published by IISD, the International Institute for Sustainable Development
in cooperation with the Climate Change Secretariat.
Special Report on Selected Side Events at SB 22
19-27 May 2005 | Bonn, Germany
Daily Web Coverage & Daily Reports:
Thursday 19
Friday 20
Saturday 21
Monday 23
Tuesday 24
Wednesday 25
Thursday 26
Brief Analysis

Events convened on Thursday, 19 May 2005

CDM Executive Board: Question and answer session

Presented by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Responding to several questions regarding the timing of approval letters, Sushma Gera, Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board (CDM EB), noted that the EB’s approach has evolved through responding to cases and that the EB is now consolidating timing information on its website. José Miguez, CDM EB, added that the Marrakesh Accords do not stipulate rules for timing.

A number of participants raised questions regarding the additionality criteria. Gera and Miguez noted that the EB has provided guidance on the definition and use of additionality. They said proponents may choose which methodology to use or suggest a new one, and underlined that the additionality tool is not mandatory.

On the CDM registry, Gera explained that there are two phases to its creation, that the first phase was presented at COP-10 and that work continues on the second phase.

On the issue of EB funding, Gera noted that the EB is not yet self-financed and that it is still dependent on voluntary contributions. She noted that over time, income will be generated and that some funding will be provided through the Kyoto Protocol budget. Responding to a question on assessing the EB’s performance, Gera noted that the EB is keeping figures on its activities and developing a work plan based on a self assessment of its progress and future workload. She noted that these issues will be covered in reports to the COP.

On the timing of the EB’s work, Gera indicated that the EB is considering streamlining processes for dealing with methodologies and the consolidation of those sectors that have not yet been addressed. John Shaibu Kilani, CDM EB, expressed hope that projects will start to flow through the registration process.

On Designated National Authorities (DNAs), Rajesh Kumar Sethi, CDM EB, underscored that their role is specified in the Marrakesh Accords. Xuedu Lu, CDM EB, noted that the role of DNAs in developed and developing countries may differ.

On the issue of accreditation of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), Kilani noted that the eight DOEs that have already been accredited cover all of the original 13 project “scopes” identified. He underlined that the need to speed up the DOE accreditation process must be balanced against the importance of “learning by doing.”

Martin Enderlin, CDM EB, detailed the status and configuration of the Afforestation and Reforestation Working Group.

Sushma Gera, CDM EB, thanked the panelists, working groups, assessment teams, applicant groups and project proponents for being “pioneers” in the CDM process
Xuedu Lu, CDM EB, answered questions on the role of Designated National Authorities
More information:
Sushma Gera <[email protected]>

Options from the Future Actions Dialogue

Presented by the Center for Clean Air Policy

Jake Schmidt, Center for Clean Air Policy, highlighted that many options for a future climate framework are developing outside the formal negotiations, including within the Future Actions Dialogue. He suggested that sector-based approaches to reduce emissions may be politically and administratively easier, but less cost-efficient than economy-wide approaches, and might exclude nationally important sectors. Outlining different sector-based proposals, he focused on the “no lose” target for certain sectors in developing countries, with emissions reductions beyond the voluntary target being tradable. He listed ten sectors within which a significant proportion of non-Annex I emissions are covered including: electricity; chemicals and petrochemicals; paper; pulp and refining; iron and steel; and non-metallic minerals. He explained that the “no lose” target could be negotiated starting from a benchmark based on best available technology. He said developed countries could apply an economy-wide approach, but use sectoral benchmarks to inform their targets.

María Paz Cigarán, National Environmental Council of Peru, highlighted that non-Annex I countries need incentives to reduce their emissions, and encouraged the incorporation of the CDM in the post-2012 regime. She acknowledged that sector-based approaches address competitiveness concerns, but indicated the need for new regulation and capacity building in developing countries. She also questioned whether targets linked to benchmarking would leave developing countries with surplus emissions reductions to sell.

Paul Watkinson, French Interministerial Task-Force on Climate Change, said different options, such as sector-based approaches, should be assessed in light of the Seminar of Governmental Experts. He underlined the need to consider incentives for participation in the post-2012 framework, and highlighted bottom up approaches as potential means for involving developing countries. He questioned whether the sector-based proposal contained sufficient incentives for developing countries to reach the “first wedge.” He listed elements of the Kyoto Protocol the EU wishes to maintain beyond 2012, including binding targets, flexibility and compliance, but said it is time to move beyond the “one size fits all” burden-sharing approach.

Discussion: Participants discussed ways for defining emissions trading sectors, noting that these may be different from traditional economic sectors. They considered the possibility of EU-type emissions trading systems in other countries, including in developing countries.

Jake Schmidt, Center for Clean Air Policy, discussed sectoral CDM whereby any emissions reductions below a sector-wide baseline would be tradable
Jake Schmidt <[email protected]>
María Paz Cigarán <[email protected]>
Paul Watkinson <[email protected]>

Regional workshops on Article 6 of the Convention

Presented by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Laurence Pollier, UNFCCC, discussed the mandate and objectives of the Article 6 regional workshops on education, training and public awareness. She listed the outcomes of the workshops held to date in Belgium (May 2003), the Gambia (January 2004), and Uruguay (March-April 2005).

Speaking on the workshop in Uruguay, Luis Santos, Climate Change Unit, Uruguay, noted the participation of multiple stakeholders, including representatives from governments, NGOs, the media and academia. He highlighted the need to establish a regional strategy on Article 6 activities, the importance of disseminating information across the region, and the need to hold future workshops.

Lilian Portillo, National Climate Change Programme, Paraguay, emphasized the importance of Article 6 activities in National Communications and the replication of programs identified at the workshop across the region. Noting the success of a workshop held with journalists in Paraguay, she stressed their role in disseminating information on climate change.

Luis Paz Castro, Climate Centre, Meteorological Institute, Cuba, noted the participation of academic representatives in the workshop and indicated that its outcomes have provided general guidance in the preparation of national strategies on Article 6. He emphasized the variation in the size of countries within the Latin American and Caribbean region and noted the synergies between the New Delhi Work Program on Article 6, National Communications, and Article 6 activities.

Haroldo Machado Filho, General Coordination on Global Climate Change, Brazil, expressed support for the information network system clearing house and underlined the importance of public participation and awareness raising for full implementation of the UNFCCC. He said publications and search facilities in local languages should be one of the pillars of the clearing house, and he expressed concern about financing of Article 6 activities.

Makoto Kato, Japanese Ministry of the Environment, previewed the Asia-Pacific regional workshop, to be held in Yokohama, Japan in September 2005. He introduced the meeting’s basic framework and proposed agenda.

Discussion: Participants stressed the importance of addressing language difficulties in Article 6 activities; and considered ways of responding to those skeptical of the scientific basis for climate change, as well as the role of women in Article 6 activities.

Luis Paz Castro, Climate Change Centre, Meteorlogical Institute, Cuba, outlined the synergies between the National Communication process and activities under Article 6 of the Convention
Janos Pasztor, UNFCCC, Luis Santos, Climate Change Unit, Uruguay, and Luis Paz Castro, Climate Change Centre, Meteorlogical Institute, Cuba
Laurence Pollier <[email protected]>
Lilian Portillo <[email protected]>
Luis Santos <[email protected]>
Luis Paz Castro <[email protected]>
Haroldo Machado <[email protected]>
Makoto Kato <[email protected]>

Climate friendly technologies: Forging alliance between the governments, industry and finance sector

Presented by the International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer

Elmer Holt, US Department of Energy, stated that the involvement of the private sector is essential for meaningful and lasting technology transfer.

Toshiyuki Sakamoto, Climate Technology Initiative Executive Committee, presented on the cooperation between the Japanese and Chinese steel industries, highlighting the Coke Dry Quenching project. He stressed that technology transfer and diffusion involve the collaboration of all parties and specified that a sectoral focus should be employed to identify technology needs and energy saving opportunities. He underscored that the CDM should be utilized more as an incentive to facilitate technology transfer.

Holger Liptow, German Development Cooperation (GTZ), emphasized the importance of a market-oriented energy conservation law, supported by high energy tariffs for industry and commerce. Commenting on an Indian case study on energy cooperation for energy efficiency and greenhouse gas mitigation, he highlighted that most of the measures taken had been “run of the mill” ones.

Yap Kok Seng, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia, highlighted how public-private partnerships may provide a means to address the financial sector’s perception of the risks in investing in developing countries and encourage investments for technology transfer.

Ji Zou, Renmin University of China, stressed the potential for improving energy efficiency in China. He underscored the need to involve human resources and establish appropriate institutions and policies to promote technology transfer.

Xuedo Lu, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, stressed the need to take into account the location of the producer, and to adapt to local circumstances to ensure the success of technology transfer projects.

Discussion: One participant highlighted that the CDM process may have to be modified in order to attract more energy efficiency projects. Liptow indicated that around 5% of CDM projects deal with energy efficiency. Sakamoto underscored that the CDM should enhance energy efficiency, but that the CDM procedures need to be streamlined. Zou stressed that the CDM is not the only vehicle for technology transfer.

Toshiyuki Sakamoto, Climate Technology Initiative, said the CDM can and should make a difference for energy efficiency
Holger Liptow, GTZ, said capacity building is always an issue and always needs to be emphasized
Elmer Holt <[email protected]>
Toshiyuki Sakamoto <[email protected]>
Holger Liptow <[email protected]>
Yap Kok Seng <[email protected]>
Ji Zou <[email protected]>
Xuedo Lu <[email protected]>

Disaster risk management in a changing climate

Presented by the World Bank

Joke Waller-Hunter, UNFCCC Secretariat, welcomed the recent link identified between adaptation to climate change and disaster reduction. She noted the increased focus on adaptation since COP-7, culminating in the Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation adopted at COP-10, which recognizes the need to build capacity for preventive measures and contingency plans. She called for synergies, cooperation and coordination between climate change and disaster reduction actors.

Frank Sperling, World Bank, presented a paper on disaster risk management in a changing climate, prepared for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in January 2005. He said the changes in magnitude and frequency of climatic extremes increase exposure to hydro-meteorological hazards. He stressed the shift in disaster risk management (DRM) from humanitarian relief efforts to risk management, as well as the recognition that adaptation necessarily complements measures taken for climate change mitigation. He stated that despite their different timeframes and policy frameworks, the DRM and climate change agendas are converging. Among the challenges to collaboration, he mentioned: the need for flexible approaches to DRM; short-term thinking; and information collection and dissemination. Sperling called for building on the momentum generated by the recent adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action to foster linkages between DRM and climate change efforts, ensuring consistency of approaches, and promoting information sharing.

Frank Sperling, World Bank, noted the expected increase in extreme weather events and explained that the larger the changes, the more adverse the impacts are likely to be

Reid Basher, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, noted that the Hyogo Framework for Action, which focuses on building the resilience of nations, resonates with the climate process’ increasing focus on vulnerability. He said practitioners need guidance on dealing with extreme weather events including early warning systems.

Madeleen Helmer, Climate Centre, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, noted that climate change is dealt with by environmentalists whereas disaster risk is addressed by development actors. She said this creates an institutional barrier to the linkage between the two communities and called for dialogue.

Discussion: Participants considered raising the awareness of end users on the synergies between climate change and disaster reduction by focusing on short term forecasts; including disaster risk and early warning systems in National Communications; and mainstreaming disaster risk in the development agenda.

Joke Waller-Hunter
<[email protected]>
Frank Sperling <[email protected]>
Reid Basher <[email protected]>
Madeleen Helmer <[email protected]>

Winning the battle against global climate change

Presented by the European Community

Henri Haine, Ministry of the Environment, Luxemburg, reminded participants that the Kyoto Protocol is a first step in reaching the UNFCCC’s goal and that further action is needed. He welcomed the wealth of ideas and fruitful discussions held during the Seminar of Governmental Experts. He noted that many participants had referred to common objectives under the UNFCCC, and called for urgent action, while recognizing differences in national priorities and circumstances. He highlighted the need to answer questions identified in the Seminar and for COP-11/MOP-1 to build on the momentum it created.

Emphasizing that climate change requires urgent action, Artur Runge-Metzger, European Commission, explained the EU’s objective to limit the global temperature rise to 2C. Outlining a vision on five key elements in the post-2012 regime, he said it should “build on Kyoto”, but aim for “a truly global carbon market” including emissions trading, Joint Implementation and the CDM. He indicated that market-based mechanisms increase competitiveness through new technologies and improved efficiency. He called for more countries to reduce emissions in the future, as the EU’s decreasing 14% share of global emissions means that “even closing down the European economy would not stop climate change.” Runge-Metzger said a future regime should cover more gases and sectors. He underlined the need to: deploy a range of new technologies; take into account climate concerns when making near-term energy investments; and adapt to climate change.

Sarah Hendry, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, emphasized the high priority the UK presidency of the G-8 attaches to climate change. She said the goal of the presidency is to speed up the UNFCCC and Kyoto processes and outlined concrete objectives and actions it is taking.

Discussion: Runge-Metzger said other countries have found the 2C target “interesting” but that the EU saw no need for a formal agreement on a global target. He explained that “building on Kyoto” means that the EU does not want to pre-empt the post-2012 debate, but wishes to incorporate lessons learned from Kyoto in the future regime.

Sarah Hendry, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, highlighted that the EU has started to look at climate policies that reach beyond the Kyoto targets
Henri Haine <[email protected]>
Artur Runge-Metzger <[email protected]>
Sarah Hendry <[email protected]>

Outcomes of the Exeter Conference “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”

Presented by the UK

Chris Rapley, British Antarctic Survey, considered issues relating to the Antarctic ice sheet and rising sea levels. He highlighted possible actions for the scientific community such as developing science action plans through field work, and increasing understanding on how ocean circulation affects ocean shelves.

Carol Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, stated that plankton, coral and other organisms are affected by increased acidification of oceans resulting from carbon dioxide emissions. She questioned whether the marine ecosystem can adapt to acidification and whether a modified ecosystem will be economically productive.

Rachel Warren, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, summarized existing knowledge of climate change impacts on human and natural systems at different levels of temperature increases.

In considering the EU’s 2C target, Michel den Elzen, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, stressed that in order to obtain stabilization of green house gas concentrations at 450 or 400 parts per million, global emissions are required to peak in around 2015, followed by overall reductions of respectively 30% or 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.

Bert Metz, IPCC Working Group III, considered the issue of how, and at what cost, low-level stabilization can be achieved. He noted the long-term mitigation potential of renewable and nuclear energy from 2000 to 2100. He underscored the need for a portfolio of least-cost options and emphasized that climate change mitigation is restricted by the lack of political will, incentives, and awareness.

Chris Rapley, British Antarctic Survey, indicated that in the West Antarctica ice streams, ice thinning has been detected where it should be stable
Chris Rapley <[email protected]>
Carol Turley <[email protected]>
Rachel Warren <[email protected]>
Michel den Elzen <[email protected]>
Bert Metz <[email protected]>

Energy, environment, development: Perspectives from India

Presented by India

Surya Sethi, Indian Planning Commission, described the energy consumption and legislative framework of India, which supports higher energy efficiency, conservation, and cleaner fuels. He listed India’s energy-related goals, noting that they are in line with the millennium development goals and climate change concerns. He detailed specific energy initiatives such as improving the quality of transportation fuels, increasing the use of public transport, and building the Delhi metro.

Ritu Mathur, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), described the results of various energy scenarios in India. She explained that the government is planning substantial emissions reductions but that limitations exist regarding financial investment.

Subodh Sharma, Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, indicated that Annex I parties’ National Communications show an aggregate increase in greenhouse gas emissions, while countries with economies in transition are showing a decrease. He stressed that the UNFCCC calls for a return to 1990 levels of emissions for Annex I countries.

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, TERI, explained how National Communications reporting of financial contributions and technology transfer by Annex I countries do not provide an accurate picture of how these countries are fulfilling their obligations under the convention. He called for the adoption of new guidelines for National Communications that specifically cover financial and technology transfer aspects.

Preety Bhandari, TERI, noted that achieving sustainable consumption patterns is a high priority of Agenda 21 and that levels and choices of energy vary regionally. She described the indicators used in a study carried out by her organization on lifestyles in India and indicated that developing countries tend to generate less waste and recycle more. She explained that there is considerable use of public transport in India, but that the core question is how to influence individual activities and choices towards a more sustainable pattern.

Chandra Kiran, Integrated Research and Action for Development, presented a study on the economic impact of carbon emission constraints in India. He said the results of the study showed that carbon emission mitigation strategies would result in a decrease in India’s GDP and an increase in poverty, although the magnitude of these losses is uncertain.

Discussion: Participants discussed different models for evaluating the economic impact of climate change mitigation measures, as well as the environmental and social cost of climate change. Rajendra Pachauri, TERI, proposed establishing a partnership with Saudi Arabia to promote technology transfer.

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, TERI, said Annex I parties’ National Communications do not give an accurate picture of how they are complying with their financial and technology transfer obligations
Preety Bhandari, TERI, quoted Gandhi in calling for a change in consumption patterns: “be the change that you want to see in the world”
Surya Sethi <[email protected]>
Ritu Mathur <[email protected]>
Subodh Sharma <[email protected]>
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta <[email protected]>
Preety Bhandari <[email protected]>
Chandra Kiran <[email protected]>
Rajendra Pachauri <[email protected]>

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin on the side (ENBOTS) © <[email protected]> is a special publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat. This issue has been written by Ingrid Barnsley, Alice Bisiaux, Maria Larsson Ortino, and Kati Kulovesi. The photographer is Leila Mead. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Lisa Schipper, Ph.D. <[email protected]>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[email protected]>. Funding for the publication of ENBOTS at UNFCCC SB 22 is provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat. 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 <[email protected]>. Electronic versions of issues of ENBOTS from SB 22 can be found on the Linkages website at The ENBOTS Team at SB 22 can be contacted by e-mail at <[email protected]>.

Back to daily coverage
Click the above button to go back to our ENB main coverage

Digimarc and the Digimarc logo are registered trademarks of Digimarc Corporation.  The "Digimarc Digital Watermarking" Web Button is a trademark of Digimarc Corporation, used with permission.

! Please e-mail the Digital editor should you have any questions regarding the content of this page.

| Back to Linkages home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to ENB |
© 2005,  IISD. All rights reserved.