Among the FRA 2005’s key findings, Schoene noted that forests cover 30% of the world’s total land area, that the five most forest-rich countries account for 50% of total forest area and that the ten most forest-rich countries account for two-thirds of total forest area. He added that while primary forests account for 36% of the total forest area, six million hectares are modified or lost each year.

Schoene highlighted limitations to the data collection in the FRAs including, inter alia: the dependence of half of the developing countries on expert estimates to calculate forest area for FRA 2000; the inability of developing countries to provide forest increment data for FRA 2000; and the use by a large number of countries of the same carbon stock data for the 1995, 2000 and 2005 periods in the FRA 2005. He emphasized that area is a poor proxy for determining carbon emissions because forest carbon density varies, and noted the lack of forest carbon density data in developing countries.

Addressing the significance of deforestation and the FRA 2005 to negotiations on LULUCF and carbon capture and storage, Schoene identified the need to: consider the broad range of forest change dynamics that influence carbon emissions, including reforestation, natural regeneration and stock changes; determine whether negotiations should address deforestation or net forest area change; and achieve a consensus on whether to include emissions due to forest degradation.

Schoene stressed the need for a holistic approach to data collection, stating that both on-the-ground and remote sensing data are needed. He cited engagement of administrations and national correspondents as critical to collecting reliable data.

Participants discussed: the need to consider GHG emissions other than carbon from forests and the importance of increased research on soil carbon. One participant emphasized that although data gaps exist, this should not be used to hamper negotiations, noting that tools exist to fill these gaps.

Speaking on intellectual property rights (IPRs), Jayant Sathaye, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, explained that in most countries, institutions typically own the IPRs to the technologies that result from government-sponsored research. He identified joint research between institutions of higher learning as a useful means for transferring technology and building capacity in partnering countries.

Xu Ning, World Intellectual Property Organization, discussed the importance of intellectual property information systems, stating that public interest is better served when access to patent information is improved. She suggested that Parties consult PatentScope and national and regional services to acquire patent information.

Elmer Holt, US Department of Energy, highlighted that IPR protection is important to governments because it: stimulates creativity; promotes competition; provides opportunities to establish national comparative advantages; contributes to prosperity and international trade; and improves access to new technologies.

Rajesh Kumar Sethi, India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests, suggested that in India, barriers to technology transfer are experienced mainly by small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the resources needed to access technologies.

Jürgen Lefevere, European Commission, speaking in his personal capacity, suggested that IPR ownership is secondary to technology development and deployment of appropriate technologies to the right place and at the right cost. He introduced the EU-China Partnership on Climate Change, which seeks to develop and demonstrate near-zero emissions coal technology using carbon capture and storage in China and the EU.

Participants discussed: technology transfer and renewable energy technologies; correlations between implementation of patent principles and changes in innovation and creativity; and the implications of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights to technology transfer.

Ewald Rameststeiner, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, focused on trends, causes, countermeasures and national implementation issues related to deforestation and degradation in both “governed” and “non-governed” contexts. He noted that business interests are one of the key drivers for governed deforestation and proposed using countermeasures such as sustainable forest management and legality certification. He cited small-scale agriculture and illegal encroachment as drivers of ungoverned deforestation.

Daniel Murdiyarso, Center for International Forestry Research, focused on methodological and technical issues related to deforestation. Elaborating on data needs and availability, he noted that: data must be relevant to assess drivers of deforestation and degradation; uncertainties should be considered in all data processing steps; both global and bottom-up national and region-specific analysis should be undertaken; and there is a need for collaboration between developed and developing countries.

Tracy Johns, Union of Concerned Scientists, analyzed instruments and mechanisms at the international level for reducing emissions from deforestation. She described three possible mechanisms based on a flexible multi-stage approach: policies and measures; project-based emission reductions; and national or sub-national quantified emission reduction commitments.

Participants addressed the relevance of a market mechanism for reducing deforestation, barriers to a market mechanism and the need for alternatives.

Jason Anderson, Institute for European Environmental Policy, addressed the issue of acceptance of CCS in the context of other mitigation options. He explained that CCS could be one of many mitigation options that exist to address the two-degree challenge in the European context. He said CCS could achieve cost savings but that it may reduce pressure for targets by giving the impression of a fallback solution. He indicated that a comparative public survey has demonstrated strong support for renewable energy although CCS is seen as more desirable than nuclear energy.

Heleen de Coninck, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, described the policy and regulatory context of CCS, noting that the establishment of a clear legal framework is needed to ensure safety of storage sites. She listed the international treaties that could regulate CCS activities and stressed that there is no overall clarity of their legality. She highlighted concern regarding the interest of marine environment protection treaties to make CCS illegal, since increased carbon dioxide emissions lead to oceans acidification. She informed that various studies have shown very low general knowledge of CCS and that the initial public reaction is one of skepticism.

Stephan Singer, WWF, stated that CCS is no “silver bullet” but, if undertaken safely, it could be part of the portfolio of mitigation options. He highlighted that CCS could be an alternative to the renewed interest in nuclear energy but that it should only be envisaged in the context of a robust climate change framework with aggressive targets.

Antoine-Tristan Mocilnikar, Energy Counselor to the Interministerial Delegate for Sustainable Development, France, highlighted the growing demand for energy and that coal will remain an important part of future power generation. He underlined that energy efficiency and CCS are the only two solutions that adequately address the coal challenge. He called for improving CCS technology, establishing a legal and economic framework for CCS, and developing it in a sustainable manner.

Participants discussed the duty of governments and stakeholders to inform the public on CCS, the need to assess the risks associated with CCS and its economic viability.