ENB on the side
 
published by IISD, the International Institute for Sustainable Development
in cooperation with the Climate Change Secretariat
 
 

Special Report on Selected Side Events at UNFCCC COP-10

6 - 17 December 2004 | Buenos Aires, Argentina



Daily Web Coverage & Daily Reports:

6 December 2004

7 December 2004

8 December 2004

9 December 2004

10 December 2004

11 December 2004

13 December 2004

14 December 2004

15 December 2004

16 December 2004

17 December 2004

Brief Analysis



 


 

Events convened on Wednesday, 15 December 2004

The Climate Group: Global leaders for climate solutions


Presented by the Climate Group

Werner Schnappauf, Bavarian Environment Minister, presented the Bavarian Climate Alliance, and said Bavaria intends to launch climate partnerships with other regions in the world

Mark Kenber, Climate Group, said his organization was launched by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2004, and forms a coalition of leaders in carbon emissions reductions, including corporations, cities, federal States and central governments.

Stéphane Dion, Canada’s Minister of the Environment, presented Canada’s response to the Kyoto Protocol and perspectives for post-Kyoto schemes, noting that Canada has the most difficult target under the Protocol and its major trading partner decided not to participate. He said the Government issued the Climate Change Plan for Canada in November 2002, addressing emissions reductions, technology development, public education, and science and adaptation, noting that Canada has allocated more than CAN$3.7 billion to address climate change. He highlighted critical considerations in addressing climate change, including participation of all Parties to the UNFCCC, realistic short- and long-term goals, promotion of technology development and transfer, and activities to address impacts and adaptation. Minister Dion underscored Canada’s commitment to


Jim Walker, Climate Group, discussed findings of the report “Carbon down, profits up,” which provides examples of profitable carbon reductions achieved by members of the Carbon Group. He emphasized that several companies managed to reduce their carbon emissions by more than 60% in recent years, including IBM, which managed to reduce its carbon emissions by 65% from 1990 levels, resulting in total savings of US$ 791 million.

Werner Schnappauf, Bavarian Environment Minister, said climate change is the biggest ecological challenge of the 21st century, and stressed that it has clear economic implications. He noted that 98% of damages covered by the world’s largest reinsurance company, MunichRe, in 2003 are climate-related. He called for a global strategy on emissions reductions that goes beyond Kyoto targets, and said Bavaria intends to set an example by achieving a 10% emissions reduction target for 2010 against the 2000 base year.

In a video address, Otto Steinmetz, Dresdner Bank, said his organization joined the Climate Group because it is committed to being a leader in developing and implementing tools that address global climate change. He noted that his company provides products in the field of weather derivatives and emissions trading.

Sascha Lafeld, Dresdner Bank, spoke on climate change and corporate sustainability at the Allianz Group and Dresdner Bank, noting that sustainability is a high priority issue for the Allianz Group. He emphasized that their climate change activities focus on emissions trading, but also include financing of renewable energies and conducting research.

Discussion: A participant asked how other members of the business community could be motivated for action. Lafeld responded that identifying economic opportunities related to climate change is the best way to engage the private sector.
Contact:

Mark Kenber <mkenber@theclimategroup.org>
Stéphane Dion <jean.boutet@ec.gc.ca>
Jim Walker <jwalker@theclimategroup.org>
Sascha Lafeld  <sascha.lafeld@dresdner-bank.com>  

Is climate change dangerous to human health

Presented by the the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) and Climate Action Network (CAN)-Europe

Kristie Ebi, Consultant, stressed the need to maintain sustained commitment to adapting the health sector to climate change, noting that health risks and their drivers change over time

Bettina Menne, WHO, highlighted the 2004 Budapest Ministerial Declaration, in which several European ministers of health and the environment recognize the need for intervention measures, such as early warning systems, to reduce the burden of climate change impacts. She proposed activities to consider human health within the UNFCCC framework.

Noting that death tolls and diseases related to climate change will double by 2020, Carlos Corvalan, WHO, stressed the need for the health sector to consider climate change as an additional factor to existing causes of diseases, and integrate health with other sectors.

Karla Schoeters, CAN-Europe, highlighted the link between climate change and health, noting the health impacts of air pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels.

Lilian Corra, ISDE, reviewed the impacts of climate change on children’s health, stressing that children are among the most vulnerable groups, and that more than 30% of children’s diseases are caused by environmental factors.


Peter Hoeppe, Munich Re, stressed the impacts of climate change on the reinsurance sector, noting that half of the fatalities worldwide are caused by atmospheric-related events and that the number is increasing. He explained how climate change affects, inter alia, health, outdoor activities and food safety, and stressed the need for adaptation and mitigation measures.

Carlo Jaeger, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, discussed regional aspects of climate change and human health. He noted discrepancies in the ability of countries within the same region to cope with the effects of extreme weather events, said case studies in Africa show that climate change will increasingly hit regions where poverty is the underlying cause of vulnerability, and stressed the need for new types of insurance and institutions.

Saleemul Huq, International Institute for Environment and Development, outlined Bangladesh’s experience in coping with “normal” floods, but stressed the lack of capacity to cope with extreme events. He underscored the need to assist affected countries’ institutions in building their coping capacities, and facilitate South-South knowledge sharing.

Kristie Ebi, Consultant, reviewed how the public health sector can adapt to climate change, stressing the need for a risk assessment-based approach, a sustained commitment to adaptation, an understanding of multiple and interacting determinants of disease, surveillance and early warning systems, and inter-sectoral coordination and collaboration. She stressed that interventions must be tailored to local situations to be effective. 


How to make the UNFCCC carbon neutral?

Presented by the UNFCCC Secretariat

Iulian Florin Vladu, UNFCCC Secretariat, said the Secretariat’s goal is to apply the scheme for offsetting carbon emissions at COP-11

Wanna Tanunchaiwatana, UNFCCC Secretariat, stated that the main aim in making the UNFCCC Secretariat carbon neutral is to raise public awareness on the issue.

Iulian Florin Vladu, UNFCCC Secretariat, explained that the first step in making the Secretariat carbon neutral is to define how much carbon is emitted, the second is to offset the emissions by mitigation activities, and the third is to communicate results to stakeholders.

Emanuela Menichetti, Kyoto Club Italy, described the methodology used for, and results of, carbon dioxide emissions calculations for the 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP), held in 2003, in Milan, Italy. She said the final figure was 7000 tons of carbon dioxide, and indicated that 8000 tons of emission reductions had been purchased from a biomass project in Hungary to offset these emissions.

Holger Liptow, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), outlined measures to offset carbon emissions by GTZ’s head office, including purchasing green energy, renovating office buildings, encouraging employees not to commute by car, and using video conferences to reduce travels. He said GTZ also aims to purchase carbon credits from a Gold Standard Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project, noting that the idea had been launched in 2002, with the first carbon credits expected in 2006.

Jonathan Pershing, World Resources Institute (WRI), explained that the WRI has developed step-by-step guidance regarding carbon emissions from offices. He said offsetting options include changing practices and purchasing carbon credits.

Manfred Treber, Germanwatch, said the “atmosfair” methodology was developed to calculate the global warming impact of the aviation sector, noting that it aims to be both simple and maintain integrity by taking into account the radiative forcing index based on the 1999 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s report on Aviation and Global Atmosphere.
Contact:

Wanna Tanunchaiwatana <wtanunchaiwatana@unfccc.int>
Florin Vladu <fvladu@unfccc.int>
Emanuela Menichetti <emanuela.m@ecobibncio.com>
Holger Liptow <holger.liptow@gtz.de>
Jonathan Pershing <jpershing@wri.org>
Manfred Treber <treber@germanwatch.org

The EU emissions trading system and the linking directive: What will it deliver?

Presented by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

Chris McDermott, Environment Canada, indicated that linking emissions trading systems aims to further institutionalize the Marrakesh agreement, minimize transaction costs, and provide for equitable access to markets

Damian Meadows, European Commission, explained how the EU Emissions Trading Directive applies to five major energy-intensive sectors, and said it will begin with a three-year mandatory start-up phase from 2005-2007, followed by five-year allocation periods. He outlined linkages between the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and the international climate agenda, explaining that Article 25 of the Directive allows trading with other emissions trading systems, while the Linking Directive incorporates Joint Implementation (JI) and CDM credits in the EU scheme.

Chris McDermott, Environment Canada, noted that Canada has a relatively small carbon market, and identified the need for a more liquid emissions trading market and an enabling environment for multinational participation. Indicating that the Kyoto Protocol provides 95% of the institutional framework for linking emissions trading markets, he stressed that bilateral agreements should be limited to filling the gaps. He said differences in emissions trading systems across countries should not impede linking.

Hiroshi Yamagata, Japan’s Ministry of Economy Trade, and Industry, indicated that Japan’s Climate Change Program adopted in 2002 aims to achieve a 6% reduction from the 1990 base year, through cooperation between government and business sectors.
 

Hugh Porteous, Alcan, agreed that domestic emissions trading systems need not be identical to allow for the linking of markets, but stressed the need to address cost disparities in allowances

Hugh Porteous, Alcan, noted that Alcan expects to be a net purchaser of allowances in both Canada and the EU, and stressed the value of international sectoral commitments to mitigating climate change, such as investment in best available technologies, and research and development. He noted that linking emissions trading systems is essential, but inadequate in that it sustains the inequities and distortions inherent in the Kyoto Protocol.

Bill Kyte, UK Emissions Trading Group, indicated that emissions trading systems can be either formally linked, entailing direct bidirectional transfer, mutual recognition, equivalency and simplicity, or informally linked, entailing indirect unidirectional transfer, no mutual recognition, inequivalency and complexity. Noting that there is no such thing as a closed system, he stressed the need to keep links simple in order to facilitate business participation and avoid “back door” commercial linkages.

Thomas Jacob, DuPont, stressed that linking the EU ETS with the CDM process is crucial to ensuring that the CDM delivers. Noting that the EU is evolving as the hub of emissions trading systems initiatives, he anticipated that all major players will be involved in the long term, including the US.

 
Discussion: A participant indicated that Norway had passed legislation on emissions trading and expects to be participating in the EU ETS during the first period.

Contact:

Damian Meadows <damien.meadows@cec.eu.int>
Chris McDermott <chris.mcdermott@ec.gc.ca>
Hiroshi Yamagata <yamagata-hiroshi@meti.go.jp>
Hugh Porteous <hugh.porteous@alcan.com>
Bill Kyte <dr-william.kyte@eon-uk.com>
Thomas Jacob <tom.jacob@usa.dupont.com>

Finance for carbon solutions: The CDM from the financial sector perspective


Presented by the Insurance Initiative and UNEP

Sascha Lafeld, 3C climate change consulting, said CDM projects entail three basic categories of risks, namely conventional project risks, political risks in host countries, and risks specific to the generation and sale of CERs

Thomas Loster, Munich Re, noted that losses from climate change are increasing, highlighted the key role of the financial sector as a service provider in the CDM process, and stressed the role of public-private partnerships in engaging all actors.

Sascha Lafeld, 3C climate change consulting, said many Annex I countries will face serious compliance problems during the first commitment period, which will create a high demand for certified emissions reductions (CERs). He noted that investment is deterred by the complexity of the CDM process, the long timeframe for developing CDM projects, and the lack of institutional capacity in both host and buyer countries. He stressed the need to rethink additionality, and recommended simplification and standardization of the CDM process and the provision of clear guidance on the CDM regulation beyond 2012.

Charles Cormier, World Bank, explained that his organization seeks to catalyze the CDM market, primarily by securing underlying funding. He outlined a number of obstacles to attracting investors, including regulatory uncertainty, high transaction costs, and sovereign risks. He indicated that the World Bank seeks to improve the bankability of projects, provide a revenue stream, and manage regulatory and financial risks.


Rodrigo Sales, Baker and McKenzie, outlined key elements of early CDM contract negotiation, including establishing the product to be sold, legal titles over CERs, warranties and indemnities, and provisions dealing with breach of contract and termination. He stressed the need to assign risk in contracts, including political and sovereign risks particular to the host country.

María Szauer, Andean Corporation of Promotion (CAF), identified substantial growth in the carbon market over the last two years, noting that in 2003 and 2004, 51% of CERs came from Asia and 27% from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Hernan Carlino, Argentina’s Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development, outlined plans to establish an Argentine Carbon Fund to finance small and medium CDM projects, noting that the aim is to attract national and international public and private funding. He stressed that the fund would help to reduce risk associated with CDM project activities and reduce transaction costs.

Klaus Töpfer, UNEP Executive Director, stressed that increased carbon dioxide concentrations have international environmental impacts, and indicated that this represents a valuable opportunity to employ international market instruments in controling emissions. 

Contact:

Thomas Loster <tloster@munichre.com>
Sascha Lafeld <sascha.lafeld@3c-company.com>
Charles Cormier <ccormier@worldbank.org>
Rodrigo Sales <rodrigo.sales@bakernet.com>
María Szauer <mszauer@caf.comn>
Hernan Carlino <hcarlino@medioambiente.gov.ar>

Adaptation in OECD countries


Presented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Shardul Agrawala, OECD, noted that the largest temperature increases since 1975 have occurred in Northern latitudes, which makes the need for adaptation in OECD countries particularly pressing

Kiyo Akasaka, OECD, said various regions are already experiencing climate change impacts, and stressed that vulnerability is growing in both OECD and developing countries.

Shardul Agrawala, OECD, reviewed OECD’s work on assessing the benefits of climate policies and mainstreaming adaptation in development planning. He said while climate impacts have implications for development on multiple time-scales, they currently receive little attention in development planning.

Judy Lawrence, New Zealand’s Ministry of the Environment, reviewed New Zealand’s adaptation-related legislation and policies, and described a policy cycle involving data generation, risk assessment, mainstreaming adaptation, monitoring and evaluation, awareness raising, and capacity building.

Marc Gillet, France’s Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, gave examples of climate change effects in France, and listed his country’s adaptation research activities and policy measures.

 
Heikki Granholm, Finland’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, said Finland’s national adaptation strategy relies on modeling socioeconomic scenarios and trends in natural systems, and predicting climate change impacts on macroeconomic variables for the 2005-2080 period. He stressed the need for more research, long-term investments, short-term measures to address variability, and win-win solutions.

Andrew Deacon, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said the UK approach embraces the precautionary principle and makes good business sense, since it avoids future costs by reducing vulnerability. He listed policy examples, including allowances for climate change in coastal management, 25-year water management plans, and programs on awareness raising regarding summer health problems.

Greg Picker, Australia’s Greenhouse Office, discussed Australia’s vulnerability to climate impacts, listed national policies on water management, and described Australia’s efforts to develop regional impact scenarios and vulnerability assessments.

Discussion: Lawrence suggested that differences in national circumstances may preclude standardization of adaptation strategies. Granholm noted the absence of reliable methodologies for estimating the cost adaptation. Picker said OECD and other organizations have a role in capacity building for data generation and economic planning.

Contact:

Kiyo Akasaka <kiyo.akasaka@oecd.org>
Shardul Agrawala <shardul.agrawala@oecd.org>
Judy Lawrence <judy.lawrence@mfe.govt.nz>
Marc Gillet <marc.gillet@onerc.pm.gouv.fr>
Heikki Granholm <heikki.granholm@mmm.fi>
Andrew Beacon <andy.beacon@defra.gsi.gov.uk>
Greg Picker <greg.picker@greenhouse.gov.au>

Global warming and human rights: The case of the Arctic


Presented by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said persistent organic pollutants will be re-released in the Arctic because of the melting of ice induced by climate change

Klaus Töpfer, UNEP Executive Director, emphasized that the Arctic represents an early warning system for global environmental problems such as global warming and pollution from persistent organic pollutants, and said developments in the Arctic must be carefully examined. He noted that the Inuit and other Arctic indigenous peoples play an important role in stimulating action on environmental problems. He said adaptation to climate change is important, but stressed that mitigation should be prioritized.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said warming in the Arctic is predicted to increase at twice the global average rate, and indicated that the threshold of dangerous anthropogenic interference defined in UNFCCC Article 2 (Objective) has already been reached in the Arctic. She recounted changes already experienced in the Arctic, including permafrost melting, erosion, infrastructure damage, longer ice-free seasons, new species, and deteriorating animal health. She said accidents are increasing as fast-melting glaciers make sea ice unpredictable. She explained that these changes result in destructive social behavior in Inuit communities, and urged radical thinking within the UNFCCC framework to preserve the Inuit culture. Watt-Cloutier called for a comprehensive Arctic monitoring program within the UNFCCC to gather information from the Arctic early warning system. She stressed the urgent need for action, and said countries must exceed their Kyoto Protocol commitments. She noted that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has recognized indigenous peoples’ right to a healthy and safe environment as integral to their right to life, and indicated that the Inuit will petition the Commission concerning the impacts of climate change.


Discussion: Watt-Cloutier explained that the desired outcome of the petition would be a Declaration recognizing that climate change violates the human rights of the Inuit people.
Contact:

Donald Goldberg <dgoldberg@ciel.org>
Klaus Töpfer <klaus.toepfer@unep.org>
Sheila Watt-Cloutier <icc@inuitcircumpolar.com>

Longer term climate change frameworks – regional and national business views


Presented by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
 

Nick Campbell, ICC Task Force on Climate Change, described the challenge of agreeing a long-term post-2012 climate regime as a major theme for discussion at COP-10

Björn Stigson, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, described the development of a common view on the way forward for the post-2012 climate regime as the key challenge for business and governments.

Richard Smith, Nuclear Energy Institute, argued that any plausible program to cap global carbon concentrations requires a nuclear component as part of the mix of zero carbon technologies capable of delivering an average emission rate of 0.2 kilograms of carbon per kilowatt hour.

Kevin Fay, International Climate Change Partnership, called for a long-term objective to generate a technology revolution, avoid premature retirement of capital stock, and provide clarity on long-term goals.

Fiona Wain, Environment Business Australia, underlined the need for immediate deep cuts in emissions. She added that the costs of adaptation should be presented alongside the costs of abatement and mitigation, noting that adaptation is not a low cost option.

Masayuki Sasanouchi, Keidanren industry association, described Japanese industry’s objectives for a future global climate framework, including fundamental reform of the CDM, development and diffusion of technologies, and adoption of a sector-specific approach.

Nick Campbell, ICC and European Employers’ Federation, described industry support in Europe for the region’s leadership role in the climate regime, and noted industry’s apprehension regarding adoption of new targets by the EU.

Discussion: Participants noted the need to clarify market signals on externalities, including adaptation costs, and governments’ role in underwriting risks associated with breakthrough technologies for the private sector, including the US Government’s disputed role in covering the nuclear industry. Participants also considered: competitiveness and equity; involvement of US multinational corporations in the current climate regime, including emissions trading; carbon intensity targets; and the participation of developing countries in a future regime.

More information:

http://www.iccwbo.org
Contact:

Björn Stigson <stigson@wbcsd.org>
Richard Smith <rns@nei.org>
Kevin Fay <fay@alcalde-fay.com>
Fiona Wain <eba@environmentbusiness.com.au>
Masayuki Sasanouchi <masayuki_sasanouchi@mail.toyota.co.jp>
Nick Campbell <nick.campbell@arkemagroup.com>

Next steps for CDM activities: Gaps and ways to overcome them


Presented by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan’s Overseas Environmental Cooperation Center (OECC), and the Global Environment Center Foundation (GEC)
 

Akio Morishima, IGES Chair, noted close collaboration between IGES, OECC and GEC regarding the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and expressed hope that the side event would allow an exchange of information and experiences on CDM as a way to identify and develop next steps.

Osamu Mizuno, Japan’s Office of International Strategy on Climate Change, presented an overview of Japan’s work on capacity-building activities for the CDM and Joint Implementation (JI). He reported that 12 CDM/JI projects had been approved, and identified the need for further consideration of relevant information, capacity building and next steps.

Shinichi Iioka, IGES, reported on the CDM/JI Integrated Capacity Strengthening Programme undertaken by Japan’s Ministry of Environment. He highlighted issues and barriers identified, including weaknesses in local institutional arrangements, a lack of consensus on national approval procedures, insufficient accountability and transparency, and the absence of national sustainable development criteria and indicators in some countries.

Joyceline Goco, Environmental Management Bureau of the Philippines, reported on the Integrated Capacity Strengthening Programme for CDM in her country. Outlining the program, she said expected outcomes include training on CDM project development and documentation, capacity building for local stakeholders, identification of specific projects for CDM development, and a CDM country guide.

Masako Ogawa, GEC, introduced GEC’s work on CDM/JI, including feasibility studies on landfill gas and biomass projects. Identifying lessons learnt, she highlighted the need to develop the capacity of project developers and host countries.

Kazuhito Yamada, Pacific Consultants, presented a CDM Manual for project developers and policy makers. Noting that the manual seeks to explain complicated CDM procedures, he said an updated version may be published at COP-11.

Naoki Matsuo, Climate Experts, discussed how to develop quality CDM methodologies. Noting “bottlenecks” in the CDM process due to low quality methodologies and limited understanding even within the CDM Executive Board’s Methodologies Panel, he drew attention to a Methodologies Guidebook for the CDM.

Makoto Kato, OECC, described the Kyoto Mechanism Information Platform, which assists CDM/JI stakeholders with their information needs. He explained that this initiative provides a useful helpdesk for Japanese and stakeholders from host countries.

Ernesto De Micheli, Patagoni CO2, expressed appreciation for the Information Platform, argued that local financial institutions should play an active role in CDM, and drew attention to technology transfer.

Jan van Heeswijk, Asian Development Bank, described the Bank’s CDM Facility, noting that it was established with the aim of assisting developing countries in accessing financial and technical opportunities under the Kyoto Protocol. On lessons learnt to date, he highlighted, inter alia, an overemphasis on technical issues, the lack of focus on institutional and financial aspects, and high transaction costs.

IGES Board Member Taka Hiraishi closed the event by noting that there would be a post-meeting follow-up by email, and that a further event would likely be convened at COP-11. 

From left to right: Makoto Kato, OECC, described the Kyoto Mechanism Information Platform for assisting CDM/JI stakeholders with their information needs. Ernesto De Micheli, Patagoni CO2, discussed his experience with the Information Platform, while Jan van Heeswijk, Director General of the Asian Development Bank’s Regional and Sustainable Development Department, described the Bank’s CDM Facility

Contact:

Akio Morishima <morishima@iges.or.jp>
Osamu Mizuno <osamu mizuno@eanet.go.jp>
Shinichi Iioka <iioka@iges.or.jp>
Joyceline Goco <joygoco@yahoo.com>
Masako Ogawa <ogawa@unep.or.jp>
Kazuhito Yamada <kazuhito.yamada@tk.pacific.co.jp>
Naoki Matsuo <n_matsuo@climate-experts.info>
Makoto Kato <kato@oecc.or.jp>
Ernesto De Micheli <edm@patagonico2.com.ar>
Jan van Heeswijk <adbcdm@adb.org>

Taka Hiraishi <hiraishi@iges.or.jp>
  

The Kyoto train: Where do we go next?


Presented by IGES and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
 

Akio Morishima highlighted IGES recommendations for the future climate policy regime, including cost caps, carbon-intensity targets and unilateral CDM projects

Akio Morishima, IGES, presented an IGES publication on the Kyoto Protocol and future arrangements. He said the Kyoto Protocol is a good basis for a future policy regime, but identified shortcomings, including its short-term focus, low emissions reduction targets, and lack of global coverage. Morishima highlighted recommendations on the need to: provide incentives for universal participation, such as resources for adaptation and technology transfer; revise the CDM; develop low-carbon technologies; establish “unilateral CDM” projects and South-South CDM mechanisms; introduce cost caps and carbon intensity commitments; and create non-binding targets for developing countries.

Rajendra Pauchari, IPCC, emphasized the need to provide compelling evidence that the cost of inaction would exceed the cost of action, and noted major challenges in assessing the geophysical and socioeconomic aspects of climate change.

Osamu Mizuno, Japan’s Ministry of the Environment, introduced Japan’s Environmental Council’s interim report on the climate regime beyond 2012. He stressed the need for a balance between GHG emissions and sink capacity, achieve a downward emissions trend between 2020-2030, adopt a precautionary approach to environmental risk management, and address equity issues. Mizuno said climate change presents a valuable opportunity to create a mutually beneficial cycle between the environment and the economy.

Jacqueline McGlade, European Environment Agency, said the set of European policy mechanisms is made flexible enough to respond to constantly evolving knowledge, noting that some European areas used to be sinks and are now sources of carbon


In a panel discussion, Michael Zammit Cutajar, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary, said the main obstacle to a better future is short-term economic defensiveness, and stressed the need for increased focus on the cost of inaction and economic interests in addressing climate change.

Hironori Hamanaka, IGES, noted that the experience of Annex I countries will influence the future regime, and underscored the importance of sharing experiences, promoting multistakeholder dialogues, and providing concrete incentives for universal participation.

Jacqueline McGlade, European Environmental Agency, spoke on the EU’s evolving set of policy mechanisms, and stressed the need to provide incentives for industrial realignment, develop a firm knowledge base for policy making, build trust across networks to encourage information sharing, and focus public discourse on the multiple benefits of mitigation efforts for human health and the energy sector.

Daniel Bodansky, University of Georgia, listed building blocks for a future regime, including: establishing long-term goals; linking targets and trading, focusing on development policy; adopting a sectoral approach; developing technology; taking a bottom-up approach; linking emissions trading markets; and addressing adaptation.


Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, Teri, advocated a two-track strategy to preserve the basic structure of the Kyoto Protocol, while adding an “optional protocol” based on non-negotiated and non-binding commitments. He called for providing incentives for developing country participation, ensuring that CDM measures comply with host government regulations, developing “unilateral” and sectoral CDM projects, and simplifying CDM methodology.

Cédric Philibert, International Energy Agency, advocated transforming the Kyoto Protocol by retaining its emissions trading system and replacing set binding targets with non-binding ones, integrating targets with indices related to economic development, and renegotiating the CDM before 2012.

Jaycee Jai-chul Choi, Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, called for combining top-down and bottom-up approaches, creating a global regime on technology transfer, providing incentives for participation and flexibility to accommodate national circumstances, and developing an “open-structure” CDM.

Yang Hongwei, China’s Energy Research Institute, said socioeconomic development should be the basis for mitigation policies, and stressed the need to promote the development, transfer, diffusion and application of new climate-friendly technologies.

Contact:

Akio Morishima <morishima@iges.or.jp
Rajendra Pauchari <chairipcc@teri.res.in>  
Hironori Hamanaka <hamanaka@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
Jacqueline McGlade <jacqueline.mcglade@eea.eu.int
Daniel Bodansky <bodansky@uga.edu
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta <chandras36@hotmail.com> C�dric Philibert <cedric.philibert@iea.org>
Jaycee Jai-chul Choi <jcchoi81@mofat.go.kr>

Yang Hongwei <yanghw@mx.cei.gov.cn>

Watch the UNFCCC webcast of Side Events




 

 


 

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin on the side (ENBOTS) � <enb@iisd.org> 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 Rado Dimitrov, Ph.D., Catherine Ganzleben, D.Phil., Kati Kulovesi, Charlotte Salpin, and Christoph Sutter, Ph.D. The photographer is Leila Mead. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for the publication of ENBOTS at UNFCCC COP-10 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 <kimo@iisd.org>. Electronic versions of issues of ENBOTS from COP-10 can be found on the Linkages website at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop10/enbots/. The ENBOTS Team at COP-10 can be contacted at Pabell�n 9 and by e-mail at <charlotte@iisd.org>.


 

 


 

 

Digimarc Digital Watermarking | Get more information on how to digitally watermark images

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.



 


Any questions, comments or suggestions - please mail the Digital editor

| Back | Linkages home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to ENB |
� 2004,  IISD. All  rights reserved.