This side event, moderated by Taka Hiraishi, IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) Co-Chair, addressed the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory software, and experiences of developed and developing countries in deploying the software. Hiraishi recalled the launch of the IPCC inventory software in May 2012.

Maya Fukuda, IPCC, presented the software, emphasizing it implements the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, but it can also be used for reporting under the 1996 Guidelines. She said the software can assist in applying the IPCC Guidelines, and be used for entire inventories or individual categories.

Nalin Srivastava, IPCC TFI Technical Support Unit (TSU), demonstrated some “unique, new” software features, stressing its ability to input data in a streamlined fashion, especially in the agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU) sector.

Baasansuren Jamsranjav, IPCC TFI TSU, presented software tools, such as the uncertainty analysis and the key category analysis (KCA), and demonstrated the export and import of data.

Presenting South Africa’s experience, Jongikhaya Witi, South Africa, emphasized that: the IPCC software is able to meet reporting requirements; the database is easy to manage and facilitates the review process; the land-use manager component can help inventory compilers to critique land use change data and identify inconsistencies; and the built-in analysis tools make it easy to integrate data.

Discussing the Indian experience using the 2006 IPCC software, Amit Garg, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, stressed it is: simple to use; able to produce different reporting tables as per the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting requirements for non-Annex I Parties; and helps capturing missing sources for emissions reporting.

Recalling that Annex I Parties are obliged to use the new 2006 IPCC Guidelines starting in 2015, Ioannis Sempos, Greece, presented results of a preliminary study performed in 2012 in Greece, based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and software. He concluded that the 2006 IPCC software is easy to use and facilitates conversion from previous IPCC Guidelines.

Tiffany Troxler, IPCC TFI TSU, presented two additional guidance volumes being produced by the TFI, which extend and update the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. She presented the new products, the Wetlands supplement and the Kyoto Protocol land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) supplement.

During the ensuing questions and answers session, participants discussed, inter alia: non-Annex I Parties reporting requirements; complexity level of the IPCC 2006 guidelines; and ways to connect the IPCC software to the new common reporting format (CRF).

This session discussed affordable, low-emission, high-sequestration practices that can help close the mitigation gap, build resilience, reverse land degradation and alleviate hunger and poverty, together with innovative policy frameworks, which help the realization of national development priorities. Robert Jordan, IFOAM, moderated the session.

Marcus Arbenz, IFOAM, provided an overview of the organization, its advocacy campaigns and targets, and its collaborative efforts. He discussed case studies to demonstrate the importance of the organic agriculture approach, including: the “Greening the Desert” initiative in Egypt; “push and pull” technology for the control of stem borer and striga weed in Africa; and comparing conventional and biodynamic cultivation during heavy rainfall events in Switzerland.

Anika Schröder, MISEREOR, presented the Foundation’s projects in different countries, focusing on its bottom-up approach and effort to promote sustainable livelihoods in vulnerable communities. She underscored that agro-ecological practices constitute a reality in many parts of the developing world, as farmers lack the necessary means to buy fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds or other inputs used in conventional agriculture. Highlighting success stories from Haiti and the Philippines, she noted that low inputs at the beginning of the season create security, with little investment loss in case of severe production failures.

Emmanuel Chinyamakobvu, UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Secretariat, argued that while the UNCCD’s primary goals are to combat desertification and land degradation, and to mitigate the effects of drought, there is a variety of associated challenges: poverty alleviation; climate change and variability; loss of biodiversity; water management; natural resources conflicts; food insecurity, hunger and starvation; and forced human migration. He addressed future challenges, inter alia: protection and conservation of natural resources; afforestation and reforestation; integrated land and water resources management; and promoting adoption of alternative energy sources.

Gesine Hänsel, Ecofys, addressed the development of NAMAs in the agricultural sector, providing insights from Ethiopia. She addressed the links between NAMAs and Ethiopia’s climate policy framework and development plans focusing on: the Growth and Transformation Plan; the Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy; and the role of NAMAs concerning land restoration.

Ensuing discussions focused on: advantages of organic agriculture related to water management; mitigation and carbon markets; and carbon sequestration.

This side event, moderated by Sam Bickersteth, Chief Executive, Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), and Michael Lesnick, Meridian Institute (MI), discussed elements that impact the ability to reach consensus in the UNFCCC process, and presented experiences from UNFCCC facilitators and negotiators.

Bickersteth stressed challenges in the mechanics of the UNFCCC, saying that new approaches are needed.

Introducing the MI’s work exploring consensus-building in the UNFCCC, Kristy Buckley, MI, presented a policy dialogue model based on various types of dynamics, such as: political, including domestic policies and the global political economy; negotiation; group, including personalities and relationships; and cross-cutting dynamics, including power distribution and leverage, and Parties’ access to credible data and information. She highlighted ways to support the UNFCCC process, including: fewer meetings and negotiating tracks, but higher quality discussions and more time for Parties to consult domestically; importance of informal discussions and communications; Secretariat and COP Presidencies’ support; and decisions by consensus, not voting, as a “necessary evil.”

Addressing ways to reach consensus, Antonio Gabriel La Viña, the Philippines, emphasized the importance of: negotiators’ thorough preparation and wide access to information prior to the meetings; building trust, and the facilitator’s key role in this; transforming any negotiation from an exchange of views to a problem-solving exercise, especially through bilaterals and small group meetings.

Selam Kidane Abebe, Ethiopia, underscored the importance of: capacity building for negotiators, such as through mentorships; clear communication of Parties’ expectations from the process; bilaterals in the informal negotiating process; and trust and transparency in the formal process.

During the ensuing discussions, participants addressed, inter alia: how technology changed the dynamics of negotiations; the need for well-informed technical discussions and their separation from political debates; cultural differences in Parties’ approaches; and negotiators’ language capacities and how this can cause confusion.

This side event, moderated by Kelly Levin, WRI, presented drafts of two new GHG Protocol Accounting Standards, saying that the Policies and Actions Standard helps users quantify the GHG effects of policies and actions, such as NAMAs, while the Mitigation Goals Standard helps users track progress toward mitigation goals.

Opening the session, Levin referred to the goals of the Measurement and Performance Tracking (MAPT) project and to the mission of the GHG Protocol. She then focused on the context of the two GHG Protocol Standards under development, presenting their context, scope and intended use.

Marion Vieweg-Mersmann, Climate Analytics, noted the different objectives of the standard and addressed its key elements, including: mapping of the causal chain; definition of boundary; baseline determination; and identification of policy impacts. She underlined key steps in the ex-ante analysis, namely: identification of parameters and shape; scale definition; and quantification of policy impacts.

Pedro Barata, CDM Executive Board Member, discussed criteria for offsets, including that they are real, additional, permanent and verified, and questioned whether similar standards should be set for allowances, noting they should be based on robust measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). He said the GHG Protocol is transparent and compatible with other systems.

Andres Pirazzoli, Chile, addressed the low-emission development strategy (LEDS) of Chile and its Low Emission Capacity Building Programme (LECBP). He pointed out that both standards are very important, providing broad guidelines on reporting and accounting on mitigation goals, and stressed the opportunity to go beyond a declaration of intent and quantify results.

Torsten Greis, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), provided an overview of the climate change and energy situation in Tunisia and presented the pilot testing of the Policies and Actions Standard. He focused on the scope of the testing, which aims, inter alia, to: activate human resources; transfer knowledge; learn from WRI experiences in MRV; and obtain a first draft of a complete future MRV system. He also underscored challenges, including absence of GHG inventories and MRV systems, and data limitations for some sectors.

Anthony Dane, University of Cape Town, presented the South African experience in assessing GHG emission reductions associated with a behavior change campaign in Cape Town. He discussed the Energy and Climate Action Plan and the Smart Living campaign, which aimed to reduce electricity consumption by 10% by 2012 and raise awareness through communication and education. Focusing on the new standards, he underscored that the objective is to develop an assessment based on the new GHG Protocol Policies and Actions Standard, and to provide feedback on its usability and practicality.