The side event, moderated by Andrew McGee, Australia, presented practical examples from developing countries participating in the Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI), to illustrate how Methods and Guidance Documentation (MGD) can contribute to national carbon accounting systems and achievement of forest monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) objectives.

Introducing the GFOI, Simon Eggleston, Group on Earth Observations (GEO), said it has “unique features,” including participation by: space agencies; experts in Earth observation; organizations involved in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and conservation and sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+); and developing countries.

Providing an overview of MGD, McGee stated that one of the MGD’s objectives is to provide detailed and consistent operational guidance to countries on how to develop national forest MRV systems using a combination of remote sensing and ground data to best meet national policy objectives.

Miriam Baltuck, GFOI, said the MGD development process is guided by expert stakeholders, written by internationally recognized science and policy experts, reviewed by developed and developing country GFOI participants, and independently reviewed by international scientific experts.

Jim Penman, GFOI MGD Advisory Group Chair, defined MGD as an operational interface between the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD). He said that the GFOI provides remote sensing data consistent with IPCC requirements, while the MGD provides operational guidance for use of remote sensing data in greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories consistent with IPCC guidance.

Presenting a practical country example, Orbita Roswintiarti, Indonesia, indicated next steps on remote sensing, including annual cloud-free mosaic and forest extent and change mapping of Indonesia for 2000-2012.

Frank Martin Seifert, ESA, stated that satellite data is a fundamental asset in setting up MRV systems at the national level. He noted that under the GFOI, the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) space agencies ensure systematic observations from space of the forests world-wide.

In the ensuing discussions, a series of questions and answers revolved around issues such as: uncertainty regarding forest carbon changes; combinations of satellite and ground data; methodological differences in satellite measurements between developing and developed countries; cost of satellite data; and outreach strategies to stakeholders involved in the process.

This side event, moderated by Daniel Rothenberg, Arizona State University (ASU), featured speakers from ASU that, through a series of papers, drew lessons from other international regimes for the negotiations on the Durban Platform.

Elliot Diringer, C2ES, opened the session presenting the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and its links to the session.

Daniel Bodansky, ASU, presented Evan Singleton’s work on fragmentation through multiple agreements, using the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as a point of reference. He examined the complexity of patenting micro-organisms and the numerous relevant treaties, moving to WIPO’s function as an umbrella organization. Drawing from this experience, he underscored that while fragmentation can pose a problem, it can also be part of the solution.

Ashley Vortuba, ASU, focused on the bottom-up approach, trying to link climate negotiations to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). She focused on a bottom-up approach including: resources and information provision; changes in socialization; systematic monitoring; provision of a forum for communication; and increased participation. She concluded that bottom-up approaches may induce change but its extent is still to be decided.

Michael O’Boyle, ASU, discussed opt-in provisions and regional regimes in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), explaining that opt-in provisions in the ECHR build trust, allow flexibility and increase participation. Regarding regional treaties, he underscored that they provide a laboratory for normative and institutional development.

Daniel Crane, ASU, discussed harmonization of carbon markets in the context of the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), providing an overview of carbon market fragmentation. He concluded that harmonization includes a variety of benefits such as reducing transaction costs, creating a common language and increasing outcome predictability.

The ensuing discussions focused, inter alia, on: the nature of the bottom-up approach and its capacity to generate change; failed bottom-up approaches; and the scope of comparing different paradigms.

This side event, moderated by Jerry Lengoasa, WMO, presented the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) initiative, and discussed its aim to disperse the benefits from global to national levels to facilitate efforts to adapt to climate variability and change for improved health, water management, disaster risk reduction, agriculture and food security from 2013.

Presenting a broader user perspective on what GFCS may provide, Klaus Radunsky, Austria, mentioned entry points, such as: the Cancun Adaptation Framework and the issue of loss and damage and national adaptation plans (NAPs); the Hyogo Framework of Action priorities, including disaster risk reduction (DRR) and enhanced early warning; and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction’s (GFDRR) pre-2016 goals.

Darrel Danyluk, World Federation of Engineers Organization (WFEO), Canada, provided an engineer’s perspective on the use of climate services. He warned that by the end of this century, all existing infrastructure will need to be replaced or refurbished, and urged for taking advantage of this “window” to focus on adaptation and update infrastructure in accordance with new climate criteria.

Lengoasa outlined the GFCS implementation priorities, including: governance, leadership and management capacity to take the Framework forward; capacity development, including strengthening regional climate capabilities; implementation of high-profile projects to address gaps across pillars and priority areas; improvement of climate observations in data sparse areas; and promotion of partnerships among stakeholders for addressing gaps and priorities.

Presenting the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) programme, Carolin Richter, Director, GCOS Secretariat, said its scope is to provide the comprehensive observations required for: monitoring the climate system; detecting and attributing climate change; and assessing impacts of, and supporting adaptation to, climate variability and change.

During discussions, participants posed questions on different aspects of the GFCS, such as: details on its full operationalization envisaged for July 2013; ways for countries to make use of its services; the possibility of adding more pilot projects; and availability of financial capacity to support countries involved in the initiative.

This session, moderated by Niklas Höhne, Ecofys, addressed Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) in the transport sector, as the latter contributes the second highest share of energy-related CO2 emissions, which are expected to increase dramatically in the near future.

André Eckermann, GIZ, introduced the Towards climate-friendly technologies and measures - TRANSfer project, which aims to support developing countries to make use of transport NAMAs to mitigate climate change on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).

Benoit Lefevre, EMBARQ, World Resources, focused on strategies to reduce GHG emissions from transport by avoiding emissions, shifting from energy intensive transport and improving technology.

Heather Allen, Bridging the Gap, noted the need to close the gap between land transport and international climate change, so that transport can be included in the climate agenda. She focused on the sectoral distribution of NAMAs to reveal that transport-related actions are second only to energy.

In the ensuing panel discussion, moderator Höhne presented the panel and the topics for discussion, which included: sharing experiences from transport NAMAs; barriers to implementation; and perspectives for the future.

Sandra Lopez, Colombia, discussed current and future projects in Colombia, identifying the interaction between agencies and data uncertainty as the most pressing problems.

Brian Mantlana, South Africa, focused on South African experiences from transport NAMAs, underscoring that, while in embryonic stage, his country favors a bottom-up approach. He singled out capacity building as the most challenging issue, due to the complexity of the technical work involved.

Allen underlined the vast potential of transport NAMAs, calling all related agents to build on current progress and announcing the Transport Day 2013 to be held at the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP19), on November 17.

Ned Helme, Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), presented his experience in different countries, using Colombia as the best example of transport NAMAs implementation. He emphasized coordination and identifying the key agencies as important barriers. He underscored that a clear definition of NAMAs in not essential at this point in time as many countries have NAMA initiatives of high quality and the right approach would be learning by doing and following these promising initiatives.

During discussions, participants posed questions on, inter alia: defining NAMAs; linking NAMAs and adaptation; and including aviation and maritime transport.