The first consists of shared gatherings to encourage dialogue and cooperation. Country delegations arranged open meetings in which CSOs were invited to participate, while CSOs invited country delegations to their own specially arranged events.  During COP17 the ALBA countries, represented by Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba, organized a meeting with Latin American CSOs to discuss their key positions, focusing on the Kyoto Protocol and the Green Climate Fund.

Bolivia emphasizes creating spaces for civil society participation in decision-making on climate change.  Although the involvement of civil society in Bolivia’s own national decision-making is less robust, on a global scale, Bolivia is an important driver of global climate change activist networks.

Bolivia’s efforts to reach out to civil society can be traced back to the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba in April 2010. Bolivian President Evo Morales and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez joined 30,000 activists from around the globe in demanding climate justice. The People’s Agreement of Cochabamba, which emerged from the conference, set out a series of demands including a call for developed countries to recognize and honor their climate debt.

In Durban, the other ALBA countries emulated these efforts to ensure a more participatory negotiating process — to a certain extent at least. This can be explained by a variety of factors. Firstly, there is a strategic imperative. The ALBA countries and particularly Bolivia, which stood alone in rejecting the Cancun Agreements, require support from CSOs to gain legitimacy and coverage for adopting a particular stance in the negotiations.  There is greater recognition of civil society’s ability to communicate rapidly and effectively with diverse audiences and constituencies.

Secondly, the political weight of civil society in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua presents an important reason to engage with these actors. CSOs can be prickly and fickle partners, and it would be unwise to risk bad press back home by shunning opportunities for engagement and cooperation at the talks.

Latin American CSOs have also been proactive in engaging with country delegations. Following its formation in March 2011, the Construyendo Puentes (Building Bridges) Initiative brings together Latin American platforms and networks to improve coordination, communication and dialogue between CSOs and negotiators at the UNFCCC talks.  On two occasions during the COP17, Construyendo Puentes met with delegations from a number of countries–including Peru and Panama–to discuss those countries’ principal issues at the negotiations. These meetings were an opportunity for CSOs to take the pulse of the talks based on country delegates’ perspectives, and to offer specific recommendations in an open and participatory environment.

The second level focuses on increasing levels of CSO participation within country delegations. The COP17 was the first time the Mexican delegation included members of CSOs in its ranks. The Bolivian delegation also included a limited number of civil society representatives. The Brazilian delegation, on the other hand, has included scores of civil society and private sector representatives in the past.

CSOs participation in country delegations appears to be symbiotic. Government delegations are able to draw on media and translation skills and scientific expertise such as in the case of the Rwandan government, which invited the UK’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, to participate in its delegation. These CSO delegates may also be part of civil society networks and can be called upon to connect with these large audiences to support the dissemination of governments’ positions and demands.

CSOs representatives working in country delegations have unrivalled access to the internal workings of the UNFCCC negotiating process–a rare opportunity, given the traditionally closed and secretive nature of the talks. The potential for CSOs to influence proceedings from the inside is not an opportunity to be taken lightly.

Increased engagement, dialogue and exchange between Latin American delegations and civil society organizations at the organizational and individual levels are beneficial to both actors, as well as the progress of the UNFCCC negotiations. Given Latin American citizens’ high level of concern over climate issues, further exchange between these actors should be encouraged to ensure a more participatory and democratic process at the domestic and international levels.

Cross-posted from intercambioclimatico.com

During the COP17 I caught up with Dr. Fernando Tudela Abad, one of Mexico’s foremost climate change experts and a high ranking official of the Mexican delegation. Dr. Tudela is Under Secretary of Environmental Policy and Planning at the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resource and also chairs the expert group of the OECD on climate change.

Dr. Tudela explained how Mexico’s active involvement in the climate negotiations is based on national concerns of the country’s considerable vulnerability to climate-related disasters. In2010 Mexico’s Foreign Secretary, Patricia Espinoza, remarked before the COP16, ‘we estimate that 15 per cent of our national territory, 68 per cent of our population and 71 per cent of our GDP is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change.’

Last year Mexico faced its worst drought in 70 years with the lack of rainfall affecting almost 70 percent of the country. Entire crops covering tens of thousands of acres were lost and over 400,000 cattle perished in arid pastures.

As the first heavily-populated oil-exporting country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Mexico has a long history in the international climate change negotiations and strongly emphasizes the importance of multilateralism. The country’s efforts at the COP16 in Cancun, which successfully resuscitated the UNFCCC process following the bungled COP15 in Copenhagen, are generally recognized as a diplomatic triumph.

Dr. Tudela also commented that Mexico views climate change as an incentive to advance sustainability. This shift in thinking towards a low carbon resilient economy is partially based on the study, The Economics of Climate Change in Mexico, which states that climate change has and will continue to have significant impacts on the Mexican economy. The study details impacts on a variety of sectors including agriculture, tourism, infrastructure and public health.

The report states that the total costs of climate change by the year 2100, are the equivalent of around 6.2% of GDP, excluding livestock production, extreme weather events, sea level rise and nonmarket costs in terms of biodiversity and human lives. The cost of mitigating emissions by 50% by the year 2100, relative to 2002, are between 0.7% and 2.2% of GDP making a very strong case on why inaction could prove so costly.

Dr. Tudela also highlighted the importance of every country doing its best to work towards securing a successful outcome at the UNFCCC talks, while also being ambitious at the national level. Even though Mexico’s developing country status precludes it from legal commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, its Special Program on Climate 2009-2012 sets out an aspirational target to reduce national GHG emissions 50% by 2050 with year 2000 emissions as the baseline. However, the Program states that this target will only be met if developed countries provide unprecedented levels of financial and technological support under a multilateral regime.

Mexico’s desire to be a leader in green growth saw the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources sign a cooperation agreement in September 2011 with the UNEP, which will assist in creating and operating a new Mexican Center for Sustainable Development. The Center will aim to become a regional hub for Latin America, fostering cooperation on low-carbon growth and green economy issues.

In the chaotic corridors and meeting rooms of the COP17, Dr. Tudela’s thoughtful and softly spoken comments are emblematic of a country quietly ‘getting on with it’. As we wrapped up the interview it seemed more likely that the overall goals of the UNFCCC could be met if more countries like Mexico brought positive experiences and a pragmatic attitude to the table.

Cross-posted from intercambioclimatico.com

President Obama at COP15, AFP Photo

By Graciela Kincaid

At both President Obama’s “job speech” to the Joint Session of Congress and his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative last September, one issue was shockingly absent from the agenda: climate change. The term was scarcely mentioned in either speech, and more surprisingly, the administration also failed to deliver on the more popular message of clean energy. For all the talk of job creation and economic growth, the role of green jobs and a potential transition to a green economy were missing from the dialogue. In fact, lately the green jobs issue has taken a serious hit because green innovation has not been proven to create enough immediate “boots, jeans and helmets” jobs.

The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said on October 13th, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?

As part of a Brown University research project this summer, I conducted a comparative analysis of the Obama administration’s use of climate change and clean energy rhetoric, and how they were changing. We examined 1,606 speeches by administration officials over three and a half years (January 2008-July 2011), assembling keyword counts from a campaign speech database and the White House Speeches and Remarks Archive. Rhetoric was sorted by categories: “climate” and “energy.”

The results were dramatic:

The ratio of the administration’s usage of “climate change” versus “energy” has changed significantly since Obama’s 2008 campaign days. “Climate change” rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of unified party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. Climate change rhetoric was most prominent during 2009, when it was mentioned 246 times and the months with highest frequency were April and November. Interestingly, the only point at which these two levels were equivalent was in November of 2009–the month the Copenhagen Conference began. Since then, the ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase “climate change” is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction.

The difference in magnitude for the two classes of rhetoric usage is striking. The overall ratio for this 3.5-year period is 7.6:1; energy is mentioned over seven times for each mention of climate change. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric usage was 9.6 in 2008, 5.0 in 2009, 10.6 in 2010, and 14.6 in the first half of 2011. These ratios climbed since President Obama took office–tripling between 2009 and 2011–revealing the administration’s urgency to outpace the depressing “climate change” imagery with the more upbeat promise of “clean energy.” Noteworthy are the State of the Union speeches, meant to be indicators of the president’s agenda. These speeches regularly favor energy to climate change messages. In 2009, climate change was mentioned only once while energy came up 14 times; in 2010, climate change was mentioned three times to energy’s 15; and in 2011 while energy was mentioned 9 times, climate change was not mentioned at all.

What has caused this significant shift in rhetoric? Climate change is apparently politically tainted, a doomsday issue, and the administration has re-branded it under a clean energy and energy independence discourse. The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. Surveys are showing drops in public concern for the issue, and since 2010 House Republicans have directed an increasingly right-wing agenda against it, striking down climate change legislation and funding at every opportunity. Climate change is a hard sell amidst the economic downturn, and the environment always loses to job concerns. By contrast, the push for clean energy seems bipartisan, positive, and more difficult to publicly oppose. The political calculus seems clear: job creation, national security, and oil independence all seem to be credible, patriotic, and appealing reasons to promote the green sector.

As the calendars flip once again into campaign season, we may see a different strategy from the Obama administration as it seeks to distinguish itself from its Republican challengers. We have already seen more proactive rhetoric from Obama, with digs such as this at Governor Rick Perry: “I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.” However, the UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Durban this month saw little effort by the president to shift attention to the issue—Obama chose to send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Busan, Korea for a conference on foreign aid instead of to South Africa for COP17. The president’s intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesn’t understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.

Notes:
1. “Climate” included the phrases climate change, changing climate, climate negotiations, climate bill, and global warming.
2. “Energy” included clean energy, renewable energy, green energy, energy economy, energy technology, energy independence, energy dependence, energy efficient, energy efficiency, energy security, energy capacity, energy supply, energy-saving, energy plan, energy policy, energy bill, energy jobs, energy industry, energy production, energy use, energy grid, energy future, energy development, energy revolution, energy prices, and energy needs.

As negotiators determine the fate of the Kyoto Protocol on the last day of COP17, youth from all over the world, NGO members, and a few distinguished negotiators stormed the hallways of the International Convention Centre demanding climate justice.

Protesters began the march toward the opening plenary for the 7^th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) singing a mix of the South African miner’s song “Shosholoza” and chants for climate justice. Borrowing the human microphone from the U.S. Occupy Wall Street movement, they voiced their demands for the negotiators to come up with an ambitious, legally-binding treaty to reduce emissions.

“We are here today for the people who can’t be here. We are here today for the people who will suffer the weight of climate change,” they yelled, “We are here today for Africa. We are here today for the island nations. We are here today for the world to say ‘listen to the people, not the polluters.’ We are here today to support those that are inside who are still fighting for a real climate deal. Listen to the people.”

Although everyone was free to speak, the crowd passionately encouraged those from developing and highly vulnerable countries (especially those from Africa) to voice their demands. First to speak was the Environmental Minister of the Maldives, Mohamed Aslam, who used the voice of the people to echo his cry for the Maldives’ “right to live.” He appealed to his fellow ministers, “You can’t decide our destiny.”

As the protesters walked on to escort the Minister to the plenary, they filled the negotiating hallways with cries of “Climate Justice Now” and “Take the world bank out of climate finance.” By the time they neared the end of the hallway, the UN police had linked arms and formed a barricade to stop the masses from reaching the doors of the plenary.

Yet this simple human wall did not prevent the demonstrators from voicing the injustices which have been reproduced since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol.

Voices from Nigeria, Egypt, and Zimbabwe spoke of the rising threats for their lives. Youth reminded the negotiators that they were the ones who were going to suffer from the decisions made today. One pre-medical student marked climate change as the biggest threat to human health in the future. Voices from developed countries joined the conversation, apologizing for their governments’ histories of emissions and lack of adequate action.

This is the 17^th session of the Conference of the Parties, and we have taken far too long to come up with an adequate response to prevent our emissions from rising above 2˚Celsius. Although the world really needs a second commitment period to start immediately, the conversations seem to only be about how long we can procrastinate.

For years, Civil Society has fought for its voice within these negotiations. Several Canadian Greenpeace activists were deported last week, and an American student was de-badged for interrupting a plenary session.

And so when the U.N. Security gave the demonstrators two paths to take—one leading to the courtyard beside the hall, where they would be free to stay as long and be as loud as they desired; and the other, to stay there, have their UNFCCC badges taken away, and be removed from the convention—the majority opted to stay, raising their collective voice to the negotiators’ ears before they decide the fate of the world.

In the months prior to the COP15 in Copenhagen, President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed convened the first meeting of the Climate Vulnerable Forum and urged leaders to make active carbon neutral pledges to arm their convictions that their survival depends on all countries pursuing low-carbon economies.

Nasheed believed that a bloc of carbon-neutral developing countries could move the outcome of Copenhagen.

To Nasheed’s disappointment, not all of the countries jumped on the carbon-neutral bandwagon and it is unlikely whether these countries could have prevented the train-wreck of Copenhagen which sacrificed 189 voices for the sake of 5. Nonetheless, out of the ashes of the COP15 we have begun to see the rise of new leaders and alliances, which rally under the progressive banner and promote low-carbon growth at home and abroad.

The shift in developing countries to pursue intense mitigation actions emerged from a frustration in the slow, and sometimes stand-still, rate of progress in the international climate negotiations.
At the COP17 in Durban twelve countries carry Carbon Neutral pledges.  This incongruent mix consisting of both developed and developing countries includes Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iceland, Maldives, Monaco, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Samoa, and Tuvalu.[i] Many of these countries participate in either or both the Climate Vulnerable Forum[ii] and the Cartagena Dialogue[iii], both of which  believe low-carbon economies are the pathway to sustainable development, high growth, poverty eradication, and building a fair and more equitable society.   Under these alternative spaces, participating countries have committed themselves to low-carbon development.[iv]

This year’s COP witnesses a proliferation of side events showcasing countries’ advancement in low-carbon economies. Events such as “Showcasing low-carbon transitions in Cartagena Dialogue countries”, “Europe on the way to a low carbon future,” “Green Technology and China’s Climate Adaptation: Toward a low carbon society”, and “Low Carbon Development in the Asian Countries” pronounce countries’ commitments to real action outside of the negotiating rooms.

But who are they calling on, and who is listening?

In a recent paper “Pathways and Partnerships for Progress for Durban and Beyond,” Farahana Yamin presents a new climate-relevant definition of leadership to assess these progressive countries and alliances within the negotiations. This leadership is no longer defined by the previous constraints of historic groupings, but rather it entails countries and groups which “demonstrate political leadership in pursuing a low-carbon, climate-resilient pathway domestically, as well as calling for others to pursue this internationally.”[v]

The EU has championed itself as leaders in the climate regime since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol. EU’s decarbonizing initiative comes from both economic incentives (realizing the rising and unstable costs of importing oil) and their desire to be climate leaders and demonstrate the benefits of a low-carbon economy. But today the EU has grown to comprise 27 member states, and many of the new members, along with the current conservative Polish EU Presidency, question the drive toward low-carbon growth and climate leadership. The crisis in the Euro Zone has raised fears of investing in renewable energy, even though it could generate jobs and would pay for itself over the years. In the current climate, some of the EU countries wish to use other member countries’ additional carbon cuts to meet the EU’s collective CO2 emissions reduction goals.

Perhaps this is why many of the climate ‘progressive’ European countries, such as the UK, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, have participated in the Cartagena Dialogue. More than advocating for fellow countries to transition to low-carbon economies, the Cartagena Dialogue focuses on finding the areas of convergence between participating developing and developed countries to create “an ambitious, comprehensive and legally binding regime in the UNFCCC.”

Still, countries participating in the Dialogue use the informal space to share information with each other on how to move toward low-carbon economies, and they are open to sharing this information with countries which have similar objectives.

The Climate Vulnerable Forum, which recently developed, uses its low-carbon actions to call others to action. These low-emitting countries not only have a smaller ‘historical responsibility’ to addressing climate change than developed countries, but also they have comparatively limited financial resources, technological support, and capacity. For many of them, which are also on the front-line of climate change, this is just the point; if they, the ‘less responsible’ and ‘less able’ are launching themselves into the battle toward carbon neutrality, as said by Maldivian President Nasheed “those opposed to change have nowhere left to hide.”

Yesterday the Maldives, which has become some what of a poster-child for carbon neutrality, announced their willingness to place their carbon-neutral target as a legally binding commitment.

Are we listening to these countries? With the exception of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, we don’t hear many stories of these countries holding these pledges and low-carbon actions as bargaining chips. At the very least, they demonstrate a commitment to the ideas enshrined in the UNFCCC. And while they may weaken the age-old game of chicken “We won’t move unless you do,” we have to remember that the negotiations have taken up the nature of a long game. It may be a while before we see much movement from the detractors.
——-

[i] Climate Neutral Network (CNET) The United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) Climate Neutral Network has yet to recognize Samoa and Tuvalu.[ii] Countries participating in the Climate Vulnerable Forum: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines. Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Tanzania, Timor-Leste,Tuvalu, , Vanuatu, Vietnam
[iii] Countries that have participated in or more meetings of the Cartagena Dialogue: Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, European Commission, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, México, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Rwanda, Samoa, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom and Uruguay.
[iv] The Climate Vulnerable Forum developed and adopted the Dhaka Ministerial Declaration of the Climate Vulnerable Forum in November, 2011. This declaration laid out the forum’s demands for Durban and also inscribed their commitment to low carbon development. Countries participating in the Cartagena Dialogue have expressed their commitment to pursue low-carbon economies both domestically and internationally; they have included this sentiment into their mission statement.
[v] Yamin, Farahana. “Pathways and Partnerships for Progress for Durban and Beyond”

BY CECILIA PINEDA AND ADAM KOTIN

When the United States, the EU, and Australia all disagree with a chorus of small developing countries in the negotiation rooms, it looks a bit like schoolyard bullying.

But that’s exactly what happened this week in Durban during informal consultations on National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), as Parties argued over the option of establishing a database to record funding and support for the NAPs process. And beneath the display of power dynamics lurked an all-important debate on what transparent climate action actually looks like.

The NAPs process, which was established under the Cancun Agreements last year, offers a straightforward way for least developed countries (LDCs) to create and carry out their adaptation planning. NAPs follow up on the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) created under the Convention in the early 2000s to address the most urgent adaptation needs in LDCs.  NAPAs are under-funded and thus far less effective than desired. The new NAP process promises to build upon NAPAs to address medium and long-term adaptation needs.  Actions taken under NAPs would be distinct from other adaptive actions, while remaining complementary to them.

During the informal meetings here in Durban, developing countries expressed their desire that anyone with money (and not just the official LDC Fund) be encouraged to contribute to implementing NAPs. Clearly, they are a bit worried and frustrated by the failure of NAPA funding. That’s chiefly because, despite the fact that LDCs are highly vulnerable to climate change (a problem they have not caused) and represent twelve percent of the global population, wealthy nations have contributed less than two percent of their fast-start funds to the LDC Fund.

The major point of contention between parties in drafting the NAPs text was whether or not the UNFCCC secretariat should manage a comprehensive database of funded actions. Several developing countries expressed urgency in the need to accurately monitor financial support provided for their adaptation initiatives under NAPs.

In one of the more passionate pleas, Algeria argued that the proposed database would ensure “transparency, efficiency, and accountability” in climate finance—surely a reasonable set of characteristics to strive for.

Yet the United States was quick to oppose the idea and tried to brush the option aside, claiming that such a database was unnecessary and that the limited resources of the secretariat would be better employed in support of “urgent actions.”

The EU followed suit, positing that databases of adaptation funding already exist in several places, decrying the proposed option as a costly redundancy. (The database is estimated to cost USD$200,000 to set up and USD$40,000 annually to maintain.)

Finally, Australia chimed in, noting the multiple different avenues through which developed countries report their funding: the OECD-DAC, Rio Markers, National Communications, Fast Start Finance Updates…

Point taken, to be sure.

But the picture is not so clear as Australia would like to make it seem. As one LDC delegate put it, this vital information now only exists in “bits and pieces”, and if the NAP process is to be its own distinct animal—and rectify the failures of past action on adaptation—it should be monitored and administered as such.

Not to mention the fact that climate financing has long been less than transparent. The multiple reporting avenues are inconsistent and can obscure actual funding measurement. Developed countries are known to not even provide sufficient information when it is specifically requested. Last year’s COP in Cancun took significant steps to address these problems, as the various reporting avenues referenced by Australia exist to attest.

Still, according to a recent International Institute for the Environment and Development (IIED) briefing co-authored by David Ciplet et al., climate finance transparency remains quite weak.

The authors evaluated donor countries’ May reports against 25 different criteria, including the level of detail in reports, definitions of ‘new and additional’ funding, and accessibility of data.

Norway and Japan ‘led’ in climate transparency with respective scores of 52% and 50%.

The United States, the European Union, and Australia, the countries opposing the NAPs database, scored 32%, 48%, and 34% respectively.

Ciplet et al. underscore the need for transparency in financing to ensure “coordination, accountability, and learning” for both contributors and recipients. Greater transparency in financing would ensure that the funding provided is following the guidelines of the convention, and is appropriately addressing the needs of recipient countries.

But would a NAPs funding database administered by the secretariat really solve the eternal problem of transparency? Further, would it alone force a marked increase in donor countries’ adherence to their funding promises?

Almost certainly not. (These are global politics, after all.)

What it would do, though, is provide a tremendously useful instrument for donors, recipients, and outside observers (such as ourselves) to effectively evaluate action on the NAPs themselves. It would help inform the ‘iterative process’ that has become the new operating paradigm for adaptation planning. Perhaps most of all, it would serve as a constant reminder that accountability, openness, and a steady flow of information can help keep us honest, on our toes, and ever watchful.

And if the NAPs are really going to make up for past failures and carry developing country adaptation into the future, we need to start paying a hell of a lot more attention.

By Linlang He

Will China break the impasse in the negotiations?

Yesterday morning’s High-Level Forum on Climate Change at China Pavilion clearly lifted the spirits of its participants. Head Delegate of the China Delegation Mr. Xie Zhenhua, together with leaders from the World Bank, the UK and the EU, summarized China’s current achievements in energy efficiency and renewable energy development, reaffirmed the need for a greener growth and urged developed countries to “play from their hearts”.

There was unanimous acknowledgement of China’s current effort on climate change mitigation and adaptation at the Forum. Mrs. Sri Mulyani, Managing Director of the World Bank Group, praised China for spelling out detailed plans of transitioning into a low-carbon greener economy. She also acclaimed China’s initiatives in south-south cooperation and knowledge exchange while expressing the World Bank’s pleasure in being China’s partner in its mitigation and adaptation programs.

Likewise, Mr. Corrado Clini, Italy’s Minister for Ministry for the Environment Land and Sea, described China as the engine of the global green economy. He pointed out the fact that China’s investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy development had far surpassed that of USA and EU, and believed that a sustainable partnership between the EU and China would be a driving force in fostering climate security. Furthermore, Mr. John Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK “blamed” China for not boasting enough about its achievements. He pointed out that the publication of the White Paper on China’s Climate Change Policy at COP17 was a breakthrough in China’s publicity campaigns, and that such efforts should be continued.

Meanwhile, some developed countries’ willingness to remain stuck in the climate negotiation impasse seems to be arousing discontent from not only the developing countries but also from their own peers.

“I want to tell countries like USA, Canada and Japan, take the action, decide if you want to go forward or stay in the past”, said Mr. Clini.

Mr. Prescott  echoed Mr. Clini’s view and voiced his disappointment with the attitude of some rich countries. “President Obama is firmly holding his own belief that the US cannot do anything helpful; Canada did sign the KP, but has been more interested in tar sand and polluting fuels; Japan says it cannot meet the target of climate mitigation and adaptation because of its nuclear crisis, but it did not make much commitment before the nuclear crisis either.”

China is undoubtedly one of the most eye-catching players here at Durban: the country’s clear evidence of progress in climate mitigation and adaptation has garnered accolades, and its determination in pushing forward south-south cooperation has stirred excitement.

Then, just a few days ago, its street cred went through the roof when China’s Chief Climate Negotiator Mr. Su Wei made his vague statement about the possibility of China committing itself to a legally binding framework after 2020. The rumor that China might be the country to break the negotiation impasse traveled fast.

At a side event on Monday Dec 5^th, audiences hoped that Mr. Su Wei would give a more definite and detailed version of his previous statement. Instead, however, he mainly talked about the need to strengthen a legally binding framework and made it clear that “China’s actions are not dependent on other countries’. China is not waiting for others to act first.”

Responding to this ambiguity, there has been some debate from the US and India about the authenticity and meaning of China’s statements.  They have suggested that China is merely taking the same position that it always has.  China has neither confirmed nor rejected this accusation.

With the COP ending Friday, it is still tricky to predict what card China will play in the end. But China seems to want to push the negotiations forward. Its willingness to behave as a responsible global citizen is strong. China is indeed behaving more and more like a “grown-up”.

Some rich countries are dragging their feet and waiting for the perfect time, whatever their definition of the perfect time is. But when will this be? When the economic recession is over? When the debt crisis is solved? When developing countries commit themselves to a legally binding framework? When the presidential election is over? When the big corporations and bankers reach some agreement on their profit sharing?

Climate change does not wait while polluting countries make excuses.In the case of climate change mitigation, perfection may be the enemy of the good. Every country faces its own challenges.

While we applaud China’s positive movement, much more ambitious action is needed. Even if it cuts its current Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 60%, so long as China’s economy continues to expand at its current rate, the absolute share of its GHG emission would still increase.

As Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Center has stated, “China may want to persuade its people to stop dreaming their American dream and start adjusting their consumption patterns… Also, China needs to tackle challenges in relation to other countries. It seems to be rich now so that it has very limited external funding…”

The feeling at COP17 is cautiously optimistic now, with state leaders arriving and the hope that developing countries like China might make some constructive breakthrough.

But, really, it takes two hands to clap.

When devastating floods hit El Salvador in October 2011, 40% of the country’s crops were wiped out. Agricultural Minister José Guillermo López Suárez was forced to import the nation’s signature kidney beans all the way from China.

But sadly, this wasn’t a new experience for the fast-developing Central American nation. At a COP17 panel presentation, El Salvadoran Minister of the Environment Herman Rosa Chávez discussed the slew of extreme weather events his country has endured over the last several years.

For El Salvador, severe climate-related losses have almost become an annual rite.

When his country talks about climate adaptation now, Chávez said, it’s considering the next rainy season, not some distant future. Workers at the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources have developed an increased sense of urgency as they attempt to confront the severe climate risks facing their country.

As the climate change talks press on here in Durban, the debate over how best to help developing countries deal with extreme climate threats plods on interminably.

Delegates constantly complain about the lack of attention paid to adaptation issues. Developing country representatives, in particular, believe adaptation should receive balanced treatment alongside mitigation actions in the negotiating texts. The talks continue to sputter along, however, and efforts such as the creation of an Adaptation Committee and an Adaptation Framework appear unlikely to meet the expectations of highly vulnerable developing countries.

Progress on adaptation funding, through either the Adaptation Fund or the stalled Green Climate Fund, would be a win for countries like El Salvador that already have plans in place and ready to go.

“We have very good plans—agreeing [on them] is not the issue…The issue is funding,” said Minister Chávez.

Still, despite a lack of resources, El Salvador presses on with its adaptation agenda. It has no other choice.

With work on the National Climate Change Strategy now underway, featuring a specific focus on agriculture and water issues, the country is making an effort to tie reconstruction efforts into long-term adaptation. One way to do this is to understand ecosystem health as vital to the success—or failure—of critical infrastructure.

Minister Chávez repeatedly emphasized that “green infrastructure is great infrastructure”.

As an example, he spoke of a bridge that was repeatedly wiped out by heavy storm surges on a river. Rather than just rebuilding the bridge in strengthened form, the government has opted to undertake a watershed restoration project alongside the rebuild, hoping to reduce future surge strength through healthy ecosystem management.

“You cannot climate-proof a bridge—you have to climate proof the entire watershed,” he said.

We could all learn a lesson from that one.

Creative as well is the synergy between El Salvador’s mitigation and adaptation agendas. In addition to joining reconstruction with adaptation, El Salvador is pushing the concept of “adaptation-based mitigation” through its REDD+ program. Citing agroforestry as “our big bet,” the Minister detailed the adaptive benefits of integrating tree cover with crops and livestock. Rather than starting with an emphasis on mitigation, officials have built towards carbon reductions while rooting projects in their ongoing efforts to improve climate resilience. It’s a clear ‘double-win’.

As one of the top ten most vulnerable countries to climate change, and one of three in Central America alone, El Salvador has a long way to go in shielding its economy and its people from increasing climate risks. But with such an innovative, holistic approach to adaptation, there’s hope the nation will manage to keep its head above water until, at long last, the world delivers the funds so sorely required.

Adam Kotin is a Master’s student in Environmental Studies at Brown University. He is blogging from the COP17 in Durban.

Today, at the COP17, a group of Latin American platforms, networks and fora organized by the Building Bridges initiative met with delegations from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama to discuss the primary issues under negotiation including the longevity of the Kyoto Protocol, designing the Green Climate Fund and adaptation.

The Ecuadorian commented on her satisfaction at seeing so many young people participating in this important event, and that with Rio+20 around the corner, the outcomes from Durban will have an impact on the event to be held in Brazil, 20 years after the Earth Summit that gave rise to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The delegates pointed out that it is essential to continue with the KyotoProtocol which is the only existing legally binding system, and that it runs directly against the specific wording of the Convention for some developed countries to be trying to adopt a voluntary or ‘pledge and review’ system under which each country would set “their own goal” for emissions reduction, which would undoubtedly drag us even further from scientific benchmarks and the goal of holding global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees C. In turn, they mentioned the risk that some developed countries want to uphold the carbon market to transfer funds, but without undertaking any binding commitments to reduce emissions.

The Bolivian delegate confirmed the concerns of her Ecuadorian colleague, mentioning that they are working to keep the COP17 from not only losing the Kyoto Protocol but even the Convention itself. She reiterated that the promises to reduce emissions, made in Copenhagen by the developed countries, are completely inadequate to prevent dangerous climate change.

The Bolivian delegate explained the new proposal presented by Bolivia, called “Sustainable Life for Forests”, designed to promote integrated, sustainable management of forests beyond REDD+ mechanisms (reducing emission from deforestation and degradation) which is currently being negotiated in Durban. This initiative proposes to mobilize financial resources – but not from the carbon markets – to coordinate local and global efforts regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation, without including mechanisms to “offset” emissions, which do not address the actual source of global warming.

The Peruvian delegate underscored the priority of continuing to push for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and spoke about some of Peru’s mitigation actions regarding energy, waste management and forests.

Regarding climate financing, the Ecuadorian delegate mentioned some of the problems resulting from the draft report by the Transitional Committee responsible for designing the Green Climate Fund. These include the need to allocate funds and the importance for it to operate under the COP’s authority; and not only under the “guidance of the COP” as the text currently reads, since there would be a conflict of interests given the likely involvement of the World Bank. There was criticism of the fact that developed countries have offered no clear, concrete amounts for the financial commitments they made in Cancún, which weakens the negotiations and creates major uncertainty.

The Peruvian delegate said that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) must be established in Durban, which was reiterated by the delegates from Bolivia and Ecuador, who indicated their intention to amend some aspects of these texts being negotiated so that the GCF is designed properly. They stated that it is unacceptable for some countries to urge the signing of the GCF text – with the aforementioned deficiencies – in the name of multilateralism, since there is no point in setting up a fund that does not work.

The Panamanian delegate emphasized the demand by SICA (Central American Integration System) countries that call for official recognition of Central America as a highly vulnerable region, and consider this a key issue on his country’s adaptation agenda.

The Building Bridges facilitator, Osver Polo, is looking forward to at least minimal progress in three key areas: continuing the Kyoto Protocol, climate financing and adaptation, which the success of COP17 hinges upon. He reminded the Latin American delegations that civil society is ready to support them in this enormous endeavor, and that our delegates’ political will to meet and discuss with these networks is crucial.

Although Latin American countries do not have a common position at the climate negotiations, they all agree that COP17 should not bury the Kyoto Protocol. Similarly, they share concerns about the region’s vulnerability and the impacts of climate change, demanding additional and predictable funding for adaptation and mitigation actions. All these demands are shared by the civil-society organizations represented in Durban, so the battle for COP17 is not yet lost, but undoubtedly requires joining forces and continuing to build bridges.

Notes for editors:

Building Bridges is a group of Latin American platforms, networks and fora participating in international negotiations on climate change. It was formed in March 2011 in Lima, Peru, and its main activities focus on advocacy regarding decisions under the UNFCCC and the Rio+20 summit to be held next year. Acting as a facilitator, Building Bridgesfocuses on generating improved coordination, communication and dialogue between Latin American civil society and Latin American negotiators.

The members of Building Bridges are:

350.org

Nicaraguan Alliance to Face Climate Change (ANACC), Nicaragua

Meso-American Climate Justice Campaign

CAN-LA (Climate Action Network, Latin America)

Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA)

Climate Change and Justice Working Group (Bolivia)

Indigenous Climate Change Group, Guatemala

National Climate Change Group, Guatemala

Citizen Movement regarding Climate Change (MOCICC), Peru

Bolivian Platform facing Climate Change (Bolivia)

Latin American Platform on Climate

SUSWATCH (Observatory on Sustainability)

For further communication, please write to grupo.glacc[at]gmail.com.

*Mónica López-Baltodano, Nicaraguan officer for climate change advocacy from the Humboldt Center (a Nicaraguan environmental NGO), delegate for international negotiations for the SUSWATCH (Sustainability Observatory) network, member of ANACC (Nicaraguan Alliance to face Climate Change) and CAN-LA (Climate Action Network, Latin America).

Cross-posted from intercambioclimatico.com

In this 2006 file photo, a woman walks past a building in Brikama, Gambia. Source: REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly

It’s really quite simple. For the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), “funding is paramount,” to use the succinct summary provided by Pa Ousman Jarju, the Gambian chair of the LDC Group.

The Least Developed Countries have already written their National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), comprehensive reports on their projects focused on adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.

They have already prioritized the projects in order to address first those that require urgent and immediate attention. There even already exists a funding mechanism – the UN-created and Global Environment Facility-managed LDC Fund (LDCF) – to provide them with the financial resources they need to implement the projects.

As Jarju pointed out this week at the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, all they need now is cash.

Seems straightforward, right?

Unfortunately, winning funding for the LDCs has proven anything but simple, as recent reports released by the Global Environment Facility and reiterated at this week’s COP17 meeting make clear.

Of the $2.5 billion required to fund the adaptation action plans for all 48 Least Developed Countries, only $454 million has been pledged so far. Of this frustratingly small amount, only $305 million has been received by the Global Environment Facility, and even less has been distributed for the implementation of projects.

In the broader context of unfulfilled promises for adaptation funding, as part of $30 billion of “fast start” adaptation and mitigation financing promised by 2012, it is a disappointment, though unsurprising, that not nearly enough funds are being channeled through the LDC Fund.

While donor nations were originally hesitant to channel funds through a nascent, untested channel, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has solicited advice to improve operations and management of the LDCF, and has taken steps to turn those suggestions into practice.

These alterations have allowed GEF to streamline operations substantially. For example, the average time between when countries finish their National Adaptation Programmes of Action and when a first project is approved is now about 18 months.

Also, the LDC Group and GEF have learned several critical lessons from the initial experiences implementing NAPAprojects, which they are now applying in the process of implementing future projects.

The fund now works.

What’s more, the process of creating NAPAs and prioritizing projects is allowing countries to use funds very effectively. For the most part, countries have chosen as most vital projects on food security and agriculture, water resources and coastal management.

Accordingly, these three areas are now the sectors to which the most implementation project funding has been allocated.

In the words of Bonizella Biagini, of the GEF Secretariat, “Implementation has matched priorities.”

The Least Developed Countries know best what they need to carry out projects that target urgent and immediate vulnerabilities. They even know the precise next steps for continuing the push toward effective adaptation and mitigation.

Jarju, for example, wants to see more projects under the Clean Development Mechanism, which gives poorer countries carbon credit they can sell for clean development projects.

In an event at the climate talks, Jarju asked for technical assistance. He described how increased funding would help build capacity to perform vulnerability assessments. Finally, he explained how the completion of all of these projects and ideas simply relies on one missing element: funding.

Cross-posted from Alert Net and Global Conversation.