Focus on Arts and Ecology

This side event discussed the achievements of the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE)on National Communications (NCs) in assisting developing countries in implementing the UNFCCC monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and transparency framework. Dominique Revet, UNFCCC Secretariat, moderated the event.

Stephen Mutua Kinguyu, CGE member, Kenya, reported that the CGE’s mandate was renewed at the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 19) for the 2014-2018 period, highlighting its objective of improving the process and preparation of NCs and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) by developing countries by providing them with technical assistance and support. He highlighted five key strategic priorities of the CGE’s five-year programme, including: building developing countries’ capacity; enhancing the sustainability of the NC and BUR process, cooperation and collaboration with other global initiatives, and communication and outreach; and ensuring availability of resources. Among the CGE’s capacity-building activities, Kinguyu noted: developing tools and guidance materials; capacity-building workshops; developing collaboration with key global initiatives; monthly webinar series on vulnerability and adaptation, mitigation, national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and support; and outreach activities. He further indicated that CGE training materials are easily downloadable on the UNFCCC CGE website, which also provides access to free e-learning courses, and that CGE training materials are also available in French and Spanish.

Kok Seng Yap, Malaysia, shared lessons learned on overcoming challenges faced in preparing his country’s national reports. He outlined key findings of Malaysia’s BUR submitted on 3 March 2016, including that: effective institutional arrangements based on built ownership and a robust MRV system necessitate adjustments; good understanding of UNFCCC decisions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines increases transparency of reporting; and the international consultation and analysis process enhances understanding of reporting requirements for future improvements. Regarding key challenges related to mitigation actions, he noted: operationalizing a robust MRV system; lack of information for quantification and reporting; and quantification of needs. Among GHG inventory-related challenges, he highlighted limited availability of activity data according to IPCC guidelines, and country-specific emission factors. He said these challenges could be addressed through continuous engagement with formal and informal stakeholders, trust building and training.

In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: participants’ selection process in CGE training sessions; advantages of building national institutional capacity over short-term consultants’ engagement; the role of CGE in Paris Agreement implementation and in building relationships with the Paris Committee on Capacity-building and the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency; and the impact of NC and BUR preparation on future country policies.

This side event addressed climate outcomes of the tenth Arctic Council Ministerial held in Fairbanks, US, on 11 May 2017, and the role of the Paris Agreement in preserving the Arctic’s role in the climate system. Participants discussed the findings of the 2017 climate impact assessment by the Arctic Council titled ‘Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic’ (SWIPA2), and their implications for the 2018 facilitative dialogue and the global stocktake envisioned under the Paris Agreement. Svante Bodin, Director, ICCI-Europe, moderated the event.

Lars-Otto Reiersen, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Council, presented on SWIPA2. Among the report’s key findings, he noted: record high Arctic temperatures in the last decade; that by mid- and late 2100 the Arctic will be “very different”; and urgent mitigation action can stabilize parts of the Arctic towards the end of the 21st century. Underscoring the Arctic Council Fairbanks Declaration 2017, he identified the AMAP Working Group’s recommendations, including early, ambitious and full implementation of the Paris Agreement, and prioritization of research to enhance certainty in predictions.

Elvira Poloczanska, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II (WG II) Technical Support Unit (TSU), updated participants on progress on the preparation of the IPCC ‘Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’ (SROCC) to be finalized in September 2019.

Outi Honkatukia, Finland, outlined Finland’s four priorities for its 2017-2019 chairmanship of the Arctic Council: environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation, pollution prevention, and climate change mitigation and adaptation; connectivity; meteorological cooperation, including on intensifying monitoring and filling geographical gaps in data collection; and education. Honkatukia underscored that sustainable development is “at the core of the Arctic Council’s mandate,” and called for exploring how the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development framework can be used for Arctic cooperation for the benefit of humans and nature.

Svante Bodin addressed the implications of the Arctic “passing irreversible thresholds” for the 2018 facilitative dialogue, and highlighted the need for new and additional measures. Linking the Arctic cryosphere with the Sustainable Development Goals, he stressed the need to reduce cryosphere climate change in the near term, to reduce air pollution and to feed a growing population through addressing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Bodin underscored that the only way to prevent irreversible changes in the Arctic is to accelerate all possible mitigation measures quickly and decisively “never to reach these temperatures at all,” as “a 2°C world is a 5°C Arctic.” He said that the choice for the 2018 stocktake is between Arctic-preserving mitigation or extreme adaptation and geoengineering.

Participants then viewed an intervention byMargot Wallström, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sweden, at the tenth Arctic Council Ministerial, who emphasized that “we have the knowledge, technology, money and capacity to save our planet.”

In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: methane release through the loss of permafrost; the need for a pamphlet “bringing science to the public” and associated communication challenges; the response of the negotiating and political communities to the situation in the Arctic and its global impacts; the irreversibility of changes in the Arctic; and civil society involvement and the role of intergenerational equity.

This session focused on the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as a tool to manage climate risks. It was moderated by Nicolette Bartlett, CDP.

Norbert Gorißen, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Germany, welcomed the TCFD’s recommendations as “a very important piece of work,” noting they will showcase how financial markets can identify risk and barriers to shift finance closer to climate-related investments.

Underscoring “there is lots of evidence of real-life action companies are taking,” Lois Guthrie, WBCSD and Founding Director, Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), noted that investors still find it difficult to act on information because of a lack of standards and comparability. She called for “more infrastructure” to support commitments and actions towards improved policy making.

Ed Wells, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), said the TCFD’s recommendations offer a framework to channel money in the “right direction” and ensure the right sectors are being supported. Suggesting that a mandatory legislative response “will take a long time,” he stressed that “the private sector can drive this soon.”

Santiago Lorenzo, WWF, highlighted that climate change is “on top of our work’s systemic risk” and said the same applies to financial institutions, whose core businesses will be affected by climate change. He highlighted the TCFD’s efforts as vital for ensuring that good investment decisions are taken.

In the ensuing discussion, participants raised the question of how to address “incumbents” who benefit from short-term investments that are destructive for the planet. They highlighted, inter alia: the importance of coherence and transparency for guiding good investments; the potential of multilateral development banks cooperating in this area; and the role of science in enhancing transparency. France’s ‘Article 173’ on climate risk reporting; the UK’s Public Services (Social Value) Act and the 2° Investing Initiative were lauded as positive examples and developments. Participants also highlighted that “we are talking about the trillions here” and questioned the prospects of “getting where we need to be” without a meaningful carbon price.

In this side event panelists shared experiences and lessons learned from projects supported under the Poznan strategic programme (PSP) on technology transfer. They focused on the knowledge and networks of regional development banks, and provided inputs to an update of the evaluation of the PSP scheduled for 2017. Masako Ogawa, GEF, moderated the event.

Noting that sustainable investing is “increasingly mainstream” for multilateral development banks (MDBs), Duarte da Silva, Asia Climate Partners (ACP), pointed to significant for partnerships with institutions that have common goals and complementary capabilities to MDBs. He identified a “mismatch” between supply of, and demand for environmental finance investments, where investor interest is estimated to be US$620 billion but current market size amounts to only US$120 billion. Da Silva outlined the ACP’s ‘Climate Public-Private Partnership Fund’ concept, underscoring that the Fund mobilizes capital at scale from global public and private sector investors.

Abhilash Thirupathy, Gold Farm, identified key barriers to the development of renewable energy in India, including: limited access to venture capital funding; and the lack of a long-term view of capacity building. He highlighted Gold Farm’s partnership with the PSP and noted key achievements, including: installation of 750 off-grid solar pumps across five states in India; conversion of 1,500 hectares of barren land to cultivable land; and annual revenue of US$2.5 million in the last financial year.

Astrid Motta, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), highlighted EBRD’s Finance and Technology Transfer Centre for Climate Change (FINTECC) programme, detailing its support for companies to implement advanced climate technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience by providing grants and technical assistance. She said that the EBRD has signed 29 transactions to date that include a FINTECC grant component, with incentives worth US$7.3 million supporting US$100 million in green incentives. Motta provided three examples of EBRD FINTECC projects: reduction of the carbon footprint of plastic toy production in Belarus; energy efficient building management systems in hospitals in Georgia; and modernization of lightweight glass manufacturing in Moldova.

Detailing an EBRD-financed project in Moldova, Boris Crivoi, JV Glass Container Company JSC, highlighted energy saving processes that were implemented in the glass manufacturing process with FINTECC support. He reported a reduction of 9-9.5% of total energy consumption as well as reduced CO2 emissions per unit.

Elfriede-Anna More, Technology Executive Committee (TEC), outlined TEC activities on climate technology financing, including: preparation of policy briefs on key technology issues; delivery of key messages and recommendations to the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on policies for climate technology actions; and stimulation of cooperation between key national and international donors. She introduced the TEC brief ‘Enhancing Access to Climate Technology Financing,’ pointing to a key finding that climate technology requires a combination of “long lasting, loud and legal policy incentives,” market facilitation and public finance.

During the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: linkages between solar technology and irrigation in India; replicability and diffusion of technology at the regional level; and monitoring and evaluation of the FINTECC programme and investment scheme.