This panel described and discussed a programme to assess the risks of dangerous climate impacts and identify options to avoid them.

David Warrilow, UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, moderated the session. He explained that the AVOID programme provides advice to the UK Government on avoiding dangerous climate change.

Jason Lowe, Met Office UK, described the AVOID programme, explaining that it quantifies and communicates the avoided impacts and residual effects for a range of mitigation policies using simple models to measure impacts on physical and human systems. He said the methodology of the programme involves analysis of global emissions trajectories, including: peak emissions; the rate of emissions leading to the peak level; the emissions reduction rate following the peak level; and the net long-term impact of emissions rates on climate, crops, flooding, water supply, and other physical and human resources.

Nigel Arnell, University of Reading, UK, outlined key findings, including that: even the most stringent mitigation will not avoid all climate impacts; the majority of mitigation benefits will not be realized for many decades; an earlier peak will mean that more impacts are avoided; the impacts that can be avoided depend on the level of climate change and carbon dioxide concentrations; and there is significant regional variation in avoided impacts.

In the ensuing discussion, participants raised issues relating to the use of IPCC scenarios, presentation of data useful to governments’ policies, and the impacts of population growth.

This event brought together panelists to discuss proposals on effort sharing and the distribution of financing for NAMAs.

Michel den Elzen, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, discussed effort-sharing approaches, noting that some major developed countries’ targets do not meet the level necessary to be considered comparable with a 30 percent reduction by 2020. He emphasized that starting points matter when calculating effort sharing and that the stringency of targets depends on LULUCF rules.

Markus Hagemann, ECOFYS, explained that several developing countries, including China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Republic of Korea and South Africa, had projected emissions reductions based on their national plans that are above what would be required in most calculations of effort sharing. He suggested that if the six countries analyzed are aggregated, this would result in a 25% reduction from business-as-usual by 2020.

Martina Jung, ECOFYS, said NAMAs should be based on a clear template and provide information on context, NAMA actions, and indicators that can be subject to MRV. She added that NAMAs should also provide an estimate of emission reductions, other benefits, the level of financial support needed for implementation and an assessment of national appropriateness. She noted that a template would allow inclusion in registries or schedules, facilitate MRV and make funding proposals easier to develop.

Participants discussed sectoral NAMAs, complementary roles for regulatory schemes, defining baselines and business-as-usual, and the relationship between NAMA and CDM approaches.

This event involved reviews of various mitigation policies, both at the national and international levels.

Michael Grubb, Climate Strategies and Cambridge University, spoke about building a low carbon economy. He highlighted the UK’s 2020 and 2050 targets embodied in legislation, and the country’s five-year national emission budgets. He also noted the role of the Carbon Trust, a public-private partnership with environmental and economic objectives. He reported that the Trust’s investment activities leverage £7 of private sector spending for every £1 of public spending. He discussed several policy issues, including how to deal with sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. He also outlined a new initiative, the UK Carbon Reduction Commitment, a consumption based cap-and-trade scheme that will target emissions in large, non-energy intensive organizations.

Axel Michaelowa, University of Zurich and Perspectives GmbH, reflected on lessons learned from the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms. He noted that the CDM has been far more successful than was originally anticipated, with 5000 projects and billions of certified emission reductions (CERs) issued. However, he noted that the CDM has its shortcomings, including a long regulatory process to ensure that projects meet the additionality and sustainable development criteria, and a lack of projects in key sectors such as transportation and energy efficiency in buildings. He suggested steps to improve the regulatory framework and transparency, and highlighted the possibility of sectoral mechanisms.

John Drexhage, IISD, described CDM as a useful “first toe in the water of a carbon market” that has nevertheless had almost no impact so far on the development stream of any developing country. He noted difficulties with the CDM’s additionality requirement. He also suggested that, for better or worse, a future treaty will be domestically driven and there may be increasing regionalization of activities. However, he hoped that confidence in national regimes will grow over time and could ultimately result in a more comprehensive international framework – a process he described as “taking one step back to then take two steps forward.”

Michael Grubb and Murray Ward, Global Climate Change Consultancy, highlighted a new project to make countries’ various pledges, assumptions and methodologies easier to compare. The study will include a “trajectory indicator” that considers the consistency of 2020 targets with the long-term 2050 goal, including whether countries are effectively putting off action until later. The paper will be published and distributed on the Climate-L list in mid-November.

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 UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat. This issue has been written by Diego Noguera, William McPherson, Ph.D., Anna Schulz, and Chris Spence. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Alexandra Conliffe <alexandra@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Support for the publication of ENBOTS at the Barcelona Climate Change Talks 2009 has been provided by UNDP, UNEP, FAO and UNFCCC. 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 the Barcelona Climate Change Talks 2009 can be found on the Linkages website at http://enb.iisd.org/climate/rccwg7/enbots/. The ENBOTS Team at the Barcelona Climate Change Talks 2009 can be contacted by e-mail at <chris@iisd.org>.