Local tourism, Dar es Salaam port under threat from rising seas
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
ECO listened carefully to yesterday’s roundtable on adaptation. The roundtable discussions brought forward new ideas and thinking on how adaptation can move ahead in the 2015 agreement in a way that adequately addresses escalating climate impacts.
Submitted by Secretariat on

COP 18 is another step in the climate change negotiations. There are a lot of expectations here and many issues need to be covered. Most importantly, a comprehensive decision has to be made in order to deliver what humanity needs in order to survive. This is something we hear all the time around climate change negotiations. The issue is that, if we need to repeat it, then there has not been any change.
For some countries, there is an economic interest conflict - a fear of losing money. For others, it is just a matter of survival- a loss of lives. We all will face the consequences, climate change doesn’t recognize differences. It will happen and we must take action.
Negotiators are convinced that they will find a solution. But, will this happen? Will they realize they are negotiating a way forward for everyone and not bargaining to get something? Will they stop putting the blame on each other?
Finance issues are crucial for this regime to move forward but recent statements from some parties are not very encouraging. This only diminishes the acknowledgement of any progress that could have happened.
Realistic mitigation efforts by developed countries have been due for a long time now. Some developing countries are being more proactive than developed countries. While this can be a good sign towards a future low carbon world, developed countries should do more in order to achieve what humanity needs.
Adaptation is crucial for all, but especially for those in developing countries, where there is lack of capacity to adapt to climate changes.
Being in a Doha Conference center, where everything is so scattered, where there seems to be empty rooms everywhere, it feels as though not much is happening. We hope that, in the next few days, delegates can work out ways to facilitate the process of ministers reaching agreements.
Submitted by Secretariat on

(photo credit: IISD)
My name is Ben Namakin, and I come from the small island state of Kiribati in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This is a place in which, along with our other pacific islands neighbors, we contribute less than 0.001% to the global greenhouse gas emissions; sadly, we are currently paying the price for global emissions with rising sea levels, droughts and saltwater intrusion contaminating our groundwater.
Kiribati was the first place to ring in the new millennium in 2000 and will also likely be the first state to be shown on international news as being underwater. What steps should those in our region take? We may be small, but we are not insignificant.
I am fortunate to be a Leadership Development Program (LDP) fellow for CAN International, which gives me the opportunity to increase my knowledge and skills on the issues, especially at the United Nations negotiation level. We are doing as possible to adapt to climate change: raising awareness on the issues of our people, building sea walls to prevent coastal erosion, and working on other adaptation activities. Despite this work, we still need to make our voice be heard at international negotiations! We must express the concerns of vulnerable communities to the leaders of the world, who claim they make decisions on behalf of us. Here I would like to highlight those of the developed states.
I am here in Doha, Qatar with 7 LDP fellows from various parts of the world following the UNFCCC COP18 negotiations. We all come from the South, and represent the most vulnerable parts of the world to climate change impacts. Though few in numbers, we try to cover the different issues that most concern us, such as mitigation, equity, finance, sustainable development goals and adaptation.
My focus is on adaptation, given the situation faced by those of Kiribati today. We are indeed in need of support for adaptation mechanisms that will ensure the survival of my people. My expectations here concentrate mostly on the call for international mechanisms for loss and damage, for adaptation committees as well as developed countries raising their ambitions on both finance and mitigation.
I want us to leave Doha with an outcome in which the role of the adaptation committees is well arranged so that they will function appropriately. I would also like to see arrangements under loss and damages adopted with concrete mechanisms for all LDC countries, including easy access to funding mechanisms for implementing national adaptation plans. What we want out of this gathering in Doha is not pretext of commitment, but real commitment.
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
Reading the current text, ECO is concerned that a possible Doha decision may miss the key, overarching points. First, in light of the lack of mitigation ambition, there is cause for grave concern. The low mitigation ambition will determine the level of loss and damage in the future. Second, this results in a high urgency to take action on all fronts of mitigation and adaptation, with the primary objective to reduce loss and damage as much as possible. ECO expects that those who have contributed most to the problem take the responsibility for support. Third, the key reason that vulnerable developing country Parties have put loss and damage on the agenda is the dire situation that the limits of adaptation will likely be surpassed in many regions.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
CAN, YOUNGO and CJN! SBI Opening Plenary Intervention at COP18
Delivered by, David Gawith of YOUNGO, 27 November 2012
Thank you Chair, my name is David and I will be 60 years old in in 2050
Your task this week is a challenging one. The SBI is expected to complete its entire business this session by Saturday. We stand ready to assist you in this task. Science is telling us that full and sustained implementation of the Convention's fundamental objective is slipping further and further from our grasp. This has disastrous implications for humanity and for its future, our future.
Hurricane Sandy’s impacts in Haiti, Cuba, and the United States have reminded us that loss and damage is a reality. It’s happening now. Current low mitigation ambition is breaching the ultimate objective of the Convention. Opportunities for avoiding loss and damage are being wasted because of insufficient funding. We need to start thinking beyond adaptation. Based on the decision from Durban, we expect you to set up a comprehensive mechanism to address compensation and rehabilitation issues. Further, we expect you to develop the next phase of the work programme to detail the modalities of the mechanism. Almost 100 vulnerable developing countries have outlined the needs and potential elements of an international mechanism. Doha must not end without clear progress on addressing loss and damage.
On technology, for the Technology Mechanism to be considered "fully operational" at COP18 there must be a committed source of interim and long term funding for the Technology Executive Committee, the Climate Technology Centre and its Advisory Board. The architecture of the Technology Mechanism must also be highly responsive to developing Party clients in order to promote transparency and ensure equitable access to adaptation and mitigation technologies. Finally there must be robust engagement with stakeholders and civil society.
On Capacity Building, Parties should concentrate their work on paragraph 6 of 13/CP-17. By agreeing on an intensive 2 year work programme that creates an enhanced structure for effective capacity building in developing countries, by the end of 2014, the ground lost on capacity building could be regained here in Doha.We hold you accountable for these outcomes.
Thank you.
Submitted by rvoorhaar on
The Adaptation Committee has worked hard to prepare its ambitious three-year work plan, with only one meeting held in 2012. In order to be able to perform this necessary leadership role, ECO urges in particular developed country Parties to provide the necessary means for the work of the Adaptation Committee.
ECO welcomes that the Adaptation Committee plans to address the importance of understanding adaptation best practices and needs of local and indigenous communities. But there is one piece missing in the overall picture: The COP should recognise the value that the Adaptation Committee work may have for the ADP negotiations towards a 2015 legally-binding instrument. It can substantially inform the work of the ADP, so that the future agreement can help scale-up adaptation based on the needs identified.
ECO knows that civil society is willing to contribute to the Adaptation Committee's work, and encourages committee members to facilitate these inputs. A gap in the rules of procedure should be closed, namely webcasting meetings where possible. The Adaptation Fund is a good precedent in this regard. Last but not least, ECO is pressing the Adaptation Committee to act in a proactive manner by holding events, workshops, etc. on specific adaptation needs and responses.
Submitted by Secretariat on
Submitted by Anonymous on
Can COP 17 conclude with a fully fleshed out adaptation package? ECO has a few healthy ideas. A good place to start is the Adaptation Committee negotiated under the AWG-LCA.
The comprehensive draft decision text from Panama provides the basis. The AC should be operationalised and start its work as soon as possible, and it will help if Parties have nominations for members in Durban.
Parties should agree on a strong role for the AC under the guidance and authority of the COP, and allow it to report directly to the COP rather than only through the SBI. While consideration in the SBI could be productive, e.g. during the Bonn sessions when the COP does not meet, the SBI should not become the supervisory body of the AC.
The section on composition contains a proposal for two advisory members each from southern and northern civil society. It is not relevant which Parties made this proposal; rather we encourage delegates to look at the value of the meaningful engagement of civil society.
There is a wealth of supporting examples. For example, in the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, civil society representatives are full board members with voting rights. For the Committee on Food Security in the FAO, there is a mechanism whereby CSO representatives from different constituencies (fisherfolk, farmers, herders, landless, etc.) are selected and have full access and the right to talk but not vote in the procedures of the Committee. Currently, there are four CSO members as well as some from the private sector.
Further, it would be beneficial to assure a developing country majority in the AC,including specific seats for LDCs and SIDS, as well as gender balance.
Finally, Parties should ensure that the AC can provide recommendations to other institutions, including those of the financial mechanism, thereby contributing to a more coherent approach to adaptation and widening the application of conclusions and experience gathered by the AC.