Moderating this side event, Karsten Sach, Germany, explained that the International Conference on Renewable Energies (renewables 2004) was borne out of an announcement by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002.

Martin Schöpe, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, presented the Conference’s outcomes: the Political Declaration; the International Action Programme; and Policy Recommendations. He highlighted that the Political Declaration represents the broad consensus that was achieved among the 154 governments at the Conference, and reaffirms the commitment to increase, with a sense of urgency, the global share of renewable energy. He noted that the Declaration, inter alia, outlines the principles for a follow-up process and agrees on measurable steps to be reported to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Regarding the International Action Programme, Schöpe drew attention to over 180 actions and commitments related to policies for market development, financing options, and capacity building, that were voluntarily submitted by governments, international organizations, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders. He highlighted that several countries have adopted renewable energy targets, including Australia, Belgium, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, Uganda and the UK. Schöpe then outlined the Policy Recommendations, which contain a menu of policy options for national governments, international organizations, as well as businesses, the finance sector and civil society.

Emphasizing that energy trends are changing and renewable energy development is gaining momentum, Harald Dovland, Norway’s Ministry of the Environment, highlighted that renewables 2004 provided a strong push for renewable energy. Regarding the Political Declaration, he noted that many countries wanted a clear renewable energy target, but that it was more important to achieve consensus

Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International, expressed disappointment that the EU did not demonstrate stronger political leadership in promoting renewable energy at renewables 2004. He highlighted the approximately US$2 billion in renewable energy commitments pledged at the Conference, and praised China, among other countries, for adopting renewable energy targets.

Richard Hosier, Global Environment Facility (GEF), drew attention to the GEF’s commitment to provide US$100 million for renewable energy projects in developing countries. He concluded by expressing hope that developing countries might avoid the unsustainable energy pathway taken by developed countries and leapfrog to renewables.

Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed: the role of renewable energy in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); the World Bank Extractive Industry Review; the adequacy of the proposed follow-up process for renewables 2004; and the need to work on energy efficiency. One participant noted that US$2 billion for renewable energy is tiny compared to the trillions of dollars that will be invested in the energy sector in the coming decades.

Edwin Aalders, IETA, explained that the presenters of this side event would discuss their experiences in developing CDM projects, including lessons learned and suggestions for improving the process.

Michiel ten Hoopen, EcoSecurities, presented the CDM approval process from a project developer’s perspective. He provided a brief overview of EcoSecurities, noting that they assist in developing CDM and JI projects. Hoopen reviewed the methodology process, highlighting that: the bottom-up process is effective; the approval process is slow and risky for project developers; methodologies are often too specific and consolidation is necessary; and the status of pending and accepted methodologies are uncertain due to consolidation. Hoopen questioned what the additionality test would be for consolidated methodologies and highlighted that there are large differences in additionality tests between methodologies. He underscored ways to manage risk in the approval process, including waiting for the approval of consolidated methodologies if time allows, using an already approved methodology, and ensuring the quality of the methodology. He concluded that the CDM approval process is still risky for project developers, and that the process will become easier and will improve with more consolidation methodologies.