Other Blog Posts

Sustainable energy access for all and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda

Integrating climate change into the post-2015 agenda: HOW and WHY?
With special focus on sustainable energy access for all

Time and Date: 27 Nov 2013, 1.15-2.30 pm, 

Location: Conference Room 7, UN HQ, New York

This side event during the 5th session of the Open Working Group on SDGs will tackle two crucial topics that are prerequisite to eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development: climate change and sustainable access to energy for all. Climate change is an existential threat that will continue to disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable people and places, impacting negatively on those least responsible for the climate crisis. 

Securing universal access to modern energy services and transitioning energy systems away from fossil fuels will central to solving both the climate change crisis and the global poverty crisis. Without addressing the causes of climate change and all its impacts, comprehensively, goals on eradicating poverty – including any goal on energy access for people in poverty – will be ineffective and short term, and fail to ensure sustainable development.

It is essential to start finding concrete ways to integrate climate protection, energy access and poverty reduction in a holistic development framework. During this side event, the panellists will outline government, UN and civil society perspectives on such concrete ways, followed by a short questions and answers session.

David Hallam, Special Envoy on post 2015, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Janine Felson, Ambassador of Belize and special adviser to the UN PGA
David O’Connor, Chief, Policy and Analysis Branch, Division for Sustainable Development. UN-DESA
Minoru Takada, Senior Policy Adviser, Sustainable Energy for All
Wael Hmaidan, Director, CAN-I
Bernadette Fischler, Post-2015 Policy Analyst, CAFOD, Co-Chair of Beyond 2015

Dominic White, Chair of Bond

RSVP to bfischler@cafod.org.uk

Integrating sustainable energy and climate change into the Post-2015 agenda: how and why?

Integrating sustainable energy and climate change into the Post-2015 agenda: how and why?

Time: 26 November 2013, 8am-9am
Location: Amartya Sen Conference Room, FF Building, New York. 

The aim of the post-2015 development framework is to “eradicate extreme poverty in all its forms while ensuring a sustainable development path for all countries”. However, climate change is an existential threat, that is and will continue to disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable people and places the most, impacting negatively those least responsible for the climate crisis. Further, securing universal access to modern energy services and transitioning energy systems away from fossil fuels is central to solving both the climate change crisis and the global poverty crisis.

A goal on energy access for people in poverty and many other goals on poverty eradication will only be effective in the long run if it addresses also the causes of climate change and all its impacts. It is essential to start finding concrete ways to integrate climate protection and human development needs in a holistic development framework.

A group of environment and development organizations convened by CAFOD and WWF UK with the support of Beyond 2015 and CAN-International put together a set of concrete recommendations on how to meaningfully address energy access and climate change across the post-2015 framework. The resulting discussion papers form the basis for a conversation on these pertinent topics during the November sessions of the OWG on SDGs.

This breakfast meeting will provide a space for open and informal discussions on concrete suggestions to integrate sustainable energy access for all and tackling climate change into the post-2015 development framework.


  • 8:00am – Welcome and introductions, Corinne Woods, Director UN Millennium Campaign
  • 8:05am – Concrete suggestions on how to integrate energy access and climate change into the post-2015 framework, Bernadette Fischler, CAFOD/Beyond 2015
  • 8:15am – Open Discussion moderated by the Chair, Corinne Woods, Director UN Millennium Campaign
  • 9:00am – End of event

*The discussion will be held under Chatham House rules to encourage an open dialogue 

Can the Warsaw summit take a significant step towards more climate justice for all?

Ange David Baimey 
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement Cote d'Ivoire

In the beginning of June 2013, a World Bank report described a frightful scenario for the future. A few months ago, in September 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the first installment of its 5th report underlined that we are on a trajectory which is dangerous for all of us! In a time where we blithely progress towards the 2°C, in a time where an unprecedented typhoon  hits the Philippines and Vietnam, where droughts decimate crops in Kenya, Somalia and Djibouti, it is time to speak up for equity and climate justice.

Even better, it is time to stop speaking about it and take action.

But, although equity should be the cornerstone of the next climate deal, the concept seems to be labeled non grata by all the countries that refuse to strengthen their reduction actions, to save the adaptation fund or to mobilize additional public finance.

Maybe we should remind these countries that a deal in 2015 will be impossible if we do not first agree on equity. If we are not able to propose a fair distribution of efforts and benefits according to responsibilities and capabilities, we will not be able to rally the developing countries, from the least developed to the emerging economies.

The NGOs have a simple proposal: let’s agree here in Warsaw on the indicators which will allow to measure the ambition and appropriateness of each country’s future commitments in the 2015 deal: are these in line with what the latest IPPC report calls for? Do they match both the country’s historic responsibility and capabilities?

We will also have to make sure that the deal includes a mechanism allowing for an evolution of the level of commitments and of their repartition.

Obviously, for such a proposal to be credible, for developing countries to participate in this negotiation, the starting point should be to respect the already made commitments.

The NGOs thus expect the developed countries to reinforce their reduction goals instead of creating new ways out by leaving the Kyoto Protocol or going backwards on their targets. The NGOs expect that the developed countries live up to their financial promises. It is the necessary starting point for an acceptable deal in 2015.

Related Member Organization: 

COP 19 : “I Care”, Do You?

Henriette Imelda
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

Leaving for Warsaw, for COP 19, with the Polish Government’s promises in mind that COP 19 would be the Finance COP, has - to some extend -  given me a bowl-full-of-expectations. Finally, I thought, the climate change negotiations will turn into a positive, meaningful, and fruitful talks. Walking home not only with pledges but also the commitment for full implementation of the pledges.

As I walked around the centrum, reaching a place for a meeting, I suddenly saw this big banner over COP 19 with a tag “I Care”; what a hopeful banner for me, someone who comes from developing countries that still have problems with access to energy, as well as the fact of being heavily threatened by the impact of climate change. With the possibility of losing around 200 islands, and with a growing population that is currently over 240 million, do you think that we won’t have land issues for residence? Our dependence on fossil fuel to generate cannot be used as an excuse, to force us in reducing our emission, as we only have fossil fuel to light our houses. Renewable energy is still expensive for us to avail, which gives us more homework to be done because we still need to grow.

With such kind of a background, I came to Warsaw with full expectations.

Early morning on the day the COP 19 was supposed to end, I took a look at the ADP text that was uploaded at 5.45 in the morning. How surprised I was when I saw that all the important things were deleted; equity, timeline to review developed countries’ pledges, as well as enhance ambition. I felt betrayed, now that my expectations have been turned down, since developed countries have violated things that both developed and developing countries have agreed upon.

Many developing countries have to bear the cost of climate change by themselves. The Philippines has to bear the cost of destructions from the Haiyan typhoon, and some developing countries had to bear their own cost to develop their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). We have done so many things to rebuild or sustain lives, but developed countries seemed not to care. Many times developed countries ask for NAMAs from developing countries. Now that we have some, why don’t you just put some money in there, showing that you, as developed countries, can still be considered as accountable for developing countries? We’ve done our part, now it’s yours, isn’t it?

The green big banner that I saw in the centrum, does not reflect on what the developed countries think of; not even for Poland’s government, the host. “I Care”? Really?? Do you???

If it is true, then show me! Put your pledge!

Related Member Organization: 

Opportunities for a change - Why COP 19 is important for Latin America

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis
Fundación Biosfera
Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA)

While UNFCCC negotiations continue in COP 19, countries still struggle to make significant progress on crucial issues that are due to be agreed in this COP. Many issues need to be covered by the end of this week if we want to be certain that we are on the correct path for a 2015 deal.

Latin American countries are excited about COP 20 in Peru, but some challenges are in the way, right here and right now. The Latin American COP will be the last stop before we go to France for sealing the deal that will shape the commitments for the future of our climate, and we have our expectations for it. It is fair to say that a lot of planning has to happen and it is good to see that Peru is taking a lot of time to prepare for it.

Nevertheless it is important to recall that negotiations are happening right now and right here. Crucial issues like Finance and Loss and Damage are key for the remaining 5 days and countries know it. Latin American countries are playing active roles in the G77 and the negotiations in general. But we need to see more action; we need to come up with creative and diverse ideas that contribute to solve the problem, and they might be in Latin America.

Loss and Damage has to come up with a clear result. What happened in the Philippines is not impossible to happen in Latin America, and we know it.

Actions to promote Low Carbon Development should be highlighted here from all Latin American Countries. We don't want them to be in the same path that brought us here. It is just not acceptable to defend fossil fuels saying it is a necessary evil...

So it would be good to see that creativeness coming from the next COP presidency and its neighbours. After all, whatever is not agreed in Warsaw will have to be dealt with in Lima, and considering how much is already in the list of issues for 2014... that is just too much.

Related Member Organization: 

MRV in Warsaw

Photo: IISD

Vositha Wijenayake

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA)

Article 12 of the UNFCCC recognises measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) as a key element or rather a pillar for ensuring transparency, building trust among parties. Furthermore it adds to ensuring accountability among the Parties. The Convention calls upon Parties for regular reporting on efforts taken by countries to address climate change.

The requirements pertaining to countries are developed based on the common but differentiated principle (CBDR). This in turn explains that the Annex1 countries i.e. developed countries are endowed with a higher level of obligation on their reporting than the developing countries. In more specific terms this involves the developed countries having to undergo a review process by experts to ensure completeness, consistency and accuracy of reported information. The review also encompassed a review by Parties, of efforts made by developed countries to meet their obligations under the Convention.

The Bali road map extended the gambit of the MRV by strengthening the reporting requirements of both the developed and developing countries as well as instituting a formal process of review, international analysis and review (IAR) for developed countries and international consultation and analysis (ICA) for developing countries.

This in turn required the developed countries to report annual GHG inventory every year; prepare a biennial report – highlighting the progress made in meeting its obligations under the Convention, both, on mitigation pledges and support; and national communication every four years; and, for the developing countries to prepare a biennial update report, including GHG inventory, on planning and implementing NAMAs, and to prepare a national communication every four years.  All efforts of developing countries for reporting are supported by the Convention.

Guidelines for measurement is the key of an MRV system. This is the first step in ensuring consistency, relevance and completeness of information. One such measure can be seen in the form of all countries being required to prepare their GHG inventories in accordance with the IPCC GHG inventory methodology. The common accounting methodology also makes it possible to compare the information across sectors, both within and across countries.

An outstanding issue at present is the common tabular format (CTF) to compare the pledges, progress made in pledges, as well as reporting on the support provided. The challenge faced concerns defining climate finance, how to report different forms of public support (grants, loans, etc), and defining new and additional support. The last element relates to separating, in broad terms, the finance provided for development issues in developing countries through bilateral aid from finance provided for climate related activities.

Here in Warsaw there are a few things that we need to achieve, among which lies the creation of a process that allows all countries to understand what is pledged by others, and to be able to develop new offers for the post-2020 period.  Warsaw needs also to be able to highlight what needs to be included in Party offers, equity and scientific benchmarks, in addition to how these offers need to be reviewed.  

Furthermore there is also need for the procedures and the outcomes for both the preparation and assessment processes to be equitable. Thus this process needs the inclusion of credible elements that possess the capacity to assess whether countries are doing their “fair “share, in line with science and a set of equity indicators.


References made to discussions of CAN MRV working group, and to “MRV in Warsaw” by Mr. Sudhir Sharma for ClimAsia, Warsaw  edition. 

Related Member Organization: 

What Can Motivate Delegates to Make Right and Timely Decisions?

Sixbert Simon Mwanga

Climate Action Network - Tanzania

The second week of November 2013 witnessed delegates and representatives from more than 190 countries landing on Polish land. The reason for their coming was not to see the beauty of Poland but to discuss and make important decisions on harmful climate change impacts at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties 19 (COP19) and the 9th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol taking place from 11 to 22 November.

The first week of the Warsaw climate change conference was full of sadness and sorrow due to Super Typhoon Haiyan which caused massive deaths across our beloved Philippines. These were the innocent people with insignificant contribution to climate change. This can be a topic of its own.

Since their arrival, civil society representatives have been showing their clear concern and demand from delegates to take a lead in making decisions to address climate change; both causes and impacts. However, since 1994 and up to now, not much ground has been covered in these negotiations. There has been a culture of lagging behind which has favored the increase of events related to climate change around the world.

This leaves many questions to already suffering and vulnerable communities. Among these questions, one could ask “what motivates delegates to make right and timely actions?” If delegates are not motivated and cannot act based on what science tells us regarding the climate and global warming, wouldn’t they be motivated to save their children, elder brothers and sisters who are already suffering from the impacts, sometimes to death? Why can’t they consider and value billions and billions of money their governments invest in infrastructure year after year that then get destructed within a minute? Should climate scientists stop climate studies and put heads together with medical doctors and psychologists to find what can motivate UNFCCC climate change negotiators to take right and timely actions?

Should we continue delaying while learning words and vocabulary to use while extending our condolences to countries and families which will be losing their manpower and future generations? Should we continue waiting to advertise ourselves in meetings that we care enough and we have offered money to bury dead people? May be we should find another name to replace the word delegate.

“Country representatives”: increasing finance, adaptation and mitigation ambitions here in Warsaw, this is what we want from you. This is our simplest indicator of success. Don’t turn yourselves into stones, please establish international mechanisms on loss and damage.

Related Member Organization: 

Why when it comes to energy issues, Warsaw is closer to Washington than to Brussels– and what we can expect from the Warsaw COP19 climate summit



In November this year the next global summit dedicated to climate change will start in Warsaw. Once again Poland will chair the global climate negotiations. What is to be expected?

Difficult situation for global negotiations

In 2013 the climate is not well. Last year global CO2 emissions rose by another 1.4 per cent.  According to scientists the effects of climate change will be more severe than expected.  Most probably the temperature increase will be as high as five degrees Celsius and it will not be possible to curb the increase within the previously estimated two degrees Celsius.

Recently only a few countries managed to reduce emissions.  The United States was an exception in that it reduced emissions by 10 % — ironic considering it is the only country of the climate change convention which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Admittedly Europe did reduce emissions by about 2.5 % cent in 2012, but there is no avoiding the fact that this was partially due to the financial crisis.

When the energy and climate package was adopted in Brussels in 2008 — assuming a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions, 20 % share of renewable energy and a 20 % increase in energy efficiency by 2020 — Europe was convinced that it should be the champion of climate protection and that by setting a good example it would entice the rest to follow.  This, however, did not happen. Five years have elapsed since that time – and while no one is going back on those decisions, enthusiasm has subsided.  Ever more often, instead of discussions of long term climate change strategies among European politicians, we see them talking numbers. The European recession is not releasing its grip and questions regarding energy prices are being posed more often — particularly as the United States is going through a gas revolution and the price of that resource is almost three times less than in Europe.  There is a large probability that a few years down the line American gas will make an appearance in Europe, significantly changing the energy map of the Old Continent.

The state of play in Poland and the US

The question is: what role can Poland play as the host of the global climate summit?

For years Warsaw has been participating in all UN and EU political projects in unison, delivering on its promises of emission reductions – which cannot be said of all the EU countries.

Now, however, as one of the three most coal dependent countries in the world, Poland is not supporting an increase in emission reduction targets in Europe — which Brussels is vying for — unless there is progress on the global forum.

Even if Poland on the UN level is presenting the common EU position, in recent years Warsaw seems closer to Washington than to Brussels when it comes to climate and energy policies. The keys to understanding this problem are the disproportionate allocation of costs for this low emission transformation and the varied levels of returns in the EU. The struggle for economic competitiveness is continuing in the background whilst the environment, unfortunately for many European Union member states, has taken on a secondary role.

After 2008, Polish politicians are finding it difficult to explain to Polish society why it is necessary to follow the European climate policy in the face of the fact that it is not yielding the expected emission reduction results and why is it that Poland, according the European Commission calculations, is to pay the most out of the EU countries.  Even if the goal of European climate policy is more than just a reduction of emissions, an increase in energy security, innovation, and the generation of funds for the modernization of the industrial sector, the actions of the European Commission are still seen as unfavorable for the Polish economy and without benefit to the environment.

There is no chance of a fundamental change in the direction of climate policy before 2017 in the United States.  However, President Obama in his speech on 25th of June announced new comprehensive program for tackling climate change and is going to use his executive powers to introduce more restrictive environmental protection standards through various regulations – a proof that if the big political framework doesn’t work, the bottom up approach might offer a solution to the problem. Nevertheless there is also a chance that the gas revolution will influence the United States to change its position as there is no reason for such determined resistance to reducing targets considering the emission levels are the lowest in 20 years.

Light at the end of the tunnel?

As is evident, significant progress on the subject of a global agreement with legally binding targets cannot be expected in the near future. Therefore the question of how to protect the climate if reduction targets are not viable has to be asked.

Both the United States as well as Poland prefer definite climate protection programs. This is called a framework for various approaches at the global negotiations forum. As an example, such activities could include increasing energy efficiency in buildings, transportation and industry.  Such actions will certainly be backed by many countries, including the United States and Poland. The development of dispersed generation is a worthy cause as it is beneficial to local communities and uses renewable energy. The European Union, adopting this new perspective, earmarked 20 per cent of its budget for such efforts.

Another significant issue involves the withdrawal of harmful fossil fuel subventions as discussed by the International Energy Agency in its last report of June 2013. Fossil fuel subsidies paint a false picture in discussions on the costs of energy — and additionally do not take into consideration the external costs of burning coal and other fossil fuels, standing in the way of the development of renewable and clean sources of energy. Even if we accept that the process of moving away from fossil fuels will last many years, the entire energy sector is in need of systematic changes.

The old principle of “thinking global, acting local” is an apt description of climate negotiations. Therefore in Warsaw, we must put more emphasis on definite actions supporting climate protection.

Let’s do more and talk less — before it really is too late.

Joanna Mackowiak Pandera, Head of the Market Development Department, Management Team Poland for  DONG Energy, was a Spring 2013 European Marshall Memorial Fellow.


Bring Your Finance Ministers to Warsaw

Henriette Imelda
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

As the SBs session in Bonn ended in June, there were several issues that still need to be clarified. The climate finance issue is amongst the crucial issues that was barely discussed in the session. The fact that now there are so many different entities that need to discuss climate finance probably has made everybody to go their own way. The Standing Committee on Climate Finance has their own task, Long Term Finance Work Programme also has their own direction, as well as the issue of establishing the Green Climate Fund. The above entities do represent some progress, yet those are not enough.

Clarity on whether the 100 billion dollars will be ready and how it will be deployed are still mysterious. Nobody knows whether the number could be achieved by that time. While the needs of developing countries and least developed countrie are growing, so are those of the small island developing states. This is due to time as well as due to climate change impacts that are currently threatening the above countries.

Long Term Finance Work Programme would have two expert workshops on the pathway towards the 100 billion, and the second part would be the enabling environment. The fact that Long Term Finance Work Programme does not have the mandate to come up with decisions is, therefore, important to have all the discussions within the Work Programme to be delivered to countries related ministers, especially ministers of finance. The issue of climate finance is highly important and that high-level dialogue must be conducted on the issues of finance.

Warsaw would be one of the most important COPs, especially in related to the new agreement that should be agreed in COP 21 in Paris. And the only thing to remind all countries, especially the developed countries, is to bring in the finance ministers to start thinking on possible climate change related, not only the implementation, but also the mobilization of the 100 billion dollars from the public finance. More funding scenarios on how to mobilize the 100 billion dollars are needed fast, not only to be considered, but to be decided.

So Parties, bring your finance ministers to Warsaw!


Related Member Organization: 

Strategies, Working Groups and Regional Cooperation in Bonn


Vositha Wijenayake
CAN South Asia

It has been a little tough to put words together to come up with a sensible piece of writing for the second half of the Bonn sessions. It could be that there were so many things I wanted to write on, and then the brain would fail at picking which thematic area, or activity I need to follow on. Hence the delay in putting this together, and not presenting it immediately at the closure of Bonn talks. Then again, the delay would have given me a better perspective of what needs to added, what the two worlds of grass-root activism and the UNFCCC corridors have in common or NOT have in common. Simply put, it would mean that I am now settling down to type these words with a regional perspective as well as a local perspective which is definitely heightened post-Bonn.

Focusing on legal issues is what I follow during the UNFCCC process, while working on the Southern Voices Project, which focuses on regional capacity building to raise the voices of the South in the discussion and building the skills of advocacy to ensure enforcement of policies that are beneficial at the grass-root level. Southern Voices workshop held on the 10th and 11th of June brought the possibility to those attending the Bonn session to develop their knowledge on what is happening in the different regions, by sharing information on their activities, as well as through panel discussions. The workshop focused on thematic areas such as adaptation and climate finance, and also on communicating the work on the ground to those outside. It was an eye-opener on certain levels to what could be lacking in our work, as well as identifying what could be lessons learnt from each other.

Speaking on law and the UNFCCC, it was somewhat evident that international law was very much linked with country politics. We respect the concept of sovereign equality and thus end at logger-heads, unable to move forward when one or few countries block the process. A simple answer to a question requires a lot of analysis, (if one of course does not want others to get into trouble thanks to the brilliant advise one provides). Article 3 para 7 ter seemed to occupy a lot of my time since jumping the guy too fast on responding to a query, and then deciding that I need to sit down and read the whole development of the section before reaching a decision. Bonn has definitely been a learning experience when it comes to the involvement in the legal group in that, since being introduced to the group in Doha, I have finally started to get a grasp of the pace at which it moves. So more focus on the ADP and the proposals for legal structure on the work front for the next months ahead!

Low Carbon Development strategies and Communication also played a key role during this process. While LCD strategy is worked on for more elaboration and active involvement of different domestic and international actors, a communications workshop on the 16th of June, helped my understanding of the strategies of communicating science in a language that people do understand. The psychology based analysis of three types of people in a society seemed something to build on for campaigns, and possibly improving my personal communication with the world at large.

UNFCCC sessions in Bonn was definitely a time for contemplating on how to move forward as a movement, and as a regional entity as well. It was about building regional and international capacity while developing the leadership among regions. And I close the post with hopes for more theme specific writing for November!


Related Member Organization: