Moderator Niclas Svenningsen, UNFCCC Secretariat, introduced the session. John Kilani, UNFCCC Secretariat, introduced the workshops, jointly convened in Bonn, Germany, from 7-9 October 2013. Remarking that the Secretariat was mandated by the 38th Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 38) to organize these workshops, he identified workshop outcomes (FCCC/SBSTA/2013/INF.s 11-13). He thanked the European Commission and the governments of Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and the UK for providing financial support to ensure “broad participation” of delegates from developing and developed countries.

Natalie Kushko, Ukraine, introduced the NMA workshop’s discussion, including the scope and purpose for NMA, benefits of market versus non-market based approaches, and the need for information sharing on action and experiences. She identified two application calls, in March and September, with submissions received from member states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Derrick Oderson, Saint Kitts and Nevis, introduced the NMM workshop, which included six sessions and discussions on inter alia: institutional arrangements; engagement of the private sector; standards to achieve mitigation; and unit tracking. He stressed the need for flexibility, taking national circumstances into account.

Laurence Mortier, Switzerland, emphasized awareness raising and capacity building regarding NMMs and called for avoiding double counting through tracking and registration systems at national and international levels.

Giza Gaspar Martins, Angola, introduced the FVA workshop, including its four sessions and the need to prepare a technical synthesis for SBSTA 39. He remarked on balanced participation in the workshop, including technical and policy experts from various member states. Stressing that this process is and will continue to be party-driven, he encouraged discussions on “the way forward” to continue in Warsaw.

Martin Cames, Institute for Applied Ecology, Germany, stressed the importance of several issues regarding FVA, including the need: for environmental integrity; to avoid double counting; to identify commitments and targets under the UNFCCC; and to develop a common set of accounting rules.

During discussions, participants raised several issues, including: additionality; appropriate timelines for progress; information sharing; and coordination of discussions with the review process of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and joint-implementation (JI).

This session, moderated by Djemouai Kamel, CGE Member, Algeria, and Uazamo Kaura, UNFCCC Secretariat, considered the CGE work programme for 2013, as well as supplementary training material developed to achieve its goals.

Kamel presented the core mandate of the CGE and the related UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) Decisions, noting the terms of reference (TOR) contain six basic elements and all relate to the capacity building of non-Annex I Parties. Regarding the work programme developed, he noted that it is pragmatic and realistic, focusing on the provision of technical assistance to non-Annex I countries.

Hilary Hove, CGE Member, Canada, addressed highlights of the work programme of the CGE for 2013. She stressed the use of a mini-survey, an expert workshop and a global training workshop, noting the development of supplementary training materials to address areas not sufficiently covered.

Abias Huongo, CGE Member, Angola, presented key lessons learned as well as challenges lying ahead, noting that the CGE may not be able to develop training materials for all subjects within its mandate. He underscored major challenges, including lack of stable and predictable financial resources, difficulties to address the issues that are currently unresolved and under negotiation, as well as the long-term perspectives, given the uncertainty regarding the future mandate.

Liu Qiang, CGE Member, China, focused on recommendations on three specific areas: adopting a long term perspective, such as CGE activities management and arrangements for predictable finance; enhancing participation and collaboration; and enhancing the provision of capacity building using communication tools, e-learning products and exchange of experiences and networking.

Magdalena Preve, CGE Member, Uruguay, addressed the supplementary training materials on Biennial Update Reports (BURs), focusing on: processes involved in their development; definition of the scope of the development of the supplementary training materials; and mitigation actions and their effects.

Robert Dixon, Global Environment Facility (GEF) Secretariat, provided insights on the procedures for accessing funds for National Communications and BURs. He underlined that they constitute key elements of UNFCCC and that the GEF recognizes the importance of National Communications. He then presented the project cycle for stand-alone projects and umbrella programmes, as well as financing options and procedures.

The ensuing discussion focused on: the divergence of national experts; the implementation phase following planning the tools; the feasibility of certain aspects of the mandate; and clarifications on mitigation assessment.

Moderator Dimitrios Zevgolis, DG-Climate Action, introduced the panel, which described projects taking place in the Western Balkans and Turkey on low emission development. He noted that most countries have not developed special climate action strategies, while highlighting achievements including the development of a climate project pipeline under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and preparations for developing inter-institutional coordination. He called for strategic frameworks to improve top-down decision-making, integrated policy development across sectors, and cooperation and coordination.

Imre Csikós, Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA), discussed the Environment and Climate Regional Accession Network (ECRAN). He noted that ECRAN builds on RENA climate results, saying 30% of the budget will be reserved for climate issues. He outlined the four working groups on: climate policy development and climate awareness; GHG inventory and Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR); emission trading; and adaptation.

József Feiler, REC, discussed the project Support for Low Emission Development (SLED) in South East Europe (SEE). He said the project aims to provide the basis for development of low emission development strategies by providing assessments through 2030 for energy efficiency in buildings and the electricity sector. He highlighted the objectives of electricity modeling in the SEE region including identification of cost efficient intervention, noting that the models will help address questions on the price impacts of policies.

Andreas Tuerk, Joanneum Research, Austria, presented the project Low Carbon South East Europe (LOCSEE), noting the importance of finding synergies between projects that overlap. He outlined that their approach included preparation of state-of-the-art analysis in the field of climate change in participating countries, collection of good and bad practices, cross-sectoral National Working Groups (NWGs), capacity building workshops, development and improvement of low carbon policy papers, and development of a regional policy network.

During discussions, delegates from Croatia and Montenegro discussed their countries’ experiences with capacity building projects, noting the utility of modeling and assessments for the preparation of national GHG inventories and welcoming support in particular for human capacity development. A delegate from Serbia noted the importance of regional cooperation and highlighted activities they are undertaking related to climate change under the EU accession process.

Jenna Jadin, US Agency for International Development (USAID), moderated the event, highlighting the US Carbon Cycle Science Program and the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group (CCIWG), which coordinates research on the global carbon cycle.

Nancy Cavallaro, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), introduced the CCIWG, a collaboration between the USDA, US Forest Service (USDA-FS), Department of Energy (DoE), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), stating it originated in 1999 to understand the latest science on the carbon cycle. She introduced several partnerships, notably the North American Carbon Programme (NACP) between the US, Canada and Mexico.

Gyami Shrestha, US Carbon Cycle Science Program, stressed the need for a multidisciplinary approach to understand global carbon cycle science. She introduced President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and how it influences her programme’s work, inter alia: efforts to reduce carbon, methane and other GHG emissions; vulnerability in key sectors; conservation of land and water resources; and agriculture sustainability.

Chris Swanston, International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) and USDA-FS, noted that soil contains at least two thirds of terrestrial organic carbon, adding that soil carbon feedbacks to climate change are still uncertain but could be large. He stressed the importance of the ISCN in order to connect people and organizations as well as share data, infrastructure, archives, perspectives and expertise. Finally, he provided an overview of the ISCN Carbon Database, including growth areas in the future.

John Miller, NOAA-Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), underlined that carbon research is motivated by fundamental uncertainties including the nature of anthropogenic emissions and the relation between increasing CO2 and ocean acidification.

Christopher Sabine, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, introduced the US Global Ocean Observing Program, underscoring close collaboration with the international ocean community. He presented three methods to monitor ocean carbon observations, including: the surface CO2 observation network; the ocean acidification observation network; and the ocean interior observation network.

During discussions participants raised several issues, inter alia: highlighting carbon cycle research in policy discussions; changing permafrost rates and other “surprising findings”; and collaborating with international partners.