A Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Meeting on Climate Regime Beyond 2012 in New Delhi
4 September 2007
On 29 - 30 August 2007, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan held a multi-stakeholder consultation meeting on climate regime beyond 2012 in New Delhi, India, in cooperation with the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Some 70 representatives attended the consultation and actively contributed to discussions. Participants included policy makers from India and other Asian developing countries, industry representatives, academic experts, NGO representatives, and development assistance experts from international organisations and major developed countries.

The consultation was organised as a part of the third round of "the Asia-Pacific consultations on climate regime beyond 2012", which were initially convened in 2005 and have been held annually since that initial 2005 meeting *1. The consultation was intended to promote new and constructive thinking in the Asia-Pacific region on future actions against climate change beyond 2012, and to contribute to the shaping of a future climate regime that adequately reflects the concerns and developmental aspirations of countries in the region.

This year's consultations will feature dialogues in India and China. The dialogues will focus on four key themes related to the post-2012 climate regime: (a) sectoral approaches, (b) low carbon technologies, (c) adaptation to climate change, and (d) co-benefits/development dividend approach. The consultations also will aim to elucidate the differences in developing and developed country perspectives on each of the four themes and to promote further discussion on ways to bridge gaps in these perspectives.

Based on the outcomes of consultations, practical and effective options for a future climate regime will be compiled and presented at a side event in the COP13 scheduled for December in Bali as well as at various meetings on the future climate regime. The presentation of these options in Bali and subsequent events will help disseminate Asian concerns on the future climate regime - concerns that are all too often overlooked.

Please refer to the appended materials for a summary of the consultations.

*1. The outcomes of the 2005 and 2006 consultations were published as reports and disseminated at COP11 and COP12 of the UNFCCC and the 14th and the 15th UN Commission on Sustainable Development.
- Asian Aspirations for Climate Regime Beyond 2012 (2006)
- Asian Perspectives on Climate Regime Beyond 2012: Concerns, Interests and Priorities (2005)

For enquiries about this press release please contact:
Dr. Ancha Srinivasan, Principal Researcher and Manager,
Climate Policy Project
The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Tel: +81-46-855-3818 Fax: +81-46-855-3809

Ms. Kido, PR Officer,
The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-46-855-3700 Fax: +81-46-855-3709

Page top

1. Summary of Consultations

(1) Overview session

- After welcome remarks from Prof. Hamanaka (Chair of the Board of Directors, IGES) and Dr. Pachauri (Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Director General, TERI), Dr. Ancha Srinivasan of IGES summarised the findings of the 2005 and 2006 consultations and reviewed the four themes in the previous consultations: (a) energy security and development needs, (b) the Clean Development Mechanism, (c) technology development and transfer, and (d) adaptation to climate change. The scope and objectives of the round 3 consultations were also discussed in depth.
- In his overview presentation, an Indian representative highlighted the need for deeper long-term commitments by Annex I countries and suggested that India would match GHG abatement measures by Annex I by not exceeding GHG emissions of Annex I parties on a per-capita basis. He also mentioned that cost-effective low carbon technologies based on resource endowments of Non-Annex I parties do not exist as of yet. The need for reform of the carbon market through simplified methodologies and the inclusion of all sectors (including nuclear and storage hydropower) was also identified as a priority for future regime discussions.

(2) Sectoral approaches
- An assessment of the merits and demerits of sectoral approaches in the post-2012 regime from developing and developed country perspectives showed that sectoral approaches offer opportunities to enhance participation of both developing and developed countries. However, the need for institutionalisation of such approaches was considered a major issue moving forward. Some participants pointed to the need for the adoption of a simultaneous approach, in which both intensity targets and total emissions targets are employed.
- There are several challenges in actual implementation (monitoring, verification, review and enforcement) of sectoral approaches. Setting quantitative targets and baselines at sectoral levels can be a major challenge. How to harmonise intensity targets within and across countries is also an issue that warrants consideration.
- Some participants noted that the UNFCCC may not necessarily be a suitable forum for implementing sectoral initiatives due to its lack of technical expertise. Participants also argued that sectoral approaches can form only part of the total solution in mitigation efforts.

(3) Low carbon technologies
- Although the potential benefits of low-carbon technology transfer are large, there are several barriers to realising such benefits. These include a lack of infrastructure, limitations of financial investment, and constraints on technical capacity. Participants felt that future regime discussions should explore ways to avoid the energy intensive technology lock-in, especially in emerging economies, through identifying effective structures for incentives and implementation.
- Some participants emphasised that both horizontal (from one country to another) and vertical (from research and development to commercialisation) technology transfer need to be explored. A few participants mentioned the need for enhancing the flexibility of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for low carbon technologies, while others felt that it is important to establish first how far IPR restrictions actually hinder the transfer of low carbon technologies to developing countries.
- The need for exploring how the future climate regime and non-UNFCCC initiatives should generate incentives for technology transfer was further recognised as an important issue. In particular, participants suggested that the future regime should take into account interests of domestic actors as well as the potential synergies between UNFCCC and non-UNFCCC technology transfer initiatives (such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate).

(4) Adaptation to Climate Change
- While adaptation to climate change encompasses a broad range of issues, it was widely accepted among participants that mainstreaming and adaptation financing are the two primary issues, and accordingly the majority of the discussions were spent on these issues.
- Financing of adaptation to climate change is a major challenge, as is evidenced by the wide gap between the available funds in the current regime (less than two hundred million dollars) and the funds necessary to address adaptation (tens of billions of dollars). Participants emphasised repeatedly that the current amount of adaptation funds are woefully insufficient to meet the needs of adaptation and that it is essential to broaden the funding base if these needs are to be eventually met.
- Various new financing instruments for financing adaptation were presented in the session. Some participants stated that that polluter pays principle (PPP) must be the primary principle underpinning these instruments, as it is grounded upon equity. However, other participants focused on the need to consider principles such as the “climate change winners pay” as forming a more suitable basis for these instruments.
- The importance of mainstreaming adaptation concerns in national and sector planning was noted. Participants then discussed the need to explore synergies between adaptation, disaster risk management and development. However, some participants pointed out that putting too much emphasis on synergies might exclude more promising adaptation options.

(5) Co-benefits/development dividend approach
- The current climate change regime often fails to reflect developmental priorities and aspirations, and therefore there is a need to integrate the co-benefits approach into climate policies in Asia. Participants reviewed a series of good practices and development of quantification methods to exemplify how the co-benefits approach can play a larger role in future climate negotiations.
- Participants also raised concerns that many of the certified emission reductions (CERs) have been produced through projects with small developmental benefits and that the number of projects in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is geographically concentrated in a few countries. To solve these problems, various proposals were raised, including the institutionalisation of the evaluation and monitoring of the sustainable development aspect of CDM, the introduction of policy and sector CDM, the utilisation of public funds to encourage developmental dividends, and the adoption of a certification system that ensures the quality of CERs (such as the Gold Standard). However, some participants pointed out that these measures may complicate the certification process and increase transaction costs of CDM, which may reduce private investment into projects.

(6) Open discussion
During the final session, representatives from governments, academia and the private sector were asked to examine the role of India and other developing countries in the design of an equitable and effective future climate regime.
- An Indian representative stated that the current policy framework employing no-regrets options could produce a 3.5% reduction in emissions as compared with the business-as-usual scenario by 2030.
- Another representative emphasised that India would mainly promote and view co-benefits as the climate benefits of developmental actions rather than the developmental benefits of climate actions. This remark illustrated a contrast in perspectives between developing and developed countries.
- The role of the private sector in the future climate regime was also discussed. Some representatives noted that large multi-national firms should take on binding emission reduction targets (irrespective of national borders) and that private sector partnerships should be established to facilitate such efforts.
- Credible policy signals in future climate regime to enable long-term investment were also considered vital. Some panelists noted that it is important to reduce uncertainties surrounding future climate policies in order to induce such investments.

(7) Conclusion
The IGES-TERI consultation produced valuable discussions between distinguished panelists on four themes (sectoral approach, low carbon technologies, adaptation and co-benefits) that are crucial to addressing the concerns and developmental aspirations of Asian countries in the future climate regime. The consultations helped generate balanced views on future climate regime options by reconciling the differences in perspectives of both developing and developed countries.

Go to top of page