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 Thursday, 16 December 2004

US climate action: Progress in Congress, States and business
 
Presented by the US Climate Action Network (USCAN)
 

Tom Jacob, DuPont, said there is increasing recognition of the legitimacy of environmental concerns in the US, and noted that many companies are joining progressive international business groups such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists, listed voluntary business initiatives and state-level actions such as the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative, and California’s regulatory standards for vehicular emissions reductions. He said benefits of such policies include building public demand for climate actions and demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of feasible solutions.

Ken Colburn, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, discussed climate-relevant State legislation and policies. He noted ongoing litigation regarding the authority of the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions, and said California’s “Pavley law” requires a 22 % reduction in vehicular emissions by 2012, and has been challenged in court by the automobile industry.

Frank Pavley, California State Assembly, delivered a telephone statement, stressing the commitment of California’s legislators to developing a climate policy, and listing efforts to reduce emissions, promote fuel cell partnerships, and increase solar power utilization. She said it is feasible to reduce total emissions by 30% by 2016, and noted that 80% of Californians are willing to pay for such reductions.

Tom Jacob, DuPont, said his company reduced operational non-carbon dioxide GHG emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2000. Comparing European and US industry, he observed that an environmental precautionary principle prevails in Europe and an economic precautionary principle reigns in the US. Jacob stressed that voluntary emissions reduction programmes reap economic benefits from increased energy efficiency and reduction of compliance costs with governmental regulation.

Chris Miller, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said voluntary programmes will not reduce emissions in the foreseeable future, and that climate-related legislation is likely to be distinctly detrimental to climate policy. He said the Bush administration opposes a Clean Power Act introduced in the Senate and is unlikely to defend States against litigation from the automobile industry.

Jeff Fiedler, Natural Resources Defense Council, said other countries should not allow the US to take climate negotiations hostage. Noting that the US position is unlikely to change, he said the only feasible option is to continue negotiations without expectations of meaningful US participation.

Discussion: Meyer said US$5 billion of US investments in research and development have been used to prevent utilization of existing technologies, and stressed the need for government incentives to market feasible technologies. One participant asked whether US industry and the American public are concerned about loss of economic competitiveness if other countries shift to a low carbon economy. While Jacob said concerns about short-term competitiveness prevail, Colburn noted that the public is unaware of such risks. Meyer anticipated that various socioeconomic sectors in the US will decline under a business-as-usual scenario. Colburn said States cannot circumvent the federal government and directly participate in a global regime, and Meyer noted increasing interaction between States and European and Japanese actors.

Options for a post-2012 global climate regime

Presented by the Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI)

Henrik Hasselknippe, FNI, said successful convergence of emissions trading markets requires leadership from a coalition of countries with emissions trading systems, indicating that such a coalition should commit to increasing emissions reduction targets to generate a ratcheting effect

Taishi Sugiyama, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, introduced the project “Scenarios for a Post-2012 Framework,” indicating that post-2012 steps should include cap and trade, technological assistance and human development. He indicated that the “cap first” scenario aims to have mutually reinforcing effects on technological assistance and development cooperation. Sugiyama outlined an “orchestra of treaties” scenario, indicating this would entail cooperation between countries on technology transfer, emissions markets, climate sensitive development, and the UNFCCC. He proposed a zero-emission technology treaty, stressing that regional technological cooperation on research and development and technology diffusion can facilitate a paradigm shift in energy systems. Sugiyama then presented a research on a “human development” scenario, indicating that in determining potential emissions reduction targets for developing countries the analysis differentiated between emissions originating from luxury needs and basic human needs.

Henrik Hasselknippe, FNI, described a “converging markets” scenario, indicating that it would entail the linking of domestic emissions trading markets. He outlined a number of possible modifications to the Kyoto

Protocol to support this scenario, including: procedures for allowing credits or allowances from non-Parties’ trading schemes; simple and transparent models for baseline development; sectoral targets for developing countries; an expanded scope for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); and additional eligibility criteria for CDM host countries.

John Drexhage, International Institute for Sustainable Development, indicated that while OECD countries are expected to finance the global response to climate change, overseas development aid for climate change is shrinking. He suggested integrating climate change with countries’ development priorities, and indicated that foreign direct investment represents the most significant source of finance. He indicated that developing countries will not consider post-2012 reduction targets until OECD countries demonstrate that climate change actions can be undertaken without damaging economic growth, and stressed that sinks should be a critical component of post-2012 commitments.

Jonathan Sinton, University of California, stressed the need for policy frameworks and market structures on the ground to promote energy-efficient technologies, and introduced programmes to promote energy efficiency in the public and private sectors.

Axel Michaelowa, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, questioned whether the CDM is capable of overcoming the lack of skills and expertise as well as weak institutional capacity in developing countries, and stressed the need to involve more experts in development policy. He said promoting technology diffusion requires investment and cooperation between policy makers, the labor market and technology developers.


Climate Change: Insuring the uninsurable

Presented by the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA)

Christoph Bals, Germanwatch, presented preliminary ideas on an insurance-related mechanism, and invited participants to get involved in the discussion process

Matthias Krey, HWWA, emphasized that people in the poorest countries are the most affected by the impacts of climate change, noting that the Alliance of Small Island States has already presented a proposal for an international insurance pool in 1991.

Christoph Bals, Germanwatch, overviewed problems raised by insuring against climate-related damages in poor countries, stressing that countries with the least developed insurance markets incurred 88% of the fatalities from 1980 to 2003. He said private insurance is not sufficient due to the inability of people in poor countries to pay premiums, and called for public-private partnerships. He referred to two examples, namely the US National Flood Insurance Program and the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool, which comprises different reinsurance layers, including the World Bank.

Sonja Butzengeiger, HWWA, raised several issues regarding the design of a possible insurance-related mechanism (IRM), including insured parties, 

participation modalities, incentives for adaptation and financing options. She highlighted the challenge of differentiating between climate change and climate variability, and suggested a pragmatic approach to insure heavy weather-related damages as long as scientific uncertainties prevail regarding attribution of damages to climate change. Butzengeiger identified UNFCCC Parties, a UNFCCC administration fee, the World Bank, the insurance industry and insurance-takers as possible financial contributors to an IRM. She outlined the structure of a fund including different layers of insurer and reinsurers, taking as an example the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool.

Discussion: Participants discussed attribution of damages to climate change and eligibility criteria for participating in an IRM, and called for further quantification and concrete examples of what should be insured.
Contact:

Matthias Krey <matthias.krey@hwwa.de>
Christoph Bals <bals@germanwatch.org>
Sonja Butzengeiger <sonja.butzengeiger@hwwa.de>

Lessons learnt from CDM implementation in the ASEAN energy sector

Presented by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Agus Sari, Pelangi Indonesia, said all ASEAN countries apart from Brunei and Singapore have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and all, except Indonesia, have established Designated National Authorities

Nadzri Yahaya, Malaysia’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, said there is no common position among ASEAN countries on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), indicating that the side event aims to clarify the positions of various member countries.

Mark van Wees, Capacity for Sustainable Development, identified the potential to increase the ASEAN region’s share in the global CDM market. Focusing on capacity building, he said there is limited regional exchange of experience, and said the ASEAN could play a role in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of capacity building.

Liana Bratasida, Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, said the ASEAN region has a rich CDM potential, and noted that the CDM supports ASEAN’s objectives to increase renewable energy and adopt clean technologies.

Axel Michaelowa, Hamburg Institute of International Economics, said in light of methodologies approved by the CDM Executive Board (EB) a large

amount of data is needed from host countries even for small-scale CDM project baselines. He recommended that the ASEAN Secretariat coordinate the provision of information, including baseline emission factors and common arguments for additionality.

Anuar Abdul Rhaman, PTM Malaysia Energy Centre, outlined Malaysia’s national CDM approval process, including appraisal of projects’ contribution to technology transfer.

Agus Sari, Pelangi Indonesia, said an ideal national CDM approval process is efficient and simple. He emphasized that it is not the Designated National Authority’s (DNA) role to decide whether a CDM project is additional or feasible, and said stakeholders should be able to challenge DNAs’ decisions.

Eron Bloomgarden, Ecosecurities, said the ASEAN region has strong CDM potential in renewable energy, energy efficiency, biofuels, landfills and gas flaring, but noted that ASEAN countries differ in terms of commercial and political risks.

Contact:

Nadzri Yahaya <nadzri@mosti.gov.my>
Mark van Wees <vanwees@capsd.nl>
Liana Bratasida <dokie@cbn.net.id>
Axel Michaelowa <a-michaelowa@hwwa.de>
Anuar Abdul Rahman <anuar@ptm.org.my>
Agus Sari <apsari@pelangi.or.id>
Eron Bloomgarden <eron@ecosecurities.com>

French action in the field of climate change

Presented by the French Government

Serge Lepeltier, Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, said France’s research beyond 2010 will focus on the development of clean technologies, including renewable energies and carbon sinks

Serge Lepeltier, Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development of France, provided an overview of France’s climate-related policies within the EU framework, highlighting the 2004 Climate Plan, which includes action areas on information and awareness raising, research on clean technologies, transportation, buildings, industry, energy and waste, and sustainable agriculture and forests. Minister Lepeltier noted that France has already stabilized its GHG emissions below those of 1990.

Christian Brodhag, Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, outlined France’s measures to implement its climate-related commitments, including the establishment of a GHG inventory, technical and financial cooperation to develop Joint Implementation (JI) and CDM projects, the inclusion of an Environment Charter in the Constitution, and work on synergies within the national strategy on sustainable development.

Philippe Meunier, Interministerial Mission on the Greenhouse Effect, stressed that France has decoupled economic growth from energy consumption, but noted the need for an integrated strategy looking

beyond 2050. He highlighted France’s activities to reduce GHG emissions, including the provision of financial and technical support to JI/CDM projects and participation in emissions trading systems.

Mustapha Kleiche, French Agency for Development (AFD), said AFD’s work in the field of climate change relies on both financial and technical tools. He noted that assistance tends to focus on transport, waste and energy consumption, and be concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian Ocean. He explained that assistance approaches differ between overseas territories and foreign countries, and provided examples of assistance to projects related to energy consumption, among others.

Marc-Antoine Martin, French Global Environment Facility (FFEM), said criteria for FFEM’s assistance include innovation, sustainability and social acceptability, and noted that the FFEM uses investments funds and carbon funds, and prioritizes projects in Africa and the Mediterranean. He stressed the need to, inter alia, strengthen governance, integrate projects in national strategies, internalize costs, and develop partnerships and networks.

Franck Jesus, Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry, presented his ministry’s support tools in the field of climate change. He reviewed institutional and financial support to JI/CDM projects, including capacity building for the development of Project Design Documents. He said to date assistance has focused on waste and methane recovery.

Contact:

Christian Brodhag <christian.brodhag@ecologie.gouv.fr
Philippe Meunier <philippe.meunier@ecologie.gouv.fr
Mustapha Kleiche <kleichem@afd.fr>
Marc Antoine Martin <martinma@afd.fr>
Franck Jesus <franck.jesus@dree.org>

Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol


Presented by the Government of Germany

Niklas Höhne, ECOFYS, outlined a “common but differentiated convergence” approach that would seek convergence of all countries’ emissions to the same level, and defer the obligation of developing countries to undertake mitigation commitments

Martin Weiß, Germany’s Federal Environment Agency, considered options for the post-2012 period, advocating a combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches and grounding policy on the concept of technological feasibility. He said preventing a global temperature rise of 2˚C requires maintaining GHG concentrations below 450 parts per million (ppm) and leaves very narrow margins for delaying emissions cuts or exempting countries from participation. He recommended introducing flexible participation rules, setting “positive binding targets” without non-compliance penalties for non-Annex I countries, and extending the scope and scale of the CDM.

Niklas Höhne, ECOFYS, outlined three approaches to designing international policy for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. He said a “common but differentiated convergence” approach would involve only countries with high levels of GHG emissions, seek convergence of all countries’ emissions toward the same level, grant a deferral for developing countries, and make developing countries’ participation contingent on compliance by developed countries. Höhne also outlined a Triptych approach that relies on sharing sectoral emissions

allowances between countries. He said reaching the 450 ppm target using this approach would allow emissions growth above 1990 levels in most developing countries, require 20-40% reductions in developed countries, and involve reducing global emissions by 60% in the electricity sector, 70% in agriculture, and 90% in fossil fuel production.

Höhne outlined a compromise proposal without short-term policy commitments, but including moderate near-term emissions targets, long-term absolute emissions reductions using the Triptych approach, long-term technology development, and the complete elimination of deforestation. He said such an approach takes into account national circumstances but is complex, requires prolonged decision making at the international level, and entails the risk of delaying achieving the stabilization targets. Regarding appropriate negotiation strategies, he stressed that the EU’s continued leadership is crucial, and recommended extending the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to US States, intensifying dialogue with developing countries, building coalitions on renewable energy, and building scientific consensus on future climate policy.

Contact:

Martin Weiß <martin.weiss@uba.de
Niklas Höhne <n.hoehne@ecofys.de>

Climate change litigation: Who is doing it, why is it happening and how serious is it?


Presented by Friends of the Earth International
 

Peter Roderick, Climate Justice Programme, said climate change is already threatening lives and legal systems should respond to the problem

Peter Roderick, Climate Justice Programme, outlined ten climate change-related legal actions: five public law cases in the US, Australia and Germany; a civil law case in the US; a petition by the Inuit people to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and three public international law petitions by developing countries to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization concerning climate impacts on World Heritage sites.

Myles Allen, University of Oxford, said establishing causality is a prerequisite for legally ascertaining damages. Discussing quantification of scientific uncertainty, he indicated that past anthropogenic GHG emissions caused at least 50% of the 2003 heat wave in Europe.

Ken Alex, State of California Department of Justice, discussed a civil lawsuit filed by eight States and New York City in the US Federal Court against the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the US. He said the

claimants seek injunctive remedies, namely reductions in the defendants’ emissions and a declaration that carbon dioxide causes global warming and is a public nuisance.

Donald Goldberg, Center for International Environmental Law, said the Inuit people are planning to file a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the US, arguing that global warming violates their rights to life, residence, the inviolability of their homes, health and well-being, culture and property. He emphasized that the Commission has already recognized that environmental issues fall within the ambit of human rights.

Discussion: The panelists highlighted the difference between legal and scientific uncertainty, and expressed their confidence that climate-related science is sufficiently unambiguous for legal purposes. Panel Chair Farhana Yamin, University of Sussex, noted the absence of the precautionary principle from current discussions, reminding participants that it had played an important role in early negotiations.

Contact:

Peter Roderick <peterroderick@cjp.demon.co.uk>
Myles Allen <myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk>
Ken Alex <ken.alex@doj.ca.gov>
Donald Goldberg <dgoldberg@ciel.org
Farhana Yamin <f.yamin@ids.ac.uk>

The world of work in climate implementation and adaptation


Presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

Marina Silva, Brazil’s Environment Minister, emphasized the job potential of the promotion and development of renewable energies

Lucien Royer, ICFTU, said the panel includes trade unions representing 200 million workers, and highlighted growing awareness about climate change among them. He called for an increased focus on employment within the UNFCCC to encourage workers’ involvement in the climate change issue, stressing that this would have a fundamental impact on poverty alleviation.

Sophie Dupressoir, European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), emphasized that trade unions had supported the Kyoto Protocol in the EU, while industrial associations had opposed it. She noted the need for solidarity with people in developing countries, and said the social systems in Europe will help addressing the adverse effects of climate change policies. She explained that one of ETUC’s priorities is to study the impacts of climate change and mitigation policies on employment levels and the employment market.

Marina Silva, Brazil’s Environment Minister, underscored the need to train and educate workers. She said Brazil has adopted sustainability criteria to ensure that CDM projects contribute to the broader objectives of sustainable development, and emphasized that CDM projects must: promote local sustainability issues; improve working conditions and lead to net gains in employment; contribute to an equitable distribution of wealth; and promote technical capacity building.

Iván González, Regional Inter-American Organization of Workers, and Aurelio Savino, Argentina’s Environment Secretary, presented their views on the world of work in climate implementation and adaptation. Note: These statements cannot be reported on due to lack of translation.

Contact:

Lucien Royer <royer@tuac.org>
Sophie Dupressoir <sdupressoir@etuc.org>
Iván González <ddhh@cioslorit.org>
Aurelio Savino <secpriv@medioambiente.gov.ar>

Interlinkages between climate change and multilateral environmental agreements

Presented by the United Nations University (UNU)

Victoria Lichtschein, Ramsar Convention, said the challenge is to put synergies between MEAs into practice, noting that the Pantanal wetlands provide an excellent case study

Bradnee Chambers, UNU, said exploiting interlinkages between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) requires the effective use of synergies between environmental issues, and listed benefits, including increased robustness, improved compliance, strengthened implementation, maximized cost-effectiveness, and relief of procedural and managerial burdens. He highlighted the lack of scientific data on how interlinkages work in practice.

Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC, explained that the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice participates in a Joint Liaison Group with the Executive Secretaries and Chairs of the subsidiary bodies of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification. He stressed the importance of informal links for information sharing between secretariats. He identified the need to enhance coordination and cooperation at the national level among ministries responsible for implementation.

Paulo Teixeira, Pantanal Regional Environmental Program, noted that the Pantanal, one of the world’s largest wetlands, is threatened by alterations to the hydrological cycle from climate change. He identified synergies and coordination as key elements of interlinkages, and indicated that several MEAs are relevant to the Pantanal. He outlined the results of a workshop on activities for the Pantanal’s sustainable and integrated management, identifying the need for community-level actions, education and training, information sharing, stakeholder capacity building, and the identification of sustainable development indicators.

Victoria Lichtschein, Ramsar Convention, highlighted the need to update the memoranda of understanding concluded in 1995 between various MEAs. She highlighted the value of technical cooperation between MEAs’ secretariats and strengthened cooperation between implementing bodies at the national level.

Discussion: Participants stressed the need for public education regarding the goals of different conventions in order to engage local peoples in the development of synergies between MEAs.

Contact:

Bradnee Chambers <chambers@ias.unu.edu>
Halldor Thorgeirsson <hthorgeirsson@unfccc.int>
Paulo Teixeira <teixeira@cdp.ufmt.br>
Victoria Lichtschein <vlichtsc@medioambiente.gov.ar>

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.