Events convened on Saturday,
11 December 2004
|
|
Update on climate actions in US States
Presented by Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
and National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
|
|
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/cathy-update-tn.jpg) |
Kenneth Colburn, NESCAUM, indicated
that 17 US States now have requirements
for renewable energy use |
|
Kenneth Colburn, NESCAUM, indicated
that the Northeast States recognize
the need for early action on climate
change, and stressed that these
States have a history of leading by
example on environmental
legislation. He outlined actions in
California to address vehicular
emissions, with the “Pavley” law
requiring a 30% carbon dioxide
emissions reduction by 2016. He
indicated that these provisions may
be echoed in the Northeast, to cover
30% of the US automobile industry.
Acknowledging that technology
development is vital, he stressed
that States are seeking to create
drivers.
Frederick Butler, State of New
Jersey, introduced the Regional
green house gas Initiative (RGGI),
which includes the participation of
nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
States. He outlined RGGI’s intention
to develop a multi-State
“cap-and-trade” program for carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants,
indicating that the design of the
program should be completed by April
2005.
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/cathy-update0-tn.jpg) |
David Hadley, Indian Utility Regulatory
Commission, indicated that the world
economy currently uses 14,000 terra
watts of electricity, noting that this
is expected to rise to 35,000 terra
watts in 50 years |
|
David Hadley, Indian Utility
Regulatory Commission, considered
the role of public utility
commissioners in promoting climate
change initiatives. He indicated
that the US is on the verge of a
major building cycle for energy
generation, stressing that this
represents an economic opportunity
for companies to shift toward
cleaner power plant technologies. He
noted that while natural gas is
increasingly expensive and nuclear
power is not a feasible option, coal
provides a cheap, reliable energy
source, highlighting the potential
role of coal gasification in
reducing emissions from coal-fired
power stations. He stressed the need
for policy drivers to promote a
technology shift and for education
to ensure commitment to developing
solutions.
Andrew Spahn, NARUC, introduced the report
"Ending the Energy Stalemate," which
provides a fresh look at US climate
commitments, both domestically and
internationally. He said the report
considers how States can work
cooperatively to develop initiatives
encouraging the use of renewable
energy. He said the report
recommends that Congress develop a
“cap-
|
and-trade” program
for carbon dioxide,
relying on permits
to reduce the
emission intensity
of power plants.
Jim Marzilli, State
of Massachusetts,
indicated that
limited public
awareness of climate
change in the US
results in limited
legislative
activity. He
emphasized that
climate change must
be framed as an
economic security
issue to bring it
onto the US
legislative agenda,
and stressed that
the US is not going
to see leadership on
climate change
emerging from the
federal government.
However, he
highlighted numerous
State actions
pursued across the
country at the
municipal and State
levels. He
identified two
challenges, namely
ensuring effective
communication with
the public, and
bringing State and
local policy makers
together to discuss
direct international
engagement to allow
them to go beyond
action by the
federal government.
Discussion:
Participants
commended US
State-level action
on climate change,
and considered how
the international
community can
encourage the
re-engagement of the
US federal
government in the
climate regime.
Colburn acknowledged
that the
Presidential target
to reduce green
house gas (GHG)
intensity by 18% by
2012 represents
business as usual,
since it follows
current trends in
energy efficiency
increase. A
participant flagged
the danger of the
federal government
reducing the
capacity of US
States to act on
climate change.
|
|
|
The contribution of regional governments
in tackling climate change
Presented by the Government of Belgium
|
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/Suani-tn.jpg) |
Suani Teixeira Coelho, Regional
Government of São Paolo, identified
sugar cane production and landfill
management as areas with CDM potential
for São Paolo |
|
Nico Barito,
Association for
Provincial
Governments of
Indonesia, said
climate change
mitigation should
not rely solely on
expensive high-tech
solutions and other
alternatives are
needed, especially
in developing
countries.
Sabin Intaxaurraga
Mendibil, Basque
Government, said the
Basque country
controls GHG
emissions with
sectoral
initiatives,
voluntary GHG
agreements with the
industry and the
Basque Carbon Trust,
which implements CDM
projects.
Alejandro Paljor,
Provincial
Government of Chaco,
Argentina, said the
Province of Chaco
contributes to the
fight against
climate change by
protecting forests
and implementing
other environmental
programs.
Els Van den Broeck,
Ministry of the
Flemish Region,
Belgium, said in
order to integrate
the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme (EU
ETS) into regional
climate policy, the
Flemish Region aims
to implement local
mitigation |
measures and launch
a tender for CDM
projects.
Edoardo Croci,
University Luigi
Bocconi, said
impacts of climate
change are already
visible in Lomborgia,
and stressed that
adaptation requires
regional measures.
He highlighted the
contribution of
regional policies to
mitigation and the
environmental
benefits of such
policies.
Ernst-Christoph
Stopler, Ministry of
Environment,
Conservation,
Agriculture and
Consumer Protection
of the State of
North
Rhine-Westphalia,
Germany, explained
how the EU ETS is
being implemented in
North
Rhine-Westphalia,
which accounts for
41% of Germany’s
energy consumption.
He emphasized that
the EU’s Linking
Directive also
yields environmental
benefits to regions
outside the EU.
Donald Brown,
Pennsylvania
Department of
Environmental
Protection, said 29
States in the US
have mitigation
strategies, which
reduce global GHG
emissions. He said a
cap and trade system
is being developed
by certain States
and various other
measures are being
implemented,
including
demand-side
management, carbon
sequestration, tax
incentives for
renewable energy and
green purchase
options.
Suani Teixeira
Coelho, Regional
Government of São
Paolo, said her
region accounts for
40% of Brazil’s GHG
emissions and aims
to reduce emissions
through the
development of
hybrid vehicles,
large-scale biomass
cogeneration and
waste management.
Tommaso Franci,
Region of Tuscany,
said Tuscany has a
regional action plan
for GHG emissions, a
regional GHG
inventory, a “Kyoto
observatory” and an
initiative to
broaden the scope of
the EU Emissions
Trading directive.
Vanni Puccioni, Acra
Consulting,
highlighted that
regional governments
are effective in
implementing climate
policies that
require a change in
public behavior, and
said regions should
pool resources to
broaden the EU ETS.
|
|
|
Development dividend: Making the CDM
work for developing countries
Presented by the International Institute
for Sustainable Development (IISD)
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/chris-tn.jpg) |
John Drexhage, IISD, stressed the
importance of a development dividend of
the CDM, while calling for realistic
expectations of what the CDM can deliver |
|
Georg Børsting, Norwegian Ministry
of the Environment, stressed the
numerous expectations associated
with the CDM, noting that one of the
most important objectives of the CDM
is to contribute to the sustainable
development of host countries.
John Drexhage, IISD, outlined the
concept of development dividend,
underscoring the twofold purpose of
the CDM, namely cost-effective GHG
emissions reductions and sustainable
development in host countries.
Regarding how to design CDM projects
with a development dividend capable
of selling Certified Emission
Reductions (CERs) at market price,
Drexhage recommended, inter alia,
using tax incentives for projects
promoting sustainable development,
assessing the growing list of carbon
funds, and considering a shift from
a project-based to a sectoral
approach.
Brian Dawson, UN Development
Programme, emphasized that the CDM
can contribute to sustainable
development and help integrate
climate change |
into national-level decision
making. Dawson concluded
that it will take time for
the CDM to deliver a
significant development
dividend, noting that, to
date, the CDM has entailed
costs for host countries.
Dinesh Babu, The Energy and
Resources Institute, noted
that 95% of Indian CDM
projects developed to date
use indigenous technologies,
and questioned the
technological additionality
of these projects. Referring
to the effective renewable
energy policies in India, he
said it was difficult for
most energy projects to
prove investment
additionality. He
underscored the challenge of
balancing environmental
integrity with stimulating
project development.
Martha Castillo, Colombian
Ministry of Environment,
Housing and Territorial
Development, presented five
CDM projects in the
renewable energy, transport
and wastewater treatment
sector, noting that the
current 2% additional
revenue from carbon finance
is too low to develop CDM
energy projects at the
community level.
Andrei Marcu, International
Emissions Trading
Association (IETA), stressed
that IETA member companies
take sustainable development
seriously, noting that the
first objective for business
is to lower compliance
costs. Marcu said market
mechanisms have provided low
cost solutions, including
hydrofluorocarbon CDM
projects.
Discussion: A participant
stressed the importance of
understanding the national
technical and institutional
needs for technology
transfer.
|
Bioenergy’s response to climate change:
Solutions in the real world
Presented by Responding to Climate
Change (RTCC)
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/Alexia-tn.jpg) |
Alexia Stokes, LRBB-INRA, described the
Slopes Decision Support System, a
software program that provides advice on
how best to manage a site vulnerable to
climate change |
|
Arthur Riedacker, European Technical
Institute for Wood Energy,
highlighted the steady increase in
biomass use, and identified
municipal waste, and agricultural
and forestry crops and residues as
sources of biomass. He stressed the
benefits of biofuels for local and
rural development through the
provision of employment and local
energy supply. He noted that the
competition of biomass production
with food production represents a
challenge, and said supportive
regulatory and legal frameworks are
needed to allow biomass to compete
with fossil fuels.
Giulio Volpi, WWF, presented
Biopower Switch, a project assessing
the potential for OECD countries to
switch to biomass, indicating that
biomass could supply 15% of OECD
countries’ power demand by 2020. He
said electricity from biomass
currently represents about 1% of
global electricity generation, and
explained that most bioelectricity
production is associated with
forestry and wood processing
industries, based on combined heat
and power technologies, where
captured heat is used for
|
industrial processes and heating. He
indicated that a 10-30% switch to
biomass in the OECD by 2020 would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
538 to 1739 megatons. Highlighting
the success of biomass policies in
Sweden and Finland, he stressed the
need to improve grid access for
bioelectricity and impose
environmental taxes on fossil fuel
consumption.
Peter Read, Massey University,
explained how a 4% change in the
terrestrial carbon balance could
generate carbon sequestration
benefits equal to a 50% reduction in
anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions by 2050. He highlighted
the need for investment in soil
quality and farmers’ engagement. He
stressed that land availability is
not a constraining factor, and
highlighted synergies between food
and bioenergy production in terms of
maintaining soil fertility.
Alexia Stokes, Laboratory of
Rheology of the Wood of Bordeaux (LRBB-INRA)
outlined the benefits of tree cover
for providing protection against
soil erosion, land slides, and storm
damage, stressing the importance of
species diversity in forests for
fixing soil and reducing topsoil
erosion.
Dennis Murphy, Potlatch, explained
how market incentives relating to
land ownership are causing a
depletion of natural capital in the
US forestry industry, noting that
the carbon sequestration capacity of
US forests is predicted to decline.
He highlighted shorter rotations,
lower growing stocks and fragmented
ownership as key factors.
|
Mainstreaming adaptation in development:
Idealistic or realistic?
Presented by the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES)
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/chris-facilitating0-tn.jpg) |
Hiroshi Ohki, Japan Center for Climate
Change Actions, said the impacts of
climate change are real and visible in
various parts of the world, and stressed
the need for society to deal with
related damages |
|
Akio Morishima, IGES, said while
IGES’ early focus fell on climate
change mitigation, they had now
started work on adaptation. He noted
that future activities will include
the identification of ways to
mainstream adaptation and
cost-benefit analyses of adaptation
measures.
Hiroshi Ohki, Japan Center for
Climate Change Actions, said while
the negotiators of the Kyoto
Protocol had focused on mitigation,
the need for adaptation measures had
increased.
Ancha Srinivasan, IGES, presented
the key findings from two workshops
on adaptation in mountain ecosystems
and small island countries, which
discussed, inter alia, climate
scenarios, impacts, and local as
well as national adaptation. He said
the workshops produced a list of
main challenges for both mountain
ecosystems and small island
countries.
Shardul Agrawal, OECD, spoke on
glacier retreat induced by climate
change in Nepal, noting that the
decrease in glaciated area will
increase |
the variability of river run-off,
affecting the Nepalese hydro-power
sector. He highlighted the dangers
from the increased number and
growing size of glacial lakes in
Nepal, discussing various adaptation
options including locating hydro
facilities in non-threatened
locations, establishing early
warning systems, relocating
settlements, and reducing direct
risks.
Taito Nakalevu, Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment
Programme, spoke about opportunities
and challenges for mainstreaming
adaptation in Pacific island
countries, discussing roadmaps that
address agriculture, fishery, and
health at the policy and operational
levels.
Andrew Teem, Kiribati’s Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Agricultural
Development, presented Kiribati’s
efforts to mainstream adaptation
into national development
strategies, underscoring the
challenge of prioritizing
investments in different adaptation
measures.
Discussion: A panel of donor and
country representatives, chaired by
Shuzo Nishioka, IGES, discussed
appropriate methods for
mainstreaming adaptation, the need
for institutional and funding
arrangements, and lessons learnt
from current programmes. Nishioka
discussed temperature and
precipitation anomalies observed in
Japan during 2004, and noted their
impacts on health.
Walter Vergara, World Bank,
discussed projects in the Paramo
ecosystem of Colombia, and said
adaptation efforts should focus on
well defined regions or ecosystems.
Roger Cornforth, New Zealand Agency
for International Development,
stressed the need to consider ways
to mainstream adaptation in various
sectors, and outlined New Zealand’s
assistance to Pacific Island
countries in mainstreaming
adaptation.
Liana Bratasida, Indonesian Ministry
for the Environment, spoke on
integrating adaptation with
development in Southeast Asia, and
stressed the importance of utilizing
local capacity and knowledge for
mainstreaming adaptation.
Yohei Nishiyama, Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC),
outlined the role of JBIC in
supporting projects related to the
Kyoto mechanisms, noting JBIC’s
contribution to the World Bank’s
Prototype Carbon Fund, financial
support for Clean Development
Mechanism and Joint Implementation
projects, and assistance for
capacity building in host countries. |
Presentation of the report Climate
Change in Latin America: Challenges and
Opportunities
Presented by the Government of Mexico
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/charlie-tn.jpg) |
Fernando Tudela, Mexico’s Ministry of
the Environment and Natural Resources,
said Latin America is a pioneer in CDM
projects, but noted that yields from
these projects have been disappointing
so far |
|
Ricardo Sánchez, UNEP, introduced
the report "Climate Change in Latin
America," explaining that it had
been prepared with broad stakeholder
and sub-regional participation.
Fernando Tudela, Mexico’s Ministry
of the Environment and Natural
Resources, said the report is a way
of taking stock of emissions trends
in Latin America and the Caribbean
prior to entering a new phase of
negotiations. He highlighted the
report’s main findings, including
that: the increase in emissions of
carbon dioxide per capita has been
moderate; the transport sector is
the largest GHG emitter in the
region; changes in energy
consumption have been limited; the
region has been able to decouple
economic growth from energy
consumption patterns; and the
reliance of the region on
agro-electricity is a source of
vulnerability. Tudela stressed the
proactive stance of Latin America in
tackling the impacts of climate
change and vulnerability to extreme
events through adaptation measures
and mitigation policies.
Noting that adaptation to, and
mitigation of, climate change
impacts are |
better dealt with on a regional
basis, Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho,
University of São Paulo, stressed
the need for Latin America to take a
proactive stance in negotiations for
the post-2012 period, and adopt
goals for the region’s strategy on
climate change. He said the
challenge for negotiators will be to
formulate these goals and take into
account the region’s specific
circumstances.
Hernan Carlino, Argentina’s
Secretariat of Environment and
Sustainable Development, said
climate change and GHG
emissions-related policies must be
seen as being beneficial to Latin
American societies. He highlighted
the need to promote renewable
energies, increase energy
efficiency, and preserve the
region’s natural capital. He said
education and access to information
are essential.
Fabio Feldmann, IPSOS, explained the
difficulties in fostering commitment
from politicians and civil society
to tackling climate change at the
national level. He stressed the need
for countries in the region to share
experiences, and learn from each
other in order to engage civil
society and attain a common position
for future negotiations.
Svein Tveitdal, UNEP, said the
report forms part of UNEP’s
initiative to support implementation
of UNFCCC Article 6 (Education,
training and public awareness). He
identified parliamentarians,
journalists, industry, the private
sector and youth as target groups
that can influence national
policies. |
Adaptation to climate change in the
water sector
Presented by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
|
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/rado-adaptation-tn.jpg) |
William Cosgrove, WWC, said the WWC is
advancing a proposal to create a new UN
Millennium Development Goal of halving
the number of flood-related deaths by
2015 |
|
William Cosgrove, World Water
Council (WWC), presented evidence of
a steady increase in the number of
hydrological disasters. He discussed
strategies for risk management,
including diversifying income
levels, facilitating migration,
improving physical infrastructure,
and using satellite information in
early warning systems.
Ajaya Dixit, Nepal Water
Conservation Foundation, said the
frequency and intensity of extreme
events are increasing and the
effectiveness of conventional
management responses are becoming
inadequate.
Marcus Moench, Institute for Social
and Environmental Transformation,
introduced core findings of a study
on water issues in India. He said
infrastructure must be adapted to
variability and uncertainty, and
stressed the need for effective
linkages between water management,
disaster mitigation, and economic
and social change policies.
Ian Tellam, Netherlands’ Climate
Change Studies Program (NCCSAP),
said |
NCCSAP conducts scientific studies
and vulnerability analyses to help
developing countries formulate and
implement climate change policies.
He gave examples of vulnerability in
developing countries.
Brett Orlando, IUCN, noted that
scientific uncertainty cannot be
eliminated, advocated factoring
uncertainty in water management, and
said adaptation to climate change
cannot rely on technical fix, but
needs to involve broad social
change.
Frank Thomalla, Stockholm
Environment Institute, presented on
adaptation in tropical regions. He
said savannahs are a global hotspot
where climate variability causes
severe erosion of ecological
resilience, and described a vicious
spiral of mutually reinforcing
ecological and social vulnerability.
Bonizella Biagini, Global
Environment Facility (GEF),
indicated that the GEF has currently
over US$110 million for adaptation
projects, and said it is prepared to
prioritize adaptation within the
Special Climate Change Fund
negotiated at COP-10.
Joop de Schutter, UNESCO, discussed
adaptation in East Africa and the
Nile Basin, stressed the need to
reduce the vulnerability of the
poorest, and listed UNESCO projects
and activities in the region,
including training and education
programs.
Pavel Kabat, Climate Change and
Biosphere Centre, listed messages
that the IPCC fourth assessment
report is expected to deliver,
noting that heat waves and anomalies
in winter precipitation are becoming
more frequent. He stressed that due
to inertia in climate systems, even
successful efforts at mitigation
would not prevent long-term negative
climate change impacts and would not
alter the need for adaptation. |
Earth observations: Momentum with the
GEO Initiative
Presented by the Government of South
Africa
![](/climate/cop10/enbots/images/11dec/Linda-tn.jpg) |
Linda Moodie, US NOAA, said GEO will
make efforts to improve access to earth
monitoring data for developing countries |
|
Georgios Amanatidis, European
Commission, presented an overview of
the ad hoc Group on Earth
Observations (GEO), indicating that
it was established in 2003 and
currently involves 54 countries and
33 organizations. Noting a lack of
coordination among global research
initiatives, he outlined GEO’s
purpose, structure and history.
Linda Moodie, US National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), reported on
GEO’s fifth meeting, held in Ottawa,
Canada, in November 2004, that
produced a ten-year implementation
plan expected to be approved in
February 2005. She explained how the
GEO System of Systems (GEOSS) will
consist of existing observation
systems, and promote the sharing and
increased availability of
observation data. She said the GEOSS
will seek to enhance prediction of
the earth system behavior and
facilitate the use of data to
support decision making.
|
|
Naoko Sugita, Japan’s Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology, emphasized that GEO
membership will be open to all
governments, and that operational
details will be finalized with the
adoption of the implementation plan.
Junsaku Mizuhata, Japan’s Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, said the GEO
governance structure consists of a
plenary, a secretariat and an
advisory body, and stressed its
principles of voluntary
participation and cooperation
between countries and organizations.
Cornado Varotto, National Commission
of Spatial Activities of Argentina,
spoke on Argentina’s achievements in
developing and operating monitoring
systems, and highlighted Argentina’s
possible contributions to GEO. He
stressed the importance of
establishing a capacity-building
process for monitoring within GEOSS.
Discussion: Panelists explained that
GEO will not create a new
observation system but coordinate
existing ones without supplanting
their mandates and that the
composition of the advisory body has
not yet been determined. They said
operation of GEOSS is planned to
commence in 2008, resulting data
will be shared in the public domain,
and the implementation plan includes
targets on capacity building.
Regarding mechanisms to ensure that
data is considered for decision
making, Moodie acknowledged that
promoting communication between
scientific and policy communities is
a challenge in every country. |
|
|
|