This side event, moderated by Ben Lyon, UK, aimed to inform national governments, potential delivery organizations and other Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) stakeholders about the context, objective and function of the NAMA Facility.

Sudhir Sharma, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), provided an overview of NAMAs, setting the scene for better understanding their substance. He referred to the definition and typology of NAMAs, as well as the current submission status to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Registry. He stressed the importance of linkages between NAMAs, national development priorities and low carbon development strategies (LCDSs) to ensure transformational impacts.

Norbert Gorißen, Germany, noted the purpose of the NAMA Facility, identifying current means of support, including financial support and technical cooperation instruments aimed at capacity building. He discussed the governance structure of the NAMA Facility, the NAMA Facility Board, which is comprised of representatives from the BMU and DECC, and the Technical Support Unit (TSU).

On technical functions of the NAMA Facility, Vera Scholz, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), underscored eligibility criteria, inter alia: eligibility of the submitting entity; endorsement by the national government; cooperation with a qualified delivery organization; official development assistance (ODA) eligibility; time frame for implementation; finance volume; degree of maturity; feasibility; and a plan for the phase-out of support.

Sebastian Hach, KfW Development Bank, addressed ambition criteria, saying they apply after a successful eligibility assessment. He noted ambition criteria include: transformational change potential; co-benefits; financial ambition; and mitigation potential.

Closing the session, Claudio Forner, UNFCCC Secretariat, underscored that the international NAMA Facility provides an unprecedented opportunity to engage developing countries and cooperate with them on mitigation activities. He also addressed risks involved, such as the: balance between respecting project diversity and defining concrete ways to assess projects; difficulty in quantifying ambition; and management of the numerous proposals that are expected once the call for NAMA projects is open.

The ensuing discussions focused on: possible accounting problems related to the utilization of carbon credit mechanisms; funding and the number of NAMAs gaining support; nature of the transformational impact; relationship with the Registry; and links to adaptation issues.

This side event, moderated by Robert Bradley, United Arab Emirates (UAE), shared insights and discussed efforts to strengthen gender balance, enhance the empowerment of women in the UNFCCC process, and advance gender-sensitive climate policy.

In her opening remarks, Ambassador Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko, South Africa, welcomed the fact that the UNFCCC process has been “taken over” by women since COP 16 in Cancun and stressed that women bring a style that is “collaborative and moves the process forward.” She called for parity in the representation of women in the process, and changes in the processes’ culture and language.

Recalling Gender Day on 29 November 2013, and the “miracle of Doha” – the Decision on Gender (Decision 23/CP.18), Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, emphasized that these are means to an end, a gender-sensitive climate policy. She stressed a gender-sensitive climate policy should differentiate between policies that can enable men and those that can enable women to contribute to climate change solutions.

Verona Collantes, UN Women, introduced the report “The Full View: Advancing the Goal of Gender Balance in Multilateral and Intergovernmental Processes.” She highlighted recommendations, including establishing temporary special measures, such as a gender “representation target” and guidance to designate women in informal negotiating groups, and numerical targets and mechanisms to sanction non-compliance for consideration at the review of the Decision on Gender.

Aleksandra Blagojević, Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), indicated measures to enhance gender equality in different processes, such as: providing official space for women; ensuring data collection on women’s participation; establishing a monitoring body; setting-up affirmative measures, such as quotas, as well as sanctions, but used in a creative way; securing buy-in by all; and raising awareness and training of women.

Lorena Aguilar Revelo, IUCN, underscored that Cancun and Durban are the first formal agreements obliging entities within the UNFCCC to ensure that gender is fully incorporated in their work on climate change. Outlining challenges, she stressed the need to implement the policy to ensure a transformational change and underscored the risk of complacency once gender has been included.

In the ensuing discussions, participants exchanged views on national strategies for gender, including the possibility of applying national quota systems at the international level, and means of implementation and ways to ensure a gender-sensitive approach under the Green Climate Fund (GCF). One participant lamented the “erosion of the culture of respect” by the issue of gender balance.

SBI Chair Thomasz Chruszczow, Poland, noted with pride the inclusion of gender in the Durban package, and stressed that women’s intellectual potential must be enabled and allowed to influence the work of the Convention.

This session explored climate risk landscapes in the context of current emission pathways, and elaborated on key factors to enable the integration of insurance approaches into climate risk management. Koko Warner, MCII and United Nations University (UNU) Institute for Environment and Human Security (EHS), moderated the side event.

Isaac Anthony, Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), noted the vulnerability of Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to natural hazards, saying they inordinately impact their national economies. He described the Livelihood Protection Policy (LPP), which is a parametric weather index-based insurance product that provides a safety net for a significant section of the population that would otherwise be unable to get insurance.

Focusing on lessons learned from past projects, regarding the role of insurance in climate risk management, Janina Voss, GIZ, stressed the need for: strong and long-term commitments from governments; an appropriate regulatory environment; joint efforts and clarity on roles of the key stakeholders; data availability, accuracy and reliability; appropriate back-up mechanisms; and nation-wide awareness creation and education on the impact of climate change and the protection insurance may provide.

Annelie Janz, BMU, addressed the International Climate Initiative (ICI), which has been financing climate projects in developing and transition countries, since its launch by the BMU five years ago. Funding investment projects in the fields of technology transfer, policy advice, research cooperation, capacity development and training, as well as for carrying out studies and developing concepts, he said the ICI aims to support the development of insurance solutions as part of integrated adaptation strategies.

Peter Hoeppe, Munich RE, stressed that the distribution of wealth coincides globally with the distribution of insurance, and therefore, when a natural disaster hits a poor and virtually uninsured country, lack of funds may lead to a poverty trap, maximizing losses. He noted the kind of risks that are insurable and pointed to Munich RE’s database on extreme events, which provides a complete picture since 1980 and is available for institutions and policymakers.

During discussion, participants addressed possible institutional arrangements and whether regional approaches should focus on compensation or adaptation.

This side event, moderated by Elmer Holt, CTI Chair, presented a potential new funding approach and cooperation currently being explored between CTI PFAN and REEEP, which would offer an integrated funding and advisory package to support the scaling up of clean energy projects across the complete development value chain.

Holt presented the CTI, saying it aims to promote rapid development and diffusion of climate-friendly and environmentally sound technologies through multilateral and international cooperation between the public and private sectors, and between Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries. He also introduced the CTI PFAN multilateral initiative, stressing it aims to: accelerate technology transfer and diffusion under the UNFCCC; promote low-carbon, sustainable economic development; and increase financing opportunities for clean energy projects. Finally, he presented REEEP’s mission to catalyze scaling-up clean energy business models in developing countries and emerging markets.

Peter Storey, CTI PFAN, explained the process, from the model project, through the Phased Financing Facility, up to large funders and investors, and outlined expected outcomes, such as leverage, private investment mobilization, scaling up, and feedback to policy.

Martin Hiller, Director General, REEEP, explained the advantages of cooperation between CTI PFAN and REEEP, saying that it allows for: identification of successful business models; engagement with entrepreneurs; organic growth and/or replication; investment structure to fit needs; confidence of investors; and feedback into policy and investment.

Zitouni Ould-Dada, UNEP, discussed the origins of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) since its establishment at COP 16 in Cancun and the set up of its Advisory Board at COP 18 in Doha. Stressing CTCN’s country-driven characteristic, he outlined its functions: managing requests from developing countries National Designated Entities (NDEs) and deliver responses; foster collaboration and access to information and knowledge to accelerate technology deployment; and strengthen networks, partnerships and capacity building for climate technology development.

The subsequent discussions addressed, inter alia: the concept of leverage and subsidized projects; links between CTI and Sustainable Energy for All initiatives (SE4ALL); and adaptation technology transfer to developing countries.