Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Secretariat, underscored the ongoing constructive dialogue on fast-start finance, noting lessons learned and introducing the “Fast-Start Finance Information Document” (FCCC/CP/2013/INF.1).

Moderator Herman Sips, the Netherlands, welcomed participants, saying there is growing experience and understanding of fast-start finance and asked panelists to share their experiences.

Dan McDougall, Canada, highlighted, inter alia, the: increased development of innovative and effective financing instruments to target country and investor needs; presence of a growing pipeline of bankable projects to attract investment; and strong support for transformational projects.

Stefan Agne, European Commission, discussed allocation of EU fast-start finance. He stressed the importance of: country leadership; coordination; financial institutions and the private sector’s role in scaling up climate finance; and coherent reporting.

Anna Pála Sverrisdóttir, Iceland, noted that climate has been a cross-cutting aspect in most of Iceland’s Official Development Assistance (ODA). She said the funding primarily focused on the most vulnerable countries and addressing gender aspects of climate change.

Hiroshi Minami, Japan, highlighted the US$13.5 billion provided from 2010-2012. He stressed that only 16% of funding went to assist vulnerable countries, noting the need to mobilize public funding to vulnerable countries and provide capacity building.

Sven Braden, Liechtenstein, noted their contribution to fast start-finance accounts for amount of emissions, financial capacity and population size. He emphasized further involvement of the private sector, and new and innovative funding sources.

Jo Tyndall, New Zealand, proposed a non-binding Warsaw Partnership for Effective Climate Finance that would: encourage and support countries to set their own strategies; align behind these priorities; deliver in coordinated ways; enable outcomes to be measured, reported and verified (MRV); and not displace private-sector investment.

Aslak Brun, Norway, noted that Norway provided US$2.3 billion, calling for uniform and comparable reporting. He emphasized that scale creates buy-in and increases political will, and transformational change requires a long-term perspective. He underscored Norway’s ongoing commitment to continuing financing for REDD+ activities.

Franz Perrez, Switzerland, said they contributed US$150 million. He highlighted the utility of a fair burden-sharing formula, and the importance of: mobilization of other sources of financing for climate change; responsiveness to developing countries' priorities; and increased clarity about action and the effectiveness of finance in recipient countries.

Trigg Talley, US, said the US provided US$7.4 billion in fast start finance. On lessons learned, he discussed the need to use a range of channels and tools to deal with the complex needs and requirements of various sectors and countries, stressing that countries at different levels of development require different types of assistance.

Ali Sheikh, LEAD Pakistan, moderated the discussion, which focused on South-South learning to address climate change. He highlighted three issues for panelists, namely: how to link global negotiations and local action; how to address the climate-poverty nexus with reference to science, policy and action; and how to improve documentation, benchmarking, learning and up-scaling.

Manish Shrivastava, TERI, described TERI’s work with the ACPC. Underscoring that the key sectors for African development are also key sectors for mitigation, he emphasized that there is increasing political and private-sector commitment to mitigation. Shrivastava mentioned several TERI initiatives ongoing in Africa, inter alia: the Lighting a Billion Lives Campaign; smart multi-utility mini grids for rural and urban areas; biomass gasifiers; and improved cook stoves.

Marta Torres Gunfaus, University of Cape Town, introduced the Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) programme. Stating that MAPS initially developed to craft different scenarios in order to inform the South African government during climate negotiations, she remarked that this tool has also received interest in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Underscoring that Africa is the most vulnerable continent to climate change, Seleshi Bekele, ACPC, described working with partners on climate monitoring, capacity building and improving climate resilience. He highlighted that in Africa, climate change is perceived as a “development challenge” and that Africa has many opportunities to implement low-carbon development pathways.

Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, UN Development Programme (UNDP), introduced UNDP’s low-emission capacity building programme. He emphasized working with stakeholders, including national governments, funding agencies and private sector actors to create concrete synergies with other climate-relevant efforts.

Sanjay Vashist, Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA), underscored the need for networking in South Asia, highlighting that these countries share resource and political boundaries. Growing from 20 to over 120 organisations, CANSA addresses inter alia: joint-research and learning; the adaptation agenda, including interaction between policymakers; and joint-advocacy and dialogue to avoid misunderstandings. He stressed the need for South-South and North-South cooperation.

The ensuing discussion focused on: linking efforts on the ground to the larger UNFCCC process; addressing distributed energy access; understanding the role of religious organizations to address climate change in Asia and Africa; and agreeing on a common definition of “resilience.”

This session, moderated by Takako Ono, GHG Inventory Office (GIO), Japan, presented the findings from technical assistance provided by JICA on National GHG Inventories in Viet Nam and Indonesia. Capabilities and challenges concerning the submission of BURs from non-Annex I Parties and support by the US were also discussed.

Junichi Shiraishi, Vice Minister for Global Environmental Affairs, Japan, opened the session, introducing National GHG Inventories and addressing the government of Japan’s efforts to improve GHG inventories through cooperation, especially in the Asian region.

Nguyen Khac Hieu, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Viet Nam, described preparing and reporting of the National GHG Inventory of Viet Nam. He highlighted several aspects of the project, identifying time limitations, data gaps and preparation of a legal basis for institutional arrangements as the main challenges ahead, and concluded by underscoring capacity building and cooperation.

Takeshi Enoki, JICA, addressed Japan’s support for the National GHG Inventories in Viet Nam and Indonesia. He underlined the importance of a transition from a project-based approach to an institutionalized approach and identified the establishment of institutional arrangements, as well as data availability as the main challenges.

William Irving, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US, focused on capacity building efforts initiated by the US in different parts of the world. Referring to a variety of capacity building tools, he underscored challenges for non-Annex I countries, including: small teams and limited resources; insufficient records from previous inventories; incomplete or non-existent data; and the need for stronger institutional arrangements.

Kiyoto Tanabe, Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES), Japan, noted new reporting requirements for non-Annex I Parties, underlying that often in reality, lack of data together with absence of a skilled inventory team and insufficient institutional arrangements lead to low quality GHG inventories. He concluded that good and sustainable institutional arrangements, as well as preparing for International Consultation and Analysis (ICA), will prove essential to meet new reporting requirements for non-Annex I countries.

The ensuing discussion focused on: the lack of quality data; capacity building in developing countries and the subsequent sustainability of projects; and the use of standard templates given the unique characteristics of each country.

Moderator Simone Schiele, CBD Secretariat, opened the session introducing the panel and stressing the positive roles ecosystems may play, providing benefits other than mitigation and adaptation.

Sakhile Koketso, CBD Secretariat, focused on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the role of ecosystems in response to climate change. She also underscored that ecosystem based adaptation (EBA) may be useful as it: can be applied at regional, national and local levels; may be more cost-effective and accessible; maintains traditional knowledge; generates multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities; and contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Addressing the UNCCD perspective on the role of ecosystems, Jasmin Metzler, UNCCD Secretariat, focused on dryland ecosystems and their degradation. She stressed the need to act globally and presented the land degradation neutrality concept. She identified potential entry points in the UNFCCC negotiations, concluding that dryland ecosystems need to be an integral part of a post-2015 agreement.

Etienne Coyette, European Commission, DG-Development Cooperation - EuropeAid, noted that investing in EBA: provides business and job opportunities; contributes to green economy and sustainable development; contributes to maintaining and restoring healthy ecosystems; promotes creativity; and helps build trust and partnerships. He referred to EU adaptation strategy policy initiatives and provided insight on green infrastructure, as well as examples of their activities.

Edmund Barrow, IUCN, focused on assessing risk and restoring ecosystems. Approaching risk as the probability of a bad outcome over a specified time frame, he referred to the red list of ecosystems that the IUCN has developed. He presented the path from risk assessment to action, using the example of a restored desert area in Tanzania, focusing on economic value, diverse uses, large ecosystem values and carbon sequestration.

The ensuing discussion focused, inter alia, on cooperation among different processes and the difficulty to implement REDD+ in certain areas.

James Kinyangi, Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Programme, Kenya, moderated the session and introduced the speakers and panelists.

Merlyn VanVoore, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), introduced the 2013 Emissions Gap Report, highlighting the role of the agroforestry sector and its potential for emission reductions.

Henry Neufeldt, ICRAF, reiterated the high mitigation potential of agriculture, via better cropland management, grazing land management and the restoration of cultivated soils. He identified existing challenges, inter alia: providing an enabling legal and political environment; improving market accessibility; involving farmers in project-planning; improving knowledge and training; improving tenure security; and overcoming high land costs.

Arlid Angelsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, asked if agriculture intensification can save tropical forests. He said that assuming technology change and agricultural intensification will save forests, and denying new technology and intensification because it may pressure forests are concerns, stating the actual potential is more nuanced.

Krystyna Gurbiel, Poland, acknowledged transitions in the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), stating it has evolved from an income subsidy for farmers to a broader, multifunctional agricultural policy. Underscoring CAP’s stronger emphasis on climate change, she addressed other issues including: emphasizing crop diversification; dedicating permanent pastures; and devoting some farmland for ecological purposes.

Sheila Sisulu, Ambassador and Special Envoy of the Minister, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa, asserted support for CSA, while recognizing many contradictions remain and that as a first priority, Africa should feed itself. Recognizing Africa as the “largest untamed landmass” to grow food and feed the world, Sisulu urged that countries invest in Africa, including in CSA and climate-smart technologies.

Heru Prasetyo, Indonesia, stressed that Indonesia is an archipelago, with an imbalance in population dispersion across the islands, as well as soil quality, noting it has over 200 different soil types across its various islands.

Wendy Mann, UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), highlighted that agriculture needs to generate multiple benefits, including food security, livelihood support, economic growth and climate adaptation. She emphasized CSA is equally dependent on farmer decision-making procedures.

During discussions participants raised several issues, inter alia: no-till policies in Africa; a methodology to measure GHGs; the role of youth and women; and CSA connected to “bigger picture issues” such as food security and sustainable development.

Andrei Marcu, CEPS, moderated the event, asking panelists: whether market approaches are needed in the 2015 agreement; what the 2015 agreement can do to create a global carbon market; what the role for the UNFCCC is; and what roles and functions are needed. He noted the role of the UNFCCC in ensuring environmental integrity and preventing double counting.

Jo Tyndall, New Zealand, said markets are vital to maximizing ambition under the new agreement. She called for recognizing that carbon markets are present or under development in over 40 countries. She noted the private sector responds to signals and that markets are the clearest way to achieve these.

Sanderson Alberto Medeiros Leito, Brazil, said there is a lot of cumulated expertise that should be built upon, calling for stepping up to the next level with a scheme allowing positive experiences to continue. He stressed the price of carbon results from demand, a direct result of increasing target ambition, emphasizing that without increased ambition the price of carbon will remain low.

Jacob Werksman, EU, said thinking about the role of the UNFCCC in terms of functions is useful, including international certification to ensure credits meet standards of environmental integrity. He called for setting standards and guidelines for market transactions that occur internationally but are not necessarily credited, as under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), such as for REDD+ investment, and common accounting rules.

Khalid Muhammed Abuleif, Saudi Arabia, said that markets are a tool rather than an objective. He said markets are important, but that it is premature to discuss them as very specific targets are necessary in order to generate demand.

Thomaz Chruszczow, Poland, called for combining national approaches with what must be achieved as a global community under the Convention. He said the economic reality is often driven by business and industry, asking whether markets are simply a platform for buying and selling, or serve a different purpose.

During discussions, Tyndall said it is timely to address how to manage the intersection between targets and markets. She said the national circumstances of different markets should be respected, calling for rules without being overly prescriptive.

Walter Schuldt, Ecuador, noted the failure of existing carbon markets, stressing that any new system must ensure environmental integrity.