Tag: adaptation

Adapting for Durban

Submitted by Anonymous on October 7, 2011 - 9:57am

ECO has noted that adaptation negotiators have worked seriously to make decent progress on the Adaptation Committee in the last days here in Panama. The time for adding new text suggestions should be over now. Parties should sort out differences, produce the negotiating text and leave only the political issues to be tackled in Durban.

COP 17 taking place on African soil is just seven weeks away and ECO is probably not the only one to note that adaptation is crucial for the African continent. Therefore insufficient progress on this issue would be an bad signal for Africa and the whole world. In no circumstances should adaptation be held hostage by other issues and used as a bargaining chip. The Durban conference must advance the implementation of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, which ECO acknowledges is not an easy task. In Durban, Parties need to finalize the modalities and guidelines of National Adaptation Plans; operationalize the Adaptation Committee; concretize the work programme on Loss and Damage and make specific decisions on activities for the next phase of the Nairobi Work Programme. ECO recommends that those few Parties that have for so long stalled and delayed the negotiations on adaptation change their behavior, otherwise they will be to blame for any failure of the adaptation track.

ECO hopes that parties will come to Durban prepared to reach an agreement on adaptation that will give Africa, the world’s poor and vulnerable peoples and communities and their ecosystems the much needed confidence to combat climate change.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Drought in Ethiopia Requires Financing From Developed Countries...Do It by Durban!

Submitted by MBrockley on October 6, 2011 - 5:51pm

Mahlet Eyassu: what is needed on climate finance this year.

Photo Credit: Manjeet Dhakal

Mahlet Eyassu
Climate Change Program Manager
Forum for Environment
Ethiopia

We are now in Panama, for the intersessional which is the last meeting before the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Durban. The 17th COP will be in Durban, South Africa, which make this a very important COP for Africa. Africa along with Least Developed Countries and the Small Island States are the most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Even though Ethiopia is one of the least developed countries that is showing a rapid economic growth, it is still being affected by drought.

At the moment the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia, is confronted with recurring climate change related disasters, in particular prolonged droughts and floods. This drought is said to be the worst in 60 years. Drought is not something new for Ethiopia nor the Horn. However, it has become more recurrent and severe in the last decades. Climate change is making the matters and problems worse for us who are under-developed.

In order to address the impacts of climate change, countries are negotiating under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In its 15th and 16th meetings an agreement was reached that developed countries will be supporting adaptation and mitigation actions of developing countries. We are now approaching the end of 2011, where the fast start finance of $30 billion for the years 2010-2012 is about to end. The other decision we have is the one on long-term finance to mobilize $100 billion by 2020. So far there are no pledges from the developed countries for the year 2013 and onwards. That is a worry for us coming from the developing world. We have learned some lessons from the fast start finance, which is not new and not additional to the ODA, but is just relabeled as climate finance, given in the form of loans instead of grants. There is an imbalance between adaptation and mitigation with more money going to mitigation actions instead of adaptation.

Forty member countries of the transitional committee are designing the Green Climate Fund (GCF) of whose works will be presented in Durban to be approved by the Conference of Parties (COP). However, most developed countries do not want to have any form of discussion on long-term finance which is supposed to fill this fund. With all of these climate related disasters happening in most parts of the world, especially developing countries being the most vulnerable and having no capacity to adapt, adaptation finance is very crucial for us. It is a matter of survival and should be taken seriously by others. Developed countries need to get more serious and commit themselves to discuss the sources of finance that will feed into the new fund. If we want an outcome in Durban, most discussions and texts need to happen here in Panama.

It is good to note that, developing countries at the local and national level are also working to raise funds for their adaptation and mitigation actions. In my organization back home, Forum for Environment-Ethiopia, we have started an initiative to raise funds, which can be used for some local adaptation actions. We have started implementing the green tax initiative in which 1% of our salaries are deducted every month. We have done this for the past year and have raised small amount, which has not been used yet. Now we want this to be taken up by other organizations at the country-level to show our commitments by raising more money and taking local initiatives. We have started the process of engaging others to hopefully have a larger impact. Progress in Panama in all issues, especially finance, is very important for us to achieve something in the African COP in Durban.

Tags:

Climate change Impacts

Topics:

Region:

Related Campaign:

Leadership Development Program

Related Event:

Panama 2011

Related Member Organization:

Forum for Environment - Ethiopia (FfE)

Vulnerable groups are making much progress in adapting to climate change, but where we are in Panama through to Durban?

Submitted by MBrockley on October 6, 2011 - 1:27pm

Wanun Permpibul on flooding in Thailand

Photo 1 - Photo credit: Forests and Farmers Foundation, 2011

Photos 2-4 - Photo credit: HBS Southeast Regional Office, 2011

Wanun Permpibul
Head, Energy and Climate Change Programme
Renewable Energy Institute of Thailand Foundation
Thailand

Climate change is already a threat. Extreme and unprecedented climatic events are affecting poor communities already and they have little capacity to adapt. They have already been affected by economic and social injustice as well as other difficulties and climate change is adding another burden to their existing problems. Adaptive capacity needs to be strengthened while longterm adaptation is necessary and must be enhanced.

A few months before the Panama Climate Talks, provinces in the lower Northern Region of Thailand, particularly Pitsanulok Province, were hit severely by floods. Paddy fields, orchards, houses were flooded and destroyed. People died and went missing. Flood levels even rose up to their roofs. Most of the houses were submerged. Boats were floating up to the first floor of the house while residents had to stay on the second floor. Some had to leave their houses temporarily. Some villagers were bitten by poisonous snakes and scorpions, others were faced with infections on their feet, and other disease. Not only are their houses and paddy fields inundated, but other resources that could be sources of income are also damaged.

As a matter of fact, villages here are flooded every year during the wet season, but the current floods are extraordinary in the sense that rainfall came two months earlier this year in a very heavy and lasting pattern before the rice could be harvested. This is the second time for Bang Rakam Subdistrict that the rains have come earlier, the last time was in 2000 and in 1995 for the Jom Thong Subdistrict. During the floods, villagers could not harvest, and thus were unable to earn any income. Communities were not warned and informed well in advance enough of the floods and were not able to prepare for it. Floods have lasted for longer periods of time. Previously, they lasted for two months, but now it has been almost three months. The government was trying to solve the floods problem using a traditional top down approach: they flushed out the water from the areas, but then found this created a flooding problem in another area.

Rather than waiting for humanitarian aid and the government’s help, communities implemented their own responses to the floods and have been adjusting themselves to the climatic changes. These are their homes for generations and they do not want to leave. Some couldn’t afford to move elsewhere. Their responses include changing the crop calendar by starting to grow rice months earlier than usual. They will have to observe natural signs using their local knowledge to predict the climate pattern each year in order to prevent massive loss to crops. Some have initiated a rice bank to store traditional rice varieties that are pest and flood tolerant with longer stalks that will not be damaged by floods. Some have tried to grow different rice varieties in higher land or even in orchard fields. Some have prepared for food insecurity by recovering endangered food species that are floods resistant. Also, the pattern of housing architecture has been changed. Many villagers have lifted their houses higher from the ground to free the flow of water. Some even have boats to ease their travelling. They also have learned to store some food and drinking water, and other necessities.

Additionally, they have built their own reservoirs to store water for farm use and nurturing some fish species. They have looked for alternatives for income generation like catching fish and snakes, during floods. Some have initiated a communication system to ease information flow during the floods among those located up-, middle- and down-stream river. The system could also help mobilize immediate needs and supports among each other. This should be further developed to enhance preparedness and prevent massive losses longterm. Apart from the immediate responses, communities have been engaged in a planning process for longterm adaptation to future impacts of climatic change. Initially, they came up with an idea of constructing an improved flood protection, but it would require significant funds and take lots of time. Also, more research on flood tolerant species is needed. All these elements for longterm adaptation require funds and external supports.

The Panama Talks are, therefore, important. The delay in taking ambitious reduction targets would mean more severe and frequent extreme climatic events and poor communities will be hit the most. As Pitsanulok, Thailand and others are faced now with the impacts, longterm adaptation is really needed. We need to massively scale-up support for adaptation actions to cover full implementation of National Adaptation Action Strategies and Plans, from immediate to longterm actions, that will deliver regular flows of financial and other support for adaptation planning, implementation and monitoring. These should be in the form of predictable periodic grant installments and help is needed to facilitate, enable and support generation, gathering and dissemination of data, knowledge and experiences, including traditional knowledge on adaptation planning and practices. Building upon what was agreed in Cancun – the Cancun Adaptation Framework – the creation of an Adaptation Committee under the UNFCCC will have to provide an oversight of streams of adaptation work, where the Committee should comprise members of civil society and experts in each necessary field. This will have to be achieved in Panama so that it can be finalized in Durban in December.

Communities are faced with hardship and are simply attempting to survive. They might or might not know that the disasters and unpredictable patterns of rainfalls are as a result of climate change or anthropogenic emissions, but changes are happening and affecting their livelihoods and most of all, they need to live with these. Those in Panama are well equipped with all the science, they need to make more progress. Community voices must be heard.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Campaign:

Leadership Development Program

Related Event:

Panama 2011

Related Member Organization:

Renewable Energy Institute of Thailand Foundation

Stepping up the Adaptation Committee

Submitted by Anonymous on October 4, 2011 - 12:01pm

ECO is pleased to see that adaptation negotiators are getting busy with detailed discussions on the Adaptation Committee. Since this is the only adaptation issue currently on the LCA agenda here in Panama, we expect progress towards taking a decision in Durban, especially before negotiators start enjoying the train ride along the Panama Canal (Tourist advice of the day!). ECO would like to thank Parties for agreement to provide access to the informals and consequently was able to follow some of the discussions. ECO heard that all Parties seem to support getting the Adaptation Committee up and running in Durban, including a work programme for the first year. That is the right approach, and we hope that no one falls back into a “taking hostage” mood linking the committee to other negotiation issues.

ECO understands that there are some controversies about the link of the Adaptation Committee to the entities of the financial mechanism, in particular the Green Climate Fund. The Adaptation Committee could become a key institution, galvanizing and synthesizing knowledge and experience on different aspects around adaptation, and providing technical guidance on planning and implementation at programme and policy levels. Then existing and emerging institutions like the Green Climate Fund could build on their work, such as guidelines for funding, on the recommendations of the Adaptation Committee in order to ensure adherence to the adaptation framework, and take into consideration the growing adaptation sciences and emerging issues.

This however does not mean that the Committee should trespass into the core business of the GCF Board (or other institutions). A soft link will be a way to increase the overall coherence which is so demanded by everyone.

ECO suggests that negotiators review a recent study published by the Earth System Governance Project. It reviewed experience from multilateral institutions from a variety of areas with regard to participatory approaches and the inclusion of stakeholders in its governance structure.

Whilst ECO appreciates that there seems to be convergence towards allowing observers to attend the Adaptation Committee meetings, the lessons learned from this and other studies suggest that adding representatives from stakeholder constituencies to the governance structure of the Committee, either voting or non-voting, could add much needed expertise, insights and credibility to the work of the Adaptation Committee.

We surmise that this was also proposed by some Parties in the negotiations. There is no doubt that stakeholder constituencies would have to ensure appropriate representation from developing countries combined with adequate expertise. Now is the time to put the Adaptation Committee on the right track, to be ambitious and to converge as soon as possible.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Panama: Progress or Paralysis?

Submitted by Anonymous on October 1, 2011 - 10:03am

Durban is shaping up as a critical moment in the 20-year history of the climate regime. The world can either build on what has been created in the Kyoto Protocol, raise the level of ambition as demanded by the science, and provide sufficient finance to meet developing countries’ needs for adaptation, mitigation, and REDD. Or it risks relegating the UNFCCC to a side show with little legitimacy to meaningfully address the climate crisis.

Let’s review what’s needed to avoid a train wreck in Durban:

Mitigation:In the Cancun Agreements, developed countries accepted that their aggregate level of ambition should be in the range of 25-40%. Even while this range does not guarantee that global temperature rise will stay below 2 degrees Celsius, current developed country emission reduction pledges will result in reductions of only 12-18% going down to ~2% if currently existing and proposed loopholes are taken into account. ECO suggests four critical elements in the Durban mitigation package for developed countries:: clarify what the net emissions would be based on current pledges and assumptions; close the loopholes; move to the high end of current pledges; and agree on a process to increase ambition beyond 40%, for adoption at COP18/CMP8.

Panama can and must reach agreements on closing the loopholes. The recent Review of proposals on forest management under LULUCF clarifies the size of the forestry loophole. Now, Parties must adopt forest management reference levels that are comparable and that don’t significantly undermine Annex I Party targets. Overall, LULUCF rules should encourage Parties to achieve ambitious mitigation from land and forests. On carry-forward of AAUs, Parties must eliminate the risk of “hot air” undermining the environmental integrity of future reduction commitments.

Kyoto Protocol: As acknowledged by both Executive Secretary Figueres and incoming COP President Nkoana-Mashabane, the future of the Kyoto Protocol will be decided at Durban. While some developed country Parties would prefer to overlook the KP or at best, make a second commitment period conditional on what happens in the LCA over the next four years, it is essential that in Durban, we cement a second commitment period of the KP. The alternative – a pledge and review world – just won’t cut it.

Convention mandate: Given the urgency of the climate catastrophe unfolding daily before our eyes, nothing less than the greatest level of commitment is needed from all parties. Therefore, in addition to preserving the Kyoto Protocol, Durban must agree that by 2015 at the latest, the commitments and actions of all Parties should be inscribed in legally binding instrument[s], whilst fully respecting the principles of the Convention.

Finance:The last session on finance in Bonn was dominated by discussions on the Standing Committee. Negotiations need to also focus on the critical issue of where the money is going to come from. Urgent attention on scaling up sources of climate finance from 2013 to 2020 is needed. In addition to expanding direct finance from national treasuries, Parties should commit to raise significant revenue for the Green Climate Fund from innovative sources, implemented in a way that has no net incidence for poor countries. Progress on a mechanism to levy bunker fuels would be an especially noteworthy achievement here in Panama, which licenses so much of the world’s shipping.

Technology: CAN urges Parties to decide here in Panama on the criteria for the Climate Technology Center host, so that the Center and Network can be operationalized in 2012 as envisioned in the Cancun Agreement.

Adaptation: Parties aren’t far away from a good decision text on the Adaptation Committee. Here in Panama, they should agree on the composition of the Committee with equitable representation, direct reporting to the COP, and linkages to other institutions, particularly on finance and technology.

Capacity Building: Parties should work with the Facilitator's notes and his new and highly comprehensive background paper to begin drafting text for a Durban decision. This paper should focus on the vital question of how to design effective and comprehensive co-ordination of new, additional and scaled-up capacity-building within the emerging new architectures for finance, technology, adaptation, MRV and mechanisms.

MRV: Parties should build on the MRV architecture agreed in Cancun by moving forward on common accounting rules for emission reduction targets and an enhanced common reporting format on finance. Parties should also adopt guidelines on the content, timing and structure of biennial reports, and agree procedures for strong International Assessment and Review (IAR) for developed countries and International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) for developing countries.

On all these fronts, Parties need to agree here in Panama what text they will work from – and begin to constructively work on that text. It’s time for all Parties to show they are serious about the UNFCCC, and serious about their commitment to prevent catastrophic climate change; small steps won’t cut it.

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

CAN submission - Future activities under the Nairobi Work Programme - September 2011

Submitted by Anonymous on September 26, 2011 - 3:16pm

CAN_International_submission_on_NWP_possible_areas_of_further_work.pdf

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Kyoto

UNFCCC

CAN Submission on Loss and Damage, August 2011

Submitted by Anonymous on August 22, 2011 - 8:16pm

CAN_submission_loss_and_damage__Aug2011.pdf

Cancun has rightly brought to the forefront an inconvenient truth of climate change, the question of loss and damage associated with climate change impacts including those impacts that cannot be avoided through mitigation and that also go beyond the limits of adaptation. Already emitted emissions expose developing countries to profound climate change impacts such as increase in frequency, intensity and occurrence of extreme weather events and slow-onset impacts such as rising sea-level, coastal erosions, desertification, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, loss in arable land or glacier melt. This underlines the historic responsibility of industrialized countries, from where the major share of emissions originate. In wake of existing mitigation actions that feature a significant gap in emission reduction to be consistent with a 2^° C let alone 1.5^° C pathway and that rather commit humanity to a 2.5 to 5^° C degrees world, it is high time for Parties to address the consequences of loss & damage, in parallel with stepping up their mitigation ambition.

For this reason, the Cancun Adaptation Framework contains establishes a work programme to explore relevant approaches for developing countries.

This submission lays out CAN’s views on the aim, structure, content and different means of the programme.

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

CAN Positions

CAN Submission - National Adaptation Plans - August 2011

Submitted by Anonymous on August 16, 2011 - 2:43am

CAN_submission_NAP_August_2011.pdf

Overall, it is important that decisions in Durban set out and elaborate on an international process that will enable LDCs to formulate andimplement national adaptation plans, clearly articulating the role, responsibility and functions that the UNFCCC will offer, support and facilitate;

Elements in the run-up to Durban, such as the NAP expert meeting and the LEG paper on mid- and long-term adaptation planning, provide an important opportunitiy to prepare such a decision and should be used in a focused manner;

Given past experience, the specific form and format of national adaptation plans and strategies should be decided by each country, whether to create a stand alone plan as a complement or to incorporate the ‘elements of national adaptation planning’ into existing strategic plans;

The Cancún Adaptation Framework (paragraph 12, 1/CP.16) manifests important guiding principles which have to be further concretised in order to be applied in national planning processes.

Tags:

adaptation

CAN

LDCs

Least developed countries

CAN Submission

adaptation framework

Submission

national adaptation plans

Topics:

Organization:

My Bonn, Germany Experience!!!

Submitted by MBrockley on August 11, 2011 - 9:39pm

Pelenise Alofa
President
Kiribati Climate Action Network
Kiribati

It was my first time in Germany! My first experience (frustrating) at the airport trying to find my way to my hotel in Bonn. My first experience with the CAN International Southern Capacity Building at the UNFCCC. It was also my first experience to be robbed. Mona Matepi (Cook Islander) and I bought ice cream and later when I looked for my purse, it was gone. Someone had pick pocketed me while shopping! Well, there will always be the first time for everybody but Bonn was a multiple of first experiences for me.

But not all is gloomy…..Bonn, was actually the beginning of exciting experiences. Our first meeting with the lovely young people in the SCB team was wonderful and exciting. Each person came from different parts of the Global South and each was able to take up his/her responsibility with enthusiasm and professionalism. It was not my first time attending CAN-International sessions, but it was my first time to be involved with CAN-International as a participating member. Things began to fall into perspective and to make sense. During the previous CAN-I sessions I’ve attended…I was always confused when people gave reports because I did not know the procedures. I was thankful for the opportunity to attend as a Southern Capacity Building member.

Yes, the UNFCCC could be very confusing and frustrating. It was like being in a marketplace (too much fuss and bustle), but everyone does one business: negotiation. But thanks to the advices and counsels provided by Gaines (during orientation) and the CAN-I Secretariat things became more clear.

I was supposed to do REDD+ and Capacity Building. I ended up following most of the Capacity Building because, deep in my heart, I know that this is the key issue to help my people in the Pacific. Working with Mona, Mamady and Pat was extremely valuable and rewarding. Pat is a well-experienced leader who knows the ins and outs of the Capacity Building issue. I realized that Capacity Building (CB) was not treated as a major issue, but integrated into almost every other Climate Change (CC) issue. We ended up drawing a plan of action calling that CB should be developed in each CC window, and that funding should be spent on building capacity in developed and developing countries to meet local mitigation and adaptation needs.

Could Capacity Building lead to our Survival in the Pacific?
The impacts of CC have been seen and felt in our islands for many years, but our relationship to CC was not known. When our coastal lands were eroded and line of trees fell, when our well water became saltier, when sea water intruded into our gardens, when it rained too much at the wrong time of the year, when there was drought for too long, when our fishes got washed up dead on our shores, when the king tides swept over the island like a tidal wave, we wondered, do we need science to explain CC to us? We live in it day by day. Actually, today, it is part of our lives and we learn to adapt to the impacts as they come. In fact, we have stronger evidence or and stronger voices today to support us at the negotiation arena. We provide the facts of the impacts of CC while science explains the causes and effects and how they are related.

But CC is not just the science, the cause and effect. It also involves negotiations, commitment, passion and time. Most Pacific islanders have the passion and time, but not the negotiation skills. The lack of negotiation skills stems from a culture of sharing. We share the fruits of our land freely, thus land ownership is very important to us. Our survival depends on our lands and oceans, which provide our livelihood. We do not sell anything to our neighbors because selling is contradictory to sharing. The reality is that we lack the negotiation skills because negotiation goes beyond the boundary of our culture. The only negotiation we know is based on trust. We want people to trust us and vice versa. But alas, we are waking up to the fact that we live in a global village where everyone thinks differently and lives by different values. We are taught to give from the heart, but today we are in a world that sells, bargains, gambles, negotiates, etc. What’s more, we are negotiating on a major crucial issue…the survival of our people. It is scary, terrifying and mind-boggling! It’s like jumping to the moon to bring it down to earth! Do we stand a chance to survive? I am sure we can, if we take capacity building seriously…by learning the skills of negotiations at a global level and integrate capacity building in every aspect of CC.

The Laughing Corner – A typical Kiribati Negotiation or Business Deal
I will try to explain a business or negotiation humor conducted in a typical Kiribati style. As I explained earlier, negotiation or business (selling) is not part of our culture. An expatriate family was ready to leave Kiribati permanently after serving in the islands for four years so decided to hold a garage sale before leaving. This was completely new to the islanders but nevertheless, many people went to buy all the second hand things for sale. At the end of the day, two women came along to buy, but there was nothing left except two cats (ex-pat’s pets) and according to the ex-pat, one of the cats was pregnant which means, whoever buys it will make money by selling the kittens. One of the ladies spent her $50 on the two cats and carried them home. Her husband was anxious to see what she bought but was very angry when he found that she bought two cats. He was upset because their house was already full of cats and dogs and having a pregnant cat would make it worse. And furthermore, they cannot sell the kittens because no one sells animals (pets) in the islands.

Why did the lady buy the cats? Simple answer, she wanted to help. She was shocked that the expat family was selling their goods including animals, which mean that they were really, really in need of money. The I-Kiribati was ready to help by buying everything including their pets even though they did not need these. The motive for buying was not to acquire and to accumulate goods, but rather to help someone who was in need. Do you think that we islanders have a chance at international negotiations with this attitude? Talk about cross culture!!!

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Campaign:

Leadership Development Program

Related Event:

Bonn June 2011