The Oversear Development Institute published an interesting blog that gives more insight into this meeting. You can find it here

The Adaptation Fund – where is it heading?

The Adaptation Fund (AF) was established under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC and launched at COP-7 in Marrakech, in 2001. The aim was to finance adaptation projects in vulnerable developing countries. Real work to establish the Fund started only in 2008 with the establishment of the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB). The Board with its first Chair, Richard Muyungi from Tanzania, managed to get the legal framework prepared and adopted at the Poznan climate change conference by the end of 2008. Further work by the Board in 2009 has resulted in, among other accomplishments, agreed Operational Policies and Guidelines, a framework to assure so called ‘direct access’ and an accreditation process for national implementing entities. Thus the Fund is becoming operational before the climate change conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year.

What is special about this Fund?

First of all, it has a unique governance structure reflecting an equitable and balanced representation of all parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries have a majority in the Board (16 members and 16 alternates). Direct access is a central feature in the provision of funds. This means that implementing entities at the country level, after having gone through an accreditation process, can access funds directly from the AF for approved projects and programmes. In this way, one can claim that the AF represents an important step towards real ownership by developing countries.

Secondly, the funding mechanism is not dependent on traditional development assistance. Instead, the Fund is self-financed through the carbon market, receiving 2% of the proceeds from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project activities. This innovative mechanism points to new possibilities for the future. With these features, it would have great symbolic value if the AF receives approval for a quick start up, and could get positive support in Copenhagen and be allowed to be scaled up. Secretariat services for the AFB are now provided by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the World Bank serves as trustee for the AF, both on an interim basis. More permanent and enlarged facilities would be required in the long term if the AF operations are scaled up. The credibility of the AF is very much linked to strong fiduciary standards, good and clear policies and procedures, good recipient accountability, and proper monitoring and evaluation systems. Good groundwork has been done to establish these objectives and it is now up to the AFB to apply and implement what has been decided. There will also be a need to adjust policies and procedures as practical experience is gained. Openness and transparency has been a hallmark of the AFB that should be continued. Involvement of different stakeholders is not only important at the AFB meetings but even more in project and programme preparation processes. The ultimate aim of the AF is to support people in developing countries who are vulnerable to climate change. In designing and deciding on such support, these developing countries must of course have a voice – a strong voice. It is the responsibility of the AFB to secure that. There are many challenges for the AFB ahead. One of them is to define allocation criteria for funding. Who is more vulnerable than others? Another is to widen the funding base. With the present system, the AF would have approximately US$500 million until 2012. This is not very much in view of estimated adaptation needs. How can the funds be scaled up? The AF has made a good start. It now needs political support and backing in Copenhagen. It represents a unique opportunity for the future. Let us hope it will not be missed.

UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn

During the session, Ecuador, on behalf of the Bolivia, El Salvador, and Venezuela, presented new text on objectives, scopes, and guiding principles section stressing the historical responsibility of developed countries. The framework to enable support, facilitate, and implementation adaptation by ensuring the predictable, stable, adequate, and timely flow of new and additional financial resources for development, deployment, diffusion, of technology to support national, sub-national, regional, adaptation projects and programmes in all developing countries in accordance with commitments under the Convention.
Pakistan requested the inclusion of new text in the monitoring and review of adaptation action and support section to the establishment of a committee of experts on the implementation of commitments by developed countries.
Saudi Arabia requested the inclusion of text recognising the special adaptation needs of countries economically dependent on fossil fuels production, use, and export in the preamble of the section.
India included new text in the institutional arrangements section to establish or strengthen, as appropriate, coordination mechanisms at national, sub-regional, regional, and international levels to support enabling activities, inter alia, planning, design, implementation, learning-by-doing, capacity-building, knowledge-sharing, evaluation activities including ecosystem-based activities; and  to implement actual activities on the ground, enhanced and supported through the Convention, for the implementation of adaptation projects and programmes by local, national and regional stakeholders and institutions.  Other countries made minor inclusions.
In the text presented on Tuesday morning several new inclusions show the sharp contrast between Parties on how to meaning of Enhanced action on adaptation as per the 1/Cp13, 1c.  In the objectives and scope section, new language has been introduced calling for  “a strategic (framework)(mechanism) for adaptation and its means implementation shall be adopted, based on the principles and obligations under the Convention. The (framework)(mechanism) shall provide an comprehensive and structured approach to enable, support, facilitate, and implement adaptation actions, including through the provision of adequate, predictable and timely flow of new and additional financial resources, and the transfer of technology to enable urgent and immediate national, sub-regional and regional adaptation activities and programme in all developing countries.” In contrast, in this same section new language was introduced calling for a Framework for Action on Adaptation “Including, in alia, supporting the implementation of immediate priorities and needs as identified in NAPAs and other relevant documents; (…) integrating adaptation into development and sectoral policies and practices, to ensure their effectiveness and sustainability; establishing and strengthening enabling environments (policy, legislative, and institutional) to support, enable, enhance and incentivize adaptation planning and actions; strengthening synergies and coherence with other adaptation related efforts…”

In the section on Monitoring and Review, new language proposes “a compliance system shall be established for the review of financial commitments for adaptation activities…including, inter alia, monitoring and recording financial resources provided by developed countries Parties; Monitoring technology transferred to developing countries Parties, Monitoring the utilization of financial resources; Evaluating the sufficiency of financial and technology support to developing countries Parties every four years”. This submission is in contrast to new language in the same section asking that  “the most vulnerable developing countries Parties shall submit their NAPAS for examination on a country-by-country basis, which should result in prioritizing actions requiring assistance for implementation.”

Other inclusions have enhanced the perspective of developing countries. In the Means of implementation section, new language stressed “ commitments of support from Annex I Parties for implementation of adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provision of ensuring compliance… Public financing for adaptation shall be assess contributions of developing countries Parties to the Convention, taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For developing countries, climate change imposes an additional burden to development and finance for adaptation must therefore be additional to fiancé for development ODA” In the section of

The AWG-LCA completed the first reading of the adaptation chapter of the negotiation text between Wednesday June 3 and Thursday 4, 2009. The chair, Mr. Michael Zammit of Malta, requested Parties to use the first reading to seek clarification, set markets and placeholders, and identify gaps.
The Negotiation Text chapter on adaptation is divided six sections: A.  Objectives, scope and guiding principles (A); Implementation of adaptation action (B); Means of implementation (C); Risk reduction, management and sharing (D); Institutional arrangements (E); and Monitoring and review of adaptation action and support (F).
The Philippines, speaking for the G77 and China, said that the section on adaptation was heavily focused on assessment and not enough on means of implementation. Requesting for a placeholder in the chapter, there must be an institutional approach for adaptation under the Convention with strategic programmes of action, setting up permanent committees and subsidiary body on adaption, as well as means of implementation through a multi-window mechanism under Convention. The chapter on adaptation places the burden and responsibility for adaptation on developing countries rather than facilitating access to financing to implement adaptation activities according to the obligations of developed countries under the Convention. The context for action on adaptation lies within the Convention and the commitments for the provision of financial resources.  In reference to section A of the Chapter, “Facilitating, supporting”, and “all parties” will require discussion and must be consistent with the Convention and there must be equal treatment of adaptation vis-à-vis mitigation. There is a need to clarify the meaning of resilience—it is necessary to adaptation to the adverse effects on climate change, and the group will come back with clarification on the thinking.  The implementation of adaptation action must not be an additional burden, thus clarification is needed on national adaptation plans, the agreed full incremental cost, and institutional arrangements, as well as the meaning of concepts such as “results-based,” “country-driven,” “avoiding fragmentation of adaptation action and support thereof”, as well as “monitoring and review of adaptation action and support.” There is more to the Convention than “facilitating coherence”.  On Section B, further clarification will be necessary on the language regarding plans to be “reviewed and updated,” as well as references to the private sectors, support for “poor countries” and prioritizing support according to vulnerability risk and impacts, national circumstances, respective financial and technical capabilities, levels of poverty and climate change exposure. Other references that set conditions for support, such as programmatic approach and integration of adaptation into development and co-benefits with mitigation were marked for further discussion.  On section C and E, language must be consistent with the Convention and it is necessary to move beyond the “catalytic role” into enhanced implementation according to the Convention –adaptation has to have a front role, with upscale financial support and support for stand-alone actions. The group will present new language on much of the section C. Regarding the Nairobi Work Programme, it must be enhanced; it is more than a hub of knowledge.  The Group will provide new language on the sections, including section F to be consistent with commitments to monitor adaptation support and compliance with Articles 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Cook Islands, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, said that the text on the section provides a useful starting point but that much work remains before adaptation under Convention truly addresses the needs of SIDs, other particularly vulnerable developing countries. The urgency and immediacy of these needs requires a focus on adaptation actions, in particular that the adequate institutional arrangements and means for implementation for country driven adaptation are accessible. It noted that many techniques for monitoring are not appropriate to adaptation.  On the section A of the Chapter, the formulation of the objective and scope is not clear, and the articulation should be consistent with the BAP and some of views on the section on vulnerable countries, particularly SIDS and LDCS are not well articulated and should be part of shared vision section and be consist with the BAP throughout the text. This building block of the BAP refers to special needs of the vulnerable developing countries parties—not all Parties— and the Chapter must be consistent with the BAP and should not include other issues, such as response measures. Further on section A, The principles provided in the Convention must remain central and ideas of efficiency must not compromise action on adaptation.  Section B and C must remain together as part of the block; the current focus on enabling activities and planning is problematic and the Chapter must emphasis implementation. National Adaptation Plans must not place additional burden and the activities on the section are very prescriptive and above and beyond the capacities of developing countries. The review of national adaptation plans as presented out in the text is not acceptable and   it is not clear how these would be performed.
Tuvalu said the current section B and C were heavily focused on enabling activities and that it is not appropriate to be too prescriptive on the nature of adaptation.  We must work for a country drive approach as key; some may choose a programmatic approach some may choose adaptation actions.  It added the importance of that climate-proofing development and the need for separate section risk management and risk reduction.
Mexico said that the section on adaptation was a good reflection of the discussions had. Climate change needs to be included in the planning process at all sectors levels and there is need to support design and implementation, but the text does not acknowledge the need to include actions in the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and in sectoral plans, where it would appropriate. There needs to be emphasis on the implementation of action and to respond to special circumstances of all developing countries in consistence with the Convention.
Norway spoke of the need for a clear understating of roles and respond between national and internal level, and between UNFCCC and other structures. It stressed that adaptation must be country-led and suggested that guiding principles can be structured recognizing the adaptation is highlight contextual and that one size does not fit all and that must be address in the overall country planning— not as a single plan.  On the text session D, risk reduction and management should no be treated separately but as one part of the adaptation measures.
Japan said that it is necessary to first address several questions, such as what the groups needs to decide by COP15 and what after, who does what, what obligations and what are voluntary actions, what specific elements should be discussed under the UNFCCC, and what other things can be done in other existing mechanisms and frameworks. The text must not place too much emphasis on financing issues on this section. On section A, it asked if the polluter pays principles would mean to include polluting developing countries.  On Section A,  it asked for clarifications on the relationship between and NAPs and NAPAS, and if the formers would replace the latter, and if the actions promoted under the sections were consistent with NAPAS.
Iceland said that the text was a good starting point and that action should be programmatic rather than project based and links with sustainable development should be reflected, including policy guidelines and different roles and actions. There needs to be consideration of gender and the full participation in the decision making process of women for more effective policy. Women have a role of plan as agents of change, The Convention should continue to serve as catalytic role, and it should be simply and effective structure
South Africa, speaking for the African Group, said that an agreement in COP15 would not be achievable without an agreement on finance, technology and capacity building.  There is too much emphasis on planning in the text and it currently represents the only tool for adaptation. In the section A, it must set the context of urgency of action and the additional burden to developing countries. This section must also clearly define the objective and purpose of adaptation, and the need for a comprehensive approach with access to technology and finance and capacity building. Enabling activities should be directly supportive of activities and they should be linked to funding. On Section b, the purpose of the national plans tool needs to be clarified and additional principles need to included reflecting in particularly common but differentiated responsibilities, a country driven, a recognition of the concern of vulnerable groups and it should reflect indigenous knowledge and practices.
Australia welcomed the text as a reasonable start and said that the text would benefit from restructuring some areas and marked a number of issues that would require further discussion, such as the legal form the types of activities, the definition of vulnerable countries, and the authority the COP will have on the on the framework. Regarding institutional arrangement, it is important that any arrangements should build on existing arrangements and this should not be considered alone and that action on adaptation striving for fairness and efficiency.
Canada said that addressing the adverse effects and building resilience should be the guiding principles of the action on adaptation. The frameworks should not be overly prescriptive of how actions should be implement or how planning should happen. On section E, it felt uncertain on new institution would relate to existing bodies and expressed concern with the current approach to insurance, addressing loss and damages.
USA said that conversations on adaptation must happen in the context of Bali Action Plan paragraph 1(c) and view of the preamble, Article 3, and article 4.1 of the convention as operational guidelines for implementation. The goal is to enhance adaptation by integration adaptation into national, sub-national, and sectoral strategies. We should not limit discussions to national action plans, but also focus on implementation of planning for development. The framework for adaptation must seek action by all Parties and utilize the efforts that other institutions contribution to adaptation. A section delineating common obligations on adaptation that apply to all Parties should be included in the. The chapter on adaptation should reflect the Annex on adaptation submitted by the USA. Section D on risk management should be not given preference over sections of the Chapter. The language on finance and technology should be in that respective section and not scattered throughout the text to streamline. The chapter discussing insurance not accurate; it is not a financial transfer mechanism, it’s a risk transfer mechanism. It requires appropriate regulation, adequate access to markets, legal and regulatory environments, and in some cases infrastructure, which are not present which are resources, and the current approach to insurance is not right.  In respect to climate refugees, the concept has important implications on international law and the language must be premature. With respect to climate refugees, it recognized the importance of this topic but said it was premature to contain such a language and that this will require careful consideration.
Czech Republic on behalf of the EU said that it is necessary to avoid adaptation plans as an end in itself, but that it was necessary to acknowledge the importance integrating adaptation into national development and that, under the section B on implementation of adaptation in the section on ‘enabling environments for support adaptation action’, the language on formulating and reporting national adaptation plans, assessing, identifying, costing and prioritizing should be strengthened to better identify the objectives and scope of adaptation,  focusing on a framework for action and the catalytic role of the Convention. Reference to finance must be look in an integrated way. Under the section D on risk reduction, it is reluctant to the language on rehabilitation and compensation component to address progressive negative impacts that result in loss and damage.
Argentina said the chapter must clearly reflect the needs of developing countries and be based on the principles of Convention.  The implementation of adaptation actions should not be legally binding, but the financial commitment to support must be.
Ecuador said the problems we face today is the result of consumption patterns that have played an essential role in the creation of wealth and the impact that will be suffered will reinforce inequity and affect the most vulnerable.  The chapter on adaptation must continue to recognize vulnerable groups, such as women, children and indigenous peoples. Emphasis on ecosystem services and community-based adaptation are essential for implementation for sustainable development poverty reduction. Legally binding commitments for developed countries and the provision of new, additional, predictable financial resources, additional to ODA to implementation.
Panama, speaking for several Latin American countries, spoke on the section on means of implementation and asked that the list current of financial resources needs to be clarified rather than a long list of options noting that work on adaptation should be based on the principles of historical responsibility of develop countries and
The Russian Federation said that adaptation has to be for all. In sections B and C, it assessment of adaptation has to be comprehensive and positive consequences do not have to be discarded. On the Section E, the level of adaptation action must be at the national level and should not be beyond the limits of national legislation.

Singapore asked to put markers in the section of means of implementation, requesting further clarification on ecosystem-based adaptation activities and marked concern with issues and under section B on implementation of adaptation activities it requested clarification on adaptation to the impact of the implementation of response measures. On section C, Means of Implementation, it promised to introduce new language regarding the sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation.

Venezuela said that the chapter on adaptation must be anchored on Articles 4 of the Convention and that is important to avoid new classifications that those already agreed in the Convention. Referring to the section C, providing supporting adaptation at local and national levels and supporting adaptation particularly vulnerable developing country Parties are not exclusive. It is unacceptable that a debt on adaptation be blocked by requirements above and beyond from what is agreed in the Convention.
Switzerland said that risk management climate and efficiency in delivery are the answer to the question of integration into development, and this is reflected in the text. On implementation of adaptation actions, a lot of work has been done to build enabling environments and to assess vulnerability and complete assessment needs. Implementation itself should be programmatic and insurance as part of mechanism will play and important. On section E, it supports institutional arrangements that can add value. On Section F, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness is crucial for monitoring and evaluation.
New Zealand said that clarity is needed on the specific actions that need to be funded. Support must go to the most vulnerable and the role of the Convention should be clear with clarity between the responsibility of the developed countries and developing countries. The terminology used in the Chapter is consistent with the Convention and further clarification is needed on the meaning of the polluter pays principles.
Egypt said that regional coordination is necessary when appropriate and that the role of private sectors does not remove the responsibility of countries and that the role of sectors is only additional, not as substitute, for public support.
Algeria stressed that according to Article 4.4 of the Convention, Annex II P arties are committed to assist vulnerable countries, which is a commitment that must be reported.  The implementation of adaptation actions has been slowed by decisions made in the early days of the Convention and by the cumbersome GEF requirements of global benefits.  The CDM shared of process should be replaced with funds from Annex II, in accordance with the Convention.

Colombia said support for adaptation must happen in view of the historical responsibility, thus requirement a legally binding commitment to support adaptation. The role of ecosystem services is one of the main topics that need to be reflected on long-term cooperation as part of ecosystem-based adaptation. Vulnerability cannot be seen only as GNP and must also consider other asymmetries.
Bangladesh said that the focus should be given on actions and programmes, but on the negotiation text on the implementation of adaptation actions, and in this regard Bangladesh emphasis on, and this should be risk and diversification and micro-insurance and the institutional arrangements is one of the most important item and wonders if the existing and proposed arrangement ill be enough to response to the adverse climate impacts as there should be rapid deployment of resources.
India said that the respective roles of the developed and developing countries parties had to be clarified and that finance and technology by developed countries is required. On implementation, economic diversification deserves to be treated comprehensively on other areas. On Section C, clarification is needed on whether actions to be taken by own resources or the international community.  The Chapter currently implies that all Parties are eligible for financial support, not making clear that this support is only for developing countries –according to the Convention. Financial resources are to be provided by developed countries only and the section currently implies that actions would be subject to external review. On section F, these commitments for non-Annex I countries are not based in the convention and it should be limited to actions enabled by support.  References to a “new climate regime” are not acceptable— the Convention is already the climate regime.
China marked their concerns on the sections of implementation of adaptation actions indicating that national adaptation plans are to be reviewed— who will review what – and on Section E, regarding the catalytic role of the convention.  Further clarify is needed on the language requiring a national focal point.
Bolivia said that there is a lack of balance between the BAP and the negotiating text. There are many part of the text that weakens the Convention. The text requires further work, particularly on the necessary measures on the implementation activities and for a mechanism for implementation according to needs of developing countries and that lives up to the commitments of the developed countries.
Tanzania said that the rehabilitation and compensation must be part of the Chapter, and that this compensation includes compensation for the lost of human lives, land, resources, and the good and services to the global community.
Saudi Arabia said that response measures are part of the Convention and should be considered under the adaptation section, as countries need to adapt.  The Transfer of technology and insurance are important to adapt to response measures. The LCA must follow the convention verbatim, and take onboard all concerns and all interest.
For the second reading of the text, Parties will be invited to provide textual suggestions.

Residents are evacuated from their flooded homes in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, January 2009. REUTERS/Crack Palinggi (INDONESIA)

A press release on the Reuters caught my attention a few days ago. The World Bank, the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed an agreement to cooperate on reducing the risk of disasters in the region. In view of the lack of political will to fund disaster risk reduction, pooling funds and knowledge is an emerging trend in efforts to prevent disasters.

It is sad to see so little support for the implementation of throughout strategy of magnitude and appropriateness of the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). Agreed in 2004, the implementation of the strategy is ready for implementation to assist in the integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning; the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards; and the systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes. In the context of climate change adaptation, somehow governments have managed to effectively ignore everything the Strategy has to offer. Perhaps as South East Asia starts to implement some of it with World Bank Loans they might realize that this strategy should be brought under the UNFCCC and receive access to funding there.

UN, World Bank to help Southeast Asia reduce disasters –22 May 2009 15:26:00 GMT

Residents are evacuated from their flooded homes in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, January 2009. REUTERS/Crack Palinggi (INDONESIA)

Earlier this month, the World Bank, the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed an agreement to cooperate on reducing the risk of disasters in the region.
Pooling funds and knowledge is an emerging trend in efforts to prevent disasters, which are causing growing human and economic losses, according to a recent landmark report by the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).
“In this day and age, no one institution can claim to have a monopoly on either the expertise or the resources. And we simply can’t waste resources by all of us doing the same thing,” said John Roome, the World Bank’s director for sustainable development in East Asia and the Pacific. “If you can find ways of getting different organisations to collaborate…this offers all sorts of opportunities and benefits.”
Under the agreement, which lasts five years, the World Bank will provide technical assistance through helping develop disaster risk reduction (DRR) frameworks, sharing good practices and managing assessments after a disaster.
The ISDR will input guidance and monitoring on DRR, and the ASEAN secretariat will support and coordinate member countries. The aim is to bring DRR and disaster management issues to the forefront of government agendas.
This week, the three partners unveiled the plan at their first forum and training workshop in Bali, which was attended by international relief agencies and U.N. and ASEAN officials.
RISK FINANCING
Southeast Asia has always been susceptible to disasters. From the devastation wrought by last year’s Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and the 2004 tsunami, to storms in the Philippines, landslides in Vietnam and flooding in landlocked Laos, the region is regularly beset by natural hazards.
Worse, such risks are – if anything – likely to increase as climate change brings more extreme weather patterns.
Yet the concept of “risk financing” is new in the region, with Southeast Asian countries currently resorting to a pay-as-you-go system, according to Roome.
“You have a disaster, you have a certain amount of impact and you basically pay for it at that point in time,” he said. “There’s no risk pooling and insurance mechanism in place.”
One example of doing things differently is a livestock insurance mechanism operating in Mongolia under which communities club together to cover losses from livestock death due to severe weather. The government reimburses the community if losses reach a certain level, and the World Bank steps in in the event of a catastrophic loss.
The ISDR and ASEAN secretariat hope the new agreement will help Southeast Asian nations benefit from the knowledge and practical lessons generated by such schemes.
“One of the biggest issues is the lack of capacity, both within the ASEAN secretariat and certain parts of the member states,” said Jerry Velasquez, regional coordinator for ISDR.
ISDR is also reaching out to new sectors such as private businesses, which have never really been engaged in a systematic way but have been implementing corporate social responsibility programmes that strengthen communities’ capacity to withstand disasters and reduce risks.
AMBITIOUS PLAN
Velasquez said the aim is to make good use of the World Bank’s considerable resources at country level so that all ASEAN states will have in place legislation and a strategy for DRR, which they will be rolling out with strengthened capacity by 2015.
This may seem like an ambitious plan, especially in a region with extremely inequitable levels of development, governance and poverty. Still, ISDR says governments are showing greater levels of commitment to reducing disaster risk.
Indonesia, for example, not only adopted legislation on disaster management in 2007, but has also set up a national body to deal with disasters.
And the ASEAN agreement on disaster management and emergency response (AADMER), adopted in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami, has been ratified by all members except Brunei and the Philippines, which are expected to do so by next May. If this happens, the agreement will be the world’s legally binding instrument on DRR.
More important than signatures on a piece of paper, however, is the level of national understanding, awareness and willingness to implement disaster reduction practices. This will be challenging and requires a long-term commitment.
“There are a lot of things that can be developed, but we cannot make the decisions,” said Velasquez. “The countries will have to make these decisions. But what we’re promising is that we will support them once they are made.”
Roome agreed political will is essential. “We’re happy to help, to motivate, to advocate, to provide analytics, to provide financing, but it’s only going to work if the countries see the importance and take the actions needed to move forward,” he said.

which are causing growing human and economic losses, according to a recent landmark report by the .
“In this day and age, no one institution can claim to have a monopoly on either the expertise or the resources. And we simply can’t waste resources by all of us doing the same thing,” said John Roome, the World Bank’s director for sustainable development in East Asia and the Pacific. “If you can find ways of getting different organisations to collaborate…this offers all sorts of opportunities and benefits.”

NEW YORK / GENEVA — The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, has outlined some of the crucial choices that must be made to design more sustainable food systems in a world facing climate change and declining natural resources. In a submission to the Commission on Sustainable Development, Mr. De Schutter said that only by considering food as a human right, and looking at agricultural development through that perspective, could the correct choices be made.

Mr. De Schutter, who took up his functions as Special Rapporteur in 2008 when the world was experiencing dramatic food price increases, said it was urgent that governments make the connection between sustainable development and a rights-based approach to food. “In responding to the global food crisis, it is easy to move from the symptom – prices which have suddenly peaked – to a possible cure – produce more, and remove as soon as possible all supply-side constraints,” he said. But if we think of food as a human right “we must ask a very different set of questions.” Will the measures we adopt to boost production benefit those who are food insecure? Or will they simply mean a return to low prices and only further discourage small-scale farmers and marginalize them further?

“The right to food framework can assist in guiding governments towards making the right choices” by prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable, he said. It could also improve government accountability, by “ensuring their policies remain constantly guided by the need to alleviate hunger and malnutrition – and by building the resilience of the most vulnerable, whether against policy changes or internal or external shocks.”

The right to adequate food is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and widely ratified human rights treaties. It is recognized in the constitutions of at least 20 countries. “The rights-based approach clearly ought to be an essential component of a sustainable development approach to the issues of hunger and malnutrition,” the Special Rapporteur said.

“Increasing agricultural production must go hand in hand with increasing the incomes of the poorest, particularly small-scale farmers, and switching to modes of production which do not contribute to climate change,” he told the Commission. “CSD (the Commission on Sustainable Development) has a unique contribution to make to the current discussions about the future of agricultural development” and in addressing the issues of access to food.

“Increased investments in agriculture, particularly in Africa, are necessary, yet this must be thought out seriously. The experience gained from the crisis showed that the key question is not merely that of increasing budgets allocated to agriculture but rather, that of choosing from different models of agricultural development which may have different impacts and benefit various groups differently”, the expert explained. In addition, “efforts by agronomists will be pointless if the right institutions, regulations and accountability mechanisms are not established and implemented. We must build an enabling environment which should be more about “how to help the world feed itself” than about “how to feed the world”. This is where sustainable development and the rights-based approach complement each other. The CSD (the Commission on Sustainable development) session of May 2009 should be a milestone in the decline in the number of the hungry”, he said.

The Special Rapporteur invited the Commission to “identify smallholders’ access to land as key to sustainable agriculture, and to reiterate the essential role of agrarian reform (redistribution of land) in the progressive realization of the right to food. I believe there is a need for the adoption of international guidelines on large-scale offshore acquisitions of land, an initiative that the Commission may wish to support”, he said.

The also report provides an overview of current sources of climate change finance available, showing the sharp contrast between sources for mitigation and adaptation, and clearly showing the predominance of loans for finance. The outlook for developing countries gets gloomier. They can choose to get their economies further in-debt to address climate change, –a problem that they did not cause– or let climate change destroy their economies. Either option will have to soaked-up by the poor.

Storm waters in central Vietnam after Storm Lekima, 2007 (Photo: J.Hoffmaister)

Crossposted from Itsgettinghotinhere.org by Robert vanWaarden

Students presents first donation ever to William Agyemang-Bonsu from the Adaptation Fund

[Bonn, April 7, 2009] Today at the Bonn Climate Change talks a group of students from Gymnasium Marienschule in Euskirchen, Germany, took a step that no nation or organization on this planet has managed to take. In a symbolic gesture they provided the first contribution to the Adaptation Fund! After hearing a presentation by Stuart Scott, (a consultant & trainer with The Climate Project), the students of Marienschule (represented by Britta Börnicke, Jacob Klein, Fabian Beusch, Nicolas Gomez) decided to take matters into their own hands. The students asked for donations from their class and managed to raise €131.09. This bag of cash was then handed in a symbolic gesture to William Agyemang-Bonsu from the Adaptation Fund Board. Despite trillions of dollars being found to bail out the economy, the developed nations of the world have yet to commit any money to the Adaptation Fund.

The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. It is supposed to be financed from the share of proceeds on the clean development mechanism project activities and other sources of funding. However, to date, no other money has been produced for the Adaptation Fund.

The contact group on adaptation, under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) focused on matching adaptation support with finance and technology, as well as capacity building at its meeting on the 3 April.  The meeting was chaired by Thomas Kolly of Switzerland and William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu of Ghana.
Maldives, for G77 & China, said that the Adaptation Framework presented by the Group  on 2nd April is consistent with the financial mechanism proposal presented by the Group. Funding for adaptation must be additional to ODA, new, predictable, and grant-based. The scale and magnitude of predicted needs for adaptation needs to be matched by finance. The governance of the financing structure has to be under the authority of the COP.

On 2nd April, the G77 and China presented elements for a Framework on Adaptation that treats adaptation and mitigation on an equal footing and recognizes adaptation as an absolute necessity for all developing countries.

The G77 and China said that the Adaptation Framework would require  implementation arrangements to address enabling activities, such as knowledge sharing; functional implementation, and projects on the ground by national, local, and regional stakeholders; and coordination mechanisms. This framework should also include a mechanism to address loss and damage including insurance and requires compliance.

South Africa, speaking for the African Group, said that finance for adaptation must be massively scaled up and predictable with support for technology and capacity building, which must be additional to ODA, recognizing payment for agreed full incremental costs.

The amount needed for adaptation is in the range of US$28—67 billion per year by 2030, on the assumption that developed countries take ambitious mitigation targets. Otherwise, this amount will be higher. It stressed that the G77 and China financial mechanism proposal recognises the importance of a country-driven approach and direct access to funds.

The Cook Islands, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, said that the less there is mitigation, the more resources are required for adaptation, stressing the need to match needs with funds.  The scope of the framework needs to take into account new and additional finance consistent with polluter-pays principles, and should be directed to most vulnerable countries, particularly SIDS ands LDCs. Enabling activities can include project-based activities, long-term approaches, sector-based approaches and a mechanism for loss and damage, with priority for the most vulnerable. A matching mechanism, more than a clearinghouse, must record national adaptation plans as well as new and additional funds.

Brazil said that adaptation finance must be in consistent with the G77 and China’s financial mechanism proposal. An adaptation window under the proposed financial  mechanism must be created, based on contributions from developed countries with financing that is predictable, stable, new additional, country-driven for both urgent and long-term adaptation. On technology for adaptation, there must be support for research and development, diffusion, and transfer of adaptation technologies and must cover full incremental cost for adaptation technologies.

Philippines emphasised the commitment of Parties to meet the agreed full incremental  costs to meet both the urgent and long term climate trends.

Uganda reminded the Parties that adaptation is a commitment, and that any other initiatives outside of the process are complementary, and that funds made available must be through a common ‘basket’ that can be monitored.

Samoa said that adaptation should be available to all developing countries, but priority access should be given to vulnerable countries, not at the expense of other countries, but as a reflection of  the reality and immediacy. Climate change is additional burden beyond the control or causing of vulnerable countries, and full cost of adaptation approach is needed.

Bolivia said that climate change is causing enormous damage to developing countries’ economies and society, postponing the right to development. Developed countries, based on the irresponsible use of the carbon space, have an adaptation debt to developing countries. Adaptation has been treated under the Convention very broadly and is imbalanced, compared to mitigation. The adaptation debt must be paid through the financial mechanism proposed by the G77 and China,  for the full cost of adaptation, including for the loss of development opportunities.

China underlined the need to establish a mechanism for adaptation finance that is adequate, predictable, and for long-term to support adaptation in developing countries. It said that there is a need for a regional body to guide the implementation of adaptation activities. It stressed the importance of technology transfer.

Saudi Arabia stressed the need for development and transfer of technology, and capacity building for technologies that address the adverse impacts of mitigation responses, and finance  for the removal of barriers for the large-scale transfer of technologies to improve the resilience of economies and enhancement of human and institutional capacity.

The EU recognized the need to scale up support for adaptation and emphasized mutual accountability, robust governance, and a country-led approach, noting the role of different channels for delivery. Countries should be supported for climate resilient development, and climate specific adaptation programmes, noting that it is a long-term process as part of national plans, policies, and institutions. It said that that countries should be supported through this path. There is need for coherence with institutions elsewhere and the UNFCCC plays a role in improving coherence.

Japan spoke of establishing an adaptation information-sharing mechanism under the UNFCCC to highlight actual adaptation needs that necessitate resources to link them with the most appropriate resource-providers, including regional organization or donors, emphasizing the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience under the World Bank.

New Zealand stressed the need for mutual accountability and robust governance principles as part of any support for developing countries, particularly vulnerable countries. A range of mechanisms and channels to deliver climate change support should allow the use of bilateral, regional, and international channels and accounted for  as contribution to adaptation finance.

Canada said that it is useful to develop guiding principles, such as giving priority to the most vulnerable, using a country driven approach, and promoting an enabling environment that aims to achieve a common goal, as well as concepts and principles that will structure and focus adaptation to enable the most effective use of resources. There is great value in building on the expertise and resources that currently exist, and the Convention has a strong role for catalyzing adaptation efforts with new initiatives such as the Nairobi Work Programme.

Norway said that pre-definitions of appropriate adaptation actions should be avoided. Actions should be result-based, effective, and efficient. Projects will be part of adaptation actions, but it is necessary to move away from project-based mechanisms. Adaptation is learning-by-doing process, and this structure must be flexible. A one-size-fits-all support structure is not sustainable. No single institution can deal with adaptation in all areas.  Additional adaptation entities must be created only when functions cannot be met by existing ones.