Bonn Climate Change Conference - June 2015

Co-facilitator Zaheer Fakir, South Africa, opened the session and introduced the topic: scaling up adaptation finance. Co-facilitator Dany Drouin, Canada, discussed the context of the workshop and outlined its objectives: exploring opportunities for scaled up and enhanced action on adaptation finance; feeding discussions into the broader process of scaling up climate finance; and generating concrete ideas.

Urging the in-session participants not to “fall into simplistic thinking,” Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, said there was a need to think about how to make investments in adaptation attractive and discussed investment in insurance as an example of a profitable activity that could support adaptation.

Thematic bodies of the UNFCCC presented on scaling up finance to foster adaptation actions in developing countries.

Adaptation Committee member Klaus Radunsky​, Austria, discussed, among others, challenges to adaptation finance, including: identifying adaptation versus business-as-usual finance needs; coordination of adaptation finance from different sources at the national level; engagement of the domestic private sector, especially in the LDCs; and oversubscription of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF) during a period of transformation to larger project funding. He also discussed recommendations, including: the need for a long-term strategic framework with National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) as a key tool in this regard; maintaining momentum of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) implementation and paying close attention to the link between NAPs and Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and clarifying roles and responsibilities of different operating entities at the international level.

Discussing the role of the LDC Expert Group (LEG) in providing technical support and advice on NAPAs and other elements of the LDC work programme, Batu Uprety (Nepal), Chair, LEG, emphasized the importance of a scaled up programmatic and integrated approach to adaptation at the national level to achieve transformational change. He also said there were ongoing discussions with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to align the strategies between the GCF and the NAPA and NAPs. He expressed concern about the lack of funding for the LDCF, noted that the deceleration in NAPAs would also slow down formulation of NAPs, and urged the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to mobilize funds to support NAPA projects this year.

Standing Committee on Finance Co-chair Outi Honkatukia, Finland, provided input on the basis of the ongoing work of the SCF. She highlighted lessons learned from the 2014 Forum on adaptation finance, including: integration of adaptation into development planning, coherence and complementarities among different sources of finance, and the need to support communities to access funds. On the 2014 biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows, she noted: a convergence among data collectors and aggregators in the operational definition of "climate finance;" the increasing but small share of adaptation finance within climate finance; and a need to further develop impact assessment methods for adaptation. On the fifth review of the financial mechanism, she highlighted the need for: accessibility of funding; country ownership; and complementarity between operating entities of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC.

Introducing the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) as the policy arm of the Technology Mechanism, Kunihiko Shimada, TEC Chair, discussed TEC’s work and inputs to the UNFCCC bodies. On enabling environments for and barriers to adaptation, he stressed the importance of addressing economic, financial and capacity barriers, and pointed to the need to increase availability of and access to finance and build institutional capacity. Noting that research and development (R&D) costs for adaptation technologies were often reflected in project costs given the site specificity of adaptation, he emphasized the need to increase R&D on adaptation and further highlighted the role of close stakeholder collaboration to overcome policy, financial, technology and related challenges.

During the plenary session, participants discussed two topics: the role of collaborative arrangements for managing climate risks; and strengthening institutions' capacity to access climate finance.

On the role of collaborative arrangements for managing climate risks, Isaac Anthony, Caribbean Climate Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), presented on the CCRIF. He identified relevant lessons learned, including: the need for continued dialogue between experts and stakeholders to engage all interests and prevent information asymmetries; donor support, particularly in the initial phase and to market insurance products at reasonable prices; and good governance of the mechanism.

Mandy Barnett, South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and Ubaldo Elizondo, Latin American Development Bank (CAF) presented on strengthening institutional capacity to access climate finance. Discussing the role of various access modalities in promoting adaptation, Barnett discussed examples from South Africa including: a direct access experience at Nhlazuka; and the first enhanced direct access modality in two target areas. She identified several lessons for scaling up, including: taking the time to design quality projects and engage stakeholders; supporting capacity development and readiness at all levels; and supporting institutional strengthening and bringing in new players.

Discussing CAF’s work on vulnerability mapping, Elizondo highlighted the diagnostic capabilities of such mapping exercises and noted factors that could increase the susceptibility of the population to harm such as poor health, poverty, lack of infrastructure, and conflict. He emphasized the importance of strengthening the capacity of institutions at the local level to identify areas for intervention and noted that financial institutions could design financial products to suit various circumstances once the environment was ready.

Participants then met in two breakout groups each on the two topics.

Herman Sips, Netherlands, and Laetitia De Marez, Climate Analytics, facilitated the two groups on collaborative arrangements for managing climate risks, and Mikko Ollikainen, Adaptation Fund Board Secretariat, and Shyla Raghav, Conservation International, facilitated the two groups on accessing climate finance: strengthening institutional capacity. Participants met in plenary to discuss results from the breakout groups and the group facilitators presented discussion summaries.

Sips discussed the role of collaborative action to improve individual schemes and investor pooling, achieve economies of scale, promote affordability, and hasten insurance payouts. He also highlighted the potential opportunity to link individual and regional schemes to achieve greater diversification of risks.

De Marez discussed the advantages and disadvantages of financing instruments based on whether they addressed climate risk or broader factors. She noted the need for broad and continuous resilience building strategies in areas of high vulnerability. She also highlighted the UNFCCC’s role in: catalyzing adaptation finance; connecting actors; and engaging in outreach via the Standing Committee on Finance.

Ollikainen highlighted numerous capacity-related challenges faced by developing countries in accessing and managing adaptation finance. He said that implementation at the usually bureaucratic sub-national level could be problematic but pointed out that communities were often highly effective once funds were available. Noting the lack of technical expertise at the national level in many countries, he recommended creating a national-level roster of experts and using a network approach to create platforms to access climate finance.

Raghav noted her group had identified bottlenecks by linking existing access modalities with various objectives on the ground. She noted that building capacity for direct access was a part of an incremental process and that room for mistakes was vital. She also emphasized the need to think of both readiness and adaptation as long-term processes.

The second half of the in-session workshop will take place on June 5, 2015.

This session was moderated by Isabel Bottoms, Track 0. Paul Allen, CAT, presented findings from 27 detailed case studies, showing, inter alia: climate action can be pro-poor, pro-fairness and reduce wasteful energy use; and alternative energies can fulfill cross-sectoral requirements.

Gunnar Boye Olesen, INFORSE, discussed processes within Denmark and the European Union to transition to 100% renewable energy, highlighting Denmark’s Fast Transition to Renewable Energy policy, involving local integration of wind and solar energy.

Philip James, CAT, presented on Zero Carbon Britain, stressing the need for the UK to reduce its energy demand by 60%. He suggesting means to achieve this goal including switching to electrified heat systems and electricity powered transport technologies.

Andrea Rudnick, Latin America Liaison, Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS), described her organization as people-driven, south-south collaboration, and mandated to inform public policy on climate change mitigation. She highlighted difficulties of long-term modeling, including ensuring the validity of the assumptions over time and uncertainties about technology.

Simon Richardson, Mayor, Byron Shire, highlighted the Byron Shire Zero Emissions Programme, informing participants that it enjoys citizen support and focuses on promoting zero emissions through addressing waste, revegetation, energy, buildings and public transport.

Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute, spoke on the 2015 Agreement for Climate Transformation (ACT 2015), which proposes that the Paris outcome should agree on a long term mitigation goal to phase out greenhouse gases by the second half of this century, with an earlier phase out of CO2.

Irene Garcia, World Future Council, discussed the goal of achieving 100% renewable energy, stating it is not only urgent but also achievable. She commented on recent work in Morocco, observing national policies to achieve 42% renewable energy in the power sector by 2020.

Alexandra Deprez, IDDRI, presented on the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project which, inter alia, identifies areas of cooperation to achieve low carbon development. She stressed that deep decarbonization will only be possible by scaling up international cooperation, especially the development and transfer of low carbon technologies.

Mulugeta Ayalew, Ethiopia, said that his country was going against the dominant narrative which characterizes development gains as co-benefits and considers climate change mitigation to be the principal benefit of policies. He explained that his country is pursuing social and economic development as the principal policy goal, with emission reductions as co-benefits.

Jennifer Morgan, World Resources Institute (WRI), described findings of ACT 2015, noting the strong call for accelerating the pace of change towards zero carbon development. Highlighting that there are different ways to achieve the long term mitigation goal, she stressed that the package agreement in Paris also required long term goals on adaptation and resilience.

Allen then noted next steps, including, among others, linking Intended Nationally Determined Contributions with regional, national and local action plans. He invited participants to submit their suggestions to authors of Who’s Getting Ready for Zero: A Report on the State of Play of Net Zero Carbon Modelling before its launch.

This session was moderated by John Christensen, UNEP DTU (Technical University of Denmark). Noting that the event is part of the Bonn Climate Energy Action Fair, Laura Tierney, BCSE, drew attention to the 2015 Factbook on Sustainable Energy in America published by the BSCE in conjunction with Bloomberg.

Christensen described the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) targets, highlighting the doubling of the global rate of improvement of energy efficiency as a key area of work for his organization. He drew attention to the Global Energy Efficiency Accelerator Platform, which builds upon existing initiatives to accelerate energy efficiency in high potential sectors, including lighting, appliances and equipment, vehicle fuel economy, buildings, and district energy systems, among others.

Harry Verhaar, Philips Lighting, highlighted the en.lighten Initiative, which seeks to assist developing countries to achieve the full potential of LED lighting. He noted the need for “vertical leadership” and “horizontal action” to operationalize energy efficiency, and said this can be done through an integrated policy approach which includes: minimum energy performance standards; environmentally sound management practices; supporting policies; and monitoring, verification and enforcement measures.

Maryke van Staden, ICLEI, spoke on local government action in sustainable energy, noting the importance of the Global Energy Efficiency Accelerator Platform for action at the local and subnational levels. She called for the vertical integration of governance, noting that this can be achieved through focused information sharing, and enhancing the visibility of leaders within the energy efficiency sector.

Vijay Nehra, Municipal Commissioner, Rajkot, India, lamented that there is not enough access to energy efficient cooling systems, resulting in casualties due to heat waves. He also highlighted his city’s commitment to the transport system accelerator and, in this regard, drew attention to a bike-sharing programme currently being up-scaled. He then discussed the city’s energy inventory analysis, which shows that 68% of the city’s energy is used in the provision of water, noting that much needs to be done to make the system more efficient.

Karen Hughes, Alliance to Save Energy, presented on the Global Alliance for Energy Productivity, saying that it builds upon a successful campaign in the US that used compelling figures on energy efficiency savings, emissions reductions and employment creation potential to sway decisionmakers across the political divide into action. She explained the rationale as getting governments, the private sector and others to invest in, modernize and educate the population on energy efficient outcomes. She noted that this will require a high-level commitment by leaders to commit to improving energy productivity, share best practices, and encourage others to do the same.

During discussions, participants considered: challenges to rolling out energy efficiency schemes and campaigns; the use of non-conventional sources of energy such as waste water; the cost of shifting to energy efficiency and productivity; and the operation of the energy efficiency schemes.

This event presented results of an international questionnaire survey and the implications of these results for the further development of IPCC inventory guidelines.

Taka Hiraishi, Co-chair, IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI), opened the session, noting that without prejudging COP decisions, current consensus suggested that updated guidelines may be needed post-2020. He observed that a refinement process, and not a complete revision, was required and explained that a consultation process was underway to consider the potential refinements that might be needed.

Thelma Krug, Co-chair, IPCC TFI, added that the process of refinement would not only identify gaps in current guidelines but also analyze the scientific maturity of research in determining the capability of the IPCC to propose new methodologies to guide parties.

Kiyoto Tanabe, IPCC TFI, stated that expert consensus has found that the 2006 guidelines are still technically sound, though some refinements may be required in coming years. Explaining the process of technical assessment being undertaken, he noted that all four sectors were being reviewed, with the aim of identifying high priority areas with global significance and for which data can be feasibly obtained. He explained the assessment consultation process would involve the results of the online questionnaire survey and two expert meetings taking place in June and July 2015. Noting that the online survey received 987 comments from 243 experts, he called on speakers to present the sectoral findings.

Pavel Shermanau, IPCC TFI, presented results of the survey relating to the energy sector, noting that 11 high priority issues had been identified, with comments suggesting, inter alia: reconsidering and updating the default oxidation factors for fuels; and updating non-energy use of fuels. In the industrial sector, he noted seven priority issues highlighted in the mineral, chemical and metal industries, among others.

Baasansuren Jamsranjav, IPCC TFI, presented research from the waste sector, in which 11 priority issues were identified, including, inter alia: updating the municipal solid waste generation rate; and updating default emission factors for emissions from biological treatment and incineration of waste.

Presenting findings from the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector, Jamsranjav and Sekai Ngarize, IPCC, noted suggestions received for areas including: livestock; land; and aggregate sources and non-CO2 emissions on land. They highlighted 32 overall high priority areas in this sector, including, among others: new models for enteric fermentation; refinement of parameters for manure management; and issues relating to the further development of methods to estimate emissions and removals, such as remote sensing in forests.

Participants then considered, inter alia: the speed and process of improving IPCC inventory guidelines; IPCC’s emission factor database; and the potential need to improve technological guidance sources as well as printed guidelines.