Submitted by Secretariat on
The provisional agenda for the thirty-eighth session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 38).
Submitted by Secretariat on
The overview schedule for the thirty-eighth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 38), thirty-eighth session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 38) and the third session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP3).
Submitted by Sam Harris on
Workstream 2 intervention on pre-2020 ambition, 2 May 2013
Delivered by Natasha Hurley of EIA on behalf of CAN
Thank you Co-Chairs,
My name is Natasha Hurley and I’m from EIA, speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to input into this very important process, we hope our interventions today help speed the process along in some measure. Ms. Figueres asked us to be as practical and concrete as possible so we’ve put together a list of mitigation actions that need to be taken in the pre-2020 timeframe.
We've heard a lot about countries’ activities and plans for further action over the past 3-and-a-half days. All of these are welcome as they help contain the infamous “gigatonne gap”. But (and here’s the vital question): Has the gap actually shrunk by a single tonne as a result of those activities?
First and foremost developed countries must increase their current weak targets. We are seriously worried that, despite a constant flow of new evidence about the increasing impact of climate change on vulnerable countries and people, not a single developed country has shown any intention of actually increasing its target. The KP review process in 2014 is the opportunity to change that, but only if new political momentum is created and a parallel process for non-KP parties established. For this to happen, you will need to bring Ministers to the table.
Some developing countries can increase their ambition too. We expect pledges from the Gulf countries and other advanced countries currently without pledges, to be announced in Warsaw.
We also suggest that WS2 engages in discussion on how to create an upward spiral of increasing ambition in developing countries and increasing means of implementation. Parties could explore practical ideas on what this could look like - it could be through a dedicated workshop and submissions by Parties, for example. Perhaps the registry could play a role in this process.
Complementary initiatives are an additional option to close the gap:
For instance, WS2 should identify a home for agreeing concrete steps to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Parties should be asked to submit their planned action on fossil fuel subsidies, and developed countries should announce action to immediately phase out subsidies. For developing countries, a dedicated workshop could explore options to look at the links between phasing out subsidies and advancing development priorities.
We also support the idea that the Warsaw COP invite action to phase-down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, with its effective and proven mechanism for technology transfer and financial support for developing countries. We suggest WS2 start drafting a COP decision on this now.
And finally, complementary action is also needed on international transport. The ICAO Council meeting in June should be used as an opportunity to make progress on a comprehensive global approach to aviation emissions that includes carbon pricing. We are worried by the double-narrative coming from some countries, who say in this forum that they want to increase pre-2020 ambition, but nonetheless oppose real progress under ICAO.
Thank you very much.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
CAN Intervention on Overall Amition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs
Delivered by Alden Meyer of Union of Concerned Scientists
Thank you, co-chairs for this opportunity to share our views. I am Alden Meyer and I’m speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
CAN believes the scope, structure, and design of the 2015 agreement should be consistent with a high likelihood of success in keeping the increase in global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It should contain a set of national targets and actions on mitigation, adaptation, and finance that are aimed at achieving this goal within an overall framework of ambition, accountability, and equity.
There has been a lot of discussion here in Bonn this week on the process and timetable for developing such an agreement by COP 21 in 2015. CAN suggests the following four-step process.
1). Countries should agree at COP 19 that national proposals on mitigation action and finance will be evaluated in light of both the collective level of ambition needed to achieve the temperature limitation goal, and on the basis of a set of equity principles that helps assure the overall fairness of country efforts in relation to each other.
The science review starting at the next Bonn session will help guide the first part of this evaluation. In Warsaw, Parties need to launch a parallel process to develop an equity reference framework; my colleague, Mohammed Adow, will say more about this in our next intervention.
2). Countries should submit their proposals in full accordance with the requirements of both ambition and equity, in sufficient time to allow for full review and subsequent submission of revised proposals before COP 21 in Paris. We would suggest COP 20 as the deadline for such initial submissions.
3). A robust review should be conducted on the collective adequacy of these proposals in satisfying the agreed global temperature limitation objectives, as well as their individual adequacy in terms of both ambition and equity.
4). Countries should then revise their proposals in accordance with the results of this review, and re-submit them in advance of COP 21.
One last point: the main barrier to adequately addressing the climate crisis isn’t lack of knowledge about the problem, nor the lack of cost-effective solutions. It’s the lack of political will to confront the special interests that have worked long and hard to block the path to a sustainable low-carbon future. In this regard, the sustained engagement of national leaders in providing strong political guidance is critical to achieving a successful outcome in Paris. And as we all learned in Copenhagen, this engagement cannot wait until the final moments of these negotiations.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share our views.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
CAN Intervention at Special ADP2 Roundtable on 2 May 2013
Thank you, Co-Chairs, for this opportunity!
My name is Mohamed Adow, and I'm speaking for the Climate Action Network.
CAN is calling for an EQUITY REVIEW in parallel with the scientific and political review, by which I mean the first periodical review (2013-15).
This brief intervention will not allow me to explain in detail what I mean with the EQUITY REVIEW, but it will allow me to share this one key point – When pledging their targets, Parties will be aware that their pledges will be reviewed against equity criteria as well.
A first step towards this review would be Parties agreeing to the underlying principles – the equity principles embodied in the Convention. The four core principles, clearly, are adequacy, responsibility, capacity and development need – the principles that must necessarily underlie any DYNAMIC operationalization of CBDR & RC.
In a next step, the Secretariat would invite submissions from equity experts associated with both Parties and Observer organizations. Submissions would focus on the Convention principles, and on indicators that express those principles. It would compile and synthesize these submissions, and solicit expert assessment of their relative implications and of the best manner by which the Parties can use them.
Mr Co-chair, let me stress this point, what is needed is an Equity Reference framework which the Parties can use to review each other’s proposals in the later part of the political negotiations.
The key point is that, when developing their pledges at the national level, Parties would be fully aware of the fact that these pledges will be evaluated against, not only the science, but the Convention’s equity principles as well.
And after the evaluation of the pledges, Parties will want to scale up their pledges according to the suggestions of the scientific and equity reviews
We are calling for a process that allows a COP decision on the EQUITY REVIEW at Warsaw:
Submitted by Sam Harris on
Speaking Notes by Tom Athanasiou on behalf of Climate Action Network
Workshop at ADP2 on the Scope, Structure and Design of the 2015 Agreement
29 April 2013
· I will focus on three of Professor Garnaut’s key claims.
o First, “concerted domestic action” will indeed be needed, and much else besides. As Garnaut noted, the current global emissions trajectory is likely to yield a “a breakdown in international order.”
o Second, it’s not going to happen by itself. The ambition imperative calls for a process designed to “guide national targets” with an “independent expert assessment” of the allocation of the remaining 2020 to 2050 global emissions budget.
· Which budget, as we all know, is not large.
· Let me put this this a bit more emphatically. What is needed is a process that would allow for a proper equity review of the pledges, to be conducted in parallel with the equally-critical science review.
· To that end, the Parties should launch an open, expert process to develop an equity reference framework that is suitable to the evaluation of national pledges. This framework would have to be designed to maximize both ambition and participation. Parties, when making pledges, would be guided by the knowledge that these would be evaluated within both the science and equity reviews.
· Parties would of course be free to accept or reject the guidance provided by such an framework. But be clear. They would do so against a background in which the possibility of cooperation and ambition is obvious to all, even while it eludes our collective grasp. Even as the suffering and destruction increasingly surrounds us on every side.
· How to think about such an equity review?
· The first point is note that the demands of equity have already been agreed. This is true at the level of the Convention’s key text – CBDR & RC – and it is true of the four fundamental equity principles – ambition, responsibility, capacity, and development need – that underlie the principle of CBDR & RC and, of course, our shared vision of “equitable access to sustainable development”
· None of this is going to change. Nor can it be allowed to change. Climate, after all, is a global commons problem. The cooperation needed to solve it can only exist if the regime – as it actually exists, in actions on the ground – is widely seen as being not only “fair enough,” but a positive driver of developmental justice as well.
· What is needed, more precisely, is dynamic equity spectrum approach. This is the key point. And here I must note that a dynamic equity spectrum approach would be entirely consistent with the principles of the Convention, and in particular with the principle of CBDR & RC.
· A renegotiation or rewriting is not needed. Rather the opposite. Such an approach as this would give life and meaning to the principles of the convention.
· There will be skepticism about a process as ambitious as this.
· But do note that equity frameworks – based upon indicators that transparently represent the principles of ambition, responsibility, capacity and development need – are actually pretty easy to model.
· And do note that a generic, non-equity based spectrum approach, one that is for example confined to the “type and scale” of commitments, will not suffice. We need an equity spectrum. A spectrum without equity will not work. In fact, it would be an invitation to free riding. It would not give us a way forward.
· Critically, the agreement that we need would support comparability, which can only be based on equity principles. It would show us which countries are doing their share, and which are not. And it would do so in a way that encouraged all countries to find creative ways of doing more.
· There are, after all, creative and innovative ways forward. Many of them. And we need them all. Including of course ways forward on the all-important adaptation front.
· But the one we’re discussing here – a dynamic equity spectrum approach -- is particularly critical, for it would give us a way to know equity, and a way to negotiate EASD, that is appropriate to the rapidly-changing world of the greenhouse century.
· We do not have to agree to “a formula” to have a way forward. Reasonable men and women can disagree about the indicators appropriate to, say, capacity. And if we approach the problem in good faith, we may yet find that all reasonable, dynamic approaches to CBDR & RC yield approximately the same, or at least strongly overlapping results. Which might just be good enough, at least in the short term.
· We need a solid science review, we all know this. But we need an equity review as well. We will not succeed without it.
· The equity spectrum would be defined by a basket of specific equity indictors. The basket would have to contain well-designed indicators that, taken together, measure both responsibility and capacity, and take account of development need. It could include, inter alia, measures of per capita income, measures of per capita emissions, measures of standards of living, measures of historical responsibility, and measures of international income inequality.
· Say that there are already equity reference proposals on the table. And that there will be more
· If we negotiate in good faith, we can increase ambition with only an approximate agreement on equity. There will after all be time to refine the regime. So long as we act soon.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
Climate Action Network Intervention during Opening Plenary
29 April 2013
Thank you Co-chairs,
My name is Liz Gallagher and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
Climate Change is the single greatest threat faced by humanity, and halting it is our greatest challenge. If climate impacts are becoming visible in developed countries, in much of the developing world they are reaching a breaking point.
Just as we approach the 400 ppm threshold, we are currently on track to more than quadruple current levels of warming by the end of this century – and yet we know adapting to a 4°C world is not possible.
Both political will and ambition will need to be dramatically increased across the board if the 2015 agreement is to be effective. One method to demonstrate this is for parties to work tirelessly on pre-2020 ambition.
A shared understanding on equity is the key to unlocking the 2015 agreement. A successful outcome demands targets based both on science and on equity. A spectrum approach to this problem that fails to include equity will not deliver ambition and risks jeopardizing the negotiations. What we need is an "equity spectrum" based on the Convention principles.
Thank you co-chairs
Submitted by Sam Harris on
Remarks by Jeffery Huffines of CIVICUS on behalf of CIVICUS, Climate Action Network and Beyond 2015
Briefing on Environmental Sustainability in the Post-2015 Development Agenda
19 April 2013
INTRO FOR GEORGE:
Jeffery Huffines is Main Representative of CIVICUS: World Alliance For Citizen Participation at UN Headquarters in here in New York and has served as Rio+20 NGO Major Group Organizing Partner since October 2011. Based in Johannesburg, South Africa, CIVICUS is a global alliance of citizens and civil society groups striving to protect, enable and enhance civic action and civil society around the world. Moreover, as a member of the Beyond 2015/GCAP UN Working Group and the UNDG Post-2015 Outreach Strategy Planning Group set up for the purpose of facilitating the participation of key stakeholders in the post-2015 global conversation, CIVICUS was invited to participate in two of the eleven thematic consultations on governance in Johannesburg and on environmental sustainability last month in San Jose, Costa Rica.
REMARKS:
I am here to represent Wael Hmaidan, Director of CAN International, Climate Action Network, which is the world’s largest network of civil society organizations working together to promote government action to address the climate crisis, with more than 700 member organizations in over 90 countries. Together with Beyond 2015 representing more than 570 organizations from 95 countries, CAN International helped organize civil society participation in the thematic consultation on environmental sustainability. To kick off preparations for this thematic consultation, CAN International and Beyond 2015 produced a paper that served as a basis for civil society participation in 4 weeks of online e-consultations that took place immediately beforehand.
In contrast to the preparations of the MDGs where neither Member States nor civil society or the private sector had an opportunity to provide advance input into the formulation of the goals, UNDP and the UN Environment Programme, together with the co-hosts of the Governments of France and Costa Rica, are to be commended for organizing a comprehensive series of consultations on the theme of environmental sustainability, the seventh Millennium Development Goal. With over 30 leading and emerging thinkers from civil society representing both grassroots movements and international networks from regions around the world, the consultations in Costa Rica represented the culmination of the first phase of a continuing conversation.
The diverse participation of leading civil society representatives, UN officials, government officials and business leaders, brought to the fore the complex trade-offs among growth, poverty and the environment that confront policy decision makers. Civil society representatives were unanimous that there needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the current economic model if the three dimensions of sustainable development are to be effectively rebalanced and integrated. Radical changes in consumption patterns where the wealthiest 20% account for 80% of global consumption must be complemented by the use of more holistic criteria than GDP for measuring success. A central challenge, therefore, is to reduce the impacts of consumption and production to maintain human wellbeing, while operating within the limits of sustainability set by the planetary boundaries, and redistribute consumption towards the poorest and most marginalized.
A number of innovative ideas were considered. To overcome the myth that environmental protection means the loss of economic prosperity, the question of putting into place proper price incentives was discussed that would change consumer and business behavior by such means as eliminating perverse subsidies and enforcing carbon taxes. One participant proposed making natural resources cheap or free for those that use very little, and expensive for those that use excessive amounts, thus respecting planetary boundaries without affecting the poor. Another pointed out that sustainable companies are outperforming their unsustainable peers. Common support was expressed for the role of diverse local economies; respect for the global commons, the importance of changing attitudes, behaviors and consumption patterns; the shift towards an equitable green or “smart” economy, and taking an ecosystem approach.
With regard to MDG 7, the consensus was that the design of this goal was fundamentally flawed as it was not integrated with other goals, lacked environmental measurements and data, and was narrowly focused on conservation to the exclusion of other core issues, such as climate change, natural capital, SCP and oceans. On barriers to the implementation of MDG 7, participants cited the “silo syndrome”; the lack of integration of global targets into domestic policies, and the need for an accountability framework.
Participants recognized that if sustainable development is to be realized, than all stakeholders must challenge their preconceived notions of “business as usual.” Members of the environmental and development sectors must go beyond their own set of biases if they are to bring they are to more effectively integrate their respective agendas. For example, one participant suggested that labeling goals as “environmental” automatically flags them as a “last priority” for many governments, particularly from developing countries, while another person pointed out that some in the development arena will not accept that limits on consumption exist. The new goals must highlight links with environmental sustainability, economics and poverty.
With the national and thematic consultations now concluding and with the HLP report being prepared for release next month, our attention turns to the intergovernmental negotiations now taking place by the Open Working Group on the SDGs, on the high level political forum for sustainable development, and the formation of the Expert Committee on a Sustainable Development Strategy. A strong institutional framework and means of implementation are critical for the success of any SDGs. If the high level political forum is going to serve as the cornerstone of the post-2015 development agenda, Member States must ensure the equal participation of ministers of finance, development and environment at its meetings, and integrate decision-making across ministries at home to reduce separation of thematic goals in “silos”.
Any plans for SDGs coming out of Rio+20 must be fully integrated into the global overarching post-2015 development framework. Civil society demands that the new post-2015 framework must recognize shared global challenges and include the obligations, ownership and accountability of every country to respond to the needs of all. Contextualized national targets are needed for different countries, reflecting challenges and strengths, and inspired by the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. The framework must have human rights at it center, be coherent overall, with goals and targets promoting synergies between sectors which contribute to a holistic and collective approach to achieving our purpose.
To conclude, we will continue to urge civil society to engage in these consultations and use their results to hold their own governments accountable to the promises they will make and therefore keep on behalf of their citizens.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
The First Periodical Review process provides the opportunity to reinforce science-based knowledge into the highly political UNFCCC negotiations. It could contribute to the new deal in 2015. Some say that the review is probably the most important near-term opportunity to strengthen action to limit climate change. Thus, an effective review process could contribute to an ‘upward spiral of ambition’ on global emission reduction limiting global temperature rise below 1.5 degree C. This can only be achieved if the current pledge-and-review phase is overcome and the international community agrees on a new legally binding instrument applicable to all countries, including developed countries that are not parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
As already outlined in section (a) application of principles of the Convention, the 2015 agreement should fully respect the principles of equity including common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability and equitable access to sustainable development. This will result in a range of national obligations, including mitigation actions. It is appropriate for countries at different levels of responsibility and capacity to take different kinds of mitigation action.
Countries with high capacity and responsibility are candidates for ambitious, legally-binding, economy-wide, quantified emissions reduction targets. Countries identified in Annex 1 of the Convention must agree in the 2015 agreement to legally-binding, economy-wide, quantified emissions reduction targets, the level of ambition of which should be informed by the science and the 2013-2015 Review and by equity. It is expected that this will be in excess of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Other kinds of commitments include, but are not limited to, renewable energy and/or energy efficiency targets and sectoral targets. Countries with low capacity and responsibility would only be obliged to take nationally-appropriate mitigation actions explicitly contingent on financial and technical support. All commitments and actions should be amenable to measurement and reporting to ensure that global goals are being met.
The ADP is mandated on preparing the 2015 climate deal, which can be supported by an efficient first periodical review.
The Review starts in 2013 and should be concluded by 2015 with COP21 taking appropriate action according to the Review's findings. The foremost scientific source of information will be the IPCC with its Special Reports on extreme weather events (SREX) and renewable energies (SRREN) and in particular, its 5th Assessment Report (AR5) to be adopted in 2013/2014. Moreover, the national communications and the biannual reports of the countries will be taken into consideration.
The Review should take into account an assessment of the overall aggregated effect of the steps taken by Parties in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and should consider strengthening the long-term global goal, referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 °C.
As Parties need to commit to a solid process to identify and agree on a long term global goal and commit to inscribing it in the 2015 legally-binding outcome, it is necessary to turn this around and put global emissions on a pathway to keep warming well below 2°C, and to keep 1.5°C within reach, global emissions must peak by 2015. The long term global goal should be informed by the science and by the 2013-2015 Review. How the effort to achieve this long term global goal is allocated amongst parties, or groups of parties, should be informed by the discussions on equity. In order to inform the scale of individual party commitments, the global goal will need to be determined early in the process – by 2014 at the latest.
Whilst a 2050 goal is very important, it will be of greatest use with an indicative pathway, which can be used as a guide for future ambition, and can be used as a measure of whether we are on track to meet internationally agreed objectives.
In light of this, in the in-session workshop on the first periodical review during SB 38, available information should be considered. Paragraph 161 in 2/CP.17 mentions sources, as long as IPCC AR5 has not been adopted, the IPCC Special Reports SREX and SRREN (e.g. the scenarios with the highest Renewable Energy shares global primary energy supply reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050) contain important relevant information. CAN wants to mention, additionally,
- to better understand which different short term action is needed either to limit warming below 1.5 degrees
- to better understand the roles and characteristics of different sectors and technologies for mitigation:
e.g. that transport - in line with decision 2/CP.17, par. 160 (c) and (d) especially international transport, as a major, general point must be included in FPR considerations - might will probably be one of the most difficult sectors and what implications this has for the dynamics to tackle it especially when structural change is part of the solution
- to ensure cumulative global CO2 emissions until 2100 compatible with the long term goal and which share of proven fossil resources need to remain below the ground and what are the best instruments to guarantee that this will be respected
- how the special warming effects from aviation emissions (from contrails and cirrus clouds) can be effectively mapped in climate scenarios until 2050 or even 2100 so that policy makers better understand this effect, draw conclusions on that and discuss on action necessary to minimise these effects.
COP decision 1/CP.18 states “Recalling that the first review should start in 2013 and be concluded in 2015, when the Conference of the Parties shall take appropriate action based on the review”.
The workshop should give signals if direct action as draft COP decision in 2015 should result from the 2013 – 2015 Review, or if the FPR primarily feeds ADP Workstream 2 to increase short-term ambition.
Submitted by Sam Harris on
Resource Mobilization:
· In our earlier interventions we emphasized that the GCF should narrowly focus on ambitious, paradigm shifting actions. That, of course, implies that resources will be made available at the scale and urgency that the task requires, in accordance with the commitments of Article 4.3 and 11.3 of the Convention. So these are, in large measure, two sides of same coin.
· Developed countries should put forward initial pledges as a matter of urgency in 2013, that could be reported back to COP19, as indicator of progress taking place here, and to prepare the way for disbursements next year.
· We’d support Derek and several other’s preference for option 2, step-wise approach, with a caveat.
· As a matter of credibility and impact, rapid resourcing leading to disbursements as soon as possible is critical, in the context of adequate environmental, social and fiduciary standards. .
· Resourcing need not await agreement on a burden sharing allocation. Neither should it prejudge the outcome of a future agreement on burden sharing arrangements for future replenishment processes.
· The longer term framework must be designed to deliver adequate and predictable resources. To that end, the resource mobilisation framework should be designed to also allow the receipt of revenues from sources of additional public finance other than direct contributions from developed countries, such as from financial transaction taxes, the use of special drawing rights, carbon taxes, and aviation and maritime levies.
· The scale of the GCF’s ambition should not be limited by the claim that there is a scarcity of public money. Certainly, enormous sums have been made rapidly available to pay for other actions governments have seen as urgent, wars and financial bailouts.
· Multiple feasible proposals exist for generating large amounts of public money from innovative sources, such as carbon pricing, closing tax loopholes, and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries, etc. At the end of the day, its an issue of political scarcity, not economic scarcity.
· Finally, regarding section 6.3 on earmarking. We wouldn’t want to see individual contributors circumvent Board decision-making through earmarking. Allocation of funds should be decided by the GCF board, reflecting developing country needs and in accordance with the GI’s requirement for a balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation. In particular, we are concerned that adaptation will be given short shrift under an earmarking arrangement.
Addressing "to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways.":
· Address first 2 guiding questions: what it means to “to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways”.
· Given the scale of the challenge and the unique mandate of the GCF, the objective of achieving a “paradigm shift” should be the central organizing principle of the GCF’s work. How the GCF defines and prioritizes actions to spur a “paradigm shift” will be a key determinant of its impact and effectiveness on the climate crisis and in making a significant difference in the lives of affected people.
· It is therefore critical for the Board to reach understanding on the “paradigm shift” the GCF will promote for mitigation and adaptation. This includes a discussion on how to apply it also to the PS facility. We believe the “paradigm shift” must include these three pillars: (1) ambition, (2) country-driven planning, and (3) multi-stakeholder, participatory and inclusive decision-making.
· All 3 are critically important to us, but country led planning and participatory decision-making have other textual homes in the GI, so won’t address them further now. Ambition—what is suitably ambitious to merit GCF support? does not, so I’d like to spend the time discussing.
· A couple introductory points:
· Rough and ready understanding: When BAU for decisions by governments, investors and consumers, and civil society lead to the low carbon and climate resilient actions.
· Consensus that GCF Funded initiatives should deliver sustainable development and resiliency benefits, including at the local level. Board should be clear about how those values be integrated in decision-making?
· GCF needs to be strategic and add value. For example, actions that would go forward without GCF support cannot, by definition, promote a paradigm shift.
· Mitigation:
o First, the GCF should focus on enabling a rapid shifting of emissions trajectories, taking into account environmental and social safeguards, and taking a gender-sensitive approach, ensuring social, economic and development co-benefits particularly for the poor.
o Second, paradigm shifting actions should also include initiatives that may deliver smaller immediate reductions, but can contribute towards transforming markets and patterns of consumption and investment over the medium to long term.
o In this regard, initiatives to support SME are critical. Many of the most transformational initiatives underway today are happening at the local level, scaling up these initiatives can be an extremely effective way to catalyze a paradigm shift at the scale and ambition that is required. Resist the idea that ambition and transformation are synomymous with big infrastructure.
o In general, preference for supporting policy level shifts over one-off investments.
· Adaptation:
o Ambition in adaptation context is tougher to define. It means building resilience at different levels--national, regional and local—to the variety of climate induced stressors that need to be addressed comprehensively.
o It must be understood in the context of developing country needs and the rights of those directly impacted, including critically, equitable resource access and the participation of affected communities in adaptation decision-making.
Thank you for the opportunity to come speak at this informal session, and we look forward to contributing to a rich discussion over the next 3 days.
BMF Intervention Notes
· URGENCY! When we next come together in June, it will be 3.5 years after announced in Copenhagen, 2.5 years after agreed in Cancun. still talking about vision of fund, not even yet about mobilizing resources at scale and urgency required, let alone supporting action on the ground! We know this not easy, but urge board to redouble efforts to find a way forward.
· That said, We fully support the effort to clarify proposed areas of work, objectives, gaps and opportunities in existing architecture, and indicators of success, as a matter of priority and indeed urgency.
· But, This work should be undertaken in the context of the overarching objective of promoting a paradigm shift and resiliency in context of sustainable development.—so within each area of work, and for each proposed objective, this effort should identify the approaches that are likely to be suitably ambitious and transformational in their impacts, and will also serve the interests of the poor. Need for the overarching objectives to be translated into specific, measurable criteria for evaluating and prioritizing proposals.
Section C
· Also don’t find wholesale/retail illuminating.
· Convergence on principle of direct access and country drivenness—further work will need to include analysis of options how the PSF can serve to further the country-driven approach, and the role of national designated authorities in that process AND modalities for subnational and non-governmental access.
· transparency and accountability, input from CSO and PSO, (c5)
· On leveraging:
o Emphasize the importance of policy shifts, which may often have the potential to leverage greater change than discrete investments. This is true, even if you think that leveraging the private secotr is a critical priority. so a critical question here is the extent to which the Fund will focus on supporting those shifts.
o Leveraging finance not an objective in itself, need to relate back to overarching objectives of paradigm shift, and promoting sustainable development and resilience, esp for the poor. narrow indicators of leverage may not be helpful in benchmarking impact.
· Annex and CONSULTANCY
· We recognize this is an enormously difficult undertaking, and that the Board needs to bring an extremely broad array of expertise to bear.
· But obviously, the full range of necessary expertise is unlikely to reside in any one consultancy or think tank, and so it is critically important that this process be open to a broad range of inputs. A couple of specific recommendations:
o Build on the enormous body of work already undertaken under the convention, country needs assessments, national communications, country plans, and the work of the transitional committee.
o Consultancy or think tanks should include developing country perspectives, and expertise beyond the financial realm
o The TOR should be put out for public comment.
o The TOR should make clear that the work should be based on broad consultation and public input
o The report should present options and alternatives, not just recommendations.
On safeguards in Annex I (f) (1): includes analysis of best practices in the participatory decisionmaking and application of safeguards/standards in funding decisions and implementation of activities, including the PCF
Notes for intervention
Readiness, including needs assessments, organizational capacity building and the development of strategic plans from which funding proposals can be derived will be essential.
Show real value in two ways:
· Readiness will expand the universe of countries who can come forward with the kind of high quality, transformational proposals that the Board will be looking for.
· Improve the overall quality of proposals that will be put before the Board, as countries learn from each other and build on previous proposals.
We also believe that at least an initial strategy for supporting readiness could be fast tracked within the broader BMF conversation, and I would submit that this might provide a useful way forward on the sequencing issue that arose in the last session. The preparation of a fast tracked readiness strategy might unlock opportunities for more rapid capitalization, in advance of resolving all of the outstanding BMF issues.
