You are viewing our old site. See the new one here

A Special Report on Selected Side Events at the

2-13 June 2008 Bonn, Germany


Daily Web Coverage and Reports
Web 2 June 3 June 4 June 5 June 6 June 7 June 9 June 10 June 11 June 12 June 13 June
PDF PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version   PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version
HTML HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version

Events on Tuesday, 03 June 2008

Sectoral approaches to greenhouse gas mitigation

Presented by the IEA

Richard Bradley, International Energy Agency (IEA), stressed that bottom-up approaches, such as sectoral approaches, require good data and indicators.

Richard Baron, IEA, presented an overview of four types of sectoral approaches: sectoral analysis of greenhouse gas reduction potentials; sector-based actions in developing countries; transnational industry-led or intergovernmental sectoral agreements; and sectoral approaches to technology cooperation. He highlighted issues raised at an IEA workshop, held 14-15 May 2008, including whether sectoral approaches should build on CDM domestic institutions or operate with the additionality criterion removed.

Peter Taylor, IEA, demonstrated how international comparisons of energy and carbon dioxide indicators can be used to understand global carbon dioxide emission trends and drivers, as well as their interaction with policies. He said an indicator-based analysis supports the role of energy efficiency in shaping patterns of energy use and carbon emissions in IEA member countries, noting that further gains can be achieved in power generation and many industries. Taylor argued that strong policy action is required from governments to decouple carbon emission growth from economic growth, and that governments must enhance frameworks for monitoring end-use energy consumption.

Laura Cozzi, IEA, presented results from the 2007 World Energy Outlook. She stated that, based on current trends, India and China are expected to account for more than 40% of the increase in global energy demand, and 45% of the incremental demand for oil by 2030. Noting that approximately 60% of the global increase in carbon emissions between 2005 and 2030 is expected to come from China and India, and 80% of total emissions are likely to come from the US, China, the EU, Russia, Japan and India, she stressed that these parties must be involved in any successful climate change mitigation strategy. Cozzi emphasized the need to act quickly in the power sector, where capacity additions in the next decade will lock in technology options and largely determine emissions through 2050 and beyond.

Participants discussed: hybrid sectoral approaches; energy efficiency versus energy intensity targets; establishing baselines for measuring emission reductions; and the potential to use indicator analysis to better understand the impacts of potential future policies on carbon emissions.

L-R: Laura Cozzi, IEA; Richard Baron, IEA; Richard Bradley, IEA; and Peter Taylor, IEA

Richard Baron, IEA, argued that sectoral approaches should be assessed based on cost and greenhouse gas mitigation effectiveness, fairness, simplicity and potential for negotiation. Richard Bradley, IEA, noted that little work has been conducted to quantify the impacts or implications of sectoral approaches. Peter Taylor, IEA demonstrated how policy interventions have improved energy efficiency of large appliances in the EU, with small appliances contributing a growing share to carbon emissions.

More information:

Jenny Gell (Coordinator) <[email protected]>
Richard Bradley <[email protected]>
Richard Baron <[email protected]>
Peter Taylor <[email protected]>
Laura Cozzi <[email protected]>

- To the top of the page -

Beyond co-benefits: understanding the role of forest ecosystem services for mitigation and adaptation

Presented by GCP

L-R: Roni Avissar, Duke University; Ian Redmond, UNEP Great Ape Survival Project; and Mandar Trivedi, GCP

Ian Redmond, UN Environment Programme Great Ape Survival Project, showed how apes and elephants act as the “gardeners of the forests” via their role in seed dispersal, and said the loss of these keystone species will change forest dynamics.

Mandar Trivedi, Global Canopy Programme (GCP), suggested thinking of forests not only in terms of carbon emissions but also in terms of their global utility. He highlighted the potential of forests to contribute to adaptation, including via: soil stabilization and flood reduction; cooling effects from canopies; hydrological recycling and long-range moisture transport; and global carbon sequestration of one billion tons per annum. He demonstrated that although forest die-back in the Amazon could result from climate change over the long term, deforestation is a more immediate threat. He also said bottom-up scenarios project much faster deforestation than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) land-use scenarios.

Roni Avissar, Duke University, showed how deforestation causes regional shifts in rainfall, noting that shifts may be in intensity rather than in total amount. He described how deforestation affects climate beyond the region where deforestation occurs due to global teleconnections.

Andrew Mitchell, GCP, called for political will, frameworks and financing in order to achieve the Bali roadmap goals for deforestation and welcomed the REDD mechanism as a means to reach these goals. He identified the need to move beyond carbon emissions and look at trading ecosystem services, thereby giving forests a monetary value. He also questioned the higher stringency for forest projects to enter the carbon market and gave examples of community-based deforestation prevention initiatives.

Participants discussed: REDD; connections between deforestation and the CBD; including ecosystem services other than emission reductions under the UNFCCC or CBD; communities’ roles in avoided deforestation; and the contribution of palm oil production to deforestation.

Andrew Mitchell, GCP, said the mitigation potential of rainforests is compromised by deforestation, which could change forests from a sink to a source over the long term. Roni Avissar, Duke University, said joint ecological, hydrological and climatological feedbacks need to be explored further, and shared recent Earth System Model results. Ian Redmond, UNEP Great Ape Survival Project, moderated the discussion.

More information:

Niki Mardas (Coordinator) <[email protected]>
Ian Redmond <[email protected]>
Mandar Trivedi <[email protected]>
Roni Avissar <[email protected]>
Andrew Mitchell <[email protected]>

- To the top of the page -

Biodiversity and climate change adaptation

Presented by the CBD

Richard Muyungi, Tanzania, reported that the Adaptation Fund Board hopes to finalize discussions on how to operationalize guidelines for accessing resources at its next meeting. He praised the Fund for giving developed and developing countries co-ownership of financial resources.

Jaime Webbe, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), summarized the climate change-relevant decisions made by the CBD COP. She stressed the most recent decision made at CBD COP 9, which inter alia, establishes a new Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on biodiversity and climate change, which will, among other things, look at the links between adaptation and biodiversity within land use, land-use change and forestry and REDD.

Webbe explained that climate change considerations are within the CBD because biodiversity: provides a “safety net” for genetic resources; provides “bio-shields” against the negative impacts of climate change; and is central to biodiversity-based livelihoods.

Anneke Trux, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), summarized an ongoing project that is reviewing and comparing the successes and challenges of national action plans under the Rio Conventions.

Richard Hosier, Global Environment Facility (GEF), described the GEF’s Strategic Pilot for Adaptation (SPA), summarized various projects under the SPA relevant to biodiversity conservation, and noted the challenges in determining indicators for evaluating the project.

Oliver Schweiger, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany, summarized two recent scientific research projects that examine the relationship between climate change and biodiversity loss. He noted that while in some cases the impacts of adaptation and mitigation may be negative for biodiversity, if applied correctly they can easily result in win-win scenarios.

Participants discussed, inter alia: the potential of genetically modified organisms to provide a biodiversity safety net; the recent CBD COP decision on biodiversity and climate change; and the possible reasons why so few biodiversity projects have been supported by GEF adaptation funds.

L-R: Richard Hosier, GEF; Oliver Schweiger, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany; Jaime Webbe, CBD; Anneke Trux, GTZ; Richard Muyungi, Tanzania

Anneke Trux, GTZ, said national action plans can work if: the planning process is country-driven; there is ownership at every level; and stakeholders do not rely exclusively on external funding. Richard Muyungi, Tanzania, emphasized the important linkage between biodiversity and climate change adaptation. Jaime Webbe, CBD, stressed the importance of biodiversity conservation for climate change adaptation.

More information:

Richard Muyungi (Chair) <[email protected]>
Jaime Webbe (Organizer) <[email protected]>
Anneke Trux <[email protected]>
Richard Hosier <[email protected]>
Oliver Schweiger <[email protected]>

- To the top of the page -

EGTT work programme on the development and transfer of technologies: how to bring it forward?

Presented by the UNFCCC

L-R: Bert van der Plas, UNFCCC; Jukka Uosukainen, EGTT Chair; Elmer Holt, CTI Chair; Peter Taylor, IEA

Jukka Uosukainen, Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) Chair, discussed the EGTT work programme for 2008-2009, which is currently under negotiation by the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies, and highlighted key activities to be undertaken during this period. He explained that the EGTT was established as part of the pilot phase for creating a technology transfer mechanism.

Uosukainen outlined the basic elements of the EGTT framework, namely: technology needs and needs assessments; technology information; enabling environments; capacity building; mechanisms; and, in recent years, options for innovative financing and technologies for adaptation. He outlined expectations from the EGTT, including that it will: play a catalytic role in facilitating and implementing current technology transfer activities; develop medium- and long-term strategies, including sectoral approaches; develop performance indicators; and identify existing and potential new financing resources.

Peter Taylor, IEA, introduced the IEA’s forthcoming report, entitled Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, which evaluates three emission projection scenarios and provides technology roadmaps and technology status reports. He explained that the scenarios include a baseline projection up to 2050, and two mitigation scenarios: one that bring emissions back to current levels by 2050, and another that projects a 50% reduction.

Taylor stressed that expenditure on research, development and demonstration (RD&D) has been falling since the early 1980s, and that increased RD&D in areas such as power generation and transportation is critical. He said key messages of the report include: deep emission cuts are achievable but require significant effort and investment, and therefore credible long-term targets; non-cost barriers should be addressed; and a global energy technology revolution is needed.

Elmer Holt, Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) Chair, introduced the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN), which he described as a tool that aids developing countries to access currently available private financing by helping to create project proposals and matching projects with investors. He said the pilot phase was sponsored by the CTI and members provided their time for free, but that given their success, the US government has provided US$500 000 to scale up the operation and increase the number of projects.

Participants discussed: medium-term strategies for technology transfer; civil society involvement; non-cost barriers; methodological aspects of the IEA report and how the report will feed into the upcoming G8 meeting; the relationship between technology and finance; differences in IPCC and IEA projections; a possible success fee for PFAN projects.

Jukka Uosukainen, EGTT Chair, said the EGTT is elaborating a long-term strategy paper on the development and transfer of technology under the Convention. Elmer Holt, CTI Chair, said PFAN was designed in response to the recurring need in developing countries to access finance for technology transfer. Peter Taylor, IEA, explained that the technology roadmaps contained in the IEA’s forthcoming report include: potentials; pathways to commercialization; technology targets; key actions; and key areas for international collaboration.

More information:

Bert van der Plas (Coordinator) <[email protected]>
Jukka Uosukainen <[email protected]>
Peter Taylor <[email protected]>
Elmer Holt <[email protected]>

- To the top of the page -

Daily Web Coverage and Reports
Web 2 June 3 June 4 June 5 June 6 June 7 June 9 June 10 June 11 June 12 June 13 June
PDF PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version   PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version PDF Version
HTML HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version HTML Version

Digimarc Logo

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 IISD RS "Linkages" home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to ENB |

© 2008, IISD. All rights reserved.