Jo Espinoza Ferrey, IMO, highlighted the important work the UN Family is doing to face climate change, giving examples related to food, energy and transport sectors.

Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bristrom, UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), explained FAO agricultural mitigation programme, and described some climate-smart agricultural practices, concluding that small holders need institutional and financial support for the transition. Leslie Lipper, FAO, outlined soil carbon crediting for smallholder agriculture, explaining soil carbon is a key determinant of soil fertility and mitigation activities.

Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, noted that it is absolutely necessary for developing countries to build capacity to carry out its own energy analysis, and informed that IAEA has tools to assist them.

John Mwaura, UN Habitat, explained that cities have a vital role to play in promoting low emission development.

Mark Radka, UNEP, outlined a number of drivers, risks, opportunities and responses for national objectives and policies on bioenergy.

Ralph Sims, Massey University, said there is a need to decouple food production from fossil fuel consumption.

Svend Søyland, Bellona Foundation, explained that shipping is the most efficient transportation compared to road and aviation, welcoming IMO agreement on an energy efficiency index.

Jane Hupe, ICAO, said ICAO adopted a policy on aviation and climate change that includes: global inspirational goals of a 2% fuel efficiency per annum; future carbon neutral growth; and a basket of measures enabling states to address emissions and design their plans of action.

Essam Mohammed, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), reflected on climate financing, underscoring the threat to the poor.

Rob Cameron, Fairtrade International, explained how Fairtrade touches the lives of millions of producers, driving change by creating the structure for cooperative ownership and empowerment.

Wim Hart, ICCO, expressed hope not only for a good dialogue, but also for action.

Carlos Vargas, Latin America and the Caribbean Fairtrade Network, reflected on the impact of climate change on producers, lamenting that in some cases it is already too late. He reiterated how the network demonstrates a diverse sample that legitimizes the urgency of making funding available to develop adaptation and mitigation projects.

Jaap de Jong, Nova Institute, highlighted projects that bring together several organizations to provide multiple benefits ranging from improved access to market, income sharing and job creation to improved environment health and social standards to improve quality of life.

Carlos Canales, Fairtrade International, shared results from a study detailing the impact of climate change on fairtrade products. He introduced emerging strategies to develop Fair Adaptation and Fair Carbon Credits standards.

Toby Quantrill, Fairtrade Foundation, relayed growing interest in a supply chain from the private sector, identifying the overlap in adaptation need with opportunity to reduce carbon emissions in agricultural supply chain.

Free de Koning, CI, introduced initiatives producing benefits from the REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (SES). Samuel Nnah Ndobe, Center for Environment and Development (CED), Cameroon, provided an overview of the REDD+ SES framework as a country-led multi-stakeholder process.

Carola Borja, Ecuador, related experiences working with stakeholders and implementing REDD+ SES to build a robust information system that will: collect information on safeguards; provide feedback; build capacity; and strengthen credibility. She shared planned activities to continue scaling up and institutionalize the programme. Mónica de los Rios, Institute of Climate Change and Environmental Services Regulation, Brazil, shared how the state of Acre is integrating REDD+ under and an existing law, aligning targets to optimize benefits.

Dil Raj Khanal, Federation of Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN), detailed how Nepal is using REDD+ SES as a component of a Readiness Preparation Proposal. He shared the benefit of consensus on safeguards across the ethnically diverse country, despite challenges in coordination between agencies.

Clea Paz-Rivera, UN-REDD Programme Secretariat, explained the objective of a series of tools for REDD+ that: guides implementation; ensures negative impacts are addressed and managed; and reflects a human-right-based approach. She reviewed early lessons, benefits, and cross-cutting changes of draft criteria, highlighting the importance of including stakeholders from the design phase of any tool related to safeguards.

Joanna Durbin, The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), said she was pleased to be learning from experience as she reflected on the evident benefits presented from the engaged country initiatives.

Frances Seymour, Director-General of Center for International Forestry Research (Indonesia), said the genesis of the research findings is the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS), which was developed in partnership with organizations and researchers from all around the world. She noted: the GCS knowledge-share component; a mutual sense of recalibrating expectations about REDD; and financial resources are not flowing as quickly as expected.

Noting CIFOR´s on-line database of forest carbon projects in non-Annex I countries, showing their geographical distribution, basic statistics and other elements, Erin Sills, North Carolina State University, welcomed feedback. She noted GCS projects are testing a range of strategies to reduce forest carbon emissions and/or increase removals. She concluded: “polycentric governance” is key to integrate local and national efforts to clarify land tenure; clarity in REDD´s future provides incentives for stakeholders to fully engage with the projects; and project proponents avoid going to places where there are tenure problems.

Charles Meshak, Tropical Forest Conservation Group (Tanzania), overviewed his country´s REED projects, underscoring its four stages: site selection; free prior and informed consent with participating communities, participatory identification and implementation of strategies to reduce deforestation; generation of emission reductions and verifying; and sending revenues back to the communities initially using project funds. He pointed out challenges for the projects, such as: restriction of access to land and forest products; elite capture of REDD funds; land “grabbing”; conflict within communities over distribution of REDD funds; and increased human-wildlife conflict.

Maria Brockhaus, CIFOR (Indonesia), explained how to develop national policies that enable REDD+ projects to be implemented at local level. She underscored challenges, including: coordinating among sectors and administrative level; defining tenure, financing systems, benefit sharing and participation; monitoring, reporting and verifying systems (MRV).

Manuel Estrada, Consultant, explored the social, political and biophysical issues regarding MRV systems for REDD+ at the national level. Under-scoring the series of requirements and indicators for assessing REDD+ in a variety of countries, he said there are three main categories: completeness of GHG inventory; forest area change monitoring capacity; and forest inventory capacity.