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 Friday, 20 May 2005

Post-Kyoto negotiations: African priorities

Presented by Kenya

Calling for equity in the climate process, Grace Akumu, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD-Kenya), stated that Africa is marginalized in the current climate regime, it will be worst hit by climate impacts, and with only two African countries currently hosting CDM projects, Africa is virtually excluded from the CDM.

Timothy M’mella, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya, stated that the Kyoto Protocol will neither deliver to Africa, nor meaningfully reduce emissions. He called for an equitable and effective future regime that allows for cost-effective emissions reductions. He emphasized that Africa should actively engage in the regime’s creation.

Joshua Wairoto, Kenya Meteorological Department, highlighted Africa’s vulnerability to climate change. Noting that Africa contributes the least to climate change but will suffer the most, he stressed the need for adaptation. He identified climate impacts already experienced, including: threatened food security; increases in vector-borne diseases; economic loss from drought-induced difficulties with hydro-power; declining water levels in lakes, rivers and streams; melting mountain glaciers; floods; and landslides. He reminded participants that climate change is not only an environmental problem, but also an important economic and political concern. He indicated that without equity, Africa’s development aspirations and the Millennium Development Goals cannot be achieved. Wairoto explained Africa’s proposal on climate equity based on per capita emissions, and “contraction and convergence” during the Kyoto negotiations. He highlighted the need for emissions trading that allows Africa to participate equally and independently, and identified the need to involve the African Union and the sub-regional economic groupings in climate negotiations. He concluded that for Africa to survive, the future climate regime must be based on equity, the precautionary and polluter pays principles, and on common but differentiated responsibilities.

Joshua Wairoto, Kenya Meteorological Services, highlighted that the atmosphere knows no political boundaries and that we are all “in the same boat.”
Timothy M’mella, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya, urged parties to create a future climate regime incorporating equity as its central pillar
Discussion: Akumu indicated that this event aims at highlighting African priorities rather than presenting an "African position." She said the name of the post-2012 agreement is not as important as the incorporation of African concerns. Participants discussed the need to enhance public awareness of climate change and the CDM status in Africa. M’mella said the CDM is a good system, but stressed that methodologies must be simplified as they are too complicated for African entrepreneurs to develop bankable projects. He also highlighted the need for certainty on the post-2012 regime, and urged industrialised countries to reduce emissions and keep their financial promises.
Grace Akumu <[email protected]>
Timothy M’mella <[email protected]>
Joshua Wairoto <[email protected]>

Belgian JI/CDM tender open for proposals

Presented by Belgium

Elisabeth Ellegaard, the Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium, outlined her country’s tender for Joint Implementation (JI) and CDM projects. She said the tender aims to purchase 12.3 million tons of emissions reductions for the 2008-2012 period. She explained that the tender opened on 13 May 2005 with a budget of 9.3 million euros. She indicated no preference for JI or CDM projects, and said all project types, apart from sink and nuclear energy projects, are eligible. She explained that priority is being given to energy efficiency, renewable and small-scale projects. She noted that the tender consists of two phases, highlighting that Belgium is planning to partially finance 25 candidates to prepare the necessary documents during the tender’s second phase. Ellegaard indicated that up-front payments are possible for up to 50% of the contract value. She mentioned a workshop for potential candidates in June 2005, and a second workshop for selected candidates.

Tine Heyse, the Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium, outlined requirements for the second phase of the tender. She explained that the award criteria focus on certainty of delivery and sustainability, with equal weight given to both. Heyse anticipated that negotiations for Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreements would begin in May 2006.

Tine Heyse, the Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium, stressed the importance of commercial considerations and certainty of emissions reductions in selecting JI/CDM projects
Discussion: Participants focused on project eligibility, upfront payments, and the possible financial contribution toward the preparation of required documents.
Elisabeth Ellegaard
<[email protected]>
Tine Heyse <[email protected]>

Energy efficiency: The biggest fuel

Presented by the International Energy Agency

Paul Waide, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), presented an International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis of energy efficiency. He noted that despite an increase in energy supply since 1973, energy intensity has declined greatly, but that rates of energy savings have slowed significantly in the last decade. He explained that it is possible to decouple the increase in energy demand from economic growth and that labeling has been one of the most successful measures to reduce energy consumption. He concluded that potentials for improved energy efficiency exist but require stronger public policy efforts.

Waide also presented a study on energy efficiency in the refurbishment of high rise buildings. He said the study examined several energy saving measures, including improving the building fabric and heating system, and reducing the cooling demand. Waide stated that energy saving measures had been found cost effective and called for structural funds for housing in new EU members.

Paul Waide, OECD, indicated that without the energy savings achieved since 1973, energy demand in 1998 would have been 50% higher

Alan Meier, OECD, presented on energy savings in set up boxes, a television device that will be increasingly needed by digital viewers. He explained that energy demand could increase if the stand-by consumption of the boxes is high. Meier indicated that several countries were already adopting regulations to ensure they were made energy efficient, by imposing a 1W stand-by consumption rate.

Meier also presented a draft IEA survey of critics of energy efficiency, which aims to develop better energy efficiency policies. He analyzed nine recurrent criticisms and called for the development of policies to minimize them, especially those concerning the accuracy of the savings estimates.

Discussion: One participant from a developing country suggested OECD countries take the lead in disseminating good practices and policies in energy efficiency. Participants also addressed the updating of labeling standards and measures taken to reduce cooling demands.

More information:
Paul Waide <[email protected]>
Alan Meier <[email protected]>

Preparing for implementation: Initial requirements under the Kyoto Protocol

Presented by the UNFCCC

Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC, said the focus of the event would be the parties' obligation to demonstrate progress in initial reporting under the Kyoto Protocol. He indicated that the Article 8 review process involves: review of initial reports; periodic review of national communications; annual review of supplementary information under Article 7.1 and expedited review to reinstate the eligibility for mechanisms.

Clare Breidenich, UNFCCC, highlighted that problems in the base year inventory detected by the Expert Review Team may reduce the assigned amounts. She emphasized that an accepted review year basis for assigned amounts is final and cannot be revised. She underscored that national inventory systems must be maintainable and reproducible.

Andrew Howard, UNFCCC, highlighted the importance of national registries for demonstrable progress reporting. He indicated that parties’ fulfillment of the eligibility requirements under the Kyoto mechanisms are based on the initial report and review. He stated that parties are automatically eligible to employ the mechanisms 16 months after the report has been submitted, but that the Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Committee may suspend the employment of the mechanisms and parties must meet the requirements in subsequent years.

Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC, encouraged parties to prepare nominations for the election of members of the Compliance Committee

Katia Simeonova, UNFCCC, specified that the Secretariat must be informed of reporting delays, and indicated that six-month delays will be reported to the COP/MOP and the Compliance Committee, and be made public. She indicated that the review reports will contain information such as: potential problems identified by the review team; the timeliness of submissions; and assessments of how to treat identified problems.

Discussion: Participants raised concerns regarding: Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities; activities of the Enforcement and Facilitative Branches of the Compliance Committee; training for expert review teams; and the Kyoto Protocol timeline and base year adjustments.

More information:
Halldor Thorgeirsson <[email protected]>
Clare Breidenich <[email protected]>
Andrew Howard <[email protected]>
Katia Simeonova <[email protected]>

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Jim Penman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stressed that the IPCC’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline system has evolved and recognizes the work already done by parties. He said the new Guidelines aim to reduce the amount of cross referencing and promote consistency between sectors. He noted the IPCC’s hope that the 2006 Guidelines will be as useful as those of 1996.

Simon Eggleston, IPCC, summarized the innovations in the 2006 Guidelines, including better coverage of: sources; gases; non-energy product uses of fossil fuels; carbon capture and storage; harvested wood products; and wetlands. He indicated the IPCC’s desire to present the new Guidelines at SBSTA 24 in May 2006.

Jim Penman, IPCC, explained that the IPCC’s inventory Guidelines have evolved in response to lessons learned

On real emissions estimates, William Agyemang-Bonsu, IPCC, highlighted changes including: clarification of the “reference approach” and “sectoral approach”; a new “Tier 1” approach for fluoride gases; and the use of a “first order decay model” for landfills. Presenting on the Agriculture, Forests and Other Land Use (“AFOLU”) sectors, N.H. Ravindranath, IPCC, noted changed features such as: a new approach to inventories for land use and livestock systems; the inclusion of wetlands as a land use category; and the introduction of a common methodology for all AFOLU sectors.

Jochen Harnisch, IPCC, presented on the merging of the “Industrial Process” and “Solvent and Other Product Use” sectors. He noted that the new sector accommodates more sources and gases, and clarifies and regroups the source categories. Other changes include better differentiation within the chemical and metal industries, and greater coverage of “other product use” emissions.

Discussion: Participants discussed methane emissions from wetlands; emissions from agricultural soils and from the substitution of fluorine gases; consistency between the new and old guidelines; the usability of the guidelines; and IPCC guidance on mitigation.

Left to right: From the IPCC: Jochen Harnisch, N.H. Ravindranath, William Agyemang-Bonsu, Taka Hiraishi, Thelma Krug, Simon Eggleston, and Jim Penman.
Jim Penman <[email protected]>
Simon Eggleston <[email protected]>
William Agyemang-Bonsu <[email protected]>
N.H. Ravindranath <[email protected]>
Jochen Harnisch <[email protected]>

Future of the CDM

Presented by Japan

In introducing the Japanese initiative on the future of the CDM, Hiroshi Yamagata, Japanese Department of Economy, Trade and Industry, expressed hope that it will contribute to sustainable development. Taishi Sugiyama, Central Institute of Electric Power Industry, presented the outcomes of a workshop held in Tokyo in March 2005, noting the focus on methodology development for energy efficiency projects.

Axel Michaelowa, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, proposed future work on baseline methodologies for energy efficiency projects, including addressing “rebound effects”, and considering standard payback periods and efficiency benchmarks in additionality tests. In discussing “common or consolidated” baselines for expediting methodologies for energy efficiency projects, Jayant Sathaye, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, concluded that: the bundling of projects can reduce transaction costs and the consolidation of methodologies may lead to faster project approval. Kenichiro Yamaguchi, Mitsubishi Research Institute, focused on mass transport projects, noting that methodologies may be complex, and project effectiveness may be under-evaluated.

Lex de Jonge, Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, indicated support for the Japanese initiative, expressed doubt about the timing of consolidating methodologies, and suggested the initiative focus on improving the efficiency of the CDM EB and the CDM post-2012. Marcela Main, Department of International Affairs, Chile, stressed the importance of: adapting consolidated methodologies to local circumstances; policy and programme-based methodologies; and methodology and project development in the transportation sector. Johans Heiseter, World Bank Prototype Carbon Fund, suggested that the Japanese CDM initiative should be flexible, involve project developers, seek interaction with the EB and the Secretariat, and consider the creation of an Advisory Group with EB representation. Juan Carlos Caycedo, Andean Center for Economics in the Environment, emphasized the need to consider project “rebound effects” and questioned whether the Japanese initiative could join forces with project developers, rather than solely deliver general methodologies.

Juan Carlos Caycedo, Andean Center for Economics in the Environment, emphasized the importance of addressing the “rebound effect” in CDM project development
Hiroshi Yamagata
<[email protected]>
Taishi Sugiyama <[email protected]>
Axel Michaelowa <[email protected]>
Jayant Sathaye <[email protected]>
Lex de Jonge <[email protected]>
Marcela Main <[email protected]>
Johannes Heister <[email protected]>
Juan Carlos Caycedo <[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.