Richard Muyungi, Division of Environment, Tanzania, underscored that the CDM is a market-driven process, stressed the importance of information flow, and stated that having a designated national authority (DNA) is a basic requirement.

Steve Thorne, SouthSouthNorth, shared his experience in developing and registering CDM projects, emphasizing transparency in the development of quality projects with local ownership.

Bernhard Schlamadinger, Joanneum Research, addressed non-renewable biomass, stating that currently afforestation and reforestation are the only land-use activities eligible for CDM credits, and that there is little room for Africa to gain credits from reducing fossil fuel consumption.

William Greene, Africa Practice, discussed their actions to promote responsible foreign direct investment, including a guide for Carbon Finance for Africa, and noted the need to streamline CDM modalities.

Emily Massawa, Africa Group, stated that the CDM Executive Board’s decision to exclude non-renewable biomass will make it difficult for Africa to benefit from the CDM.

Discussion: participants discussed the potential for regional DNAs, and ways to address the lack of CDM projects in Africa.

Aderito Santana, National Focal Point, Sao Tome and Principe, reviewed efforts to identify vulnerable sectors and analyze adaptation possibilities. He outlined common challenges encountered, such as lack of data, national experts, training materials in appropriate languages and coordination.

Taka Hiraishi, IPCC, described the coordinating and harmonizing role of workshops and an ongoing analysis of 41 out of 127 national communications completed to date.

Dominique Revet, UNFCCC, described improvements in GHG inventory software for non Annex I (NAI) countries and identified software training sources.

Martha Perdomo, National Communications Support Programme, described the support available for preparation of national communications, which includes: priority setting; methods and tools; dissemination; capacity development; integration into national development plans; and a training workshop for second national communications. She identified a number of UNDP, World Bank, and USAID regional support projects.

Susan Wickwire, US, and Mathew Holder, UK, described their support for national communications.

Discussion: participants focused on funding gaps for particular issues such as cost-benefit analysis and the translation of materials.

Andrea Asch, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, described ways in which the company is aiming at reducing its emissions by 10% by 2007 such as improving plant efficiencies, evaluating new technology, and carbon offsetting. Asch said there was a five year return on investment for new projects.

Sven Bode, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, said the midterm potential in terms of market share for CERs/VERs from small sustainable projects is limited.

Einar Telnes, Det Norske Veritas, described the ways in which small projects could have high sustainability benefits, including allowing for large scale bundling with small scale methodologies and building understanding among regulators that non-renewable biomass projects should be treated as fuel switch and not as LULUCF.

Agus Sari, SouthSouthNorth, stressed that for CDM to be sustainable it has to be well designed, implemented and evaluated.

Christina Woerlen, GEF, highlighted that although bio-fuel holds potential, projects should be scrutinized to ensure they yield positive results.

Jan Kappen, UNEP, discussed environmental due diligence for bio-energy systems and risk assessment.

Michael Schlup highlighted the benefits of using “The Gold Standard”, an NGO approach to assessing sustainable development benefits of CDM projects.

Discussion: participants discussed the need for the financial sector to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with investing in bio-energy.

They discussed various parameters linked to the accuracy and reliability of results obtained, including the use of expansion factors, root-shoot ratios, and data quality.

Discussion focused on the definition of “forest” used in the assessment, and how deforestation figures translate to GHG emissions.

Ned Helme, CCAP, described features of this “Sectoral Pledge Approach”, being proposed as a post 2012 option, including sector-specific voluntary commitments to achieve intensity targets in major energy and industry sectors. He stated that if the top ten largest GHG emitting developing countries in each sector were included, 80 to 90% of developing country emissions would be addressed.

Adrian Fernandes, Mexico, said this voluntary approach should appeal to developing countries and that determining the sectoral benchmarks necessary to qualify for G-8 financing would be a challenge.

Artur Runge-Metzger, EU, said the EU could achieve 20% reductions at no net cost since savings would equal cost of needed changes. He said the “top 10” approach is interesting but raises problems of equity.