| COP17 blogs |
 |
 |
|
Dec 9 - Gender cannot be ignored! Dec. 8 -The dog ate my homework: Climate change negotiations on forest protection: Dec. 7 - The UNFCCC Processes and the African Delegate Dec. 7 - The Green Climate Fund – Will it come to life in Durban? Dec. 4 -Can we adapt to extreme events? Nov. 30 - Durban climate grey and uncertain: Is it relevant to think and talk about gender? Nov. 21 - Addressing the gender dimension of vulnerability: An adaptation framework that works for everyone
---------------------
Gender cannot be ignored!
Ruth Mitei, Learning, Gender and Governance Advisor
Dec. 9, 2011
Gaps that exist in policy, programmes, plans and challenges around decision making at the local and national level are too often related to lack of gender integration and the lack of putting in place systems to support their implementation and monitoring.
Millions of poor women and men have been toiling in the fields for most of their lives and for long hours. They have limited access to resources and information to produce food for their families, much less to contribute to the agricultural sector of their countries. Negotiators in Durban should recognize women’s and men’s knowledge, capacities and voice in climate change adaptation and mitigation and provide space in the decision-making processes to ensure their inclusion.
Ignoring gender in the negotiations is like saying we can--and should--let vulnerable people, who are mostly women, continue to suffer the consequences that occur as a result of flooding, drought and food security in many parts of world. Climate change threatens to unravel women's lives, particularly as women in rural areas often lack knowledge--or access to climate information--about the imminent dangers it poses. Women and children in Africa are often the most affected even though they least contributed to climate change.
CARE recognizes and appreciates the progress made in Durban in including gender in the negotiation text. For example in the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for least developed countries, Parties reaffirm “…that enhanced action on adaptation should … follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems…” This affirmation demonstrates their intention for gender inclusion and will be an avenue for integrating gender in national adaptation plans:
What remains is to interpret the above statement into reality. Parties have frequently made reference to governments and organizations spending time and resources to develop good gender-sensitive and community driven plans – plans that sometimes end up remaining on the shelves and which cannot be practically implemented.
After Durban, Parties must facilitate implementation and monitoring of climate change plans in collaboration with private sector, non-governmental organizations and international agencies and should allocate resources to make this a reality. Many actors and decision makers do not have a solid understanding of how to integrate gender in plans and programmes. There is need to allocate resources to enhance capacity at all levels--at the local and national level--to make the integration of gender and gender equality a reality.
--------------------
Climate change negotiations on forest protection:
Raja Jarrah – Climate Change REDD Advocacy Advisor
Dec. 8, 2011
At the UN climate change conference in Cancun last year, delegates negotiating the forest protection scheme named REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) were set some important bits of homework. From CARE’s point of view, the most critical was to come up with some guidelines for the system to provide information on how the rights and livelihoods of women and men would be promoted under REDD+.
Already this was a modest requirement compared to what is really needed. REDD+ has the potential to save forests and benefit the local communities around them, but it also could do enormous harm in terms of forcing people off their traditional lands, destroying natural ecosystems for the sake of maximising carbon, and creating new wealth which is hogged by the few. That’s why we have these things called “safeguards” that are part of the Cancun agreement for REDD+. But Cancun did not make these safeguards mandatory, nor did countries agree to anything stronger than “providing information” on those safeguards. It asked the scientific committee to spend a year developing guidelines for how to do this.
An innocent outsider might have expected the outcome to be a set of minimum standards, a reporting format, a review mechanism, and perhaps even a grievance procedure. That same outsider might be surprised to learn, though, that this committee (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice - SBSTA) comprises largely the same people who negotiated the agreement (Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action - LCA). If the teachers and the pupils are the same people, perhaps it’s not surprising that the homework is rather sloppy. Last week, SBSTA produced the earth shattering guidance that all safeguards should be reported onas transparently as possible and according to a timetable that will be discussed next year. Oh, and that they would have a workshop to discuss whether there was a need for any more guidance than that.
Pretty poor homework, don’t you think? Paraphrase the title of the assignment and then fix a time to discuss if you should do any more? That’s cheeky. Meanwhile many countries are pressing ahead with their preparations for REDD+ – identifying forests, demarcating areas, calculating their deforestation rates, training people to measure carbon – with no requirement that they give the same attention to the safeguards. The result is that in most countries communities and local organizations are not being involved or consulted, much less been given the opportunity to decide whether they want their forests used for REDD+. And with no rules and few incentives for governments to tighten up how the environment is protected and people’s rights are respected, the field is open for a type of REDD+ scheme that leaves communities worse off, while governments and carbon traders make money from forest carbon. If all this sounds a bit extreme and alarmist, don’t take my word for it. There is plenty of evidence to show this is already happening. CARE is part of a coalition called the Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change, which has just published a set of case studies* which show how countries getting ready for REDD+ are on the whole ignoring community interests. This is the thin end of the wedge – as the readiness for REDD+ transforms into implementation and the flows of money increase, women and men in forest dependent communities could become even more marginalised.
What’s a shame is that something could have been done about it in Durban. The mandate was clear. SBSTA could have come up with guidelines that set a high standard of reporting on safeguards – not reporting for reporting’s sake, but as a spur to implementing safeguards properly in practice. But instead, negotiators went for an easy compromise with bland language that does not take us any further forward – and postpones further decisions for yet another year.
There may be yet good news on REDD+ to come out of Durban. As I write they are still negotiating the provisions for financing REDD+. Maybe, just maybe, someone will remember that implementing the safeguards costs money, and the agreement will indentify financing for it. Perhaps what we could not achieve in safeguards with a gentle stick (guidelines on reporting) we might be able to achieve with the promise of a carrot (dedicated financing). *ACCRA case studies at www.careclimatechange.org/publications/carbon-finance
------------------------------
The UNFCCC Processes and the African Delegate December 7, 2011
Baba Tuahiru, Advocacy & Strategic Partnership Manager on Climate Change Adaptation Learning Programme (ALP) for Africa, CARE Ghana
Ataide Sacramento, Advocacy Coordinator, Adaptation Learning Programme (ALP) for Africa, CARE Mozambique
The UNFCCC negotiation process has come of age. Delegates from the 194 Parties to the Convention scramble to put across their views and positions at contact group meetings, informal meetings and meetings of the statutory body levels. This often requires reliable information, knowledge and confidence. In the year of the African COP, it is good to see many African delegates living up to expectations and raising country concerns.
In the contact groups such as the G77+China, the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) group and the African group, some particular African delegates adequately and appropriately have articulated issues in a very coherent and precise manner and have measured up to their counterparts in other groups. Based on the drive and skills of these active individuals, the African group has successfully built itself into one strong voice on various issues relating to the negotiations.
The outcome of COP16 in Cancun gave the African delegates a sense of direction, hope and high expectations from COP 17 in Durban, South Africa. The sources of hope and higher expectations found expression in the Cancun outcome and especially from the proposed Green Climate Fund, the Cancun Adaptation Framework, the REDD+ and the proposed negotiation of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in COP 17, Durban. These reinforced the spirit of the African group to talk as one voice.
However the increase in capacity of the Africa block has frankly been less than proportionate to the increasing sizes of delegations of member countries. In all delegations the number of delegates has been increasing over the years, but our personal observation is that the majority appear to lack the know-how effectively participate in discussions. This presents CARE with the opportunity to work with delegates in our own countries and throughout Africa to build their capacity in understanding the complexity of climate change themes (such as adaptation, REDD, mitigation, etc) as well as the UNFCCC negotiations process itself.
Much as there has been progress in terms of access to information, knowledge and confidence to express the African interest and positions, there are equally challenges. In addition to improving the understanding of the issues among the group delegates, we also see a need to strengthen the coordination between them, and increase the collaboration between them and African civil society during negotiations. Before the next COP, CARE hopes to work with delegations to fill gaps identified here in Durban, and thus create a stronger climate agreement that benefits the most poor and vulnerable people we work with around the world.
------------------------------
The Green Climate Fund – Will it come to life in Durban? December 7, 2011
Stefan Mielke, Programme and Policy Advisor, Climate Change and Food Security, CARE Austria
Last year, the COP in Cancun decided to establish a new climate fund to channel future multilateral financial flows for adaptation and mitigation. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is likely to manage a significant share of the pledged long-term finance of 100 billion USD a year by 2020. The COP mandated a Transitional Committee (TC) to operationalize the structure of the Fund so that it could be accepted by the COP in Durban. In a positive step, the members of the TC included a majority from developing countries. However, civil society organisations were not members of the TC. The TC met four times to discuss (and tackle disagreements over) the purpose, principles and scope of the Fund. These are the basic facts. But where do we stand now in terms of implementation? Well, the TC almost concluded its task to design governance structures and operational modalities. Several countries raised objections but, in the spirit of compromise and progress in tackling climate change, were willing to recommend the text to the COP for adoption. But two countries, the USA and Saudi Arabia, objected to the final recommendations of the TC, giving rise to more discussions than originally anticipated here in Durban around the GCF. The unexpected opportunity for further discussions prompted some Parties to propose reopening the entire TC text for further negotiation, thereby risking a move backward from what had been agreed. The main points of disagreement are the GCF’s relationship with the COP, its legal nature and the role of the private sector vis-à-vis in the Fund. During the past days, delegates have tried to reach a compromise and have made some progress – but time is running out.
Furthermore, another issue cannot be ignored: the initial capitalisation of the Fund. The establishment of the Green Climate Fund is a vital deliverable for Parties here at COP17. However, a fund–no matter how well designed–if empty is of little use to poor and vulnerable populations in need of adaptation assistance. Parties have yet to reach any agreement on the sources of long-term finance to meet the 2020 commitment.
While typing these lines, the high level segment is taking place and is being broadcast on the many monitors throughout the conference venue. A few heads of state and government and numerous ministers are delivering their statements, and most of them specifically address the importance of establishing the GCF now. This development provides some positive momentum that bodes well for reaching consensus on the design of the Fund and could spur needed progress in discussions on initial capitalisation.
As our remaining time at COP17 dwindles, Parties must reach agreement to operationalize the GCF in order to pave the way for funding to developing countries to combat the effects of climate change. They must also move forward on discussions of how to reach the 100 billion USD a year commitment for climate funding. Poor, vulnerable populations are not waiting to act – their livelihoods depend on action – but they cannot do it alone. Achievements on finance can be a breath of fresh air into the life of the process overall.
-------------------------------- Can we adapt to extreme events? Insights into the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (IPCC-SREX)
Dec 4, 2011
Pascal Girot, CARE International Senior Climate Change Advisor for Latin America and the Caribbean
Here in Durban, I recently attended an event by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),* who released a special report that addresses managing risks linked to extreme climate events and disasters as a means to help people and countries adapt to changing climate. The report brings together contributions by over 220 scientists from 62 countries, pertaining to both the physical and social sciences, including contributions from disaster risk and adaptation specialists and climate scientists.**
Among the most relevant findings of the report was that climate modelling projections suggest that substantial warming in temperature extremes is highly likely by the end of the 21st century, including medium confidence that droughts will intensify during this time in some seasons and areas. Simultaneously the report states that it is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are likely to increase with continued warming as well. And although average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.
These changes in extreme events will most likely intensify climate-related risks and result in more frequent disaster events in several regions. Extreme events like drought will have greater impacts on sectors with close links to climate–such as water, agriculture and food security, forestry, health and tourism. For instance, the IPCC says there is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat and/or permafrost degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such as landslides and glacial lake outburst floods. Small island developing states or low lying coastal areas will suffer from growing impacts as it is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upwards trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future.
This report is original for the IPCC in that it factors in the social and economic driver of vulnerability. It also signals that– in many regions – the main drivers for future increases in economic losses due to some climate extremes will be socioeconomic in nature. As such, it proposes that current disaster risk management and future adaptation approaches are available starting points for addressing projected trends in exposure, vulnerability and climate extremes.
The report also endorses actions that range from incremental steps to transformational changes, describing them as essential for reducing risk from climate extremes. Importantly it highlights that a prerequisite for sustainability in the context of climate change is addressing the underlying causes of vulnerability, including structural inequalities that create and sustain poverty and constrain access to resources. This is particularly the case for women, who are most often more vulnerable to the impacts of extreme events.
Download the report at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX
*In a Joint Session of Working Group 1 (Physical Science Basis) and Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability)
-------------------------------- Durban climate grey and uncertain: Is it relevant to think and talk about gender?
Nov. 30, 2011 Martha Chouchena-Rojas – CARE International, Head, Global Advocacy Our CARE delegation arrived to Durban in a climate of uncertainty and varying expectations on what the conference will deliver, especially with regard to the critically urgent issues before the negotiators–to agree on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, a framework for a long-term, legally binding climate change regime, and appropriate financial resources, especially for adaptation. The climate outside the walls of the conference center is also grey and colder than expected, as negotiators start to fill the rooms for two weeks of highly political and technical negotiations. So is it relevant to address gender equality in this context? How far the Durban talks seem to be from the millions of poor people who, in many parts of the world, are hit first and hardest by the impacts of a changing climate. We are seeing just now severe droughts in the Horn of Africa and devastating floods in South East Asia. And we know that women are disproportionally affected as they make up the majority of the people leaving in poverty and depend on climate-sensitive activities. I cannot help but think about so many women and their hungry children walking for days to escape from increasingly frequent droughts, here, in Africa. What will happen to them if emissions are not drastically cut and the climate becomes warmer? How will they live if they don’t have the resources to adapt to these changes? But women are not only vulnerable. They often have the primary responsibility for collecting water and firewood, and they produce 60 to 80 percent of the world’s food in most developing countries. They also have the knowledge and skills to find solutions, including here in Durban. So, yes, gender considerations need to be at the heart of the COP17 talks. There has been considerable progress in the last two years in getting gender equality in the UNFCCC negotiations, as reflected in different aspects of the Cancun Agreements. There is still work to be done here in Durban to ensure that national adaptation is gender sensitive, that women participate in the various bodies established under the Convention, and that they have access to appropriate technologies and funding. But thinking about gender is not only about getting wording in the texts being negotiated in Durban in these important areas. It is also getting the fair, ambitious and legally binding deal needed to take poor people–and especially women–out of the current path of increasing vulnerability and poverty, so that they can have a more equitable, sustainable and secure future. --------------------------------
Nov 21, 2011 Rachel Harris, Advocacy Coordinator, WEDO
EVENT Addressing the gender dimension of vulnerability: An adaptation framework that works for everyone
1. International policy on adaptation
The event will conclude with reports of recommendations from each group, a larger group discussion and question and answer period. CARE and WEDO look forward to facilitating this event and coming out with concrete recommendations on addressing the gender dimension of vulnerability and increasing effective adaptation to climate change. We invite you to join us for what we anticipate will be a lively discussion!
|
