The following side events were covered by ENBOTS on Monday, 7 November 2016:
- Improving Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for Agricultural Emission Reductions in the Livestock Sector
- Mobilizing Climate Finance for Implementing NDCs and Low-carbon Technology Innovation
- Understanding the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) linkages: Experiences from the Philippines
- Refinement of 2006 IPCC Guidelines
- Urgencies in Fundamental Climate Research following the Paris Agreement
- Loss And Damage Perspectives And Options
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENBOTS Meeting Coverage, is providing daily web coverage from the Marrakech Climate Change Conference - November 2016.
Photos by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis and Liz Rubin
For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page
Improving Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for Agricultural Emission Reductions in the Livestock Sector
Presented by Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and University of Vermont
This event was moderated by Lini Wollenberg, CCAFS and University of Vermont, who stressed the importance of building transparency of MRV and building a bottom-up approach in relation to emissions from the livestock sector.
Walter Oyhantcabal, Uruguay’s Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fishery, described Uruguay’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) experience in improving activity data, emission factors and coordination to best capture mitigation impacts.
Agripina Jenkins Rojas, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Costa Rica, described national experience related to MRV and the livestock sector. Drawing attention to her country’s national strategy for reducing emissions from the livestock sector and the livestock Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA), she described an MRV and climate change database system that will collect information at the national level.
Zewdu Eshetu, Addis Ababa University, described how his research institution coordinates with the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, academia, US Agency for International Development (USAID) and development associations in addressing issues such as enhancing efficiency in dairy production systems and milk yield.
Bess Tiesnamurti, Indonesian Centre for Animal Husbandry Research and Development, presented on Indonesia’s approach to improving livestock emission inventory. She described progress to date for livestock emissions factor using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2. She also showed data showing the increasing trend of methane from enteric fermentation from 2006-2016 for Tier 1 and Tier 2. She described how national agencies coordinate to collect data between, inter alia, the Ministry of Forestry and Environment and National Planning Agency; and the institutional arrangement for GHG inventory in Indonesia.
Alexandre Berndt, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, presented on improving MRV for emission reduction in the livestock sector in Brazil. Noting that the agriculture sector is responsible for 32% of Brazil’s emissions, he described initiatives to increase livestock efficiency by producing more with less land. He also drew attention to coordinated efforts in reducing emissions from livestock sector such as Brazil’s Sector Plan for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change for Low-Carbon Emission Agriculture (ABC Plan).
In the ensuing discussion, participants discussed, inter alia: multiscale and multisectoral data collection systems in relation to emissions from livestock sector; using additives to livestock feedlots in mitigating their methane emissions; quantification of CO2 emissions per kilo of meat and milk; and the visualization of the verification component of the MRV.
Bess Tiesnamurti, Indonesian Centre for Animal Husbandry Research and Development, showed an estimation of methane reduction after technological mitigation had been applied, predicting a 15% reduction for the years from 2016-2030.
Agripina Jenkins Rojas, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Costa Rica, described what is needed to capture mitigation such as frequent data on cattle production, and use of nitrogen fertilizer.
Zewdu Eshetu, Addis Ababa University, presented on the contribution of Ethiopia’s dairy sector to emissions by production systems.
For emissions from the livestock sector, Alexandre Berndt, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, suggested using IPCC Tier 2 for calculation of local emission factor.
Mobilizing Climate Finance for Implementing NDCs and Low-carbon Technology InnovationPresented by Vietnam and Freie Universität Berlin
This event was moderated by Christoph Feldkötter, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
Discussing the Support Programme to Respond to Climate Change (SP-RCC), Pham Van Tan, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Viet Nam, highlighted the programme’s components, namely mitigation, adaptation, transparency, resources and governance.
Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Climate Group, discussed the role of market mechanisms in financing conditional elements of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Highlighting that total volumes of finance requested for conditional NDCs reach US$1.87 trillion, he noted, inter alia: that it is more difficult to get climate finance than commonly thought; a significant demand for credits will be required; and a race to the bottom needs to be avoided through a level playing field for all mechanisms.
Hoang Van Tam, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Viet Nam, addressed his country’s energy development in the context of NDCs’ implementation. He focused on: energy efficiency development, including the legislative framework and voluntary programmes; the development of renewable energy; and instruments to promote low carbon development.
Nguyen Tuan Anh, Department of Science, Education, Natural Resources and Environment, Viet Nam, presented on Viet Nam’s Green Growth Strategy, intended to promote the process of restructuring and improving economic institutions towards more efficient use of natural resources, and improved competitiveness of the economy. Noting that the strategy and its action plan portray Viet Nam’s commitment to implement its NDC, he stressed that unconditional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction will reach 8% by 2030 and could increase to 25% with international support.
Mareike Well, Freie Universität Berlin, presented on patterns and expectations of governance networks for NDCs. She described common preferences among stakeholders on intended NDCs prior to the Paris agreement, particularly as they relate to long-term issues and focusing on both mitigation and adaptation. She concluded by stressing: that while similar actors do cooperate amongst each other, crosscutting actions also exist; and the increasing role of non-party stakeholders reflected in networks.
Chen-An Lien, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan, presented on a green energy case study financed by multilateral development banks. He described the long-term collaboration between his organization, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Taiwan International Corporation and Development Fund in providing investment for energy efficiency projects. He also highlighted a LED streetlight project in Tbilisi, Georgia, to enhance energy efficiency and reduce maintenance costs.
From L-R: Hoang Van Tam, Viet Nam Ministry of Industry and Trade; Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Climate Group; Christoph Feldkötter, GIZ; Pham Van Tan, Viet Nam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment; Nguyen Tuan Anh, Viet Nam Ministry of Planning and Investment; Mareike Well, Freie Universität Berlin; and Chen-An Lien, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan
Pham Van Tan, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Viet Nam, noted that SP-RCC is one of the important means of implementation of the Paris Agreement in Viet Nam.
Mareike Well, Freie Universität Berlin, noted that some actors can act as brokers to connect parties and stakeholders.
Noting that total volumes of NDC-related requested finance are “mindboggling,” Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Climate Group, stressed that public finance will not be able to cover all requests.
Christoph Feldkötter, GIZ, moderated the event on mobilizing climate finance for implementing NDCs and low-carbon technology innovation.
- Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Climate Group (Coordinator) | [email protected]
Understanding the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) linkages: Experiences from the PhilippinesPresented by Ateneo De Manila University School of Government
Gloria Mercado, Head of Delegation, the Philippines, highlighted the integration of climate change measures, in particular adaptation, within the Philippines’ development plans.
Stating that the Philippines ranks fourth in terms of vulnerability to climate disasters, Railla Veronica Puno, Climate Change Commission, the Philippines, stated that climate change adaptation (CCA) is prioritized within the Filipino NDC, together with mitigation actions with adaptation co-benefits.
Perla Baltazar, Department of Agriculture, the Philippines, said that food security is a priority within the Philippines’ NAP. She outlined the Adaptation and Mitigation Initiative in Agriculture, stating that it takes a landscape approach and aims to be science- and risk-based and sensitive to agro-ecology.
Julia Wolf, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO) lauded the Philippines for taking an integrated and long-term approach to its NDC, and for efforts to bring the disaster risk reduction (DDR) and CCA communities together. She highlighted that climate change disasters can have repercussions for the entire agricultural system’s value chain.
Kathleen Anne Capiroso-Coballes, National Economic and Development Authority, the Philippines, described the requirements to streamline the NAP-NDC, including: enabling international and national policies and institutional arrangements; a supportive budget; and a focus on long-term planning to ensure resilience.
Antonio Gabriel Maestrado La Viña, Executive Director, Manila Observatory, outlined efforts to identify how the Paris Agreement aligns with President Rodrigo Duterte’s 10 Point Development Agenda. Expressing hope that the Philippines will soon ratify the Paris Agreement, he underscored that his country needs to address local development needs.
The ensuing discussion addressed, inter alia: stakeholder engagement in the Filipino NDC; the change in political leadership and how this influences the Philippines’ role in climate diplomacy; behavior change and effective communication strategies to address climate change; and the complexity of developing policies that span several presidencies.
From L-R: Perla Baltazar, Department of Agriculture, the Philippines; Julia Wolf, FAO; Gloria Mercado, Head of Delegation, the Philippines; Antonio Gabriel Maestrado La Viña, Executive Director, Manila Observatory; Railla Veronica Puno, Climate Change Commission, the Philippines; and Kathleen Anne Capiroso-Coballes, National Economic and Development Authority, the Philippines
Gloria Mercado, Head of Delegation, the Philippines, called for developing integrated plans that balance climate change mitigation and adaptation concerns.
Antonio Gabriel Maestrado La Viña, Executive Director, Manila Observatory, said that discussing only carbon emissions is too abstract, and climate change policies need to be about people.
Railla Veronica Puno, Climate Change Commission, the Philippines, said that the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) prioritizes the most vulnerable sectors to climate change.
Julia Wolf, FAO, highlighted the synergies in tackling climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, together with addressing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Joyce Melcar Tan (Coordinator)
| [email protected]
- Josine Alexandra Gamboa (coordinator)
| [email protected]
- Margarita Alexandra Reyes (coordinator)
| [email protected]
Refinement of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Kiyoto Tanabe, Co-Chair, IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI), moderated the session.
Andrej Kranjc, Head, TFI Technical Support Unit, outlined the IPCC TFI objectives to: develop and refine an internationally agreed methodology and software for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals; and encourage its widespread use by UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) parties. He explained that the emission factor database (EFDB) is a library of emission parameters and other relevant technical data that can be used for estimating GHG emissions and removals. He stressed the importance of the IPCC inventory software that is freely available on the IPCC webpage.
William Agyemang-Bonsu, UNFCCC Secretariat, highlighted the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. He noted that the report will update the IPCC’s current methodologies that provide guidance to countries on measuring their GHG emissions and removals. He stressed the perspectives and potential impact on ongoing joint activities undertaken with the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Sekai Ngarize, TFI Technical Support Unit, said the aim of technical assessment work is to analyze if science and data availability have developed sufficiently since 2006 IPCC Guidelines and to conduct a technical assessment to improve its user friendliness. She summarized issues raised by experts via online questionnaire and from various expert meetings, including clearer guidance for the calculation of indirect carbon dioxide emissions.
Baasansuren Jamsranjav, TFI Technical Support Unit, said that the technical assessment of IPCC inventory guideline was carried out in 2015 and 2016, and noted that the report will provide supplementary methodologies for sources and sinks of GHGs due to existence of gaps and arrival of new technologies.
Pavel Shermanau, TFI Technical Support Unit, explained the IPCC procedure to produce official reports, including expert and government reviews. He encouraged participants to contribute by contacting national focal points in their countries.
Eduardo Calvo Buendia, IPCC TFI Co-Chair, moderated discussions regarding guidance for the Paris Agreement, specific updates for developing countries guidance and limitations of software calculations.
From L-R: Pavel Shermanau, TFI Technical Support Unit; Sekai Ngarize, TFI Technical Support Unit; Baasansuren Jamsranjav, TFI Technical Support Unit; Andrej Kranjc, Head of TFI Technical Support Unit; William Agyemang-Bonsu, UNFCCC Secretariat; Kiyoto Tanabe, IPCC TFI Co-Chair; and Eduardo Calvo Buendia, IPCC TFI co-chair, discussed the 2019 Refinement Guidelines.
Andrej Kranjc, Head of TFI Technical Support Unit, summarized IPCC recent decisions relevant to TFI, regarding preparation of methodology reports on national GHG inventories.
Kiyoto Tanabe, IPCC TFI Co-Chair, moderated panel speakers.
Pavel Shermanau, TFI Technical Support Unit, outlined the 2019 Refinement Report working plan.
William Agyemang-Bonsu, UNFCCC Secretariat, said it is possible to add elements on to the IPCC software to facilitate the work of non-Annex I Parties.
Sekai Ngarize, TFI Technical Support Unit, said on uncertainty analysis, experts asked for more default values, calculation examples and best practices.
View of the room during the event
- Andrej Kranjc (Head of TFI Technical Support Unit)
| [email protected]
- William Agyemang-Bonsu (UNFCCC Secretariat)
| [email protected]
Urgencies in Fundamental Climate Research following the Paris AgreementPresented by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)
This side event was co-moderated by David Carlson, Director, World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (WGI).
Opening the session, Katsia Paulavets, ICSU, highlighted the key role of science in addressing challenges related to climate change. Noting that the climate system “does not listen to agreements,” Carlson discussed how the climate community is responding to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Jochem Marotzke, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, noted, among others, that focusing on the carbon cycle, weather changes and habitability not only helps to shape the basic research agenda, but these are at the heart of what society needs to prepare for future challenges related to climate change.
Boram Lee, WCRP, presented on how a warming world will affect the available fresh water resources globally as well as the impacts on the food basket regions of the world.
Highlighting that Antarctica is a land of extremes, Irene Schloss, Instituto Antártico Argentino, noted that the Southern Ocean represents 50-70% of the global ocean carbon sink. She stressed that interdisciplinary thinking is key to translating climate data into answers on the suitability/habitability of the environment to maintain biodiversity in Antarctica.
Noting that little or no information from Latin America’s forests’ carbon response to climate change is available, Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, University of Alberta, IAI, addressed challenges related to precise regional estimates’ generation, stressing that no analytic approaches currently exist to estimate carbon responses to extreme events.
Introducing the panel discussion, Masson-Delmotte provided an overview of IPCC activities and highlighted the IPCC’s concern regarding the ability to stimulate new research in the context of the Paris Agreement.
Fatima Driouech, National Climate Centre, Morocco, underscored the need to enhance the quality of forecasts to enhance assessments and predictions on potential negative impacts of weather and climate extremes. Addressing the need for balance between climate change knowledge and the policy dialogue, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit, stressed that the Paris Agreement necessitates a shift in scientific thinking to take into consideration given temperature targets. Erica Key, the Belmont Forum, presented on the Forum’s work and priorities to advance inter- and trans-disciplinary research to address global challenges.
In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: technical details of monitoring systems; linkages between funding for fundamental science, and climate finance on adaptation and mitigation; the “race against time” between new knowledge and information relevant to decision makers; suggestions to encourage involvement of young scientists; and controversial techniques, including geoengineering and solar radiation management.
From L-R: Irene Schloss, Instituto Antártico Argentino; Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Co-chair of IPCC’s Working Group I; Boram Lee, WCRP; Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa, University of Alberta, IAI; David Carlson, Director of WCRP; and Jochem Marotzke, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
Boram Lee, WCRP, addressed the water challenge for the food baskets of the world.
Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Co-chair of IPCC Working Group I, underscored the Panel’s work on key uncertainties and observation gaps.
Irene Schloss, Instituto Antártico Argentino, highlighted the need to gain understanding on climate variation at scales relevant to biological processes.
Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa, University of Alberta, IAI, underscored the challenges related to climate change research in the Latin American context.
- Katsia Paulavets
| [email protected]
Loss And Damage Perspectives And Options
Presented by Practical Action and Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)
This event was moderated by Emily Boyd, LUCSUS, and Colin McQuistan, Practical Action.
Rachel James, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, discussed a spectrum of views on loss and damage (L&D), highlighting four typologies, namely adaptation and mitigation, risk management, limits to adaptation and the existential typology, and pointing to differences in understanding of priority actions necessary to address L&D.
Reinhard Mechler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), discussed avoided, “unavoided,” and unavoidable risks; called for building a broad analytical climate risk perspective of L&D; and noted that risks could be managed through curative L&D measures, as well as transformative measures.
Pablo Suarez, Red Cross Climate Centre, requested participants to consider words associated with L&D, including identity, injustice and death; and highlighted an emerging practice of forecast-based financing, which offers financing to assist in preventing humanitarian disasters due to predicted climatic events.
McQuistan then shared the realities of communities facing L&D, noting that evidence for more frequent occurrences of extreme events is gathered from data sets on disasters; and highlighting that the resources communities are using to implement response and preparedness measures are dwindling causing some to alter their livelihoods as a coping mechanism. He stressed that L&D is more than just insurance payments to affected communities.
Boyd presented a preliminary assessment of seven case studies on national mechanisms for L&D, noting that emerging messages include the need to address attribution and vulnerability issues, as well as linkages between climate change and disasters.
Saleemul Huq, Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development, spoke on the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust, noting its current focus on L&D. Kees Van der Geest, UN University, briefly spoke on the need to include ecosystem resilience approaches in policy measures regarding climate change adaptation and L&D.
In the ensuing discussion, participants raised, inter alia, the timeframe for forecast-based financing, and the need to understand the line between adaptation and L&D.
From L-R: Rachel James, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University; Reinhard Mechler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Colin McQuistan, Practical Action; Emily Boyd, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies; Pablo Suarez, Red Cross Climate Centre; and Saleemul Huq, Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development.
Reinhard Mechler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, noted that transformative L&D measures include alternative livelihoods and voluntary resettlement.
Leading participants in an exercise to identify words depicting loss and damage from a humanitarian perspective, Pablo Suarez, Red Cross Climate Centre, called on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to further explore forecast-based financing.
Colin McQuistan, Practical Action, moderated the event and called attention to the Loss and Damage Network.
Emily Boyd, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, noted the role of the private sector in addressing risk including through the provision of insurance.
Rachel James, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, noted the persistent ambiguity surrounding the term “loss and damage.”
- Colin McQuistan (Coordinator)
| [email protected]