 |
||
|
published by IISD, the International Institute for Sustainable Development
in cooperation with the Climate Change Secretariat. |
|||
|
Special Report on Selected Side Events at SB 22
|
|||||
| 19-27 May 2005 | Bonn, Germany | |||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Events convened on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Enabling climate change action in the north: Targets, instruments and strategies Presented by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy |
||||||
 |
Bernd Brouns, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (WICEE), indicated that industrialized countries must make larger emissions cuts and assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation. He noted the need for further “differentiation” among industrialized countries in any post-2012 climate regime and called for an open, transparent and systematic framework that takes into account differing national circumstances. Highlighting that the negotiation of mitigation and financial transfer commitments should be separate, Brouns outlined a model for the allocation of emissions targets based on historical responsibility, mitigation potential, and capability. He proposed a second rationale for allocating responsibility for assisting developing countries, premised on capability and said its application would largely reflect the current UNFCCC Annex II. Identifying a need to re-evaluate the Annex I and non-Annex I distinction in the long term, he underscored that a rational categorization of countries could facilitate negotiations and indicate what a fair agreement would look like.
Stefan Lechtenböhmer, WICEE, identified the enlarged EU’s potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. Discussing the business-as-usual emissions projections for different sectors, he highlighted a 133% growth in aviation emissions. He noted that energy efficiency has improved in the EU but called for new measures as this trend is estimated to decrease. He stressed the need for a comprehensive strategy that, inter alia, increases the share of renewable energies to 20.1% and addresses: energy efficiency; combined heat and power; and the transport sector, especially aviation. He indicated that emissions trading must be combined with technology and sector-specific policies, and proposed an emissions allocation with a yearly cap of -2.8%. Ralf Schüle, WICEE, outlined a new project focusing on the potential and risks of linking EU emissions trading with emerging domestic schemes. He said the project aims to analyze the economic and ecological impacts of such linkages as well as institutional compatibility and the relationship with the Kyoto process. Hermann Ott, WICEE, said emissions trading and an international structure to promote renewable energy could add to the Kyoto Protocol as other “pillars” for sound international climate policy. |
|||||
| Stefan Lechtenböhmer, WICEE, said the EU’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by 30% by 2020 | ||||||
|
|||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
LULUCF in future commitment periods Presented by the Max-Planck Institute |
||||||
 |
Anke Herold, Öko-Institute, identified options for “key rules” for including land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities in a post-2012 climate regime. She noted the need to choose between a joint target for all sectors or a separate LULUCF target, and to define: anthropogenic emissions and removals; accounting rules; and the inclusion of LULUCF in flexibility mechanisms. She mentioned the advantages of some of the options for “key rules”, namely: a joint target for all sectors; including only managed areas; and the inclusion of all LULUCF activities.
Niklas Höhne, Ecofys, highlighted that LULUCF emissions are a significant part of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. He identified the impact of land-use change and forestry emissions (LUCF) on parties’ emissions and commitments if applying “contraction and convergence” and “multi-stage setting” approaches in a future climate regime. He noted that the decision as to whether to include LUCF activities has important consequences for some developing countries, in particular Brazil and Indonesia. Hannes Böttcher, Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, discussed options for the definition of “forest management” activities and accounting rules in light of the Marrakesh Accords and the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF. He outlined the model and data used in a German case study and highlighted the effects of different options on accountable areas and carbon stock changes. Discussion: Participants discussed the impact of different accounting methods on countries’ LULUCF emissions, the necessity to take action on deforestation, and the possible impact of economic incentives such as carbon trading. |
|||||
| Niklas Höhne, ECOFYS, indicated that whether emissions from land-use change and forestry are included will affect the timing and scale of required emissions reductions | ||||||
|
|||
|
EU side event on Article 6 Presented by Luxembourg |
|||||
 |
Ylva Tiveus, European Commission, outlined two surveys, namely the Eurobarometer, and an EU survey of member countries’ climate change campaigns aimed at identifying progress achieved and possible partners for communication measures. Luc Dries, Federal Public Service for the Environment, Belgium, presented the Belgian clean car campaign, following the EU passenger car strategy on carbon dioxide emissions. He said the objective was to encourage the purchase of low-emitting cars by providing a booklet and a web-based tool with emissions information on different car models. He highlighted lessons learned, including the need for complementary instruments, and positive and humoristic solution-oriented messages.
Marie Jaudet, Interministerial Task-Force for Climate Change, France, outlined the French mobilization campaign on energy saving and climate change. She indicated some of the motivations for the campaign, inter alia, that: energy management and climate change prevention is a national challenge; climate change has to be understood by all players; and social acceptance of measures depends on awareness raising. She explained that the campaign focused on creating a humoristic slogan to change behavior and outlined actions taken, including: television commercials; press releases; local radio programmes; and information booklets. She stated that following the television campaign, 54% of the population surveyed had changed at least one of their daily routines. Michael Kracht, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany, outlined Germany’s experience in raising awareness on climate change in schools. He said teaching support material had been developed focusing on: climate science and scenarios; carbon dioxide emitters; and impacts of climate change. He outlined Germany’s climate campaign to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in private households by focusing on heating systems and insulation, using efficient energy appliances, and encouraging sustainable modes of transport. He indicated that web-based tools, media coverage, and climate quizes for children has been used for this campaign. |
||||
| Luc Dries, Federal Public Service for the Environment, Belgium, stated that 39.000 copies of the clean car campaign guide have been distributed | |||||
|
|||
|
||
 |
||
|
Click the above button to go back to our ENB main coverage
|
||
|
|
|
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. |
|||
|
|
||
|
Please e-mail the