Summary report, 8–9 September 2015

The Working Group of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) met in Paris, France, from 8 - 9 September 2015 to, among other things, review and further elaborate on the draft Implementation Plan for the 5-Year Strategy, whose framework was endorsed by the sixth CCAC High-Level Assembly (HLA) in May 2015. The Plan, which the seventh HLA is expected to approve and launch on the margins of the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2015, outlines critical actions for the period 2015 – 2020 as laid out in the CCAC’s 5-Year Strategy.

In addition to panel discussions presenting specific actions proposed by leading partners to deliver on the Key Strategies, Working Group participants met in breakout groups to discuss the proposed actions, how they could be prioritized and what partners would be interested in contributing. On Tuesday afternoon, the breakout groups addressed Key Strategies 1 (Catalyze ambitious action) and 2 (Mobilize robust support), while on Wednesday morning, the breakout groups addressed Key Strategies 3 (Leverage finance at scale) and 4 (Enhance science and knowledge).

The Working Group, which oversees the CCAC’s activities, also discussed: demonstrating impact of CCAC activities; initiatives on, inter alia, bricks, health, cooking and heating, waste, diesel and agriculture; the CCAC’s presence at COP 21 and other processes; and new funding proposals from Initiatives on bricks, cookstoves, heatstoves, waste and health, as well as Steering Committee recommendations regarding these proposals. Keynote presentations also addressed: an update on the contribution of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) to climate change and human health; and SLCP and climate actions taken in the US state of California. The 2016 Secretariat budget was also approved. Following a closing statement by Sylvie Lemmet, French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, the meeting was closed at 5:40 pm.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CCAC

The CCAC is a voluntary international coalition of governments, international organizations, the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which focuses on reducing emissions of SLCPs.

The CCAC was established in February 2012 by Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden and the US, together with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). It is open to countries and non-state actors that commit to taking meaningful action to reduce emissions from SLCPs, and currently has 109 partners consisting of 48 country partners and 61 non-state partners.

SLCPs include black carbon, methane (precursor to tropospheric ozone) and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These pollutants have a near-term warming influence on the climate, and, in many cases, are also very harmful air pollutants that affect human health, agriculture and ecosystems. The CCAC’s objectives include raising awareness of impacts and transformative mitigation strategies of SLCPs. It also seeks to: enhance and develop new national and regional actions; promote best practices and showcase successful efforts; and improve scientific understanding of SLCP impacts and mitigation strategies.

INITIATIVES: The CCAC has approved 11 Initiatives. Its seven sectoral Initiatives include:

• accelerating methane and black carbon reductions from oil and natural gas production;
• addressing SLCPs from agriculture;
• mitigating SLCPs and other pollutants from brick production;
• mitigating SLCPs from municipal solid waste;
• promoting HFC alternative technology and standards;
• reducing black carbon emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines; and
• reducing SLCPs from household cooking and domestic heating.

The CCAC also has four cross-cutting Initiatives on: financing mitigation of SLCPs; regional assessments of SLCPs; supporting national planning for action on SLCPs; and urban health.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE: The CCAC institutional structure includes the High-level Assembly (HLA), Working Group, Steering Committee, Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) and Secretariat.

 The HLA consists of ministers of state partners and heads of non-state partners, and meets at least once a year to provide strategic guidance and leadership to the CCAC, including setting policy, taking stock of progress and initiating future efforts. The Working Group includes focal points from each CCAC partner, and convenes at least twice a year to oversee activities.

The CCAC also has a Steering Committee composed of the two Working Group Co-Chairs, and up to six state partners, two representatives of international organizations and two NGO representatives. The Steering Committee meets every month to provide oversight support and recommendations to the HLA and Working Group. Current members of the Steering Committee are the two Working Group Co-Chairs from Chile and Norway, plus Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, the Netherlands, the US, the World Bank, the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development.

The SAP consists of 14 scientists, including ex-officio, the UNEP Chief Scientist. The CCAC Secretariat is hosted by UNEP in its Division of Technology, Industry and Economics in Paris, France.

CCAC WORKING GROUP REPORT

OPENING AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

WELCOME: On Tuesday morning, 8 September, CCAC Working Group Co-Chair Hanne Bjurstrøm, Norway, opened the meeting and welcomed the new partners to the Coalition, including Lao PDR, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), as well as Moldova and Indonesia, who participated as observers. She noted the importance of measuring the impact of the CCAC’s work, as well as elaborating and further advancing work on the draft Implementation Plan.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Drew Shindell, SAP Chair, presented an update on the contribution of SLCPs to climate change and impact on human health based on new research in Latin America and the Caribbean, noting that “the big picture of SLCPs in Latin America remains largely unchanged.” Regarding emission reductions, he noted a positive overlap with climate carbon dioxide mitigation activities, particularly with methane, but said that long-term climate policies do very little to reduce black carbon emissions.

Noting that the atmospheric lifetime of black carbon is approximately 25% shorter than previously assessed, Shindell underscored that the impact of this change is, to an extent, compensated by a greater lifetime impact of brown carbon. He also emphasized that the global health impacts of SLCPs are higher than previously assessed.

Shindell explained that among the SLCPs, HFC and methane emissions have a similar scale of climate impacts, while climate impacts of black carbon are slightly smaller with a greater level of uncertainty.  He noted however that the health impacts of black carbon are significant, and also pointed to new findings on the climate effects of black carbon that include impacts on extreme weather at the regional scale, drawing on a recent study undertaken on flooding in Sichuan, China attributed to aerosols.

Concluding, Shindell stated that only by combining SLCP reductions and long-term climate mitigation policies is remaining below the 2 °C target possible. 

During the ensuing discussion, Benin raised concerns over data availability in Africa, and pondered the comparative urgency of SLCP reductions and climate mitigation in Africa. Recognizing the data gap in Africa, Shindell underscored that for Africa, more work on basic data inventories is still needed, while for Latin America, it is possible to provide information on which control methods lead to specific benefits.

The World Bank enquired about the level of scientific evidence on the link between extreme weather events and black carbon. Shindell elaborated that the link between black carbon and extreme weather is well exemplified by the “robust case study” in Sichuan. Responding to a query by Canada about new figures on crop impacts and food security, Shindell noted that calculations are ongoing, but that results will probably not differ greatly from 2011.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda (WG/SEP2015/01) was approved as presented.

LAUNCH OF 5-YEAR STRATEGY

LIMA-PARIS ACTION AGENDA, COP 21: France introduced the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA), noting that 5 December would be the High-Level Action Day in Paris. He outlined that during COP 21, 12 focus action areas will be addressed, comprising three cross-cutting issues and nine sectoral issues, including SLCPs, which will be coordinated by the CCAC.

France suggested increasing CCAC participation by, inter alia, joining initiatives, encouraging non-state actors to take on commitments, launching new initiatives and working with subnational actors. He pointed to the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) Portal, where non-state actors can publicize commitments.

UNECE asked where fossil fuel initiatives fit into the areas mentioned, to which France responded that such initiatives could for example, be presented and included in sectors related to SLCPs, energy and business.

ROAD TO PARIS, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: Canada presented on this issue (WG/SEP2015/14), expressing hope that by the end of the COP 21, all participants would be aware and understand the benefits of taking action on SLCPs and related multiple co-benefits. She stressed: building on what was agreed at the 2014 UN Climate Summit; showcasing partner actions to implement the strategic plan; and aligning the LPAA and CCAC’s efforts.

On building synergies with the post-2015 development agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), she noted that a high-level event taking place on 24 September during the UN General Assembly will highlight how SLCP efforts can support SDGs related to, for instance, global health, food security and energy.

Canada supported establishing a contact group at the 27th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 27) to the Montreal Protocol in order to launch negotiations on an amendment to phase down HFCs. She said the CCAC can continue to support this process through the HFC Initiative’s work.

RECAP OF FRAMEWORK AND INTRODUCTION TO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Co-Chair Bjurstrøm provided an outline of the consultation document on the Draft Implementation Plan for the 5-Year Strategic Framework (WG/SEP2015/03), noting that the document is proposed as a starting point and living document, where elements and strategic priorities can be added or taken out if desired by participants. She explained that the Steering Committee will produce a draft proposal for the Implementation Plan in mid-October, and, following further comments, a final draft will be prepared by 6 November, which would then be approved by the HLA in December in Paris. She hoped that, during the HLA, ministers would come forward with commitments for realizing the Strategic Framework.

Switzerland, while supporting an ambitious plan, cautioned against agreeing to an unwieldy one and trying to take on too much. The Philippines asked how the issue of black carbon can be made more palatable to climate negotiators.

Richard Mills, Consultant on the Strategic Plan, summarized the findings of consultations with 30 state and non-state CCAC partners, identifying the importance of continuity and focusing on what the Coalition can collectively commit to. He said that while the CCAC plan should not produce requirements for commitments, partners already commit to take meaningful action on SLCPs when they join the CCAC.

Mills further noted that some partners want a small number of ambitious and politically resonant actions, while others prefer a broader menu approach reflecting the CCAC’s scale and diversity. He highlighted broad consensus on the objectives and said actions should build on the Coalition’s strengths in this context. He emphasized commitment to implementation and action, sustaining the voluntary approach and widening peer-to-peer engagement.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 5-YEAR STRATEGY

DISCUSSION OF KEY STRATEGIES 1 (CATALYZE AMBITIOUS ACTION) AND 2 (MOBILIZE ROBUST SUPPORT): Panel Discussion: Maria Amparo Martinez Arroyo, Mexico, moderated this session.

Souad Azemmat, Morocco, noted that her country’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) under the UNFCCC includes developing a national plan to reduce SLCPs. She highlighted the need to mobilize stakeholders and international financial partners, noting that a new platform, the National Competence Center on Climate Protection and Adaptation, was established with international support. She offered these experiences as a basis for an Africa-focused sharing and learning (peer-to-peer) network for the CCAC.

Pamela Franklin, US, outlined the modalities and benefits of a strategic alliance between the CCAC and the Global Methane Initiative (GMI). She outlined some of the GMI’s results, including training, capacity building, information sharing and best practices, as well as reductions of approximately 350 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

Franklin noted that the GMI also works in areas where the CCAC does not, such as wastewater treatment and methane control in coal mines. She underscored closer collaboration with the CCAC at the sectoral level, and said the GMI will soon review and adopt a request to become a CCAC non-state partner. She noted the CCAC spring 2016 Working Group meeting will be held back-to-back with the Global Methane Forum taking place in March 2016.

Ulises Lovera Gaona, Paraguay, introduced recent parliamentary proceedings in Paraguay concerning air quality and SLCPs. He said Paraguay adopted an air quality law in 2014, and is implementing new parameters for pollutants in 2015, on diesel and other areas. He proposed setting up a parliamentary legislative initiative that could work with the CCAC to raise awareness and advance the policy and regulatory understanding needed for change.

Glynda Bathan-Baterina, Clean Air Asia, presented views on scaling up action at the city level, noting that her organization has facilitated peer-to-peer learning through such activities as the Cities Clean Air Partnership, which partners eight US cities with cities in Asia. She outlined an initiative to create a “cities package” for the CCAC, with practical steps and policy initiatives that have worked elsewhere, and explained that the guidance framework and best practices included in the package could draw from current work conducted by Clean Air Asia.

Edward Cameron, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), discussed the establishment of the We Mean Business coalition, which includes 159 companies worth US$3.6 trillion and 111 investors with US$8.1 trillion in assets under management, with 430 “ambitious commitments” to climate action. He emphasized that the private sector is not a “uniform taxonomy,” but rather a diverse group that needs to be engaged as such, and called for targeted business cases on SLCPs per sector. He suggested a funding conversation with the CCAC and said that BSR and other business networks would work to increase the uptake of the technology options.

Interventions and Q&A: During the ensuing discussion, the ClimateWorks Foundation called for ambitious action that includes time-bound numerical targets, such as a 25% reduction in SLCP emissions. The Philippines expressed reluctance to discuss ambition expressed as numerical emission reduction targets. Cameron agreed that goals must be ambitious, and noted work on a science-based target within the business community, bearing in mind the sensitivities raised by the Philippines.

The World Bank asked Cameron what the private sector hoped to contribute to the CCAC, and noted that climate finance is looking to leverage more private sector financing.

UN-Habitat said their organization is working to develop global guidelines for city climate action plans, with an emphasis on SLCPs, and noted that only a few countries have developed SNAPs. Bangladesh called for resources to implement SNAPs.

Sweden noted the importance of: training trainers to duplicate and spread experiences from cities; and strict guidelines for city-city partnerships.

Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) called for more vertical integration with various government levels, and tracking and collecting data on black carbon, and said the term “subnational” implies more than cities only.

The Russian Federation noted the establishment of a working group on green standards, and the submission of a national report on black carbon and methane to the Arctic Council. Noting a similar submission by her country, the US added that all eight Arctic states were required by the Arctic Council to submit such reports, which she hoped could be used beyond the Arctic Council context.

Côte d’Ivoire suggested imposing levies on companies that do not follow environmental practices, and pointed to Morocco’s use of waste to generate electricity, which also reduces SLCP emissions. Kenya noted an ambitious solid waste management strategy in her country, with assistance from the CCAC.

Bathan-Baterina noted China’s recent passage of an air pollution control law with links to SLCPs.

INITIATIVE LINKS WITH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: These panel discussions included presentations by Initiative representatives followed by a dialogue with participants. The presentations were based on the Compilation of CCAC Initiatives and their Medium-term Plans for 2015-2020 (WG/SEP2015/04).

Panel Discussion 1: Introducing the health Initiative, Carlos Dora, World Health Organization (WHO), said the Initiative’s goal is to reduce SLCPs by creating demand for action from health constituencies on different levels. He further emphasized: using the health argument for SLCP reductions; using city-based assessments; and providing tools to urban actors to make health assessments.

Leslie Cordes, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, discussing the Cooking and Heating Initiative, highlighted the synergies and complementary goals of her organization and the Coalition. She said awareness raising on the health impacts of SLCPs is still required. 

Johan Kuylenstierna, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), presented the initiative on Supporting National Planning for Action on SLCPs (SNAP), noting the SNAP Initiative is developing tools for assessing and modeling scenarios for participating countries on mitigation actions. He said the Initiative also develops actions and sets priorities based on these results.

In the ensuing discussion, UN-Habitat underscored the unique role of mayors in generating local action, as well as their role in high-level planning and legislative processes. Togo, supported by Côte D’Ivoire, suggested that the CCAC could support relevant PhD dissertations to help fill gaps in Africa regarding data and analysis. Dora highlighted the need for tools to help local analysis, as well as the importance of understanding the local context and dynamics for policy change. The US called for identifying the data gaps and the most efficient methods of filling them, and hoped the SAP could provide its perspective on the matter.

The ClimateWorks Foundation voiced concern over losing the message that cleaner diesel and cookstoves save lives, and emphasized the need to restore that clarity in the CCAC’s health work.

Norway underscored the influence of the health sector in domestic politics. Bangladesh noted the health impacts of indoor pollution, saying they should be included as a component in some Initiatives.

Panel Discussion 2: Gudi Alkemade, the Netherlands, moderated this panel. Shannon Lawrence, C40, discussing the Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, highlighted such activities as extending collection coverage, improving waste transport, source separation, and composting or digesting biodegradable waste.

Lawrence said 1.3 billion tons of municipal solid waste are generated each year, and the number is expected to double by 2025. She pointed to the significant amount of methane emitted from landfills and expected the Initiative’s expansion to many new cities by 2020.

Rob de Jong, UNEP, speaking on behalf of Heavy Duty Diesel Initiative co-leads US, Canada, Switzerland and the International Council on Clean Transportation, noted efforts to eliminate particulate matter and black carbon emissions from the global diesel fleet through introducing low sulfur fuels and vehicle emission standards, with a global target to reach at least 90% coverage.

Mauricio Gaitán Varón, Colombia, discussing the bricks Initiative, noted: the contribution of brick production to black carbon emissions, especially local and regional scales; difficulties with changing brick production methods as it is an ancestral practice; strategies aimed at technological reconversion; and improving combustion processes.

During the ensuing discussion, the ClimateWorks Foundation, on municipal solid waste management, suggested setting goals for organic waste conversion. Chad called for technological support from the CCAC for waste storage and processing. Lawrence concurred, also highlighting city-to-city exchanges and partnering with the private sector, and suggested a knowledge exchange platform to learn from one another.

Regarding diesel, Sweden called attention to diesel engines in other sectors, such as agriculture and construction, while Chad pointed to polluting diesel generators. De Jong said focusing on other areas would divert resources from the heavy-duty diesel fleet and cautioned against “spreading ourselves too thin.” He said that that while new vehicles are also needed, changing fuels must be the starting point. Paraguay highlighted a programme whereby old vehicles can be turned in to be scrapped in exchange for money for a new vehicle.

Bangladesh suggested including pilot initiatives in mid-term plans. Morocco requested CCAC support to implement pilot projects in Africa.

Regarding Mexico’s suggestion to use alternative approaches to brick production that avoid combustion, Gaitán Varón responded that production through brick kilns was being investigated. Kenya asked about Africa’s involvement in changing brick production methods, noting it is a contentious issue.

Panel Discussion 3: Frank Portalupi, Canada, presented the agriculture Initiative, underscoring that addressing agricultural emission sources would not necessarily result in losses in productivity. Sonja Henneman, Canada, presented the HFC Initiative, noting with concern that HFCs are currently the fastest growing greenhouse gasses. Pamela Franklin, US, said that the Oil and Gas Initiative’s main objectives are to encourage oil and gas companies to manage methane emissions leaking and venting sources, as well as the uptake of new technologies to reduce flaring.

During the ensuing discussion, the ClimateWorks Foundation expressed concern over the lack of substantive targets and deadlines, as well as the lack of elaboration on best practices. She said that the US Energy Information Administration had reported that addressing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is “the lowest hanging fruit available.” Franklin responded that the Oil and Gas Initiative is a voluntary methane partnership with industries, and not a regulatory exercise. She said that the Initiative is looking to have as models, forward-leaning companies with mitigation strategies that are looking to enhance transparency.

The World Bank mentioned the “Zero Routine Gas Flaring by 2030” initiative, underscoring the number of common partners with the CCAC, and suggested that the CCAC could capitalize on some synergies to add “more punch to what the Oil and Gas Initiative is going to deliver.” He also expressed concern over the language of “lending political support” on phasing down HFCs, which would be difficult for some intergovernmental organizations to accept.

Sweden said that not-in-kind technologies should be considered in the HFC Initiative. He also said that the CCAC should continue to only finance similar types of HFC inventories as the Multilateral Fund under the Montreal Protocol.

Togo said it had made agriculture a development priority, noting this includes expanding arable land and clearing forest area, which do not go together with reducing agricultural emissions. The European Commission expressed concern over the lack of detail in the Agriculture Initiative, calling for simple and focused options.

KEYNOTE BY THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD: Ryan McCarthy, California Air Resource Board, gave a keynote address during a reception and also spoke during a side event on California’s SLCP Reduction Strategy. He summarized initiatives and actions California has taken to address climate change and air pollution, noting that California has historically suffered from the worst air pollution in the US. However, he said the state now has a long track record of successful regulation, and will “virtually eliminate” black carbon emissions from road transportation by 2030. He emphasized that California is showing leadership, but also acting because of co-benefits, which include saving 5,000 lives per year, as well as saving millions of dollars in health costs.

INTRODUCTION TO BREAKOUT GROUPS: On Tuesday afternoon, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm introduced the objectives of the breakout groups, and outlined key issues for discussion regarding the draft Implementation Plan, including: identifying and prioritizing issues to work on, given limited resources; indicating whether key actions listed are the most strategic ones needed to achieve the objectives of the 5-Year Strategic Plan; identifying which activities listed are pertinent and strategic, which can be omitted and which ones are missing; discussing whether the key actions and activities have been formulated at the correct level of specificity; identifying contributions governments or organizations can make to the identified actions and by when; and suggesting ideas for the HLA and how to prepare for it.

Participants then convened in a number of breakout groups to discuss Key Strategies 1 and 2. The discussions from the breakout groups are summarized in the section on the report back from breakout groups, below. 

DISCUSSION OF KEY STRATEGIES 3 (LEVERAGE FINANCE AT SCALE) AND 4 (ENHANCE SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE): This session was held on Wednesday morning and was moderated by Sameer Akbar, World Bank.

Introduction: Dave Turk, US, presented on the work of the Clean Energy Solutions Center (CESC) and its “Ask an Expert Service”, describing it as an efficient mechanism in providing relevant and timely advice to policymakers. Drawing examples from projects with the Caribbean Community, South Africa and the Economic Community of West African States, he said that while countries “do not always need boots on the ground,” they do require relevant advice on regulation. He said that a possible “SLCP solutions center” could piggyback on and utilize the built-in control systems of the CESC.

IASS asked about the added value of a new mechanism to the expertise already present among CCAC partners, and how these expert services would be financed. Turk highlighted potential synergies in setting up systems policy advice, agreeing that some financing would be needed, albeit on a small scale.

Panel Discussion: Claudio Alatorre, IDB, said that SLCP awareness is increasing, and emphasized the potential of SLPCs in cross-sectoral financing with multiple benefits. Responding to a question from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), he said the SDGs are also emphasizing climate-related activities, which will result in more financing that combines development and climate objectives. Moderator Akbar acknowledged the tendency of funding for projects that combine several types of goals rather than stand-alone issues.

Kevin Hicks, SEI, presented the SLCP Regional Assessment Initiative and its linkages to the 5-Year Strategic Plan, highlighting that the assessment’s outcome can help further refine the strategy by helping to prioritize resource allocation under the CCAC.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN raised the issue of measuring, reporting and verifying climate impacts of SLCPs. Bangladesh noted the need to translate SNAPs into quality proposals that would attract finance.

Supat Wangwongwatana, SAP, noted that prioritization was a political decision, not a scientific one. He called for: hiring a knowledge management officer within the CCAC Secretariat; establishing a formal process and methodology for review and quality control for each Initiative; and creating a subsidiary group that addresses knowledge collection and management.

Katherine Witherspoon, ClimateWorks Foundation, discussed how to use science and knowledge to prioritize CCAC activities. She said the CCAC must decide how much to devote to capacity building where results are not immediate and to projects with immediate results. She supported results that reflect actual tonnage of reductions.

George Scott, UNEP Finance Initiative, explained that feasibility assessments were completed for three CCAC sector Initiatives (diesel, cookstoves and bricks) and discussed the designing and setting up of the SLCP Finance Innovation Facility. He noted varied responses from financial institutions, with some lacking interest in SLCP mitigation activities, given limited market uptake, and the possibility of combining SLCP and other greenhouse gas mitigation measures to garner more interest and financing.

Interventions and Q&A: During the ensuing discussion, ICLEI agreed that the CCAC has a role to play in capacity development and that identifying a split between supporting capacity development and projects with immediate results should be explored.

Noting results cannot always be immediate, Canada highlighted raising awareness and capacity building and underlined that the CCAC is a funding organization for projects. She expressed caution when demonstrating impact, noting the focus is not just on reducing tons.

IGES suggested seed money be provided for smaller inquiries and concept notes. Scott said that cookstoves were most likely to receive finance given their immediate payback in terms of reducing impacts.

Côte d’Ivoire suggested identifying a group of scientists in each country devoted to the issue of managing the collection of data on SLCPs, and emphasized the urgency of implementing projects immediately as impacts are considerable. Witherspoon urged reaching out to secure funding and assistance for projects, noting that Nigeria was able to find a donor to replace kerosene lamps in school.

Clean Air Asia noted the importance of: identifying opportunities to pass policies; financing to enable local and national governments to implement policies; and building capacity of all levels of government to ensure policy implementation.

Poland suggested adding in-kind contributions to the Coalition. Uruguay discussed programmes to install filters to measure vehicle emissions, and on reducing use of wood burning stoves.

DEMONSTRATING IMPACT (LINKS TO KEY STRATEGY 4): Introduction of Proposed Approach by the Task Force: On Wednesday morning, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm recalled the request by Ministers to demonstrate impact and invited Sweden, which chaired the Task Force until May 2015, to present an overview on this issue (WG/SEP2015/05).

Sweden said that while the Coalition has grown rapidly, it must also show to ministers, CEOs and taxpayers that it is making a difference. He noted that an internal framework for demonstrating impact is required in order to maintain a shared vision among partners.

The CCAC Secretariat underscored the need to look closely at the indicators on demonstrating impact and the 5-Year Strategic Plan’s four key goals. She elaborated that alongside emission reductions and other quantitative assessments, there is room for narratives, including, for example, stories about achieving policy changes. She further noted the possibility of using customized indicators in the Initiatives, such as job creation in the Waste Initiative.

Co-Chair Bjurstrøm emphasized transparency of the process, and the possibility for partners to discuss meeting documents in their home countries. The WHO, supported by the SAP, said that the CCAC should support inclusion of an air pollution indicator in the SDGs. Germany, with the Netherlands, supported covering bilateral activities to demonstrate impact. Switzerland called for a lean and effective way of capturing results, in a transparent manner.

The CCAC Secretariat agreed on the need to document actions financed outside the CCAC, noting that the “Partners in Action” series will be redesigned as a useful showcase of activities.

Bjurstrøm announced that Switzerland will co-chair the Demonstrating Impact Task Group with Australia.

Breakout groups: On Wednesday morning, multiple breakout groups convened to discuss Key Strategies 3 and 4. (See description of breakout group objectives from Tuesday). Discussions are summarized below in the section on report back from the breakout groups.

APPROVAL OF FUNDING PROPOSALS

OVERVIEW OF FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES TO DATE, INCLUDING TRUST FUND OVERVIEW: Opening this session on Wednesday afternoon, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm noted that for the Spring 2016 Working Group meeting, new funding requests should be submitted by 2 November through the Initiative lead partners. She said four proposals were resubmitted by Initiatives in time for this Working Group meeting, and that the Steering Committee had provided recommendations on bricks, cookstoves, heatstoves and waste. She also pointed to the emergency funding request by the Health Initiative in view of COP 21.

The Head of the CCAC Secretariat, provided an overview on the current state of the Trust Fund and the activities it is supporting. She said the CCAC has raised more than US$63 million since the creation of the Trust Fund, of which US$53 million has been received, and more than US$30 million allocated to Initiatives.

Switzerland presented the brick proposal, noting it had originally called for the continuation of work in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia, and some new activities in Africa, which the Steering Committee did not recommend supporting. He underscored the need to engage in a policy dialogue with willing African countries, and noted the avoidance potential of this Initiative regarding emissions in Africa.

The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves presented the proposal on cookstoves, which called for field testing cookstoves, and developing a policy tool to evaluate the local contribution of household air pollution. She also noted that the policy tool will bring together several CCAC Initiatives.

Poland presented the heatstoves funding proposal, expressing her disappointment that the Steering Committee recommended not financing the proposal. She pointed to problems in the Steering Committee recommendations, highlighting that heat stoves are a major gap in CCAC actions. She suggested producing a white paper to help governments better understand the issue of heatstove emissions, and said Poland would host a conference to discuss and disseminate the paper.

The US presented the funding proposal on waste, underscoring the need to work with cities, and noting that waste is a local issue and visible in local politics. She said the proposal uses a two-layered approach, which is uniform during the pipeline phase, and then tailored during the programme phase. 

WHO outlined the emergency funding request on giving momentum to the Breath Life campaign on health, underscoring the importance of being present in COP 21, including via exhibits, traditional media and social media. She further noted that the Health Initiative aimed to resubmit a longer-term proposal in November.

INTRODUCTION OF STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONING: Participants then discussed the Steering Committee recommendations on the funding proposals (WG/SEP2015/06). On the Bricks Initiative, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm explained that the Steering Committee recommended, inter alia, not extending activities to additional regions at this stage, but to, instead, allocate additional funds of up to US$50,000 for travel to allow African representatives to participate in Latin American and/or Asian workshops and training activities. The ClimateWorks Foundation agreed it was premature to begin work in a third region. The IASS said the CCAC should be active in all regions and that the decision not to expand into Africa would send the wrong signal.

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) thanked the CCAC for the support provided for rebuilding brick kilns following the earthquake in Nepal, and urged working in all regions, noting “the later we wait to begin in Africa, the longer it will take to get results.” Kenya and Guineau supported including Africa in this Initiative, with Guinea stating that this issue could be seen as “a watershed” for West Africa. Guinea also mentioned the inclusion of SLCP initiatives in her country’s INDC.

The US said it would be more effective and impactful to wait for more specific information from the work underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNEP proposed either beginning in Africa right away or in the next funding round, rather than providing a fund for travel, while Co-Chair Bjurstrøm said allocating US$50,000 for African representatives to participate in the process and learn from others would be a good use of funds. Nigeria suggested the money be used in Africa to create awareness and to bring people to Africa from Latin America to train people on the ground.

Switzerland proposed that the Bricks Initiative consider the best use of the money and bring a proposal to the Steering Committee, which was approved.

On the Cookstoves Initiative, the Steering Committee’s recommendation on the funding proposal was approved.

On the Heatstoves Initiative, Bjurstrøm explained that the Steering Committee recommended waiting for the results of the work funded in May 2015 before considering any additional funding, and, regarding activities related to dual purpose stoves (heating + cooking), recommended not funding these at this stage, noting the scope of emissions from this source is unclear, as is the availability of viable options to reduce emissions.

 Mongolia called for revisions to the proposal to include enhancing knowledge of local people and improving stove technology. Noting room for improvement, the ClimateWorks Foundation did not support the suggestion for more black carbon testing or meeting with manufacturers. She said stoves already exist but consumers are not buying them due to cost, and suggested a subsidy system to assist in their purchase. She recommended revising the proposal and working with Mongolia and others on this. The US also questioned whether reaching out to manufacturers was the strategically sound way to go.

The EC said the high costs in developing countries could be addressed by getting manufacturers on board in developed countries to ensure more are sold and, thus, prices go down. With Poland and Finland, he said the amount being proposed is not great, and supported the proposal.

Norway suggested the Steering Committee and partners could consult to try to reach an agreement this autumn. Poland suggested that some parts of the proposal could be improved, but that the Working Group should make the final decision. The EC preferred not postponing a decision to the next Working Group meeting. Canada noted that as a member of the Steering Committee, this had been one of the more challenging discussions, and that proposals exceed the amount of available funds, and said overall funding and priorities must be considered.

After some debate on how and when to further address this issue, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm proposed, and participants accepted, that “the Working Group endorse this proposal in principle, and that the lead partners will prepare in consultation with the Secretariat, a revised proposal that responds to questions posed, to be cleared by the Steering Committee in written procedure.”

Co-Chair Bjurstrøm presented the Steering Committee’s recommendation to fund the waste proposal, which was accepted by the Working Group, with Japan requesting the addition of information on its in-kind contributions.

Bjurstrøm then presented the Steering Committee’s recommendation on the emergency funding request by the Health Initiative, in which, inter alia: the proposal is funded subject to some revisions to clarify that the campaign is aimed at catalyzing action in a pilot region; and the COP should be used to actively engage a targeted audience to demonstrate how to effectively use health messaging to catalyze climate action by policymakers. The Working Group accepted the Steering Committee’s recommendations.

REPORTING BACK FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS AND DECISION ON NEXT STEPS

On Wednesday afternoon, Co-Chair Bjurstrøm summarized the views expressed by participants on the draft Implementation Plan during the breakout groups, noting that according to partners, most key actions seem to be on the right track. She emphasized that breakout group participants recognized the value of voluntary and flexible action.

On Key Strategies 1 and 2, Bjurstrøm said participants: underscored capacity building and institutional strengthening, and the need to ensure their sustainability, as high priorities; highlighted national, regional and local assessments as the basis for action; and identified demonstration projects and pilots as powerful tools to entice action by others. She said the breakout groups also recognized the need to prioritize in order to make a difference, for example, by using Regional Assessment results and SNAP analysis, focusing on specific activities within and among initiatives, using science to demonstrate impact, and providing guidance early to help Initiative lead partners align funding proposals.

Bjurstrøm said participants emphasized vertical integration to identify which level is the most meaningful for action, and to ensure rapid action and scaling up, and stressed the importance of the subnational and city level as drivers of action. The breakout groups also emphasized multiple benefits, in line with the SDGs, including on climate, health, and food security, as well as economics, energy efficiency, water quality, job creation and overall wellbeing.

On mobilizing robust support, the breakout groups: noted the need to: develop actions that speak for themselves, and a set of key messages and communication products; and target decision makers such as legislators. Bjurstrøm highlighted working with strategic partners, such as multilateral and regional agreements and initiatives, but cautioned against “stretching ourselves too thin.” On the private sector, she said the groups also underscored the need to work through bodies such as BSR and the importance of recognizing the diversity of the private sector.

On Key Strategies 3 and 4, Bjurstrøm said the breakout groups, regarding finance, had identified a need to add specific text on: using the Trust Fund to leverage other funding; and accessing expertise on finance to develop bankable projects. She said the groups also discussed: how to help countries access funds for large infrastructure investments, such as through a possible CCAC finance panel or an Ask an Expert window; existing finance mechanisms and how they can be adapted; and the possibility of adding a window for seed money to begin new activities between funding proposal cycles. She said the groups further considered whether to develop risk management tools and accept funds from other donors, including the private sector.

On enhancing science, Bjurstrøm reported that participants identified science as a key issue in messaging, and suggested that key actions could include, inter alia: an annual global policy dialogue by the SAP; an annual science update by the SAP, including possibly summary for policymakers; better communication of direct and indirect impacts of the CCAC, as well as creating a narrative for internal and external use, with quality controlled by the SAP; and providing information on technology choices.

Bjurstrøm said partners appreciated the SNAP toolkit, which helps to ensure accessibility by all countries through training and institutional strengthening. She supported peer-to-peer learning, access to experts and exchange across Initiatives.

Bjurstrøm noted that after collecting the broad views emerging from the breakout groups, “a shorter and sharper document” must now be developed. She urged partners to provide to the Secretariat before 16 October, written, specific comments on the Implementation Plan. Finally, she emphasized the importance of ministerial involvement in and contributions to the forthcoming HLA.

HOUSEKEEPING

UPDATE ON SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES, ADMINISTRATION AND NEW WEBSITE: The Head of the Secretariat provided an update on its activities and functions (WG/SEP2015/12). She said that Initiatives receive 80% of funds, while the Secretariat receives 20%, which includes funding of SAP activities, communication and organization of meetings. She said US$8.6 million was available for allocation to Initiatives now and that for 2016 onwards, there were pledges of approximately US$6.8 million.

She then presented the new website for the Coalition that is currently being developed, including an improved knowledge platform, with an elaboration of Initiatives, and a library function to search documents.

APPROVAL OF CYCLICAL MEETING DATES 2016 ONWARDS: The Working Group approved the budget and the cyclical meeting dates for 2016 onwards (WG/SEP2015/13).

APPROVAL OF SECRETARIAT BUDGET (CIRCULATED IN FEBRUARY 2015: The Working Group approved the 2016 Secretariat budget of up to US$4.2 million (WG/FEB2015/16).

CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

Sylvie Lemmet, French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, delivered a closing statement, noting the French Presidency of COP 21 is seeking to ensure that the agreement in Paris is complemented by other initiatives. She elaborated that the outcome should have four pillars: the Paris agreement; INDCs by parties; finance; and the LPAA. She further said that the LPAA should show that climate action is taking place and that “there is leadership across the board.” She said the LPAA was gaining momentum, encouraged registration on the NAZCA Portal, and urged partners to undertake efforts to convince others to join the CCAC.

The meeting was brought to a close at 5:40 pm.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

CCAC Side Event at the UN General Assembly: This CCAC-organized event will highlight how SLCP efforts can support SDGs related to, for example, global health, food security and energy. date: 24 September 2015 location: UN Headquarters, New York, US  contact: CCAC Secretariat  phone: +33-1-44-37-14-50  fax: +33-1-44-37-14-74  email: ccac_secretariat@unep.org www: http://www.ccacoalition.org

UN Sustainable Development Summit 2015: More than 150 world leaders are expected to attend the UN Sustainable Development Summit to formally adopt a new development agenda. The post-2015 sustainable development agenda, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” includes: a declaration; the SDGs and targets; means of implementation and a new Global Partnership for Development; and a framework for follow-up and review.  dates: 25-27 September 2015  location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development  fax: +1-212-963-4260  email: dsd@un.org www: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/summit/

42nd Session of the IPCC: The 42nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 42) will convene in October 2015 to elect a new Chair, among other things.  dates: 5-8 October 2015  location: Dubrovnik, Croatia  contact: IPCC Secretariat  phone: +41-22-730- 8208/54/84  fax: +41-22-730-8025/13  email: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund: The 2015 Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and the IMF will bring together ministers of finance and central bank governors from the institutions’ 188 member countries, and provide a forum for civil society, the private sector, academics and others to engage in discussions on economic issues.  dates: 9-11 October 2015 location: Lima, Peru  contact: David Theis, World Bank  phone: +1-202-458- 8626 email: dtheis@worldbank.org www: https://www.imf.org/ external/am/2015/index.htm

ADP 2-11: The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) will hold the 11th part of its second session in Bonn, Germany.  dates: 19-23 October 2015  location: Bonn, Germany  contact: UNFCCC Secretariat  phone: +49-228-815-1000  fax: +49-228-815-1999  email: secretariat@unfccc.int www: http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php

27th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (MOP 27): MOP 27 is scheduled to consider a number of issues, including: the quadrennial assessment reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel; TEAP’s report on the full range of alternatives to ozone-depleting substances; HFC management; nominations for critical- and essential-use exemptions; and issues related to the phase out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).  dates: 1-5 November 2015  location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates  contact: Ozone Secretariat  phone: +254-20-762-3851  fax: +254-20-762-0335  email: ozoneinfo@unep.org www: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/

G20 2015 Leaders’ Summit: The Turkish Presidency of the Group of 20 (G20) will host G20 leaders in Antalya, Turkey, for the G20 Leaders’ Summit. The G20 aims to conclude the Summit with practical outcomes on such priority areas as development, climate change, financing for climate change, trade, growth, and employment.  dates: 15-16 November 2015  location: Antalya, Turkey  contact: Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs  email: G20info@mfa.gov.tr www: https://g20.org/

Food Cold Chain Conference: Advancing Ozone and Climate Protection Technologies: This event is being organized by the CCAC. dates: 21 November 2015 location: Montreal, Canada  contact: CCAC Secretariat  phone: +33-1-44-37-14-50  fax: +33-1-44-37-14-74  email: ccac_secretariat@unep.org www: http://www.ccacoalition.org

UNFCCC COP 21: The 21st session of the COP to the UNFCCC and associated meetings will take place in Paris.  dates: 30 November to 11 December 2015 location: Paris, France contact: UNFCCC Secretariat  phone: +49-228 815-1000 fax: +49-228-815-1999  email:secretariat@unfccc.int www: http://www.unfccc.int

Thematic Day on SLCPs: This event will take place on the margins of COP 21 in Paris, France, from 15:00 to 18:30 in the Blue Zone of the Conference venue.  date: 4 December 2015  location: Paris, France  contact: CCAC Secretariat  phone: +33-1-44-37-14-50  fax: +33-1-44-37-14-74  email: ccac_secretariat@unep.org www: http://www.ccacoalition.org

CCAC High-Level Assembly: The CCAC HLA will meet on the margins of COP 21 in Paris and is expected to approve the Implementation Plan for the 5-Year Strategic Framework. The HLA will be preceded by a preparatory meeting of the CCAC Working Group on 7 December.  date: 8 December 2015  location: Paris, France  contact: CCAC Secretariat  phone: +33-1-44-37-14-50  fax: +33-1-44-37-14-74  email: ccac_secretariat@unep.org www: http://www.ccacoalition.org

Global Methane Forum: This Forum will discuss options for methane reduction and abatement activities, through high-level sessions on cross-cutting issues such as project financing, and technical sessions on biogas, coals mines, and oil and natural gas systems. Joint GMI Subcommittee – CCAC Initiative level discussions on policy and projects will also take place and the Forum will provide opportunities for networking with methane experts in the public and private sectors. The meeting, which is being organized by the GMI in partnership with the CCAC, will be held back-to-back with the CCAC Working Group meeting. date: 28-30 March 2016  location: Washington DC, US  email: asg@globalmethane.org www: http://www.epa.gov/globalmethane/meeting03282016.htm

CCAC Working Group: The next CCAC Working Group will meet in Washington DC, US. date: 31 March – 1 April 2016  location: Washington DC, US  contact: CCAC Secretariat  phone: +33-1-44-37-14-50  fax: +33-1-44-37-14-74  email: ccac_secretariat@unep.org www: http://www.ccacoalition.org