This session, moderated by Dolf Gielen, IRENA, focused on the role of renewables in global GHG mitigation and the potential to further strengthen this role.

Gielen introduced the panel and presented on the Global Renewable Energy Roadmap (REMAP 2030), an ongoing IRENA project. He addressed the mission, scope and mandate of IRENA, stressing that in 2010, renewable energy (RE) accounted for 18% of total final energy consumption globally. He reported key findings of the REMAP 2030 project, inter alia: it is feasible to double the share of RE at roughly zero net cost; there are important benefits in terms of health and GHG mitigation; biomass is an important factor; and there is more to be done to promote RE in end use sectors.

Magdalena Preve, Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and the Environment, Uruguay, discussed the significant contribution of RE to the primary energy and power generation mix in Uruguay and focused on the role of renewables in Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). She referred to specific NAMA projects, inter alia: construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal with regasification capacity of 10,000,000 m3/d of natural gas; promotion of RE participation in the Uruguayan primary energy mix; and introduction of solar photovoltaic (PV) energy.

Franck Jesus, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Secretariat, said that to develop RE further, we should: solve “higher capital costs”; reduce investment risks; reduce the need and cost of a price premium; remember off-grid challenges; and focus on quality, standardization and capacity building. He further underscored: the role of innovative, transformational technologies; measures and mechanisms to accelerate the uptake of mitigation technologies; and the integration of RE within broader challenges.

Mark Radka, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), stressed that development in the RE sector can provide a sense of enthusiasm, well needed in the negotiations, and underscored the importance of credible evidence. He said more countries should have NAMAs on RE and addressed the role of RE to bridge the emissions gap. He said there are still great opportunities to reduce emissions, pointing to heating applications and asking for good practices and policies to be disseminated.

In the ensuing discussion, participants posed questions on, inter alia: the average incremental cost of substitution; transmission and storage costs; IRENA’s positioning in relation to other energy-related institutions; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of NAMAs; risk tolerance in terms of innovative technologies; and integration of RE within broader challenges.

André Jol, EEA, introduced the event and moderated the session.

Hans Bruyninckx, Executive Director, EEA, highlighted that over recent years, climate change adaptation has received growing attention at the international and European scale resulting in a number of key reports and strategies. He noted that vulnerability to climate change varies across the European continent and in different sectors, pointing to focused adaptation strategies, such as in the water sector, regional strategies, and the need for continued modeling.

Explaining the purpose of an EU Adaptation Strategy, Jol noted the need to: work across borders and boundaries; develop European competence in specific policy areas; build solidarity within Europe; and provide funding for climate-related expenditures. He highlighted the Adaptation Strategy’s three objectives: to promote actions by member states; to facilitate informed decision-making; and to support vulnerable sectors. Jol pointed to several EEA reports on the subject, inter alia, the “Adaptation in Europe Report” and the “Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2012 Report.” Showcasing the European Climate Adaptation Platform, Jol mentioned it provides a collection of national strategies, an adaptation support tool, cost calculations and specific case studies.

Nancy Saich, European Investment Bank (EIB), introduced the bank, stating that it finances projects within the EU and around the world, while stressing the need to address climate resilience in all projects. She cautioned against “drawing up a list” of what adaptation should include, emphasizing instead the need for context-specific adaptation strategies and for vulnerability and risk assessments in order to see adaptation within a larger system and how different sectors interrelate.

The discussion addressed: the interactive stakeholder process conducted to develop the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy via a bottom-up and top-down approach; the need for vulnerability and risk assessments in specific sectors, such as energy; translation of EEA adaptation resources into the various EU languages; the need to act, even in the face of scientific uncertainty; cautions against perceiving the insurance industry as a silver bullet to solve problems; dialogue with local experts; and the relationship with mitigation efforts, because adaptation in a 4°C world will provide greater challenges.

Oliver Johnson, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), moderated the panel. Jules Williams, UNFCCC Secretariat, provided an overview of the NAMA Registry. He said the Registry has the potential to capture information on which countries are requesting how much support and for which mitigation technologies, noting that data is currently limited as the Registry is only one month out of the prototype phase.

Joern Huenteler, ETH Zurich, highlighted that implementation in developing countries presents challenges resulting from the need to integrate local knowledge into deployment. He said lessons learned include: substantial local knowledge is needed even in the case of globally traded technologies; the relative importance differs between technologies and is especially important for decentralized solutions; and knowledge needs could be integrated into ongoing processes of developing technology roadmaps.

Ambuj Sagar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, India, told the story of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in India. He noted lessons, including the importance of institutions taking a systems level approach to identify the gaps and barriers to innovation. He said the TM should construct a distributed network of institutions that are able to take on this coordinating function.

Martin Krause, UN Development Programme (UNDP), said a narrow focus on technologies does not result in the scale of investment required, emphasizing the importance of capacity development at individual, institutional and systemic levels. On finance, he presented the role of grant financing and feed-in tariffs in de-risking, making investment in RE more attractive, focusing on a case study from Mongolia.

Rob Byrne, University of Sussex, UK, highlighted research on the Kenyan solar PV market, describing the Lighting Africa programme, funded by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which aims to replace kerosene lamps with electric lights, such as solar lanterns. He highlighted lessons, including the need for multi-stakeholder approaches and patience for: incremental context-specific learning; linkage of projects; and linkage of the supply chain with demand.

Shikha Bhasin, German Development Institute (DIE/GDI), reflected on the presentations, highlighting how to move issues forward under the TM. Saying that developing country Parties that submit requests to the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) will have to identify the de-risking elements and gaps in the innovation ecosystem, she stressed that capacity building programmes will be necessary to ensure that countries can conduct systems-level analysis of these issues.

Yanira Ntupanyama, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Management, Malawi, opened the session.

Halima Alima Daud, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Management, Malawi, noted that although Malawi only contributes 0.06% of global GHG emissions, the country has developed a roadmap to implement low-carbon pathways to increase resilience of communities, support adaptation and attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by lowering emissions by 6% by 2020 in selected sectors: waste; agriculture, forestry and other land uses; and energy. She defined policy framework priorities, including adaptation, mitigation, research, technology development, capacity building and gender, as cross-cutting issues addressed in the following instruments: National Climate Change Policy; National Climate Change Investment Plan (NCCIP); and National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs), NAMAs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). On looking forward, she highlighted the role of climate change communications to increase public awareness and provide early warning information.

Aloysius Kamperewera, Environmental Affairs Department, Malawi, shared the impacts of climate change and need for adaptation actions in Malawi. Although there is not a single comprehensive policy on implementation, he highlighted the NCCIP to support sectors and stakeholders to harmonize and improve technology transfer and capacity building. He named priority sectors from the NAMAs roadmap: forestry; waste management; and energy.

Ralph Kabwaza, Director of Forestry, Malawi, outlined achievements under the UN Collaborative Programme on REDD+, started in 2012 by Malawi, with assistance from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Forestry Service (USFS), including: a cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder governance body; a comprehensive work plan 2013-14; capacity assessments; and a national forestry inventory.

In ensuing discussions, panelists engaged with participants on topics, inter alia: transboundary policies; election of a Designated National Entity (DNE) for the CTCN; and engagement of local communities.

Ben Botolo, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Malawi, concluded discussions by reviewing the challenges and successes in Malawi, including on achieving sustainable development, calling for enhanced communication, capacity building, and technology transfer.