Simon Eggleston, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (NGGIP), outlined the background, objectives and scope of 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including the improved IPCC Emission Factor Database (EFDB) and the work programme for achieving the Guidelines. He explained that the 2006 IPCC Guidelines build upon the 1996 Guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories, the 2000 and 2003 Good Practice Guidance (GPG) reports, and scientific and technical developments since the 1990s. He said the 2006 Guidelines could include new gases, such as new halogenated direct greenhouse gases and other indirect greenhouse gases, which would be selected on the basis of criteria such as relative importance to total emissions. He said that the 2006 Guidelines would focus on cross-cutting issues, energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, forestry and other land use and waste.

Taka Hiraishi, IPCC, said the IPCC’s work concerns the harmonization of emissions estimations, rather than emissions predictions. Answering a participant’s question on whether the merger of the GPG and IPCC Guidelines meant a review of the GPG for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), Hiraishi noted that this would depend on the decision of Parties. When asked whether the IPCC would give advice for country-specific emission factors, he responded that it is beyond the IPCC’s capability to advise a country in such specificity, especially in the case of Annex I Parties, although they could provide help to non-Annex I Parties.

Leandro Buendia, IPPC-NGGIP, presented the Guidelines for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Use (AFOLU). He noted challenges in integrating the 1996 IPCC Guidelines, the 2000 GPG, and the GPG for LULUCF into the 2006 Guidelines, including data redundancies and the re-evaluation and improvement of current default emissions. Referring to the IPCC 2006 Guidelines on AFOLU, Buendia used the agriculture subsection as an example to highlight the importance of correctly choosing methods for emission and removal factors and activity data.

Kiyoto Tanabe, IPCC-NGGIP, stated that the EFDB was necessary because the development of local and national emission factors was difficult, time-consuming, and required considerable expertise and financial resources. He noted that the EFDB would be useful for sharing data and information between countries with similar national circumstances and improving the cost effectiveness of national greenhouse gas inventories. Tanabe said that the EFDB would evolve dynamically through contributions from researchers and scientists. He outlined two procedures through which data providers could submit data by contacting the IPCC Technical Support Unit: a web application format for researching and submitting data; and a CD-ROM application for off-line research.

Providing an overview of the status of non-Annex I national communications, Martha Perdomo, UNFCCC, noted that 114 initial national communications have been received, including 35 from least developed countries, and highlighted that Mexico, Korea and Uruguay have already submitted their second national communications. She also outlined the history of financial and technical support for the preparation of initial national communications.

Bo Lim, UN Development Programme (UNDP), introduced the “umbrella project,” a joint initiative of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UN Environment Programme and UNDP that aims to: streamline national communications in 130 non-Annex I Parties; improve support, monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking; and promote an integrated approach to climate policy. Lim explained that the National Communications Support Programme takes a flexible, needs-based approach and aims to: facilitate implementation of climate change enabling activities; prepare and disseminate technical materials; and sustain capacity-building efforts.

Noting that small islands are particularly vulnerable to climate change, Riitta Pipatti, Technical Research Centre of Finland, discussed Finland’s efforts in increasing the preparedness for climate variability and global change in small island developing states in the Caribbean region. She highlighted Finland’s support for non-Annex I national communications, drawing attention to initiatives that aim to: build institutional and personnel capacities; improve capacity to monitor climate change impacts; improve systematic observations; and increase awareness of important meteorological observations in adapting to climate change.

Keizo Fukushima, Japan’s Ministry of Environment, outlined Japan’s cooperation in the preparation of non-Annex I Parties’ national communications. He highlighted the annual Asia Pacific Seminar on Climate Change, the Asia Pacific Network on Climate Change, and activities of the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Fukushima also drew attention to the Resource Book on climate change in the Pacific region, produced by Japan’s Ministry of Environment in cooperation with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

Elisabeth Mausolf, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), outlined the Climate Protection Programme, which aims to mainstream the philosophy of climate change adaptation into German development cooperation. She stressed the importance of taking a holistic approach, and highlighted that national communications provide useful information in identifying opportunities and priorities for concrete adaptation measures.

Edwin Aalders, International Emissions Trading Association, introduced the public pre-comment on instructions for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board (EB) on documentation necessary for registration, with regard to authorizing public and private entities’ participation in the CDM.

Reginald Hernaus, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Housing, highlighted differences between authorization and approval under the CDM, noting that authorization is company related, while approval is project related. He discussed aspects of authorization under the Marakesh Accords, and addressed authorization criteria in cases of bilateral, multilateral and private equity funds. Hernaus concluded that in order to keep the carbon market functional, a pragmatic approach must be followed, stressing that clear EB instructions are required as soon as possible.

Marcela Main, speaking in her personal capacity, discussed the perspectives of non-Annex I Parties concerning authorization, and underscored the need for authorization to be simple and consistent.

Jackie Jones, UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, described the UK Government’s perspectives on authorization, stressing that the current language on authorization is ambiguous. She said the UK is dedicated to moving ahead with the CDM but further guidance is required from the EB.

Lieven Bloeyaert, Electrabel, provided an industry perspective on
registering CDM projects, highlighting authorization as the primary obstacle. He outlined the main concerns involved in authorization, including consequences for project participants receiving authorization, and concluded that from an industry perspective, it is critical that authorization be quick and clear.

Joannes Heister, World Bank Prototype Carbon Fund, said authorization is a critical issue from a legal perspective because it involves linkages between governments and the private sector within an international treaty. Noting the link between project approval and authorization, he described two possible scenarios: one where each participant requires authorization; and a multilateral fund in which governments as members are allowed to receive Certified Emissions Reductins (CERs) directly in their account.

In the ensuing discussion, participants discussed, inter alia: the transfer of CERs; the process of authorizing private entities; perspectives of host and investor Parties; lifespan of authorization; voluntary participation; and the difference between a buyer and an investor.

Jane Ellis, OECD, outlined a paper titled “Taking stock of progress under the CDM.” She said that although no CDM projects have been approved by the EB, many are being developed that focus on reducing emissions. She noted that the CDM has financial flows comparable to the GEF, but much smaller than Official Development Assistance. She said that while capacity-related and institutional issues sometimes involve significant barriers, such as transaction costs and delays in setting up projects, the CDM still has had many achievements to date.

Stéphane Willems, OECD, presented a paper on the role of institutional capacity in formulating future climate actions, including developing sufficient capacity for implementation and the possible use of an “institutional approach” for prioritizing such actions. He explained that adapting a country’s institution to address a particular problem requires different amounts of time depending on the country. He underscored the difficulties in developing institutions that utilize national assessment and strategy formulation, monitoring, reporting, review and enforcement, simultaneously within the climate change process. Willems concluded that the analysis suggests a progressive, step-by-step approach to climate actions.

Addressing the question of whether the CDM can be a bridge to the future, Harald Winkler, Cape Town University, examined different institutional developments, and institutional constraints including, lack of capacity among both project developers and governments, and links between the CDM and sustainable development. In relation to future commitments, Winkler said that the CDM provides some experience with mitigation projects and might be part of a multi-stage approach to mitigating emissions.

Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, a participant noted the need to evaluate sources of emissions and channel finances to the most economically viable areas. In response to a question on bottom-up institutional approaches, Willems said that often future actions are not included in institutional decisions. Another participant stated that while the question of institutional capacity focuses on government capacity, there is a need to build market infrastructure as well.

Jane Hupe, ICAO, thanked the UNFCCC for allowing ICAO to share its work on modeled data for aviation emissions and emphasized the technical purpose of this side event.

Hans Pulles, Netherlands’ Ministry of Transport, compared the findings from the Aviation Emissions and Evaluation of Reduction Options (AERO) modeling system with UNFCCC data. Noting that there were substantial differences between UNFCCC and AERO models for domestic and international fuel use, Pulles promised more comparisons in the future.

Chris Eyers, QinetiQ, described aviation emission inventories using the AERO 2K model. He explained the basis of the model and how it can produce four-dimensional emission results for the length of path flown, fuel, and emissions for each flight for a 2002-2025 forecast.

Maryalice Locke, Federal Aviation Administration, described the System for Assessing Aviation’s Global Emission (SAGE) model, which estimates the amount of aircraft fuel burned and emissions for variable year emission inventories. She described how the model provides data on individual flights, world grids, and inventories of fuel burning.

Comparing the SAGE and AERO 2K models’ predictions of fuel burned and emissions, Brian Kim, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, concluded that the models generally tend to agree with each other.

Eyers then compared the AERO, AERO 2K, and SAGE models with UNFCCC inventories for domestic, international and total fuel use for five countries and concluded that they predict similar results. He said he expects the inventory data to converge eventually.

Discussion: Several participants asked whether the models could provide information for political decision makers. Locke responded that SAGE has the capability to undertake policy analysis but questioned whether all countries would accept the model.

Margaret Martin, Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT), explained that this side event would present the results of the on-line survey on the effectiveness of the UNFCCC technology information clearing house (TT:Clear) and the status of work on assessing and addressing technology needs.

Florin Vladu, UNFCCC, highlighted the results of the TT:Clear survey, focusing on survey design, target groups, methods of survey promotion, demographic information on respondents, information found useful by respondents, and further survey development needs and information gaps. He added that most users found the TT:Clear website useful and the quality of information good.

Yamil Bonduki, UNDP, showcased selected results of Technology Needs Assessments (TNA). He explained that out of the 80 countries who received GEF funding, 60 had finished a draft TNA report. He noted that a quick analysis of some reports revealed a common approach that either focused on the energy sector as the main area of work or the most economically important sector in the country.

William Agyemang-Bonsu, Ghana, shared experiences of the TNA for Ghana, which focused on energy and waste sectors. Noting the challenges in implementing the results, he emphasized the need to link energy projects with the CDM. Regarding awareness raising, Agyemang-Bonsu, highlighted the use of radio stations, television and campaigns by national energy institutions.