On December 10th 2009, the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB), the team behind the Adaptation Fund (AF), in the Conference of Parties (COPs)-15 tried to address the concerns by the parties and civil society around the adaptation funding mechanisms.

AFB has made it clear that incoming funding for the Adaptation Fund would not be diverted from the Official Development Assistance (ODA) rather a legally-binding separate funding arrangement, would be created. The funding regime for the AF is something parties would be working on before the end of the COPs- 15.

The concerns of civil society on the Global Environment Fund (GEF) handling the AF have also been noticed. According to the AFB team, a separate mechanism, though under GEF, would be responsible for the disbursement of the funds and efforts would be made to make it efficient. Lessons from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) would also be considered.

Adaptation fund would be accessible by National Implementing Entities (NIE). NIE will be the ‘legal entities nominated by Parties that are recognized by the Board as meeting the fiduciary standards established by the Board’. Along with NIE, Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIE) will also be there. MIE can be the Multilateral Institutions and Regional Banks that meet the fiduciary standards provided by the Board. In case the party is unable to set NIE, MIE mechanism can be used to access the funds. NIE or MIE will ‘bear the full responsibility for the overall management of the projects and programs financed by the AF and will bear all financial, monitoring, and reporting responsibilities’.

Civil society feels that AF is a step in the right direction but it still has some underlying issues:

The chair of the AFB has requested for billions of dollar annually to meet the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable. World leaders in the COP-15 are working towards a decision regarding the AF. Civil society is pushing for a mechanism based on equality and human rights instead of some market system underlying the principles of give and take and something as complex as CDM.

Another concern which has come to the forefront is the role of civil society in accessing the resources from the AF. The resources would only be channelled by the MIE/NIE. Keeping in mind the mistrust which exists between governments and the civil society, this may negate the role of civil society in the adaptation process. Here we have to keep in mind that the civil society, especially in the developing world, plays a very important role in working with the communities on adaptation issues.

To meet the adaptation needs of the CC vulnerable groups, billions of dollars annually would be required. As shared by the AFB, so far they are not very sure about the criteria for the selection of projects, but this is something which is to be directed towards the most vulnerable, least developed and small island countries. Civil society fears that AF may not be able to streamline a criteria by March 2010. In March 2010, AF is looking for the first round of adaptation proposals.

I’m closely following the adaptation text and the decisions around it and hoping that by December 19th 2009, I will have something positive to report back.

Maira
Dec 16, 2009
Hopenhagen

The Adaptation Fund (AF) with an overall goal to support concrete ‘adaptation activities that reduce the adverse effects of climate change facing communities, countries, and sectors’ is a result of negotiations in Bali during COP-13. The criteria for projects under adaptation fund will be level of vulnerability, level of urgency and risks arising from delay, ensuring access to the fund in a balanced and equitable manner, lessons learned in project and programme design and implementation to be captured, securing regional co-benefits to the extent possible, where applicable, maximizing multi-sectoral or cross-sectoral benefit and adaptive capacity to the adverse effects of climate change. Two type of funding would be available i.e. small-size projects and programmes (proposals requesting up to $1 million); and regular projects and programmes (proposals requesting over $1million). The AF will be only funding projects endorsed by the requesting government.

According to the Chair of the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) hundreds of billions dollars would be required annually to meet the Climate Change (CC) adaptation requirements of the world. So far the funding mechanism of AF i.e. by the monetization of certified emission reductions (CERs), will produce around 500 million USD till 2012. Considering that the catering of CC adaptation needs would require a lot of attention in 2012 post scenario, mere 500 million USD would be opening another set of issues.

Apart from the funding, parties like India, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc along with the civil society has serious concerns regarding Global Environment Fund (GEF) handling the adaptation funds. In explicit terms it has brought out that instead of GEF, which has a non-proven track record, let there be an independent body to handle the adaptation funds.

Parties like Germany are trying to convert their Offical Development Assistance (ODA) into the adaptation funds. Serious voices of concern have been raised in COP-15 around the issues.

Above mentioned issues were raised by Gender CC on December 9th, 2009, in a statement at the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). GenderCC in its statement also showed its concerns regarding the gender neutral procedures of the adaptation fund.

Statement would be soon available at the web site of GenderCC (http://www.gendercc.net).

Maira
09 December 2009
Copenhagen

Approximately 25,000 people representing parties, academia, research groups, civil society, media , etc are gathered in Hopenhagen, the name given to Copenhagen till December the 19^th to negotiate a future for the next generations. In the words of Mr. Lars Lokke Rasmussen, prime minister of Denmark,  ‘it’s no more men in dark suits sitting in dark rooms’  debating around climate induced issues anymore. Now, along with the people in dark suits one can find youth groups with their innovative ideas; women and gender networks working hard to put their message across; research and academic institutes providing science-based evidence; humanitarian/development organizations narrating stories how CC is affecting people and how the burdens can be shared and reduced; and a vibrant media  constituency making efforts to give a human face to the whole negotiations process.

Collectively, civil society is looking for a FAB DEAL: a deal which is FAIR, AMBITIOUS and  BINDING.

Hopes and sentiments are high, atmosphere is charged and the stage is set. Let’s see how the story would UNFOLD.

I’m here till the end of negotiations and will be following the debate around disasters, adaptation and adaptation fund.

Maira

07 December 2009

To get the point of view of the NWP team on gender sensitive practices, tools and systems for climate and disaster risk reduction assessments, I have been trying to get hold of Ms. Xianfu Lu (the NWP liaison person from the UNFCCC secretariat). After trying a bit on the suggested phone number, I wrote to her on June 8^th 2009. Now waiting!!!!!!!!!

I’m also pursuing the case with Mr. Kishan Kumarsingh, representing the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the focal point for NWP in the current meeting i.e., SBSTA-30 (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice ).  Mr. Kumarsingh has shown interest to come to the women’s caucus to learn more on the importance of gender sensitive practices, tools and systems for climate and disaster risk reduction assessments.

A draft conclusion for the NWP for the SBSTA-30 (what conclusions have been reached in this meeting) is now available. I would keep you posted reagrding this.

Maira

June 9^th 2009,

Bonn

With the help of the Nairobi Work Program (NWP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is working with 133 stakeholders including the UN, IGOs, NGOs, CBOs and research institutes on adaptation issues.

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN ISDR) is one important partner of NWP. In March 2009, the UNISDR and NWP teams arranged a technical workshop on integrating practices, tools and systems for climate risk assessment and management and disaster risk reduction strategies into national policies and programmes in Cuba.

In one of the UNFCCC side events in Bonn, the NWP team presented the findings of the workshop in Cuba. The workshop which brought together around 100 experts representing developed and developing countries, along with intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, was described as a ‘successful platform’ to share practices and lessons-learned at  international, regional, national and subnational levels, and to identify gaps and needs and how to overcome barriers in order to facilitate successful integration. The final report will be shared in the coming days. The preliminary report is available in  the UNFCCC website (http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/preliminary_workshop_report.pdf).

Surprisingly, this preliminarily report or the background documents on the workshop, say nothing on gendered vulnerabilites exacerbated by disasters or climate change. I’m surprised to read that neither the facilitators nor the participants, who were representing 100 developed and developing countries, brought up the importance of gender implications in disaster/CC risk assessments. Maybe this is something which has been missed-out!!!! I strongly feel that we are supposed to be at the stage where we should have learned and internalised the gendered impacts of disasters in light of social, cultural and economic processes of the society, and that bringing both women’s and men’s points of view in the table is extremely important.

I would try to get the perspective of the NWP liaison person, Ms. Xianfu Lu on this. If someone from UNISDR is reading this, your response might help clarify things and explore this issue further.

Would keep the Network posted.

Maira

June 5^th 2009

Ongoing climate change talks at Bonn, Germany. Photo from UNFCCC

On behalf of the Gender and Disaster Network (GDN), I’m attending the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate meeting with GenderCC (http://www.gendercc.net) in Bonn, Germany. This meeting represents one of the most crucial meetings before the Conference of Parties (COPs) – 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009, where new commitments for mitigation and more promising strategies for adaptation will be made.

It seems that finally the efforts of civil society groups at the international and local levels have paid off. Within the Negotiating Text for Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA)( http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf) of the UNFCCC, a fair amount of attention has been devoted to disaster risk reduction under adaptation. It talks about mainstreaming adaptation into development, disaster risk reduction and poverty alleviation strategies, tools and policies. Interestingly adaptation will be supporting country-driven projects and programs assessing, managing, and reducing the risks of climate induced disasters. In this whole process, the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) will be used as a guiding principle.

This time the text also explicitly talks about vulnerable populations especially women and children, elderly and indigenous people while touching on the importance of a gendered perspective. This vulnerable group of people will be provided support in order to address their adaptation concerns and enhance their resilience.

It’s interesting to see that sometimes, international commitments or agreements say all the right things but the essence is missing from its tools and methodologies and at the implementation stage.

In this ongoing meeting, focus is also on the post 2012 Nairobi Work Program (NWP). NWP, which is one of the main tools to support the adaptation process, is an instrument through which the UNFCCC implement its mandate to ‘help all countries improve their understanding and assessment of the impacts of climate change and to make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures’. The NWPis structured around two themes1) impact and vulnerability; and; 2)adaptation planning, measures and actionsIt is a five year program which ends in 2010.(http://unfccc.int/adaptation/sbsta_agenda_item_adaptation/items/3633.php).

In Bonn, I’m trying to follow the discussions around adaptation, with particular focus on the NWP. One of the things that interest me is to follow how the NWP (both till 2010 and if it go in the next phase) would be addressing the new commitments around addressing gender sensitivities of vulnerable groups. This is something I would be learning, talking and lobbying for with the help of GenderCC.

So far it is good news for me …………… would keep you posted about the others.

Maira

Bonn,  June 4, 2009