Ivona Grozeva, Ministry of Environment, Bulgaria, noted that EU ETS is limiting the scope for JI, and expressed the hope that Bulgaria will be ready for track 1 by the end of 2006.

Jozsef Feiler, Ministry of Environment and Water, Hungary, highlighted criteria for project approval, including environmental, financial, and legal additionality, and said Hungary is moving towards green investment schemes.

Vladimir Maximov, Ministry of Economic Development and Commerce, said national procedures for JI are being considered by federal agencies to ensure the prompt start of JI projects under current Russian legislation.

Maurits Henkemans, Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands, suggested that the JI supervisory committee (SC) gives certainty to investors in JI and urged Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries to work together.

Daniel Caya, Climate Simulations, outlined how climate models can be used for undertaking impact and adaptation studies at a regional scale. He explained that a climate scenario is chosen before obtaining information from the global climate model to prepare a climate forecast by the regional climate model (RCM). He indicated that the RCM can be applied to hydrological studies at the watershed scale.

Rene Roy, Water Resources Coordinator, Ouranos, provided the perspective of a hydroelectric company, an end user of the RCM developed by Ouranos for conducting impact analysis and formulating adaptation strategies.

Richard Hosier, GEF, noted that the RAF will make resource allocation more predictable and transparent.

Ramesh Ramankutty, GEF, said the RAF links country grants in each focal area to the country’s potential to generate global environmental benefits and their capacity to deliver them, which can be measured through a Benefits Index and a Performance Index, respectively.

Ravi Sharma, GEF, presented an overview of GEF’s current capacity building efforts that aim to build country ownership of GEF projects and a stronger country program focus. He stated that capacity building would include support to: GEF focal points; preparation of national adaptation programs for action; and preparation of national capacity self-assessments.

Ángel Parra, Guyra Paraguay, stressed that in the absence of economic alternatives provided under the CDM or otherwise, the remaining 7% of Paraguay’s original forest cover and associated biodiversity will be lost to agriculture and cattle ranching.

Stewart Elgie, University of Ottawa, showed how forest management could either benefit or harm carbon sequestration efforts, and stressed the need for protected areas and decreased harvesting. He said Canada represents a globally significant test case of whether forest management can align incentives for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation, and that this may facilitate future payment for other ecological services.

Discussion: participants discussed the utility and ethics of commodifying natural functions and biodiversity, and considered whether carbon incentives may place additional pressures on forests.