s technology information clearing house, called “ttclear,” providing an overview of the platform and its main elements.

Karina Larsen, CTCN Knowledge and Communications Manager, presented the CTCN portal as its knowledge management system, introduced its main sections and functions, and invited feedback via extensive testing by intended users.

In the ensuing discussion, participants from numerous countries including Chile, Ecuador, Mali, Japan, Bhutan and Kenya talked about their experiences in collaborating with the CTCN. Participants also posed questions regarding, inter alia: the process of submitting requests to CTCN and the role of NDEs; characteristics of successful projects; and deadlines for applications.

This side event, moderated by Gareth Phillips, Project Developer Forum, discussed the role of innovative models to support clean energy technologies and their international replicability, including in the context of shaping INDCs. Presentations included insights regarding the Swiss National Clean Technology Fund for promoting innovative technologies, a private-sector support model in Taiwan and institutional examples from Eastern Africa.

Axel Michaelowa, ClimateNet, compared the effectiveness of regulatory, fiscal and market mechanisms to stimulate technology development. He stressed, inter alia, that: technology-support policies by governments have a long history of failure with only a few successes; successful technology development becomes more likely under crises and other external pressures; incentives need to have a long-term stability to mobilize technology development; the Emissions Trading System (ETS) has facilitated technology diffusion but not innovation; and stable carbon taxes have promoted technology development.

Patrick Bürgi, South Pole Carbon, discussed the Swiss Technology Fund, which was created by the government to promote innovative technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption, and support the use of renewable energy and increase energy efficiency. Bürgi noted that: the Fund adds to economic growth while contributing to climate change mitigation; the loan-guarantee mechanism can leverage significant investments in new technologies with limited public spending; bottom-up and open application processes establish a level playing field among projects; and the promotion of the Fund and the quality of the loan-guarantee approval process are key factors for the Fund’s success.

Stephan Hoch, Perspectives, provided insights on the SREP, focusing on two case studies in Ethiopia and Kenya that constitute pilot countries for the study. He stressed, inter alia: the need for a diversified portfolio of activities, well-aligned with country needs and government strategies; that trade-offs between performance indicators undermine consistency and transparency of mitigation impact; and that SREP does not cover key elements for Green Climate Fund (GCF) readiness and UNFCCC negotiations.

Presenting on the Taiwanese private sector incubation mechanism, Chen-An Lien, Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), focused on: green technology applications from ITRI, current climate finance flows, and a mechanism to bridge the GCF, the Adaptation Fund, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and developing countries, using ITRI as an example of an incubator.

During discussions, participants addressed, inter alia: cut-off points where an innovation technology is considered too risky; technology risks in relation to implementation risks; the replication potential of the Swiss Fund; and the fact that different instruments may be optimal for different types of technologies.

This event was moderated by Nafisa Goga D'Souza, Convenor, Indian Network on Ethics and Climate Change

Raman Mehta, Vasudha Foundation, presented a study of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India, noting the country has been the second largest beneficiary of CDM projects after China, with a total of 2,857 approved projects by the National CDM Authority by mid-2012. Among the key findings, he noted that in most cases, the stated sustainable development benefits of CDM projects have not been realized, with insignificant impact on indicators such as poverty and employment.

Ajita Tiwari, INECC, highlighted grassroots perspectives on linking community concerns with national policy advocacy. She noted that making a meaningful transition to sustainability in the current CDM environment requires plugging existing domestic policy gaps, notably the exemption of large renewable energy projects from environmental impact assessment requirements, and ensuring effective, efficient and equitable use of energy subsidies. She called for a focus on off-grid solutions and strengthening local research and capacity development.

Eva Filzmoser, Director, Carbon Market Watch, noted that while the CDM benefit tracker is designed to ensure greater sustainable development impacts from projects, it is undermined by the focus on voluntary reporting with no provisions for stakeholder engagement, monitoring and third-party verification. She called for the UNFCCC COP to approve a coherent framework for promoting public participation by enforcing existing “good rules,” in addition to creating new ones.

Siddharth D'Souza, Laya Resource Center, discussed a Verified Emission Reduction (VER) carbon project in a remote region of Andhra Pradesh that is experimenting with market approaches to replace inefficient woodstoves among 4,000 poor households.  He noted it is the first such project to be registered internationally. Among lessons learned, he highlighted the need to incentivize carbon projects for the poor by facilitating the use of efficient, environmentally friendly technologies for their direct use, simplifying and reducing the costs of registration and validation of such projects, and ensuring profit sharing with the community.

During discussions, participants highlighted the need to address accountability of the corporate sector to local communities, and to create alternative frameworks for small-scale CDM projects.

Paul Desanker, UNFCCC Secretariat, lauded the work of the LEG, and noted that it has grown to involve regional banks, multilateral organizations and other conventions in order to carry out more successful National Action Plans (NAPs) and National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) projects.

Moderating the session, Batu Krishna Uprety, Chair of the LEG, gave an overview of the LEG programme, including conducting the first regional workshop on NAPs in the Pacific LDCs, and highlighted an information paper on the gaps and needs in the formulation of NAPs. He noted that the LEG has interacted with the GEF to enhance implementation of NAPAs, noting the dearth of funding for this area.

Ram Prasad Lamsal, Chair, Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group, noted that with the growing frequency of adverse climate-change events, more needs to be done to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of people living in LDCs. Lamenting that LDCs are lagging behind in implementing the NAPAs, he called for donor countries to provide the requisite US$5 billion for successful implementation. He stressed that at COP20, the LDC Group will prioritise the replenishment of the LDC Fund (LDCF).

Rawleston Moore, GEF, presented on the LDCF support towards NAPAs and NAPs, highlighting the most recent pledge totals US$936 million. He noted that funds for NAPAs are allocated to agriculture, climate information services, disaster risk reduction, coastal zone management, and water and natural resource management. Moore lauded LDCs for including gender elements in their projects, and highlighted the participatory and multi-stakeholder nature of these projects.
 
Rohini Kohli, UNDP-GEF/National Adaptation Global Support Programme (NAP-GSP), noted the Programme’s main goal is strengthening institutional capacity by providing technical assistance for iterative development of comprehensive NAPs. She outlined the activities of the Programme, including regional training workshops and country support missions to support LDCs in NAP-roadmap development. She underscored lessons learned, including the importance of partnerships to provide optimal support, and the need to move from planning to implementation.

Alpha Jallow, the Gambia, shared his country’s experience in the NAP and NAPA processes, calling for support from the NAP-GSP and others to ensure smooth implementation. He explicitly stressed the need for technical and financial support for NAPA workshops; stock-taking exercises and gap analyses, and the accreditation process for the Green Climate Fund.

In the discussion, participants called for concrete examples of GEF support to farming communities to address the impacts of climate change; and on use of funds for public awareness. They also discussed key challenges of the GSP, including gap identification.