This side event addressed black carbon and other short-lived climate forcers and their mitigation potential, particularly to slow warming in cryosphere regions such as the Arctic, the Himalayas and the Andes. Moderating the session, Pam Pearson, Director, ICCI, recalled the preliminary results of new modeling based on the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) assessment, saying they offer new hope and direction for the Earth’s cryosphere.

Michael Sparrow, Executive Director, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), noted that, although the ozone hole has shielded much of Antarctica from global warming, parts of the Antarctic are losing ice at a rapid rate. He said this will likely contribute to sea level rise over the next century, though by how much is still uncertain. He stressed the need for a better reflection of polar processes and non-linear transitions in models in order to improve predictions.

Addressing the issue of black carbon and climate change in the tropics, Jayaraman Srinivasan, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, discussed the scientific concerns over direct and indirect impacts of black carbon on monsoon rainfall and glacier melting.

Elisabetta Vignati, European Commission, Directorate General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC), presented further work based on the preliminary results of the UNEP/WMO Assessment reports, which identified 16 reduction measures to be implemented by 2030. Analyzing the impacts measure-by-measure and regionally through the cryosphere lens, she stressed substantial impacts on: health, particularly in India; food production, especially in the Indian region, China and South Eastern Asia; and on direct aerosol forcing.

In the ensuing discussions, the panel addressed questions on: vulnerability of ice shields and contribution to sea level rise in the next centuries; measures undertaken in the State of Kerala to reduce black carbon and plans to up-scale these measures across India; concerns about opening up the Arctic to oil and gas exploration; and sulfate emissions.

This side event, moderated by Gotelind Alber, GenderCC, discussed: rights-based approaches to climate change; impacts of mitigation policies on women, including adaptation co-benefits; and using culture to promote resilience.

Alber highlighted that linkages between gender issues and social factors need to be considered in climate policy, including: vulnerability to the impacts of climate change; carbon footprint; capability to reduce emissions; perceptions; behavior and motivations; participation in decision-making; and socioeconomic impacts of policies and measures.

Kate Cahoon, GenderCC, referred to the Cancun Agreements as a major breakthrough, as they incorporate rights-based language in addressing climate change. She stressed the need to address human rights as an entry point for mitigation efforts, instead of seeing it as being counterproductive.

Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition (GFC), highlighted the negative effects of biofuels, such as increases in food prices leading to hunger and malnutrition, and health impacts of air pollution resulting from biomass incinerators. She called for cutting subsidies for bioenergy and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ rights. She lamented the commodification of community values through market-based instruments.

Ahsan Ahmed, Centre for Global Change, illustrated how low-carbon interventions can transform the status of women by creating opportunities for them to exert rights. Presenting a case study from Bangladesh, he said the Green Brick Project resulted in increased job security while providing adaptation co-benefits for women.

Kuini Rabo, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), used the example of a case study from Kiribati to illustrate how culture can be used to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by using traditional knowledge to revive and promote alternative energy sources and economic activities.

Alber offered some conclusions, inter alia, the need to: institutionalize gender participation; recognize and address gender roles; integrate gender and social dimensions from the beginning and at all levels of programming; and incentivize robust actions even if quantification of gender-related effects is not possible.

Participants discussed: the feasibility of bringing the human rights frameworks into climate negotiations; women entrepreneurs and sustainable business; interlinking national and international level action on human rights; and how climate projects could change power relations.

This side event, moderated by Jochen Harnisch, KfW Development Bank, focused on climate finance needs, tools and institutions for delivery, and lessons learned on the effectiveness of existing funds.

Mark Lutes, WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative, highlighted the increased importance of public finance for mitigating climate change given the current financial and economic constraints worldwide. He stressed that discussions surrounding absorptive capacity, the need for planning and enabling environments, among others, should not delay countries in making pledges towards the US$100 billion commitment.

Paul Bodnar, US Department of State, focused on how public finance could be used effectively to meet mitigation finance needs to address two gaps, the prevailing attractiveness of conventional technologies in comparison with low-carbon technologies, and the high-risk profile of developing countries despite their need for investments. Bodnar underlined the need to consider different levels of comparative advantage across financial institutions for utilizing tools such as risk mitigation and low-cost debt. He noted the importance of thinking about how to scale down financing for carbon intensive energy sources, in addition to scaling-up green finance.

Smita Nakhooda, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), shared insights on climate finance effectiveness based on existing funds, inter alia, how the level and type of funding affect the scope of operations, and the context the fund is set up in. She underscored the importance of understanding the diversity of scales at which funds work, by exemplifying the evolution of partnerships between global funds and local actors.

Harnisch highlighted the need for a simple and predictable international framework with limited policy interventions to scale up the green economy. He called for clear differentiation between instruments and their use according to country risks.

During discussions, participants reflected on: pioneers to champion investment in high risk countries; innovation in financial institutions; implications of the carbon price collapse on climate policy credibility; domestic mobilization of climate finance; lessons from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); and drawing lessons from ongoing experimental funds.

This session, moderated by Kaveh Zahedi, Interim Head of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) Secretariat, discussed the CCAC’s work on reducing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) to protect human health and the environment in the short term, and slow the rate of climate change in the first half of this century.

Opening the event, Dan McDougall, Environment Canada, stressed that the CCAC: is a good example of the science-policy interface; partner countries are committed to both domestic and international action; and is open to countries and non-state actors. He emphasized Canada joined the CCAC because of the solid scientific basis of its work, its practical actions and consequent immediate effects.

Zahedi noted compelling scientific evidence, including that SLCPs: are responsible for a substantial fraction of near-term climate change; have detrimental impacts on public health, agriculture and ecosystems; and mitigation brings multiple benefits to the climate, health and development. He emphasized that SLCP actions need to be complemented by deep and rapid cuts in CO2 emissions, if the global mean temperature increase over the 21st century is to be limited to below 2°C.

Markus Amann, CCAC Scientific Advisory Panel, indicated new scientific findings, including: stronger evidence that air pollution has serious health impacts; better understanding of the relative impacts of black carbon; and new quantitative information on the potentially important impacts of kerosene lamps, flaring in the Arctic and diesel generators.

Marina Maiero, World Health Organization (WHO), underlined that reducing SLCPs such as black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone can prevent a significant proportion of the estimated six million deaths annually from air pollution related diseases. She added that the WHO has applied to become a member of the CCAC.

Felicity Creighton Spors, World Bank, presented recommendations from a World Bank report, including: paying for methane emission reductions as a climate finance pilot project to deliver a “quick win” in the short term; scaling-up methane mitigation actions of multilateral development banks in the medium term; and applying the pay-for-performance principle to methane-related Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) in the long term.

Indicating black carbon from heavy duty vehicles is a priority area, Mark Radka, UNEP, noted measures to reduce black carbon, such as introduction of ultra low sulfate diesel fuels and higher standards for vehicle engines.

Terri Wills, C40-CCI Cities, discussed the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Initiative, saying its objective is to work with cities around the world to implement new actions to reduce SLCP emissions, mainly methane and black carbon, from the waste sector. She said cities have the power to: set policies and enforce regulation; control budgets and levy charges; and set the vision.

Nurul Quadir, Bangladesh, presented high priority measures from the Bangladesh National Action Plan for reducing SLCPs, including: elimination of high-emitting vehicles in road transport; incentives to encourage switching from diesel to compressed natural gas; introduction of improved cook stoves; replacement of traditional brick kilns with modern technologies; and introduction of improved rice parboiling technology.

The ensuing discussions touched upon issues such as measurements of SLCPs and their contribution to climate change and accounting in GHG inventories.