This session, featuring a discussion on the Renewable Energy (RE) Readiness Report for GCC countries, was moderated by Scott Kennedy, Masdar Institute for Science and Technology. Panelists and participants engaged in a discussion on the GCC region’s RE landscape, the transition to RE in the oil-rich GCC region and the collaborative partnership under the EU-GCC Clean Energy Network.

Hamza Kazim, Masdar Institute for Science and Technology, highlighted the importance of the EU-GCC Clean Energy Network, and welcomed the RE Readiness Report for GCC countries. He said that the report was a key instrument to assist the governments and stakeholders in the region to fill the identified gaps.

Rabi Mohtar, Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI), spoke on the Institute’s work in education and research. He also drew attention to the Qatar National Research Strategy and Vision 2030, which both contain strong sustainable energy and development components. He said the Strategy takes into account a wide variety of concerns including food and water security, climate change mitigation, and energy and environmental management.

Arthur Runge-Metzeger, European Commission, informed participants of the global US$250 million investment in RE, an increase from US$120 million three years ago. He noted the increasing RE deployment in the EU through a number of strategies including feed-in tariffs. He called for a “turning point” at COP 18, specifically on technology cooperation.

Moderator Kennedy presented the “RE Readiness Report for GCC Countries,” noting the heterogeneity of the countries in the regions, particularly in the use of oil in electricity generation and the pace of deployment of RE technologies. He outlined the framework of the report, which measures each country’s readiness by assessing institutions, infrastructure and human capital capacities. He highlighted that the report found a need to develop strategic plans and reports on research and movements toward sustainable development in each GCC country.

John Psarras, Institute of Communications and Computer Systems, National Technical University of Athens (ICCS-NTUA), spoke on RE readiness to meet climate change challenges. He highlighted the work of the EU-GCC Clean Energy Network in this respect, and listed some of its core activities, including knowledge sharing, training, discussion groups on RE sources and carbon capture and storage, and publication of research articles.

Participants then discussed how to increase collaborative efforts within the GCC on clean energy research and sharing of best practices.

Moderated by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Executive Director, Tebtebba, participants at this session discussed ways to effectively influence the GCF Board to consider the specific needs of Indigenous Peoples.

Introducing the session, Moderator Tauli-Corpuz, noted that the GCF Board has been mandated to develop environmental and social safeguards that will be used to guide decisions on disbursement of funds from the GCF. She also highlighted the accountability section of the GCF Governing Instrument, which calls for the establishment of a redress mechanism, as well as an information disclosure system.

Mrinal Kanti Tripura, Executive Director, Maleya Foundation, Bangladesh, gave a brief overview of the first two meetings of the GCF Board. He informed participants that Indigenous Peoples are not differentiated from civil society at GCF Board meetings and have no speaking rights during formal sessions. He underscored that Indigenous Peoples need direct access to the GCF, and require that the Fund respect the principles of free and prior informed consent, and others contained in the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples.

Niranjali Amerasinghe, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), spoke on the nature of safeguards as contained in the GCF Governing Instrument, how they apply in different disbursement contexts, and consultation. On the environmental and social safeguards to be developed by the GCF and included in the GCF Governing Instrument, she proposed that these safeguards be principles-based, with additional operational text providing more definitive guidance to governments on how to comply with them. Suggesting that the GCF could channel funds through regional development banks, she stressed that the banks’ safeguard measures should be complementary to those of the GCF.

Kimaren ole Riamit, Executive Director, Indigenous Livelihood Enhancement Partners (ILEP), presented on a partnership project between his organization and Tebtebba that enhanced Indigenous Peoples capacity to deal with climate change impacts. He described the partnership’s facilitation of country visits for indigenous groups to share lessons and best practices, and noted that the partnership has promoted the diversification of livelihoods as a climate adaptation measure. Riamit informed participants that international meetings provide a platform for indigenous peoples to meet directly with government officials and thereby influence policy indirectly.

During discussions, some participants expressed concern about the lack of real participation of Indigenous Peoples in the GCF Board discussions, as they are not recognized as a separate constituency from civil society. Others noted that the GCF could be “hijacked” by private sector investment.

This event, moderated by Ed King, RTCC, examined the role, challenges and potential of social media in climate change negotiations.

Nathan Thanki, Earth In Brackets, Iain Keith, Avaaz Foundation, Heather Libby, TckTckTck.org, and Joshua Wiese, Adopt A Negotiator, introduced their organizations. Wiese noted the recent transformational changes in the Arab Spring through social media, highlighting the evolution of the Ushahidi platform and the Moveon.org campaign as harnessing innovative forms of media.

Keith highlighted two main roles of social media: supplementing the lack of attention to climate change by the mainstream media, and allowing people to directly influence the climate change negotiations by building a critical mass of support. Libby described the role of social media in fact checking reports by corporations.

One participant discussed use of Weibo in China, noting it is an alternative channel of information that is difficult for the government to control. Another said Twitter has changed the way communication is done, highlighting that it enables outreach to others beyond the “usual suspects.”

King noted the publication of fake British Petroleum and Shell websites. One participant said the fake websites stood out from other campaigns in their creativity. King wondered whether the media, who felt they had been conned by the fake sites, would be less likely to cover or respond positively to other actions in their wake.

Thanki said social media coverage of the UNFCCC climate negotiations is complicated as it is challenging to reduce the nuances of negotiations to 140 characters, a short blog post or video blog (v-blog). He noted that on occasion this results in immediate mass misinformation. Keith said campaigns should engage people with humor, issues that speak to people and issues of the moment, noting that messages should be “catchy, sticky and easily transportable.”

Kelly Rigg, TckTckTck.org, via Skype, said the best social media campaigns allow participants to actively engage in the real world, citing Greenpeace’s Green My Apple campaign. Wiese said that in response to being named “Fossil of the Day” on Tuesday, Turkey has already responded with a request to meet with non-governmental organizations, as the v-blog had been picked up by the international press.

Keith responded to a question posed by a participant via Twitter noting the potential for social media to create an ecosystem for discussion of how to move forward. Thanki said the best use of social media is shaping understanding of climate negotiation outcomes.

The panel on REDD+ stepwise progress in national forest monitoring, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), reference levels (RL), and assessing drivers of deforestation and degradation was chaired by Daniel Murdiyarso, CIFOR. Murdiyarso explained the session aimed to influence negotiations, not only address technical issues.

Presenting his country’s experiences on improving national forest monitoring, Ruandha Agung Sugardiman, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia, outlined the development of the Integrated National Forest Inventory. He called for sub-national implementation to follow and inform national approaches, pointing to the iterative process of data exchange across these levels as critical to improving national reporting and implementation.

Louis Verchot, CIFOR, explained that drivers of deforestation and degradation must be identified when designing REDD+ structures. He distinguished between proximate and underlying drivers, noting that economic growth is often an underlying driver. Pointing to several regional drivers of forest degradation, he stressed that each driver requires specific monitoring approaches. Verchot also noted that drivers of the “plus” of REDD+ are not well-understood, and challenged participants to identify drivers of sustainable forest practices.

Martin Herold, Wageningen University, discussed stepwise progress on REDD+ monitoring, explaining that countries can improve their RLs over time and adjust for national circumstances even when starting with uncertain data, if they engage on pathways to improve their data. Highlighting that national forest monitoring capacities vary, he said continuous and cyclic improvements are needed to encourage broad participation.

Arild Angelsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, introduced the idea of a Financial Incentive Benchmark (FIB) for REDD+, summarizing the findings elaborated in a CIFOR report called “Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and Choices.” He explained that FIBs address the political question of identifying the point at which countries should be compensated for reducing emissions. Discussing the relationship between the price of REDD credits and emissions, he addressed additionality, the “no-lose principle” or participation constraint, effectiveness, fair-sharing and uncertainty.

Maria Sanchez, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and Michael Bucki, European Commission, commented on the panelists’ presentations. Sanchez encouraged countries to ensure monitoring systems meet domestic needs, not only reporting requirements for international commitments like the UNFCCC. Bucki asked a series of questions, including whether degradation and restoration can be measured at reasonable cost and, conversely, whether we can afford not to measure it.

During discussions, participants considered: the relationship between and relative impacts of commercial and subsistence agriculture; marginal costs and neoclassical economics; the link between the establishment of RLs and the GHG inventory; and how to integrate socioeconomic circumstances into RL calculations.

Moderator Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid, asked panelists to address how equity and ambition can be integrated into the climate negotiations, to forge a fair and ambitious way forward.

Matthew Stilwell, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), said an equitable outcome should: limit global warming to safe levels; share the effort to address climate change fairly; and share the means of implementation equitably. He said the mitigation targets currently proposed by developed countries have a 40% chance of limiting warming to 2°C. Stilwell underscored developed countries have not kept their fast start finance promises. He said closing equity gaps is an essential deliverable for COP 18 and the climate process.

Harald Winkler, University of Cape Town, South Africa, said some countries would like to see the binary Annex I versus non-Annex I differentiation between countries disappear altogether, but in his view, it should become more nuanced and allow for graduation between the two Annexes, as allowed for in the UNFCCC.

Ambassador Andre Correa do Lago, Brazil, called on countries to use the next period of climate change action to stimulate cooperation, rather than justify inaction as they did in the first two phases. He also called for the climate negotiations to be linked to global discussions on poverty and sustainable consumption.  

Doreen Stabinsky, College of the Atlantic, US, highlighted several studies indicating a decline in food production due to global warming, even with adaptation action. She called for enhanced mitigation and adaptation action, and for the negotiations to consider compensation and rehabilitation in cases where loss and damage is not prevented.

Edward Cameron, World Resources Institute (WRI), said there are multiple approaches to equity, all of which are legitimate and contestable. He said equity is not only about sharing failure, but also about sharing success, and called for a focus on what a future low-carbon, prosperous society could look like. He said history is relevant in the context of unkept promises such as those on finance, but quoting Winston Churchill said “if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we risk losing the future.”

Tim Gore, Oxfam, addressed the role of civil society in the debate on equity. He called on civil society to conceptualize, clarify, coordinate, challenge and communicate. He agreed that using a single formula to define an equitable outcome may not be possible in the negotiations. Instead, he called for an “equity corridor,” where equity principles and objectives can be agreed.

In the discussion that followed, participants discussed: the importance of challenging assumptions that are not based on facts; intrastate equity and human rights; and equity and gender.  

IPCC Secretary Renate Christ introduced the side event, explaining panelists would present and discuss the findings of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN), published by the IPCC’s Working Group 3 in 2011.

Challenging the perception that IPCC reports are “doom and gloom,” Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, IPCC Vice-Chair, said this report focused on solutions to climate change. He outlined the structure and gave highlights from the report, noting it contains an introduction putting renewable energy (RE) in the context of climate change, six chapters on RE technologies and four integrative chapters.

John Christensen, UNEP Risø Centre, discussed the chapter on RE in the context of sustainable development, highlighting sections on poverty eradication and access, and on life-cycle assessments. Noting that energy availability alone does not create development, he stressed the need to focus on supporting the productive use of energy to secure the benefits of energy access.

Calling RE an important part of a mitigation portfolio, Ilkka Savolainen, VTT Technical Research Centre, Finland, discussed mitigation potential and costs of RE sources. He described an analysis of 164 scenarios in the report, highlighting the wide range of RE deployment possibilities. Looking ahead to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, he said it would include improvements in identifying salient factors that determine future RE deployment, but noted that given the uncertainties, future costs and performance improvements of RE and other mitigation options will remain unknown.

Referring to consultations held in Africa on the UN-led Sustainable Energy For All initiative and on the SRREN, Yacob Mulugetta, African Climate Policy Centre, UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), noted that opportunities and barriers to RE deployment vary across the region. He said the modular nature of RE technologies, especially for rural energy applications, brings development as well as climate benefits. He also noted that a number of African countries are deploying ambitious efforts, but cautioned that many have yet to overcome significant policy and institutional barriers.

Hugo Lucas, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), first introduced participants to IRENA, including its mandate to support the sustainable deployment of all RE resources. Stating that an energy transition is already underway, he called attention to IRENA’s activities to support education and training for RE development, including the IRENA Renewable Energy Learning Platform (IRELP), along with its efforts to become a global repository of knowledge on RE.

During discussions, participants asked panelists about: the challenges of intermittency and energy storage; the possibility for globally-funded feed-in tariffs; how to not only promote RE but also speed up the retirement of high CO2-emitting energy technologies; whether IRENA is working with multilateral development banks to change lending policies for energy projects; and gender dimensions of energy access and use.

Remco Fischer, UNEP Finance Initiative, moderated the discussion, which focused on the “who and how” of private finance mobilization. Fischer called on panelists to address: existing ambiguity on what private climate finance is; how private sector sources can connect with needs on the ground; and different approaches that the GCF Private Sector Facility (PSF) can use to mobilize finance where it is needed.

David Bresch, SwissRe, noted his company: diversifies risk; prices risk, making it bankable; and incentivizes forward-looking risk management approaches. He said by providing a price tag, the company makes risk more transparent.

Rosemary Bissett, National Australia Bank, said her bank had included climate change in its strategies because of the risks and opportunities that it presents. She said the experience of financial institutions in developed countries can play an important role in raising climate change finance, but cautioned the commercial finance sector will not participate in the market unless it is assured of a commercial return.  

Ichiro Meada, Federation of Electric Power Companies, Japan, said the GCF should focus on development, transfer and diffusion of technology to developing countries. He noted that overseas development assistance is preferable during early stages of technology transfer but called for switching to project financing as technology diffusion and economic development progress.

Armin Sandhoevel, Allianz Global Investors, said institutional funds, such as pension funds and life insurance, are of key interest in the context of climate change. He said a typical portfolio for a pension or life insurance fund includes 90% fixed income, government bonds or corporate bonds, 8% in stock markets and equity stock markets, and 2-3% as alternative assets, which could come into play for climate finance.

Norbert Gorissen, GCF Board Alternate Member, Germany, stressed that mobilizing the private sector is critical to address the gap between the available public sector funds and required investment. He noted that a risk reduction element could be a part of the PSF.

Fischer then asked panelists to discuss how private sector capital can potentially address mitigation or climate resilience. In response, Bresch said a public-private partnership was an essential element for two SwissRe projects in Ethiopia and the Caribbean, and the GCF could play a similar role in leveraging private sector finance. Bissett presented examples from Australia where public funds were used to leverage private sector finance to promote energy efficiency. Sandhoevel said reliability is the most important driver of investment as it reduces liability and risk.

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 State of Qatar. This issue has been written by Tallash Kantai, Kate Neville, Anna Schulz and Anju Sharma. The Digital Editor is Kate Harris. The Editor is Liz Willetts <liz@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Support for the publication of ENBOTS at the Doha Climate Change Conference - November 2012 has been provided by the State of Qatar. 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 Doha Climate Change Conference - November 2012 can be found on the Linkages website at http://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop18/enbots/. The ENBOTS Team at the Doha Climate Change Conference - November 2012 can be contacted by e-mail at <anna@iisd.org>.